Airports Commission gives comprehensive & unambiguous decision not to short-list a Thames estuary airport
As widely leaked, the Airports Commission has decided against short listing an inner Thames estuary airport scheme, for further consideration. The Commission had intended not to short list the scheme back in December 2013, but were persuaded to give the concept further thought. The Commission’s report wording is unambiguous. They say, to take a few direct quotes: ” we are not persuaded that a very large airport in the Thames Estuary is the right answer to London’s and the UK’s connectivity needs.” “To roll the dice on a very risky project, where delays and overruns are highly likely, would be reckless.” “…Commission has concluded that the proposal for a new ITE airport has substantial disadvantages that collectively outweigh its potential benefits. Cumulative obstacles to delivery, high costs and uncertainties in relation to its economic and strategic benefits contribute to an assessment that an ITE airport proposal does not represent a credible option for short-listing.” And “…if UK carbon emissions are to be kept within the overall cap, concentrating a very high number of flights in one location could limit the scope for growth elsewhere and hence reduce the overall diversity of the UK airports system.” So a very definite NO.
.
Tweet
The Airports Commission’s decision not to add an inner Thames estuary airport proposal to a shortlist for further appraisal.
Inner Thames estuary airport: summary and decision paper
(46 pages)
Part of the introduction, by Sir Howard Davies, says:
has substantial disadvantages that collectively outweigh its potential benefits.
Cumulative obstacles to delivery, high costs and uncertainties in relation to its
economic and strategic benefits contribute to an assessment that an ITE airport
proposal does not represent a credible option for shortlisting.
aviation industry or business community, or from the local authorities nearby, and
some intended benefits, such as the scope for 24-hour operation, appear to be of
limited relevance.
negative economic impact on the surrounding local area, with the scope and
timing of any mitigation as a result of the redevelopment of the Heathrow site
highly uncertain.
able to deliver against the potential requirement for a further increase in runway
capacity by 2050. NATS have advised the Commission, however, that no more than
800,000 air traffic movements (ATMs) per annum would be likely to be achievable
at a four-runway airport, constraining the level of additional capacity provided.
While the construction of additional runways, if feasible, might enable a higher
number of ATMs to be accommodated, it would also increase the scheme’s costs,
environmental impacts, and airspace and delivery challenges
solution to the UK’s long-term aviation capacity needs. It may be less flexible in
responding to changes in the aviation industry than other, more incremental options.
Also, if UK carbon emissions are to be kept within the overall cap, concentrating
a very high number of flights in one location could limit the scope for growth
elsewhere and hence reduce the overall diversity of the UK airports system.
To keep the option under consideration beyond this point, however, would prolong unnecessarily the associated costs and anxiety for nearby communities, unless it could be seen to be a credible proposal. The Commission’s judgement is that a balanced assessment does not favour such a conclusion.
.
.
3.6 In addition, it has been argued by some stakeholders that a significantly higher level of aviation connectivity would be provided by a single, large hub airport than by a more dispersed distribution of aviation capacity, and that an Estuary airport is best placed to facilitate this. The analysis carried out by the Commission for its Interim Report, however, indicated that, while a concentrated capacity model would deliver higher passenger and ATM numbers than a dispersed model, it only showed a small difference in destinations served. Therefore, it is not clear that any benefits of this kind would be as great as some advocates of such schemes contend.
These are the conclusions of the Airports Commission report:
4. Conclusions
4.1 The Commission appreciates the imaginative and considered designs put forward for a new airport in the inner Thames Estuary. Much high quality work has been
produced from all sides that has greatly enhanced the quality of the public debate on the UK’s international connectivity needs.
4.2 The scale of change associated with an ITE airport would be very great with major implications for passengers throughout the UK, thousands of direct employees
and others in associated jobs, businesses, wildlife, local communities around both Heathrow and the ITE site, the aviation industry and the UK taxpayer. The in-depth feasibility studies, and the submissions made to the Call for Evidence and consultations, have enhanced the Commission’s understanding of these effects, and of the broader costs, impacts and feasibility of such an option.
4.3 The Commission has concluded that the proposal for a new ITE airport has substantial disadvantages that collectively outweigh its potential benefits. Cumulative obstacles to delivery, high costs and uncertainties in relation to its economic and strategic benefits contribute to an assessment that an ITE airport proposal does not represent a credible option for shortlisting.
4.4 There will be scheme promoters and others who will be disappointed by this decision and who would wish to see further consideration of proposals for an ITE airport by the Commission. However, it should be remembered that such work is not without its costs. As set out in its Interim Report the Commission appreciates the potential for its work to cause unwelcome uncertainty for communities close to shortlisted schemes. These circumstances underline that it would be inappropriate for the Commission to continue to consider the option of an ITE airport unless it could be seen to be a credible proposal.
4.5 As such, the Commission will not be taking forward any further work on the option of an ITE airport, and will proceed to consultation in autumn 2014 on the three currently shortlisted options.
.
.
The Airports Commission’s decision not to add an inner Thames estuary airport proposal to a shortlist for further appraisal.
Inner Thames estuary airport: summary and decision paper
(46 pages)
.
.
.
.
.
.