More flights of fancy over airport expansion

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/19/flights-fancy-airport-expansion

Version 0 of 1.

In view of the information provided in Simon Jenkins's article, it's clear the whole idea of spending billions of taxpayers' money on a new runway in London is ludicrous (Airport expansion is just a glamorous project for the rich, 18 December). The Heathrow lobby, as he says, "has played a blinder"; who knew that "80% of London's air passengers" are non-business? Who knew that, while Heathrow is heavily committed to "the UK and European short-haul market", Stansted "is standing half empty"? The solution must be to divert the short-haul traffic to Gatwick, and free up space for Heathrow to concentrate on expanding business flights to Asian and South American destinations – although why businessmen cannot use technology like the rest of us is beyond me. Have they not tried Skyping their counterparts in Brazil, or video conferencing potential customers in India?

The only thing going for that new north-west runway at Heathrow is that it would "render Eton almost uninhabitable". But sadly, for that very reason, it has no chance of ever being built. Bernie Evans Liverpool

• The Davies commission's interim report has put the Isle of Grain and the wider north Kent community in the position of having a further year of blight placed upon them (Report, 18 December). The creation of the status of "not on the shortlist today but potentially on the shortlist on another day" is a direct result of Boris Johnson's lobbying with his dual viewpoint of creating a legacy as mayor and a line of copy on any future Conservative leadership campaign material.

Meanwhile residents of the Medway community are still left with no clear direction on what their future holds. Another year without clarity will hinder the council, businesses and residents from planning ahead. I will continue to argue that any estuary airport option is bad for the environment, bad for Medway and bad for UK PLC. Vince Maple Leader, Labour Group, Medway Council

• Can we decide not on where to build more airport runways but on how to stop feeding the monster that demands them. As we hear that the need for expansion is being largely driven by so called "low cost" short-haul airlines, should we not curtail travel demand to fit the available airport capacity. If the government is genuinely committed to reducing carbon emissions, why does it need policies which supply the infrastructure to feed the current frenzy of totally unnecessary air travel. Does anyone's human right to travel 600 miles for £9.99 for a drunken stag party in Prague really outweigh the rights of those whose homes, peace and environment will be destroyed by further unwarranted airport expansion? Roger Norwich Sark, Channel Islands

• So, to expand airport capacity the government has been advised to go for the relatively cheap but environmentally very unfriendly solution of expansion of either Heathrow or Gatwick. Given the general recognition that the explosive growth of London and the south-east is causing an increasing and damaging economic and social imbalance (mitigation of which, incidentally, is invoked as the main justification for HS2), a better solution would be to build a new airport in the Midlands.

Just such a scheme was considered by a government inquiry only 10 years ago (Department for Transport, 2002, The Future of Air Transport in the UK). It suggested a new airport could be built near Rugby which would not only ease congestion at Heathrow and Gatwick but would avoid the need for expansion of Birmingham and Coventry airports in the future.

For the benefit of southerners who are hazy as to what lies north of Watford, Rugby is exactly one hour from Marble Arch by public transport. It is a major rail junction with excellent links to the north. It is also close to both the M1 and M6. An airport here would be a major practical and psychological contribution to rebalancing the economy and society. Geoffrey Renshaw University of Warwick

• The expansion necessary for a second runway at Gatwick would close the strategic gap between the airport and Crawley (the runway would be built on it). The gap currently mitigates the impacts on residents of aircraft noise, particularly ground noise from reverse thrust and take off. In addition to the direct effects of the runway, the necessary increased workforce would either have to commute in or require local housing. With Crawley struggling to accommodate its existing population, the result would be unacceptable urban sprawl, which to some extent has so far been curtailed. Crawley, one of the original New Towns, designed with the aim of having a self-contained and balanced community, would become instead a large noisy conurbation whose residents would be isolated from the countryside by additional transport routes and housing in neighbouring authorities.

Moreover, Ifield Village conservation area, with its old houses, ancient church, pub and green, would have aircraft taking off within 300 metres of its boundary. Jenny Frost Secretary, Ifield Village Association, Crawley, West Sussex

• Apart from those around London having numerous alternative airports – City, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and Southend – inter-airport rail connections could easily be improved to make these a combined super-hub. Also, Heathrow could easily be expanded with minimum disruption to homeowners – by building over (piggybacking) the M25 or M4 or A3044, around which there are numerous reservoirs.

There is also the question of whether we actually want all this extra traffic – so much for Cameron's environmental concerns. The demand is kept artificially high by minimal taxation on air traffic; a spurious argument by the chancellor for not increasing air passenger duty (effectively a wealth tax) was that it would undercut the UK's competitiveness. An extra £20 is not going to make much difference to those coming to the UK for business trips or a once-in-a-lifetime holiday. Mark Bill Liverpool

• Why not make Heathrow/Gatwick one airport? Build the second runway at Gatwick (easiest of the options) then install a magnetic levitation train between the two (after all, we did invent this technology). The transit time could be 15 to 20 minutes. Not much difference to getting to most outlying terminals at either airport. The only difficulty would be choosing between Gatrow or Heathwick? David Williams Tunbridge Wells, Kent

Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.