News

Bryan Avery’s Article about the project has been published in the journal “Planning in London”.

“Planning in London” is accessible to subscribers here.

Today’s Daily telegraph has a well argued letter by Anthony Curtis. An offshore site is the safest and Goodwin Airport the most logical.

This article was first published on the Infrastructure Intelligence website and is reproduced with permission. The original article is available here.

Of course there is no airport decision. The options presented to the government by the Davies Airports Commission are all wrong, says Rod Macdonald

A 3rd runway at Heathrow is blatant nonsense from so many positions, air pollution, noise pollution, lack of long term capacity, flight path risk, cost to the public purse for public transport and roads unaccounted for by the Airports Commission. A 2nd runway at Gatwick gives us 2, two runway airports more than an hour apart with no sensible option to change from a flight at one to a flight at the other. Neither answers the needs.

No, a decision between the two is not possible as neither answer our national air transport needs.

We need a 24hour 4 runway airport for our national economy. A 3rd runway at Heathrow was stated to bring £147 billion to our economy. Imagine what an airport that really satisfies our needs would bring to our economy.

The estuary option was rejected because of the birds. The birds are moving their habitat because of climate influences. It was rejected because of the cost of the public transport and roads involved. The cost of providing public transport and roads to Heathrow in an attempt to meet air pollution standards is as high as the costs for the estuary. The estuary option was rejected because of the cost of the airport itself, yet the funding is available to pay for it. It was rejected because the thought of moving operations from Heathrow to the Estuary was just to big for many to contemplate. We are British we have taken on much bigger tasks than this move!

There has been little talk about the complexity of construction at Heathrow. It is described as a building in a war zone. A complete new airport on a costal site with sea access can be built as quickly a single runway over the M25 with new terminal facilities and infrastructure.

Quite how a supposedly independent commission with the job of determining what is best for our nation as a whole could have been so influenced in its considerations by 2 large and powerful private sector business is worrying to say the least.

We should not allow ourselves to be frightened at the thought of building a new airport. The construction of the airport is a major piece of work, but many communities around the world are facing up to, or have faced up to the challenge.

Much was made, in the Commission reports, of the infrastructure costs of an estuary airport while the costs for Heathrow were kept under wraps.

If we travel to London from the north by car we are likely to come down the M1. We arrive at the M25. Turn right to Heathrow or left to the estuary, the same distance.

But, you won’t be allowed to drive to Heathrow for pollution reasons. Where do you put your car? Yes, if you turn left you come across the Dartford Crossing. Understand that another crossing will be built here, be there an estuary airport or not. Arrive by car from the west by the M40, the M4 or the M3 and you arrive at the M25. Again you will have to find a place to park your car. Travel by car from Bracknell or Slough to Heathrow at present is easy. In the future this won’t be allowed for air pollution reasons. It will be necessary to get on a bus or a train and having done so you might as well continue through to the estuary.

Arrive from the north by rail and you arrive at King Cross/St Pancras or Euston. Kings Cross/St Pancras are linked along our only high-speed rail line to the estuary. Euston is not far from Kings Cross and will be linked with the arrival of HS2. To get to Heathrow from Kings Cross/St Pancras the only options are a taxi to Paddington to the slow Heathrow ‘Express’ or to use the slowest part of the entire underground system. Travel by rail from the west and the sensible way is to go all the way to Paddington then take the slow Heathrow ‘Express’ back out west again. With Crossrail in operation, coming from the west, transfer at Reading and it can be straight through to the estuary.

Rail travel from much of London to an airport will be by Crossrail, but why spend money on linking to Heathrow when for the same cost you can link to the estuary site.

Rail travel from the south of London to either site has a natural focus in Clapham Junction and Waterloo. Both routes need substantial modification of the rail network, but the costs are much the same and we have made much more major modifications to the rail network.

A family arriving at an airport wants to be in a car because of all the luggage they have. This will not be possible at Heathrow. Cars will not be allowed.

From other parts of the UK you would think that you could fly to Heathrow and catch one of those great frequent long haul flights to the far reaches of the world. Sorry there will only be capacity at Heathrow for a maximum of one flight per day from our regional airports, meaning long stopovers and probably overnight stopovers. You could of course fly into Gatwick and transfer. This means collecting your luggage, taking a bus or a taxi for an hour minimum and being at Heathrow 2hrs before your connection for check-in and security reasons. A minimum of a 3 ½ hour transfer. Not very clever.

