U.K.: Airport expansion: Boris Johnson accused of 'scaremongering'

[cpzilliacus]

BBC: Airport expansion: Boris Johnson accused of 'scaremongering'

Heathrow Airport has accused the Mayor London of scaremongering for suggesting the M25 might have to be shut for up to five years if a new runway was built.

New runways at Heathrow and Gatwick are options shortlisted by a commission looking at increasing airport capacity.

Heathrow insists the M25 would stay open while a tunnelled section, required for one option, was built.

"Both the Heathrow options involve concreting over the M25, probably closing it for at least five years and doing major re-alignments of the M4 of the A113 and we're talking about tens of billions [of pounds].

[english si]

Heathrow runway 3 won't happen (at least for 30 years or so). Gatwick is far cheaper, far less likely to cause major issues with the planning process and can start much sooner.

Plus, there seems no reason why the realignment of the motorway could not be built first, with the structures placed on top before opening. A temporary east to south slip road can be used while they bridge over the old stuff.

Boris has sour grapes as the Airports Commission has all but rejected his £100bn Thames Estuary Airport folly. I find it funny for him to be talking about tens of billions of pounds (the road side of Heathrow expansion will come in at about 4bn and the rail side a billion or two) when his own airport plans need about 25bn spend just to create access to the site - and actually more, given his version of the proposal was for the airport to be halfway to Amsterdam, rather than merely 40 miles from Central London that Lord Foster's plan is!

It seems like the Airport Commission's sop of not flat out rejecting Thames Gateway, while not including it on the shortlist of three, hasn't worked. Looks like their final report - released about 5 months before the next mayoral election - will take special care to explain why the airport is really poor strategic thinking (and if he runs for Parliament in May next year (2015), then I'm sure these kinds of titbits will be released sooner). Probably with lots of deliberately quotable soundbites for the media and other candidates to pick up on.

[cpzilliacus]

Heathrow runway 3 won't happen (at least for 30 years or so). Gatwick is far cheaper, far less likely to cause major issues with the planning process and can start much sooner.

I have been to both airports (the BA flight from BWI used to go to Gatwick, but they moved it to LHR some years ago), and it seems to my eyes that there's room for a runway at both airports.

Plus, there seems no reason why the realignment of the motorway could not be built first, with the structures placed on top before opening. A temporary east to south slip road can be used while they bridge over the old stuff.

Agreed.  LAX has had a tunnel that carries Ca. Route 1 (Sepulveda Boulevard) under the runway on the south side for many, many years.  It's not as busy as I-405 (more comparable to M25), but there is still plenty of traffic in that tunnel.  The main access road through Dallas-Fort Worth goes under at least two taxiways, but not a runway.  At least one of the runways at Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta crosses I-285 (the Perimeter).

Boris has sour grapes as the Airports Commission has all but rejected his £100bn Thames Estuary Airport folly. I find it funny for him to be talking about tens of billions of pounds (the road side of Heathrow expansion will come in at about 4bn and the rail side a billion or two) when his own airport plans need about 25bn spend just to create access to the site - and actually more, given his version of the proposal was for the airport to be halfway to Amsterdam, rather than merely 40 miles from Central London that Lord Foster's plan is!

I thought Boris had better sense than that (and I admit that some of my admiration for him stems in part from his promise to get rid of the "bendy" [articulated] transit buses and replace them with modern double-decker units).

Putting the cost aside for a moment, why would anyone want an airport where it is (potentially) exposed to full fury of North Sea storms?  And I would think the environmental impact of a massive artificial island would have to be considerable.

It seems like the Airport Commission's sop of not flat out rejecting Thames Gateway, while not including it on the shortlist of three, hasn't worked. Looks like their final report - released about 5 months before the next mayoral election - will take special care to explain why the airport is really poor strategic thinking (and if he runs for Parliament in May next year (2015), then I'm sure these kinds of titbits will be released sooner). Probably with lots of deliberately quotable soundbites for the media and other candidates to pick up on.

It would seem a politically smart idea to retain it for detailed study, though it really sounds to me like a loser in terms of cost (construction and operating) and environmental impact.

Boris repeatedly asserted that if Heathrow gets approval to build a third runway, then then will be back asking for approval to build a fourth.  So what?

The economic impact of Heathrow has to be massive in terms of the municipalities of Hillingdon and Hounslow (which one is it in?); London generally as well as the UK, and having it located next to M25 (along with Tube and the Heathrow Express rail service) seems pretty smart to me.

[english si]

I have been to both airports (the BA flight from BWI used to go to Gatwick, but they moved it to LHR some years ago), and it seems to my eyes that there's room for a runway at both airports.

Gatwick has safeguarded a space for years (though not being able to use it until 2019 was the arrangement) and there's very little in that area anyway for objections.

Heathrow involves demolishing a village and several historic buildings as there isn't land reserved for it.

Also the aviation industry, Airports Commission and Heathrow and Gatwick themselves reckon there is only demand for one new runway in London and the SE in the next 30 years.

I thought Boris had better sense than that (and I admit that some of my admiration for him stems in part from his promise to get rid of the "bendy" [articulated] transit buses and replace them with modern double-decker units).

He wants a bigger legacy than bike hire, cycle superhighways and New Bus for London.

And any electable London Mayor will strongly object to Heathrow expansion, lapping up any other proposal given. Even if it does the worse thing (politically as well as transport related) and seeks to close Heathrow.

Putting the cost aside for a moment, why would anyone want an airport where it is (potentially) exposed to full fury of North Sea storms?

The fog is a bigger weather problem and bird strikes the biggest natural issue.

