Over half the population of the UK now fly at least once a year. The airports are overcrowded, delays occur regularly. Airlines need more access to runways to allow the anticipated volume of people to fly. £0% of UK exports now leave by planes.
But…
I originally believed the plans of expansion, whilst it may include the building of permanent structures and runways on prime green-field sites, would be non-intrusive to everyday life.
Now it seems, in one of the proposals, they are planning to bulldozer a complete village, which has been there since the 12th century, to make way for the new runway. (no cite, just heard it on news last night).
Can anyone see any possible justification for destroying a village in this manner - even if the runways are necessary to meet demand. Surely land can be found elsewhere.
The newly proposedairport at Cliffe is also looking like being a massive mistake, if it goes ahead.
Friends of the Earth have this to say… What do you think…?
It’s very simple - there’s room to squeeze in an extra runway at LHR. LGW already has an extra runway (they use it for taxiing). They’re too cowardly to expand LGW now, but they will. And Stansted has space around it for several new runways. The new airport in N Kent is a red herring, to make you prefer the other options. Other airports around the UK will expand too.
Do you want the economy to grow or not? The environmentalists say “no”, but the other 99% of people say yes. No-one forces you to live near an airport. You move there for the job opportunities, right? Install double glazing or move to Lindisfarne.
Say you lived in a nice village all your life (owning a house, for the sake of argument, worth £200,000). There was no airport when you moved there, just soime nice countryside around you. An airport appears. LAter on, a planning application also appears saying you may have to move as you village is being destroyed in the name of airport expansion, to improve the economy.
Regardless of whether the plans now go ahead or not, their existance has rendered your house worthless. You can’t sell up and move as no one would buy a house in that area now. How would you feel? Your way of life under pressure, your assets completely stripped. And no renumeration or comeback.
It’s not about being against expansion of the economy, its about finding real, practical methods of directing the expansion. I like to travel by plane, I think we need more airports, but not at the expense of other important things.
Can you justify the destruction of private property to allow the economy to grow?
Aro - Heathrow has been there since the 1940s. The house is worth 200K because of the airport. I bet you 95% of people in the neighborhood moved there since the airport opened, and because of the job opportunities created by the airport. To put it another way, can 5% of the population hinder economic development that will benefit the other 95%? Move elsewhere. No-one is having their property destroyed without compensation.
What is wrong with the Kent airport? It seems to make sense to me.
Also there is an airport at Southampton. Couldn’t that take some of the strain? It’s just next to a huge railway yard so could be good for freight. Only an hour from central london.
Hemlock - Stansted was (finally) opened in 1985 as London’s third airport.
And I can’t see how you reason that the house would be worth more being because of location near the airport - what supports that idea?
And my point was the value of their property has been destroyed in the face of the rumours flying about, regardless of the plans ever making it to fruition.
Why do you feel that the (randomly numbered) 5% of the population should just be dismissed? Do their opinions not count, in your view? The majority views have been wrong before.
Actually I find it much more likely that the house would be worth twice that if the airport wasn’t there.
People don’t generally move to pleasant little villages to be near large airports. They move to pleasant little villages to get away from the rat race generally.
Personally, I strongly doubt the government’s ability to reliably forecast air travel requirements 30 years into the future (the projections of which have caused all this fuss) Check out their predictions 30 years ago on any issue and I expect them to be way off present reality.
My feeling is that air travel will become less common, as broadband Internet becomes commonplace, virtual business meetings and even whole conferences may become more popular. Also, I think that eventually, governments will have to stop subsidising air travel (by not taxing aviation fuel) so the costs will go up, discouraging travellers.
Southampton airport (just down the road from me) has a problem; there’s not really any room for an extra runway or runway extension without destroying an area of marshland to the East (which I believe is protected).
I should have said, I think that air travel (particulary long distance trips) is just as likely to become less common.
Cheap, no frills short haul trips (say, from the UK to mainland Europe) might become more common but airlines have large fixed costs so the prices can only come down so much. If and when governments stop propping them up with loans and subsidies, this will act against that tendency.
