The Policy Exchange, which says it is a leading think tank to deliver a stronger society and a more dynamic economy (nothing about care of the environment) have put forward a proposal to expand Heathrow, by building 4 new runways. And moving the existing two a mile or two to the west, on top of the M25. Then there would be a two more runways, one parallel to each of the shifted runways. The Policy Exchange then says that if this cannot be built, 4 runways could be be built at Luton instead. They claim around 700 properties (in Poyle) would need to be demolished compared to the 1,400 that would need to go to make way for the estuary airport, and its purpose would be to send a "much needed signal to people that Britain is open for business." They dismiss the problem of carbon emissions by presuming that all homes in the UK will be insulated, so leaving fossil fuel for transport – and that travelling is much more appealing so we can "have the money and carbon allocation to see the world." A very odd report, with some very dubious logic ….. and contorted arguments.
Policy Exchange map of their plans for Heathrow …..
Compared to the existing situation (and proposed location of a 3rd runway). The existing runways are about a mile apart. The Policy Exchange seems to be putting the runways in each pair very close together.
A new four runway hub airport should be built to the west of Heathrow, according to a report by the Policy Exchange think-tank.
The report, written by Tim Leunig, chief economist at think-tank Centre Forum, says that the UK needs a new hub airport located in the South East with spare capacity to accommodate the likely increase in demand, especially to cope with the rise in middle class travellers from emerging markets.
The study, published today, says that the "first best solution" is to build four new parallel runways, in two sets of pairs, immediately to the west of the existing Heathrow Airport site.
The study says that moving the airport west would reduce noise over west London, "since the planes will be higher over any given place". But it proposes to "reinforce this noise reduction" by banning the noisiest planes.
The report says that because the proposal would reuse existing terminals and infrastructure, the cost of the scheme would be "far lower" than Lord Foster's proposed Thames Estuary airport.
It says that around 700 properties would need to be demolished compared to the 1,400 that would need to go to make way for the estuary airport.
If a new four runway airport at Heathrow proves politically unfeasible, the report recommends that a four runway airport at Luton would be the next best option.
Leunig said: "We can and should expand aviation capacity in the South East. Doing so will send a much needed signal to people that Britain is open for business.
The UK needs a four runway airport either at Heathrow or Luton if it wants to compete with other European hubs such as Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam.
A new Policy Exchange report, "Bigger and quieter: the right answer for aviation", written by Tim Leunig, chief economist at the liberal think tank Centre Forum, examined all of the options for increasing airport capacity in the UK. It supports placing four runways immediately west of the current Heathrow site. This would double the existing capacity to 130 million passengers, cementing it as Europe's premier hub. If this was politically unfeasible, then a four runway airport at Luton would be the next best option.
The paper says that the UK needs a new hub airport located in the South East which has spare capacity to accommodate the likely increase in demand, especially to cope with the rise in middle class travellers from emerging markets.
It doesn't rule out the current proposal to build a third runway to the north of Heathrow, but claims that less people would be affected by aircraft noise if the four runways were instead located 3km to the west of Heathrow.
Because the proposal reuses existing terminals and infrastructure, the price is likely to be around half that of Foster's proposal for an estuary airport. Approximately 700 properties would need to be demolished compared to the 1,400 that would need to go to make way for the estuary airport. The cost and ease of travel to Heathrow as well as the fact many businesses are already located near the current airport makes it the most suitable site.
The report says that other than Heathrow, Luton is the best located London airport. It is close to a high quality, four track rail line that goes to London St Pancras in 21 minutes as well as to key cities in the Midlands. It is also close to the M1, arguably Britain's most important road.
If expanding Heathrow is politically unfeasible, Leunig proposes a four runway Luton Hub with two terminals, the first adjoining the M1, the second the Midland Main Line rail route. The disadvantage of Luton over Heathrow is that the terrain is much more challenging, and the location is not as strong.
Tim Leunig, "We can and should expand aviation capacity in the South East. Doing so will send a much needed signal to people that Britain is open for business.
low, and the system seems awash with credits.
is to sort out the wider issue.
[All well and good. Fair enough. And then in the next paragraph, it entirely changes track and says that means carbon emissions are – magically – sorted out …. very inconsistent and very dubious logic to somehow justify their plan ].
climate permissible rise in flights.
Clearly this has to be done at an appropriate cost, but the cost of some forms of renewable energy have fallen significantly relative to fossil fuel costs recently. Broadly speaking it is easy to decarbonise any static energy use, and rather harder to decarbonise mobile energy use. This is because fossil fuels have a very high energy to weight ratio, making them well suited to applications that require energy on the move. For this reason it is not inconceivable to imagine a future in which fossil fuels are used only for travel. Even then, small scale hybrids cars and buses can offer short distance carbon free travel. In this context we may be able to see aviation take a larger share of the smaller carbon budget.
[The next section reveals that the sort of expansion in air travel that he envisages can take place only if all the UK's houses are well insulated, as using our fossil fuels for having fun is better than using them to heat homes – as is more "appealing"].
There are two points to grasp. We have a choice as to how we "spend" our carbon allocation. We can live in poorly insulated houses, have high fuel bills for heating, and not be able to fly. Or we can live in well insulated houses, have [possibly they meant to add the word 'lower' here ??] fuel bills for heating, and have the money and carbon allocation to see the world. Both scenarios have the same implication for global warming, but the latter seems a lot more appealing as a way to live. The world is an interesting place that is worth exploring. Using our carbon allowance to facilitate that seems more sensible that to use it wastefully, heating houses that could be insulated, or supplied with decarbonised energy.
South East – as opposed to say auctioning carbon use economy wide – would be a socially sub-optimal approach to necessary environmental protection.
Letchworth Garden City and Luton itself.
Posted: Friday, October 5th, 2012. Filed in General News, News about Airports, Recent News.