It would seem a politically smart idea to retain it for detailed study

They've done detailed study. I guess it can't hurt to get a fully planned idea fully costed and fully evaluated, but as long as their answer at the end is Gatwick, then 'Fosters Folly' would be consigned to the scrap heap.

Boris repeatedly asserted that if Heathrow gets approval to build a third runway, then then will be back asking for approval to build a fourth.  So what?

For a start, traffic is a nightmare around Heathrow at its current size, let alone if it expands (the M25 widening works done for Terminal 5, for instance, were less useful than a sticking plaster).

There's also not really room for a third runway, let alone a fourth.

There's some very real pollution issues - due to the motorways and runways, Heathrow is already at the upper limit of acceptable levels of certain pollutants - expansion would need a costly solution to deal with that.

The airspace is overcrowded (in the London area generally, though especially in the Heathrow area). And while landing slots at Heathrow typically get filled up as soon as they become available, most of these are flights that used to land at Gatwick (see trans-Atlantic flights after the Open Skies agreement was signed), so there's not really new journey opportunities for London directly created by Heathrow expansion: instead by freed up slots at Gatwick allowing, say, Jakarta, etc. Why not just create a load of slots at Gatwick? And certainly the last thing that Heathrow needs is to function more as an interchange airport - we want as many of those people using the busy airspace over London entering the country rather than merely clogging up the terminals at Heathrow before leaving.

The economic impact of Heathrow has to be massive in terms of the municipalities of Hillingdon and Hounslow (which one is it in?); London generally as well as the UK, and having it located next to M25 (along with Tube and the Heathrow Express rail service) seems pretty smart to me.

Actually, a big complaint about Heathrow is its poor access, especially via public transport from non-London places. Certainly it could do with southern (Staines) and western (Reading via Slough) rail accesses, and some sort of Orbital line would be good (though I feel the benefits would be best with relatively local services, rather than Intercity/High Speed. And it only really needs to run Watford - Woking to replace the extortionate rail coaches).

(The Heathrow Express is a white elephant. I can't it lasting beyond 2023. Though the infrastructure would survive and suddenly be crammed when costs go from extortionate to reasonable and the end destination goes from Paddington to Abbey Wood via Central London and Docklands.)

Heathrow doesn't need to be any bigger to support the West London and Thames Valley economies. Everyone near it doesn't want it expanded and local government in Hillingdon (where the airport is), Slough (where the expansion will partially be), Buckinghamshire, Windsor & Maidenhead, Ealing, Richmond, Kingston, Hounslow, Surrey, etc will do everything in their power to block expansion. As would the Mayor of London, and the powers of that office will be able to stop anything in Greater London.

However, closing Heathrow and replacing it with an airport elsewhere would be just as opposed by those councils/areas. And more (eg Reading, Hampshire, Bristol, Swindon, Oxfordshire, etc...) even before you get to the councils that oppose the new site (Medway, Kent and Essex have come out strongly against a Thames Gateway Airport, despite a great deal infrastructure and economy gains said to come out of it). Plus the Aviation industry would hate it, as would London business

[english si]

here's a (fairly long) tl;dr as to why Boris is right to oppose Heathrow expansion (though he is right for all the wrong reasons)

Little-to-no space at Heathrow for expansion in several things - physical (on the ground and in the air), pollution levels, political, transport capacity (esp road).

Heathrow expansion not specifically needed economically anyway and Heathrow closure with replacement elsewhere is a no no economically.

Heathrow expansion will be at the cost of other airports (IIRC, the low-cost airport at Luton might have to close due to air traffic control conflicts), especially Gatwick, whose scheduled long haul flights will simply move to Heathrow - as they do any time landing slots are freed at Heathrow. It is far better for London to have two 'smaller' airports that have hub features than to keep feeding the Heathrow monster (especially as it stuck in a small box).

There's only demand for one new runway - Gatwick is the sensible choice: far cheaper, allows more flexibility if one airport or t'other is closed, creates a second de facto hub airport for London allowing a wider network than if there was a single, highly-constrained, hub, creates meaningful competition that will hopefully reduce the exorbitant cost of flying direct to/from London to elsewhere created by Heathrow's high charges.

[english si]

Here's the plan that Boris is attacking

[J N Winkler]

To add to English Si's comments about airspace congestion around Heathrow, it has already been stated that if the third runway were built, aircraft coming in for a landing at that airport would have to begin final approach from 30 miles away, using technology that has not been developed yet.  In Britain the track record for developing major infrastructure that relies on novel, unproven technology is not good:  the nearest recent analogue is West Coast Main Line expansion using wireless signalling, which turned out not to work and forced the upgrades to be implemented with traditional cable-borne signalling at a cost around ten times that initially projected.  Concorde is not an infrastructure project per se, but is another manifestation of the same dynamic of betting the farm on tech that either doesn't work at all, or is economically inefficient or commercially infeasible if it does work.

I have long believed that Gatwick and Stansted are the only places in the South East to fit in new runway capacity, and I suspect the current generation of DFT civil servants are playing the same long game their predecessors did back in the 1960's and 1970's when the Third London Airport was under discussion and debate revolved around sites in Buckinghamshire and the Thames Estuary (Maplin Sands) before eventually returning to Stansted, which was the initial proposal.