Weren’t they planning on building Southampton’s new ground there?
It just seems to me that an airport handy for the docks and rail (freight) and with good rail links to London (people) would have more of a role to play.
And why should Southampton (well Eastleigh really) marsh land be worth more than surrey villages or Kent marshland?
No, the proposed Swaythling stadium was to be sited on the other side of the road (on what is currentlyplaying fields and school grounds)
Any development in that area will be contentious because (among other concerns) this is the last strip of ‘green belt’ separating Southampton from Eastleigh.
Ato/Atarian - No-one’s moved to Heathrow for peace and quiet in the last half-century. Stansted, I don’t know. The point is, airports are big economic assets. Massive job-creation etc. Yes, they’re noisy. But it doesn’t make sense to “spread the pain” - London has 4 airports already if you include Luton (5 if you include City). Another just increases the hassle for people transferring among them. And N Kent is the dark side of the moon for most of S/C England.
If you accept that demand for air transport will grow (and much as I love broadband, it will*) and you accept that the economy should be allowed to grow, expanding exisiting facilities is the least-bad option. I’m not a big fan of the current UK govt, but they should be congratulated for not ducking this (as previous administrations have) and not being cowed by the Nimby-ists. For every person who suffers, dozens will benefit.
*Atarian - air travel will continue getting cheaper and more popular, fuel tax notwithstanding. The technology is getting more efficient, a larger proportion of the world’s population are finding travel affordable, and looking at a beach via a webcam just isn’t the same.
Exactly my point, people don’t want to live there as much as they used to => the value of the property comes down. Some people will put up with it for the sake of a job there but if I worked under the noise all day, I would sure as hell try to live out of earshot of it.
I accept that demand will grow for short haul flights. But not necessarily for long trips and not to the extent that the government are forecasting. I think they are giving us really bad news now so they can make us happy later by telling us that “it’s not as bad as we first thought”
I don’t see much evidence that the basic technology of consumer air travel is getting more efficient. I think we need an expert on aviation engines to give us the verdict on that but don’t they still burn exactly the same fuel now as they did 30 or 40 years ago?
Do they get significantly better mileage now?
Are their emissions significantly reduced?
Wouldn’t there be a much greater push for fuel efficiency and other cost savings if subsidies were removed?
As a parallel, look at how much the efficiency and technology of car engines has increased. Would the same progress have been made without the pressure of increasing fuel prices and ever more stringent emissions standards?
This site has some interesting data on fuel efficiency, plus some stuff on emissions improvements. They also point out that the maximum cruising altitude has risen over the last 50 years (you burn more fuel/mile at lower altitude) although they think any further gains from this method alone will be small.
What subsidies are you talking about? I would imagine that the quest for maximising profits is reason enough for the airlilne industry to want more efficient airframes and engine technology.
Arguing that there will be lower demand for international travel in 2000-2050 because of telecoms is like arguing there would be less demand for rail transport in 1850-1900 because of the telegraph.
We need more airports - trust me (I’ve worked in this industry). The choice:
Expand the existing airports, with their existing support infrastructure and neighborhood accustomed to noise.
Or demolish cute villages with all those GBP200K retirement cottages to make brand new airports, and then add motorways and rail links.
I think that Aviation fuel is not taxed by international treaty. Obviously I can’t expect any one/small group of contries to unilaterally withdraw from that arrangement but the point remains. Cite from the same site: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/154.htm
It does stipulate that US and some EU countries do tax fuel on domestic flights but International flights are not taxed for fuel.
Given that we need more airport capacity and that it has to be in the South East (as no one in their right mind goes to the North) Then why can’t some of the existing capacity be upgraded eg Luton, Bournemeouth, Southampton, even if only as the sort of airports that the pikey airlines like Ryanair use?
The Airport at Cliffe seems the most sensible to me.
No, I am not arguing that. My point is that future technology will make some air travel obsolete, mitigating against the projected rise in same. Not all, some.
And I agree that one of the 2 choices will have to be done, and it’s a no-brainer which one should be done. I am just questioning the scale and the reasoning behind the predictions.