Heathrow, Gatwick, both, other, none?

[Nearly Sane]

Given the length of time, I would have hoped that any such decision was properly taken as part of a coherent travel policy, ah well!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37750487

[Aruntraveller]

You are surely not expecting the UK to suddenly be converted to the benefits of long term planning.

[Harrowby Hall]

Wot Trent sed!

There was an opportunity - about 50 years ago - to build a new "third London airport" (the already existing Stansted won)and one of the suggested sites was Cublington in the Vale of Aylesbury. Its situation would have meant that it was equidistant from the Midlands and the metropolis and reasonably accessible from Manchester and West Yorkshire (well, more so than Heathrow). It could have been a real national hub.

If I recall correctly it was turned down on environmental grounds and a Thames estuary solution suggested. This was then turned down on environmental grounds, too. Stansted was given a railway connection and Heathrow left to its own devices.

Long term planning - UK style.

[Nearly Sane]

You are surely not expecting the UK to suddenly be converted to the benefits of long term planning.

we now seem to be solving the last problem but two. The whole HS2 stuff is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem.

[L.A.]

It will all be worth while just to see Boris lying down in front of the diggers (as he promised) - who knows maybe one of them might have a dodgy clutch 

[Nearly Sane]

It will all be worth while just to see Boris lying down in front of the diggers (as he promised) - who knows maybe one of them might have a dodgy clutch 

there surely cannot be any chance that Boris won't fulfil a promise?   

[L.A.]

there surely cannot be any chance that Boris won't fulfil a promise?   

Perish the thought 

[jeremyp]

It's confirmed, it's definitely Heathrow.

Of course, looking at the map, there's going to be hell on the M25 for a year or several.

[floo]

Well it still might not happen, they reckon it would be at least a decade or longer before it is constructed, if at all.

[Nearly Sane]

It's confirmed, it's definitely Heathrow.

Of course, looking at the map, there's going to be hell on the M25 for a year or several.

Well the decision is made at this point but long process ahead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37642814

[SusanDoris]

I doubt if I will be flying off to any foreignparts during my  remaining years, but it certainly seems to me that a third runway at Heathrow is essential. The huge difficulties of objections for many reasons will hold things up, but for the long-term future prosperity etc it has to be built. It's easy for me to sit here without the noise of planes all the time, and I sympathise strongly with the people who will be affected, but it has to be done I think. 

[Jack Knave]

In the south-east it should be Gatwick. It will be quicker and cheaper than Heathrow. But I can't see why they don't consider airports in the Midlands, say, which would be more central to the UK.

[Harrowby Hall]

In the south-east it should be Gatwick. It will be quicker and cheaper than Heathrow. But I can't see why they don't consider airports in the Midlands, say, which would be more central to the UK.

I suspect Gatwick will get a second runway anyway. There are rail services from the Midlands (via Reading and Guildford and also via Kensington Olympia) but these would need improvement.

I suspect that it would be easier to build a second runway at East Midlands rather than Birmingham.

[Hope]

Other would be my preferred choice, but exactly where I'm not sure - just somewhere other than the South East.

[ProfessorDavey]

In the south-east it should be Gatwick. It will be quicker and cheaper than Heathrow. But I can't see why they don't consider airports in the Midlands, say, which would be more central to the UK.

Not necessarily.

And of course Gatwick has a critical flaw - in that for vast tracts of the population who might wish to use it there is a big problem - London is in the way.

In terms of access the expansion has to be to the north/west of London rather than the south/east.

But on a broader issue - what is wrong with our ability in the UK to make decisions and get on with it. We made exactly the same decision a decade ago, and we haven't moved forward at all in all that time. Politicians need to lead. Whatever decision is made (whether Heathrow, Gatwick or somewhere else) there will be people massively unhappy and who are prepared to fight the decision tooth and nail. But simply prevaricating (as we have done for a decade) doesn't help. If fact it makes matter worse as it merely delays the ultimate impact on those newer the chosen site, while actually detrimentally affecting those who can breath a sigh of relief when a decision goes elsewhere. So those near Gatwick have been in planning blight (and worse) for a decade unnecessary while those near Heathrow would be no worse off had we accepted the original decision a decade ago and now be having contractors on site actually expanding our capacity.

And all the while our competitors are stealing an economic advantage as we navel gaze.

[ProfessorDavey]

Other would be my preferred choice, but exactly where I'm not sure - just somewhere other than the South East.

Eh - the capacity is needed in the south east and therefore it needs to be in the south east.

There isn't a capacity problem in south wales (for example) - Cardiff airport still has loads of capacity - currently about one flight every 30 mins rather than every couple of minutes as is the case at Heathrow.

[SusanDoris]

On Radio 4's PM programme yesterday there was quite an extended interview with an 88-year old woman who had lived for 67 years in the same house in the village which will  be demolished - and in fact has been under notice of that for years. The interviewer was asking emotionally-laden questions , and although one or two would have been okay, there were too many .  If the interview had not ended, I would have had to reach for the off switch.

[Aruntraveller]

I suspect that it would be easier to build a second runway at East Midlands rather than Birmingham.

Not even sure how easy that would be. As a fairly frequent flyer from there it doesn't seem that feasible an option - hemmed in as it is by the M1 to the East and perched on top of high ground with Kegworth & Castle Donnington nearby.

I guess all these options are frustrated by the needs of pesky things like locals who understandably don't want great big flying things taking off from their back gardens.

I don't know how you balance the needs of the local population against those of the general population without causing hurt and disruption and environmental damage somewhere.

[Hope]

Eh - the capacity is needed in the south east and therefore it needs to be in the south east.

There isn't a capacity problem in south wales (for example) - Cardiff airport still has loads of capacity - currently about one flight every 30 mins rather than every couple of minutes as is the case at Heathrow.

But is the capacity only needed in the South East?  How many people flying into Heathrow and Gatwick are only coming to the UK to visit - for whatever reason - London and the home counties?  For instance, I have flown to and fro a number of destinations - both on holiday and on business where the flights have only been from one or other of these airports - or from somewhere like Bristol, but via H or G.

[Jack Knave]

Not even sure how easy that would be. As a fairly frequent flyer from there it doesn't seem that feasible an option - hemmed in as it is by the M1 to the East and perched on top of high ground with Kegworth & Castle Donnington nearby.

I guess all these options are frustrated by the needs of pesky things like locals who understandably don't want great big flying things taking off from their back gardens.

I don't know how you balance the needs of the local population against those of the general population without causing hurt and disruption and environmental damage somewhere.

That lack of space is caused by too many people on this small island, and some idiots want even more immigration!!!

[Jack Knave]

Luton airport, anyone?

[jeremyp]

Luton airport, anyone?

It's built on a hill. There isn't much room for expansion.

[Walter]

we now seem to be solving the last problem but two. The whole HS2 stuff is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem.

but we will have some lovely painted new steam engines

[Jack Knave]

It's built on a hill. There isn't much room for expansion.

Well, that's good. The planes can use it to get up speed and save fuel.

[Harrowby Hall]

we now seem to be solving the last problem but two. The whole HS2 stuff is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem.

If you are saying that these are decisions that should have been taking 30 years ago - I agree. The UK probably has the worst infrastructure planning system of anywhere in the developed world.

As was seen in France, the "19th century solution" may actually be a more efficient and effective solution than a supposed 21st century solution. TGV beats flying hands down over 500 km. Trains go from city centre to city centre. Aircraft go from remote airfield to remote airfield. Access and ground handling times can be considerably greater than actual travelling time. And if you want to see how effective and popular  modern rail systems can be, go to Japan and use the shinkansen.