In regard to Gatwick, the "safeguarded area" for the second runway is south of the existing one, and the preferred scenario is lateral separation greater than 760 m between the two runways, as this allows them to be operated independently of each other and thus maximizes throughput.  This places the second runway in clear rural land just north of Crawley and south of the small community of Lowfield Heath, which borders Gatwick to the south.  Casual inspection of Lowfield Heath in StreetView suggests that it is almost all airport-dependent businesses (air freight centers, etc.) which could be relocated relatively easily if they are not actually incorporated into the airport premises.  This is completely different from the case at Heathrow, where building the third runway would entail wiping out the village of Sipson (which is largely residential in character) and relocating a medieval tithe barn in Harmondsworth.

[cpzilliacus]

I have been to both airports (the BA flight from BWI used to go to Gatwick, but they moved it to LHR some years ago), and it seems to my eyes that there's room for a runway at both airports.

Gatwick has safeguarded a space for years (though not being able to use it until 2019 was the arrangement) and there's very little in that area anyway for objections.

Dulles in Northern Virginia has space for another runway without having to condemn anything.  That Gatwick had in place a plan for more capacity is smart planning.

Heathrow involves demolishing a village and several historic buildings as there isn't land reserved for it.

Then I have much more sympathy for Boris and the people that live there.

Also the aviation industry, Airports Commission and Heathrow and Gatwick themselves reckon there is only demand for one new runway in London and the SE in the next 30 years.

I cannot question or critique those forecasts.  I think you have made a compelling case that the runway ought to go to Gatwick.

I thought Boris had better sense than that (and I admit that some of my admiration for him stems in part from his promise to get rid of the "bendy" [articulated] transit buses and replace them with modern double-decker units).

He wants a bigger legacy than bike hire, cycle superhighways and New Bus for London.

And any electable London Mayor will strongly object to Heathrow expansion, lapping up any other proposal given. Even if it does the worse thing (politically as well as transport related) and seeks to close Heathrow.

I assume that the (private) owners of Heathrow would not be pleased about any proposal to close the airport, and would demand compensation - a lot of compensation.

Putting the cost aside for a moment, why would anyone want an airport where it is (potentially) exposed to full fury of North Sea storms?

The fog is a bigger weather problem and bird strikes the biggest natural issue.

It would seem a politically smart idea to retain it for detailed study

They've done detailed study. I guess it can't hurt to get a fully planned idea fully costed and fully evaluated, but as long as their answer at the end is Gatwick, then 'Fosters Folly' would be consigned to the scrap heap.

Gatwick does seem like a winning solution, though is the highway capacity adequate for the resulting increase in ground access traffic?

For long-haul flights, is there any reason to prefer one place in southeast England over another?  I don't think so. As long as it's not a new island in the sea (with apologies to Mayor Boris, that proposal sounds like "crackers").

Boris repeatedly asserted that if Heathrow gets approval to build a third runway, then then will be back asking for approval to build a fourth.  So what?

For a start, traffic is a nightmare around Heathrow at its current size, let alone if it expands (the M25 widening works done for Terminal 5, for instance, were less useful than a sticking plaster).

One could always price those roads to limit demand (though I suspect most airport patrons would gladly pay, while airport neighbors would not), and use the resulting revenue to improve ground access.

There's also not really room for a third runway, let alone a fourth.

Understood about the land limitations.

There's some very real pollution issues - due to the motorways and runways, Heathrow is already at the upper limit of acceptable levels of certain pollutants - expansion would need a costly solution to deal with that.

I don't know much about exhaust from aircraft engines (nor do I know proportionately what comes from those engines and what comes from motor vehicles), but as vehicle emission controls in the U.S. have improved, I think the same is true of vehicles sold in the U.K. market.  In other words, air pollution from "mobile" sources (mostly cars) has declined (at least in North America, and I think the same is true in the EU and the U.K.) and is forecast to continue to decline in the coming years, as the fleet turns over.

The airspace is overcrowded (in the London area generally, though especially in the Heathrow area). And while landing slots at Heathrow typically get filled up as soon as they become available, most of these are flights that used to land at Gatwick (see trans-Atlantic flights after the Open Skies agreement was signed), so there's not really new journey opportunities for London directly created by Heathrow expansion: instead by freed up slots at Gatwick allowing, say, Jakarta, etc. Why not just create a load of slots at Gatwick? And certainly the last thing that Heathrow needs is to function more as an interchange airport - we want as many of those people using the busy airspace over London entering the country rather than merely clogging up the terminals at Heathrow before leaving.

As with the highways around Heathrow, it seems that those slots ought to be priced as well.

The economic impact of Heathrow has to be massive in terms of the municipalities of Hillingdon and Hounslow (which one is it in?); London generally as well as the UK, and having it located next to M25 (along with Tube and the Heathrow Express rail service) seems pretty smart to me.

Actually, a big complaint about Heathrow is its poor access, especially via public transport from non-London places. Certainly it could do with southern (Staines) and western (Reading via Slough) rail accesses, and some sort of Orbital line would be good (though I feel the benefits would be best with relatively local services, rather than Intercity/High Speed. And it only really needs to run Watford - Woking to replace the extortionate rail coaches).

(The Heathrow Express is a white elephant. I can't it lasting beyond 2023. Though the infrastructure would survive and suddenly be crammed when costs go from extortionate to reasonable and the end destination goes from Paddington to Abbey Wood via Central London and Docklands.)

I have had more than a few people tell me that ground access to Heathrow from "other" parts of England is not especially good.  Though it was presumably located where it is to serve the London travel market, not the English or UK travel market.  And I gladly concede that air travel was very different when those decisions were made.

Curious that you feel that Hethrow Express is obsolete.  As far as rail infrastructure goes, it is not that old.

