Heathrow Airport needs more runway space there’s no denying but environmental groups have opposed the idea – surprise surprise.I’ve always been keen on more planes and tourists spewing out of Heathrow until recently alerted to the Cliffe proposal by my good blogbuddy Oranjepan.
What a sensible idea, no people to fly over or houses to knock down but environmental groups have opposed this solution too as it may affect the mating habits of the dovetailed fly warbling turd catcher or other.
A question to the Luddite Party – Heathrow’s a no no, Cliffe’s a no no – what would you recommend Britain does to ameliorate the increase in air travel over the next twenty five years?
Posts
3 comments:
Hang on, I haven't taken a view yet.
I do think that IF expansion is necessary then Cliffe is better than Heathrow and a second best would be extra capacity at Stansted and Gatwick, with growth at Heathrow a distant third best.
But I'm not completely convinced about the need for overall growth as short-haul flights can largely be transferred to rail with a more highly developed high-speed network taking passengers to more locations and to the hearts of cities without transfer.
I've also recently been reading about a new fleet of massive zepellins (which use inert gases and therefore wont explode) with significant lifting power and are projected to be a viable alternative over distances of 200+ miles within 25 years.
So projections for runway demand are variable to say the least and will ultimately depend on public policy direction.
Like I described before Cliffe does offer additional advantages because of it's location, but the cost and planning required would be massive (it would be a 30 year plan at least) - which may prove to be offputting.
Anyway, what we have is a proposal for the cheapest and most damaging option first. We need to ask why - I think it is a test case because if they can push this through then it sets a precedent which removes most of the legal obstacles to develop all the sites mentioned plus the regional airport infrastructure (23 new runways in a decade by my count) - and I'm certainly against putting all my eggs in one basket.
I only said you'd alerted me to the concept and did not suggest for one minute whether you were for or against. I like the idea.
Blimps carrying people across the seas is a bit Flash Gordon and would never happen on a commercial scale - you must know that surely?
okok overreaction... sorry...
but blimps the size of skyscrapers crossing the white cliffs towards the contintent - that is something for a postcard!
On a technical point size will matter. If they can safely carry weights of above 20 cargo containers then they'll be more viable than ferries. The only problem then is wind speed and air traffic designating flightpaths at agreed altitudes.
So don't be surprised if there is some limited introduction in that timeframe.
Post a Comment