We are told that flights into Heathrow will get quieter. One of the world’s largest aircraft manufacturers has stated that there will be no reduction in aircraft landing noise until, at least, after 2050 as the development of new aircraft bodies will take that long. Heathrow is not achieving its aircraft landing noise targets even now. The current noise levels will continue and would increase substantially with a third runway.

A decision for Heathrow will mean 5 years of legal argument, plenty of work for lawyers and expert consultants, to be followed by the inevitable final decision that it is not possible to legally add a 3rd runway. The decision would mean another 5-year delay to opening the airport that we so desperately need.

A rational decision to build a new airport is needed,

We are letter of the week in Architects Journal.

The Architects Journal is accessible to subscribers here.

Today we have submitted proposals for Goodwin Airport to the Airports Commission; a copy of our proposal document can be downloaded from here.

Following Friday’s press conference, the European media have expressed a keen interest in the project.

There has been interest from France, Belgium,(in English here), and back in the UK, and in the press.

Goodwin Airport has had its launch in France. Held in Calais on 15 February, the press conference was well attended.

Press Release for Goodwin Sands Airport Press Conference in Calais 13-02-15

Dossier de presse Goodwin Airport 13-02-15 VFR

Dossier de presse Goodwin Airport 13-02-15 V NL

Gordon Rankine will be on the panel speaking for Goodwin Airport at the WAN East vs West debate on 5 February at the Royal Geographical Society.

The National – UAE

Captain Malcolm W Parrott, FRIN, FCILT, MNI a director of The Maritime Group and past master of the Honourable Company of Master Mariners has offered support to the Goodwin Airport proposal saying:

“The Maritime Group (International) Limited, a world class Maritime Consultancy specialising in Ferries, cruise vessels and ports, are excited by Beckett Rankine’s new conceptual idea for a SE England Hub Airport based on the Goodwin Sands. The sands are notorious for shipwrecks and in times gone by many a sailor has lost his life at the end, or beginning of a voyage. The new airport will turn this maritime black spot into a vibrant, exciting, safe modern arrival or departure place for travellers.

“The Maritime Group  are proud to have advised Beckett Rankine on navigational aspects surrounding the new proposed airport.  Unlike other proposals for an airport in the Thames Estuary Goodwin Airport will not interfere with any shipping lanes and will, by its visibility, greatly reduce the existing danger presented by the Goodwin Sands. Furthermore the increased shelter provided by the new airport island will make the Downs an even better anchorage than it is at present. The Maritime Group endorse this initiative, which would at a stroke solve the UK’s hub airport problem, reduce noise and environmental pollution and put the UK in the forefront of European aviation.

“The conceptual idea calls for a new small port. This in effect will help to develop the ports of Dover and Ramsgate where high speed ferries could supplement the tunnel/bridge to the island airport. High Speed Ferries/Hovercraft or even Wing in Ground Effect craft could also be operated to Calais, Boulogne, Dunkirk, Zeebrugge or Ostend offering an alternative means of high speed travel.

We wish the Goodwin Airport scheme every success.”

Aeronautical engineers PRV Engineering name Goodwin Airport as the best new UK hub airport proposal

“The fact that it is being called a “hub for northern Europe” gives us a clue as to what the architects are thinking.

The discussions about UK airport capacity include arguments about how we need to integrate with and compete against our European neighbours. This new plan might offer a chance to do both.

A Goodwin Sands airport also might offer better infrastructure links than one in the Thames.

High speed train services, the A2/M2, a possible new second Thames crossing at Gravesend and ferry traffic to Europe could all offer support.

However, the technical challenge and the environmental arguments will be huge and it is one of those projects that the general public struggles to take seriously.

This is a serious proposal from a firm who have a good track record and it will now be considered alongside the other equally grand plans for an international hub airport in the South East.”

This analysis was originally posted with this BBC News article

“As Sydney dithers over its airport restrictions, politicians in Britain have backed a new plan to build a $60 billion, four-runway airport on a man-made island in the English Channel.” Full article here.

BBC News article

New Civil Engineer Article (NCE suscription required).

London Evening Standard article…

Article in Kent Online.

Click here to download the press release announcing the launch of the Goodwin Airport proposal.

The Financial Times analysis of the London airport issue – registration required.

“There are three options: an extra Heathrow runway, a new airport, or ceding London’s [global financial] leadership. However it dresses it up, Britain’s government has opted for the third.”