[Emphasis added below]

Heathrow doesn't need to be any bigger to support the West London and Thames Valley economies. Everyone near it doesn't want it expanded and local government in Hillingdon (where the airport is), Slough (where the expansion will partially be), Buckinghamshire, Windsor & Maidenhead, Ealing, Richmond, Kingston, Hounslow, Surrey, etc will do everything in their power to block expansion. As would the Mayor of London, and the powers of that office will be able to stop anything in Greater London.

However, closing Heathrow and replacing it with an airport elsewhere would be just as opposed by those councils/areas. And more (eg Reading, Hampshire, Bristol, Swindon, Oxfordshire, etc...) even before you get to the councils that oppose the new site (Medway, Kent and Essex have come out strongly against a Thames Gateway Airport, despite a great deal infrastructure and economy gains said to come out of it). Plus the Aviation industry would hate it, as would London business

Your highlighted words above reflect a common and recurring theme when it comes to transportation infrastructure.  Don't take away anything, but under no circumstances may you add capacity near me.

[cpzilliacus]

To add to English Si's comments about airspace congestion around Heathrow, it has already been stated that if the third runway were built, aircraft coming in for a landing at that airport would have to begin final approach from 30 miles away, using technology that has not been developed yet.  In Britain the track record for developing major infrastructure that relies on novel, unproven technology is not good:  the nearest recent analogue is West Coast Main Line expansion using wireless signalling, which turned out not to work and forced the upgrades to be implemented with traditional cable-borne signalling at a cost around ten times that initially projected.  Concorde is not an infrastructure project per se, but is another manifestation of the same dynamic of betting the farm on tech that either doesn't work at all, or is economically inefficient or commercially infeasible if it does work.

No need to go to Great Britain to see examples of expensive and failed air traffic control (ATC) technology.  I know - in the 1980's, I worked on the USDOT/FAA's (now failed and terminated) Advanced Automation System (AAS).  Terrible and grossly mismanaged project that was supposed to deliver everything in terms of ATC.  In retrospect, it reminds me of the Chevrolet Vega, though unlike the Vega, most of AAS was never deployed.

I have long believed that Gatwick and Stansted are the only places in the South East to fit in new runway capacity, and I suspect the current generation of DFT civil servants are playing the same long game their predecessors did back in the 1960's and 1970's when the Third London Airport was under discussion and debate revolved around sites in Buckinghamshire and the Thames Estuary (Maplin Sands) before eventually returning to Stansted, which was the initial proposal.

Never been to Stansted or Luton.  As I suggested to english si, Gatwick seems like the right place for more capacity.

In regard to Gatwick, the "safeguarded area" for the second runway is south of the existing one, and the preferred scenario is lateral separation greater than 760 m between the two runways, as this allows them to be operated independently of each other and thus maximizes throughput.  This places the second runway in clear rural land just north of Crawley and south of the small community of Lowfield Heath, which borders Gatwick to the south.  Casual inspection of Lowfield Heath in StreetView suggests that it is almost all airport-dependent businesses (air freight centers, etc.) which could be relocated relatively easily if they are not actually incorporated into the airport premises.

Agreed.  I have actually stayed at a hotel there (was THF, now TraveLodge).

This is completely different from the case at Heathrow, where building the third runway would entail wiping out the village of Sipson (which is largely residential in character) and relocating a medieval tithe barn in Harmondsworth.

Though I agree that the runway should go to Gatwick, I do wonder how many of the people in the area threatened by the added Heathrow runway were there before the airport opened?

[english si]

I assume that the (private) owners of Heathrow would not be pleased about any proposal to close the airport, and would demand compensation - a lot of compensation.

They would be given the new airport, or at least shares to the value of Heathrow in the new Airport or the Redevelopment of the Heathrow site. I gather that the Estuary airport promoters reckon on recouping the 11-figure costs via the redevelopment of Heathrow and the area around it, so money is seemingly not an issue for them.

Gatwick does seem like a winning solution, though is the highway capacity adequate for the resulting increase in ground access traffic?

They will boost it - though the runway proposal has allowed the Highways Agency to dally on the necessary improvements needed today. In fact, the proposed road improvements aren't much more than were proposed 7 years ago without airport expansion (8 lanes on the M23) - just modified junctions. However it will be enough. Probably ditto on the railways (the junctions north of Croydon are a huge bottleneck that will be solved if Gatwick was expanded).

Gatwick's road capacity is far less of an issue than Heathrow's. Partially as the Airport traffic isn't the main problem at Heathrow, but the traffic between Staines and Slough, etc.

For long-haul flights, is there any reason to prefer one place in southeast England over another?  I don't think so.

I you'll find there is - journey time to London, access to elsewhere in the country, interchange with onward flights. There's a reason that, despite far cheaper landing fees, Stansted is a ghost airport, bigger than needed and with only low cost operators using it. In fact there are several (slow rail service to London, poor access from the West and the Midlands, undeveloped hinterland, etc)

One could always price those roads to limit demand (though I suspect most airport patrons would gladly pay, while airport neighbors would not), and use the resulting revenue to improve ground access.

Where would that leave me, if I wanted to go to Surrey, or Kent? Pricing won't help as there's no alternative route. If you want to end up being thrown off Runnymede bridge into the Thames, pricing the M25 would be the way to do it!

And it's not like the plan proposes, like Terminal 5, to upgrade the road network - however it's never enough as nothing is enough there.

I don't know much about exhaust from aircraft engines (nor do I know proportionately what comes from those engines and what comes from motor vehicles), but as vehicle emission controls in the U.S. have improved, I think the same is true of vehicles sold in the U.K. market.  In other words, air pollution from "mobile" sources (mostly cars) has declined (at least in North America, and I think the same is true in the EU and the U.K.) and is forecast to continue to decline in the coming years, as the fleet turns over.

