1 / 13

London’s Insufficient Airport Capacity: Why is it a recurring problem?

London’s Insufficient Airport Capacity: Why is it a recurring problem? . Anna Hopper December 10, 2013. Background. London airports will be saturated by 2030 395-420 million pax /year—at least 13 million more than can handle 2012 government set up Davies Commission to recommend a solution

seamus
Download Presentation

London’s Insufficient Airport Capacity: Why is it a recurring problem?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. London’s Insufficient Airport Capacity: Why is it a recurring problem? Anna Hopper December 10, 2013

  2. Background • London airports will be saturated by 2030 • 395-420 million pax/year—at least 13 million more than can handle • 2012 government set up Davies Commission to recommend a solution • Will finish after 2015 election • Have already announced need for new runway in SE • Received dozens of proposals—but many are not new ideas! • Then again, capacity has been a problem for decades…. • WHY has it not been solved already??

  3. Roadmap • Examine 3 prior cases where the problem might have been solved: • A New Airport at Maplin Sands (1970s) • Development at Stansted (1980s) • Third runway at Heathrow • What do these cases reveal?

  4. Building at Maplin Sands • Proposed in 1967 by the Noise Abatement Society • Reclaim land in Thames Estuary for airport/seaport • Considered by Roskill Commission • Approved by Tory government • Cancelled by new Labour gov’t in 1974 • Recurring idea today ADVANTAGES: Less people affected by noise/building DISADVANTAGES: Cost, impact on wildlife and industries, too risky

  5. Building at Maplin Sands Despite its failure, the plan has recurred over and over…. 1969 2003

  6. ‘BORIS ISLAND’ PROPOSAL Building at Maplin Sands 2013

  7. Developing Stansted • Original government favorite in the 1960s, discarded for Maplin Sands • Inquiry in the early 1980s: resulted in the recommendation that Stansted get a new terminal but not a new runway • Controversial development because it would send more money to the wealthy SE instead of the regions (e.g. Manchester) • Approved by government in 1985 • New capacity up to 8 million • Potential expansion up to 15 million with gov’t approval • Approved by government in 1985 • Even as construction began, CAA said a new runway would be needed

  8. Developing Stansted Also a recurring plan…. 2003 2013

  9. Third Runway at Heathrow Proposed as far back as 1960s:

  10. Third Runway at Heathrow • Has often been suggested and discarded • Particularly big issue in 2000s • Labour government supported it for economic reasons • Liberal Democrats opposed due to climate change impact • Tories neutral, not opposed • 2008 scandal: BAA and govt accused of doctoring the reports • 2009 Government approved the expansion • Upcoming election led to Conservative reversal of position • 2010 election: Conservatives and Liberal Democrats pledged no runway • Many London-area Labour MPs sided with Tories • Plan discarded when coalition government came to power

  11. Third Runway at Heathrow Recent revival of the option, but it is being put off until after the next election. Davies Commission submission by Heathrow Airport Ltd.

  12. So WHY is it still a problem? • Political process takes so long that opinions and forecasts change • Variability in forecasts allows for very different conclusions which lead to long debates • No one wants to take responsibility! • Want to ‘sweat the equity’ • Benefits of airport expansion = long term • Short term have angry constituents and/or get voted out of office

  13. Questions?

More Related