While pollutants emitted are coming down, so are the standards. Vehicle numbers are going up, and we're not talking about CO2, but things like NOx that come from buses and taxis, even the cleaner ones (Central London, despite the congestion charge is the only place in the UK worse for these pollutants). I was highly surprised to not see an M4 tunnel as part of the Heathrow runway 3 plans - they've needed it in the past just so that they can filter the air along the road to remove the pollutants. I guess tunneling a mile of the M25 would have a similar effect.

As with the highways around Heathrow, it seems that those slots ought to be priced as well.

Why do you think it already costs at least $50 more per seat to get a plane to Heathrow, over Gatwick (which has similar lack of free landing slots)? They do premium price it, and getting to London is expensive because of it.

Curious that you feel that Hethrow Express is obsolete.  As far as rail infrastructure goes, it is not that old.

I didn't say it was obsolete - I said it was a white elephant. It was useless and expensive, but pretty, from the start. Crossrail taking over Heathrow Connect (the stopping service on that route) will be the death knell, but contracts mean that HEx will linger a bit longer before being absorbed by Crossrail.

It might be a fast train, but you pay through the nose for that speed, and end up at Paddington, which is the most poorly sited London terminus - walking distance from nowhere. The word 'obsolete' doesn't apply until 2018 when Crossrail would get you where you'd want to go quicker (despite stopping lots more times) and more directly. However phrases like "white elephant" and "useless waste of space" have applied to Heathrow Express since day 1.

The Airport rail tunnel itself is incredibly useful. But only once the 10-figure sum has been spent on allowing trains to penetrate Central London (OK, access to Heathrow is one of the smallest factors on Crossrail's route and justification).

Though I agree that the runway should go to Gatwick, I do wonder how many of the people in the area threatened by the added Heathrow runway were there before the airport opened?

Very few, but it's worth pointing out that the Airport was built in WW2 using special powers, and while those who moved in since the airport got busy in the 70s (which certainly isn't everyone living there) cannot complain about the noise, they can certainly complain about the expansion. Especially while there's safeguarded land at Gatwick and Stansted for additional runways that wouldn't be built on if R3 goes ahead.

[J N Winkler]

Never been to Stansted or Luton.  As I suggested to english si, Gatwick seems like the right place for more capacity.

I have flown in and out of both Stansted and Luton.  They are both specialists in budget airlines, so they have few opportunities for long-haul travel.  Stansted has fair links by road and rail (it is just off the M11 on its own dedicated spur, and is on top of the rail line out of Liverpool Street).  Luton's links by both rail and road are mediocre; access off the M1 involves travel on about a mile and half of surface road, and since Luton is not right on top of the Thameslink line out of Farringdon Street, the connection between Luton Airport Parkway rail station and the airport itself has to be made by shuttle bus.  It wracks the nerves to be waiting for a shuttle bus that runs on fifteen-minute frequency and takes about ten minutes when you have just twenty minutes before check-in closes for your flight.

In my experience travelling to and from Oxford to the London airports, the big differentiator is the availability of public transport links.  Both Heathrow and Gatwick have dedicated "Airline" coaches that ply between the airports and central Oxford, with good seat availability and timetable compliance despite M25 traffic.  Heathrow has bad rail access from the west (no direct route from Reading, Oxford, etc. that doesn't involve overshooting the airport and changing at one of the stations west of Paddington that serve both Paddington-bound and Heathrow-bound traffic), but Oxford is close enough that this doesn't really matter.  On the other hand, if you want to travel by bus between Oxford and Luton or Stansted, your choices are a National Express bus with very poor timetable compliance (the last one I took from Stansted to Oxford was 40 minutes late departing and over an hour late arriving), or a rail itinerary which involves Tube connections in London.  The latter is more comfortable and reliable, but involves more handling of luggage, and is not an option for flights that leave very early in the morning--if you have a 7 AM flight out of Stansted, for example, you cannot wait for the Tube to start running in the morning.  (If you look up Stansted on airport sleeping websites, comment after comment will tell you that Ryanair, which deliberately schedules many flights at 7 AM, counts on the airport authority to ignore people sleeping overnight in chairs in the waiting areas and in fact sends around staff to wake people up so they can check in.)

Gatwick has a bit of a split personality.  Under the Bermuda II agreement, it was used as overflow for Heathrow long-haul flights, and was the only option for flying direct from London to a long list of second-string US airports.  But it has long struggled with a reputation as a "bucket and spade airport" because of the heavy proportions of charter and budget traffic it serves.  I remember flying TWA from Gatwick to Wichita via St. Louis because that was cheaper than any of the Heathrow options, but most of my recent flights from Gatwick have been to various European destinations via EasyJet.  I am willing to pay a little more to fly out of Gatwick than Luton (EasyJet's base) or Stansted (Ryanair's base) because most of my air trips to Europe have involved three pieces of luggage, which makes it advantageous to use a service that has few stops (less opportunity for luggage to be stolen from the cargo rack or hold) and is direct (no need to schlep luggage through Tube stations).

[cpzilliacus]

I assume that the (private) owners of Heathrow would not be pleased about any proposal to close the airport, and would demand compensation - a lot of compensation.

They would be given the new airport, or at least shares to the value of Heathrow in the new Airport or the Redevelopment of the Heathrow site. I gather that the Estuary airport promoters reckon on recouping the 11-figure costs via the redevelopment of Heathrow and the area around it, so money is seemingly not an issue for them.

O.K.  Though I think the estuary site is "crackers" (I like that word). 

Gatwick does seem like a winning solution, though is the highway capacity adequate for the resulting increase in ground access traffic?

They will boost it - though the runway proposal has allowed the Highways Agency to dally on the necessary improvements needed today. In fact, the proposed road improvements aren't much more than were proposed 7 years ago without airport expansion (8 lanes on the M23) - just modified junctions. However it will be enough. Probably ditto on the railways (the junctions north of Croydon are a huge bottleneck that will be solved if Gatwick was expanded).

I remember the "roundabout-like" interchange on M23 at the front door to Gatwick seemed pretty inadequate - and that was over 10 years ago.

Gatwick's road capacity is far less of an issue than Heathrow's. Partially as the Airport traffic isn't the main problem at Heathrow, but the traffic between Staines and Slough, etc.

For long-haul flights, is there any reason to prefer one place in southeast England over another?  I don't think so.

I you'll find there is - journey time to London, access to elsewhere in the country, interchange with onward flights. There's a reason that, despite far cheaper landing fees, Stansted is a ghost airport, bigger than needed and with only low cost operators using it. In fact there are several (slow rail service to London, poor access from the West and the Midlands, undeveloped hinterland, etc)

Though isn't the highway congestion around Heathrow due (at least in part) to economic activity that wants to be located near a major international airport?  I have certainly seen it in other places.

One could always price those roads to limit demand (though I suspect most airport patrons would gladly pay, while airport neighbors would not), and use the resulting revenue to improve ground access.

Where would that leave me, if I wanted to go to Surrey, or Kent? Pricing won't help as there's no alternative route. If you want to end up being thrown off Runnymede bridge into the Thames, pricing the M25 would be the way to do it!

Pricing circumferential freeways/motorways like M25/A282 might well be a winning alternative (and I know Dartford-Thurrock is tolled). 

And it's not like the plan proposes, like Terminal 5, to upgrade the road network - however it's never enough as nothing is enough there.

But that is where pricing works.

I don't know much about exhaust from aircraft engines (nor do I know proportionately what comes from those engines and what comes from motor vehicles), but as vehicle emission controls in the U.S. have improved, I think the same is true of vehicles sold in the U.K. market.  In other words, air pollution from "mobile" sources (mostly cars) has declined (at least in North America, and I think the same is true in the EU and the U.K.) and is forecast to continue to decline in the coming years, as the fleet turns over.

While pollutants emitted are coming down, so are the standards. Vehicle numbers are going up, and we're not talking about CO2, but things like NOx that come from buses and taxis, even the cleaner ones (Central London, despite the congestion charge is the only place in the UK worse for these pollutants). I was highly surprised to not see an M4 tunnel as part of the Heathrow runway 3 plans - they've needed it in the past just so that they can filter the air along the road to remove the pollutants. I guess tunneling a mile of the M25 would have a similar effect.

Vehicle emission standards declining?  They have tightened in the U.S. since 2000, and will be tightening more, especially for NOx (which is a problem on the American side of the pond especially because it is an ozone precursor).

As with the highways around Heathrow, it seems that those slots ought to be priced as well.

Why do you think it already costs at least $50 more per seat to get a plane to Heathrow, over Gatwick (which has similar lack of free landing slots)? They do premium price it, and getting to London is expensive because of it.

London has undeniable geographic advantage as a jumping-off point for flights to North America, and the airlines and their customers are willing to pay for that.

Curious that you feel that Hethrow Express is obsolete.  As far as rail infrastructure goes, it is not that old.

I didn't say it was obsolete - I said it was a white elephant. It was useless and expensive, but pretty, from the start. Crossrail taking over Heathrow Connect (the stopping service on that route) will be the death knell, but contracts mean that HEx will linger a bit longer before being absorbed by Crossrail.

It might be a fast train, but you pay through the nose for that speed, and end up at Paddington, which is the most poorly sited London terminus - walking distance from nowhere. The word 'obsolete' doesn't apply until 2018 when Crossrail would get you where you'd want to go quicker (despite stopping lots more times) and more directly. However phrases like "white elephant" and "useless waste of space" have applied to Heathrow Express since day 1.

Thanks for the clarification.

The Airport rail tunnel itself is incredibly useful. But only once the 10-figure sum has been spent on allowing trains to penetrate Central London (OK, access to Heathrow is one of the smallest factors on Crossrail's route and justification).

I suppose the number of person trips to Heathrow, as compared to all person trips on rail, is tiny.

Though I agree that the runway should go to Gatwick, I do wonder how many of the people in the area threatened by the added Heathrow runway were there before the airport opened?

Very few, but it's worth pointing out that the Airport was built in WW2 using special powers, and while those who moved in since the airport got busy in the 70s (which certainly isn't everyone living there) cannot complain about the noise, they can certainly complain about the expansion. Especially while there's safeguarded land at Gatwick and Stansted for additional runways that wouldn't be built on if R3 goes ahead.

Good points.

[cpzilliacus]

Never been to Stansted or Luton.  As I suggested to english si, Gatwick seems like the right place for more capacity.

I have flown in and out of both Stansted and Luton.  They are both specialists in budget airlines, so they have few opportunities for long-haul travel.  Stansted has fair links by road and rail (it is just off the M11 on its own dedicated spur, and is on top of the rail line out of Liverpool Street).  Luton's links by both rail and road are mediocre; access off the M1 involves travel on about a mile and half of surface road, and since Luton is not right on top of the Thameslink line out of Farringdon Street, the connection between Luton Airport Parkway rail station and the airport itself has to be made by shuttle bus.  It wracks the nerves to be waiting for a shuttle bus that runs on fifteen-minute frequency and takes about ten minutes when you have just twenty minutes before check-in closes for your flight.

I don't think I will be using those airports anytime soon.

In my experience travelling to and from Oxford to the London airports, the big differentiator is the availability of public transport links.  Both Heathrow and Gatwick have dedicated "Airline" coaches that ply between the airports and central Oxford, with good seat availability and timetable compliance despite M25 traffic.  Heathrow has bad rail access from the west (no direct route from Reading, Oxford, etc. that doesn't involve overshooting the airport and changing at one of the stations west of Paddington that serve both Paddington-bound and Heathrow-bound traffic), but Oxford is close enough that this doesn't really matter.

Imagine that!  Bus transit doing better than rail.

On the other hand, if you want to travel by bus between Oxford and Luton or Stansted, your choices are a National Express bus with very poor timetable compliance (the last one I took from Stansted to Oxford was 40 minutes late departing and over an hour late arriving), or a rail itinerary which involves Tube connections in London.  The latter is more comfortable and reliable, but involves more handling of luggage, and is not an option for flights that leave very early in the morning--if you have a 7 AM flight out of Stansted, for example, you cannot wait for the Tube to start running in the morning.  (If you look up Stansted on airport sleeping websites, comment after comment will tell you that Ryanair, which deliberately schedules many flights at 7 AM, counts on the airport authority to ignore people sleeping overnight in chairs in the waiting areas and in fact sends around staff to wake people up so they can check in.)

From what I have heard about Ryanair, I think I am going to pass on taking any trips with them.

Gatwick has a bit of a split personality.  Under the Bermuda II agreement, it was used as overflow for Heathrow long-haul flights, and was the only option for flying direct from London to a long list of second-string US airports.  But it has long struggled with a reputation as a "bucket and spade airport" because of the heavy proportions of charter and budget traffic it serves.  I remember flying TWA from Gatwick to Wichita via St. Louis because that was cheaper than any of the Heathrow options, but most of my recent flights from Gatwick have been to various European destinations via EasyJet.  I am willing to pay a little more to fly out of Gatwick than Luton (EasyJet's base) or Stansted (Ryanair's base) because most of my air trips to Europe have involved three pieces of luggage, which makes it advantageous to use a service that has few stops (less opportunity for luggage to be stolen from the cargo rack or hold) and is direct (no need to schlep luggage through Tube stations).

Yes, that was why the BA flight to and from BWI (a second-string airport compared to IAD  (especially for international flights)) was to Gatwick. 

I thought Gatwick was a pretty good airport - not as crazy busy as Heathrow, and a little bit smaller to get around in.

[Joe The Dragon]

Here's the plan that Boris is attacking

no upgrade for the M4 Spur?

http://www.cbrd.co.uk/badjunctions/4-spur/

[english si]

Though isn't the highway congestion around Heathrow due (at least in part) to economic activity that wants to be located near a major international airport?  I have certainly seen it in other places.

Somewhat, but it forms the main route from Wales, the West Midlands, the West Country, etc to Kentish ports. And from the South Coast (esp Portsmouth and east) to the East Midlands and North. As such it is a major freight route. Then you add the perfectly reasonable intra-London area traffic between Uxbridge, Amersham, Hemel or Watford to Guildford, Croydon, Sutton, Sevenoaks, etc that has no choice but to use the M25. None of those places (save perhaps Uxbridge) have Heathrow being nearby as the major factor of their success - more the links to Central London and the M25 (and other roads and railways).

Pricing circumferential freeways/motorways like M25/A282 might well be a winning alternative (and I know Dartford-Thurrock is tolled).

Do you want a mob on you? Tolling existing routes is bad enough. Tolling existing routes with no real alternative is worse. 

Such beltway tolling might work in Maryland where alternative freeways allow you to go through the city, but that is insane in London, where there are none and congestion is rife on local streets too. It's almost as if you haven't looked on a map.

They tried to toll a new-build diversion of the A14 near Huntingdon. No one was for it. Literally no one. The Government got quite a bit of egg on their face, and it wasn't as if they were tolling an existing route, or a route that wouldn't be shunpiked fairly easily (not the case with the M25).

And the Dartford Crossing's continued tolling would have been exhibit A of great betrayals of the motorists had it not been decided under the Labour government, whose 'war' on motorists just meant that it was a betrayal by a Government who loved congestion, hated the idea of better transport and betrayed on countless other things so it got drowned out.

But that is where pricing works.

It fucking well doesn't. There's no alternative route. The local roads are equally congested. The charge will neither reduce demand or congestion as it is just milking a captive audience. Political suicide and very close to actual suicide if get anywhere the protesting hoards.

Vehicle emission standards declining?

Yes, in the sensible way of describing it, rather than increasing. Vehicle emission standards are allowing less emissions, so just like the vehicle emissions, they are declining, getting lesser. The bar is lowering. OK, tightening is better word, but they certainly aren't increasing.

I suppose the number of person trips to Heathrow, as compared to all person trips on rail, is tiny.

Gatwick will have a higher proportion, having much better rail links. It's not that small, and will grow with a fast service to useful destinations, but it's dwarfed by the commuter traffic into Central London.

The Western and Southern rail links for Heathrow are about local traffic - workers and such like, though the Western link aims.

Imagine that!  Bus transit doing better than rail.

Oxford, with its poorly sited station and indirect rail route is a rare exception. Two private companies run 6 coaches an hour each to London in the peak (and about 4 off-peak). The balance will shift towards rail when the Bicester chord opens - but only a bit. Not because the Marylebone route is faster or anything, but because the people of northern Oxford suburbs and towns/villages to the north and west can drive to the Park and Ride station at Water Eaton and travel to London, as they do now with the coaches at Headington P&R. Most of Oxford is still going to use the coaches as most of Oxford is to the east and south of the centre.

Heathrow is also somewhat of a coach-outdoes-rail place. National Express use it as an interchange hub (so you don't have to go into and out of Central London to change between Manchester to London and London to Bournemouth services, say) and London 'outskirts' stop (for those coaches avoiding London but getting close to it), so direct coaches exist from a large swath of the country.

[cpzilliacus]

Though isn't the highway congestion around Heathrow due (at least in part) to economic activity that wants to be located near a major international airport?  I have certainly seen it in other places.

Somewhat, but it forms the main route from Wales, the West Midlands, the West Country, etc to Kentish ports. And from the South Coast (esp Portsmouth and east) to the East Midlands and North. As such it is a major freight route. Then you add the perfectly reasonable intra-London area traffic between Uxbridge, Amersham, Hemel or Watford to Guildford, Croydon, Sutton, Sevenoaks, etc that has no choice but to use the M25. None of those places (save perhaps Uxbridge) have Heathrow being nearby as the major factor of their success - more the links to Central London and the M25 (and other roads and railways).

Pricing circumferential freeways/motorways like M25/A282 might well be a winning alternative (and I know Dartford-Thurrock is tolled).

Do you want a mob on you? Tolling existing routes is bad enough. Tolling existing routes with no real alternative is worse. 

No diversion.  But one caveat - the toll revenue has to benefit the users paying the tolls, and that means no diversion to other things like transit subsidies.

Such beltway tolling might work in Maryland where alternative freeways allow you to go through the city, but that is insane in London, where there are none and congestion is rife on local streets too. It's almost as if you haven't looked on a map.

Alternative freeways (to the Capital Beltway) through the District of Columbia?  LOL! Just one small problem - there's really only one, and it has carefully placed four lane segments to assure severe peak period congestion.  Until 2011, it was not possible to cross D.C. by freeway (except in a "U" Turn movement).

They tried to toll a new-build diversion of the A14 near Huntingdon. No one was for it. Literally no one. The Government got quite a bit of egg on their face, and it wasn't as if they were tolling an existing route, or a route that wouldn't be shunpiked fairly easily (not the case with the M25).

Most tolled segments of any highway network can be shunpiked. 

And the Dartford Crossing's continued tolling would have been exhibit A of great betrayals of the motorists had it not been decided under the Labour government, whose 'war' on motorists just meant that it was a betrayal by a Government who loved congestion, hated the idea of better transport and betrayed on countless other things so it got drowned out.

It's not the first toll road or toll crossing built with statements to the public that it will become "free" when the construction bonds are paid-off.  Such claims were made for the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Turnpikes (long ago). I don't think anyone expects them to be de-tolled now or anytime in the future.

But that is where pricing works.

It fucking well doesn't. There's no alternative route. The local roads are equally congested. The charge will neither reduce demand or congestion as it is just milking a captive audience. Political suicide and very close to actual suicide if get anywhere the protesting hoards.

The alternative route (in the case of the Ca. 91 toll lanes) is the adjacent (and severely congested) "free" roadway.  But pricing to allow about 1800 or 2000 vehicles per lane per hour (depends on how high the percentage of HGVs is) is a "sweet spot" (according to the Highway  Capacity Manual, not me) in terms of getting the most out of a lane of freeway or motorway.

Vehicle emission standards declining?

Yes, in the sensible way of describing it, rather than increasing. Vehicle emission standards are allowing less emissions, so just like the vehicle emissions, they are declining, getting lesser. The bar is lowering. OK, tightening is better word, but they certainly aren't increasing.[/quote]

We agree.

I suppose the number of person trips to Heathrow, as compared to all person trips on rail, is tiny.

Gatwick will have a higher proportion, having much better rail links. It's not that small, and will grow with a fast service to useful destinations, but it's dwarfed by the commuter traffic into Central London.

Also agreed.  The Thameslink service from Gatwick (to Blackfriars? IIRC), was fast and simple, but very crowded (most of the patrons were, as you suggest above, apparently not coming from Gatwick). 

The Western and Southern rail links for Heathrow are about local traffic - workers and such like, though the Western link aims.

Imagine that!  Bus transit doing better than rail.

Oxford, with its poorly sited station and indirect rail route is a rare exception. Two private companies run 6 coaches an hour each to London in the peak (and about 4 off-peak). The balance will shift towards rail when the Bicester chord opens - but only a bit. Not because the Marylebone route is faster or anything, but because the people of northern Oxford suburbs and towns/villages to the north and west can drive to the Park and Ride station at Water Eaton and travel to London, as they do now with the coaches at Headington P&R. Most of Oxford is still going to use the coaches as most of Oxford is to the east and south of the centre.

I don't know the specifics (nor the demographic projections for Oxford), but on its face, building rail to replace 6 bus trips an hour seems like a very expensive improvement.

Heathrow is also somewhat of a coach-outdoes-rail place. National Express use it as an interchange hub (so you don't have to go into and out of Central London to change between Manchester to London and London to Bournemouth services, say) and London 'outskirts' stop (for those coaches avoiding London but getting close to it), so direct coaches exist from a large swath of the country.

That makes sense - and as you have said before, rail connection from LHR to places other than London is not good.