Aviation Strategy

Written evidence from Peter Tomlinson, Iosis Associates, Bristol (AS 18)

The Author 

 

Peter Tomlinson MA(Oxon) [1] Dip Theol (Bristol) is an independent consultant currently specialising in ticketing and journey management technology for public transport. He is a Member of ITSO Ltd, the government controlled smart ticketing technology company, has been so from its launch, and in its early days was a Director of the company. He is currently involved in editing documents for the SEFT (South East Flexible Ticketing) project.

Some aspects of the link between aviation and ground transport

Summary 

 

In the current concern to plan and deliver appropriate additional airport capacity in England, primarily driven by London Heathrow traffic having reached capacity, there is an obvious desire that the further capacity be delivered quickly. Indeed, in an email from the Office of the Mayor of London [1], I read:

The Mayor regards the need for a solution as urgent.

Also, on 29th September the BBC’s Stephanie Flanders reported the government’s desire for ideas about infrastructure projects that can deliver in short order [2], partly because of the benefit that appropriate construction will bring, and partly, during the development phases of such projects, as a contribution to the immediate need to stimulate the UK economy.

This submission to the Transport Committee is intended to urge planners to stop thinking about a brand new hub airport, or about enlarging Heathrow, but instead to start by looking closely at the linkage between ground transport and air transport, at UK spatial geography, and at emerging improvements to UK surface rail capacity. The author’s small scale study leads to a suggestion that planners should examine the idea that the redundant Lyneham airfield be rapidly developed as a commercially close-coupled satellite of Heathrow (i.e. operated by the operator of Heathrow). The author has been in contact with the Geography Dept at the University of Manchester (Prof Cecilia Wong), which has done relevant work and is prepared to take that work further.

Background 

 

Recent material in the media about future developments in civil aviation in the UK indicates that suggestions and studies have taken a new turn. There will, we now read and hear, be a new study about alleviating the problem of congestion at Heathrow, but no decision until after the expected 2015 General Election. The study will be in two parts: a quick review, then another 2 years of in-depth study. Discussion read and heard tends to revolve around three topics:

1. expanding Heathrow,

2. expanding other existing civil airports in England, and

3. developing a brand new UK national ‘hub’ airport.

One missing topic in the material is a sufficient treatment of the problem of surface transport to and from airports, and that is the area that I try to explore here. But it isn’t just a matter of trying to get heard by the team developing the main post 2015 report, for:

- that team is said to be providing an interim report in short order;

- the Parliamentary Transport Committee (chaired by Louise Ellman MP) is starting a study for which they want written submissions by 19th October this year – only a month away as these notes started to be written

Hence this submission to the Committee.

My mind went back to a 2009 GMPTE [1] hosted conference at which Manchester University Geographers presented data about ground transport in and around major conurbations and also to and from major airports. The presentation was made by Prof Cecilia Wong, Professor of Spatial Planning.

My particular interest over the last 14 years has been electronic methods associated with surface public transport: ticketing, journey management and journey reporting. That leads me to look at patterns of public transport and the reasons why and how people do (or do not) use it – not just in the UK but to some extent across mainland Europe. Also I travel 2 or 3 times a month between Bristol and London, and thus I am well aware that we have a redundant airfield at Lyneham, in Wiltshire just south of both the M4 and the Brunel Great Western Railway corridor.

The dominant problem in UK surface public transport is usually seen as the Monday to Friday daily commuting peaks, requiring investment in infrastructure and equipment that is intensively used only during those peaks, and causing staffing problems because split shift and 12 hour working are no longer acceptable or, in some cases for drivers, no longer legal. For rail services in the South East and on some longer routes radiating out of London, there is a current DfT funded project to encourage more flexible travel patterns, thus contributing, along with more flexible working patterns implemented by the employers of a growing proportion of those travellers, to spreading the weekday peaks over longer periods [2] . The methods developed there will feed into the forthcoming new rail franchise contracts, and will help with the operation of rail services that feed airports.

But the dominant problem with the recent discussions is the combination of first a statement that our only major hub airport, Heathrow, is full to capacity for all of its operating period (early morning to late evening), and then a conclusion that we must somehow ensure that we develop an ever bigger single national passenger aviation hub. Suggestions that we expand other existing civil airports near London (Stansted and Gatwick in particular) are consistently rejected on the grounds that having in effect a distributed hub network, comprised of independently operated airfields scattered around the extended London area, connected by rail to different terminal stations in London, just doesn’t give the required travel experience. Examples of cities in other countries that have developed new hubs or extended existing ones are regularly cited, but also I have heard it said that none of those hubs are as busy as Heathrow. It does seem that being sited on the Greenwich Meridian makes this country unique as far as the demand for air passenger travel is concerned.

Analysis 

 

In thinking about the airport problem I remembered that some while ago I had taken a quick look at some material about travel by road and rail (partly as a result of that 2009 GMPTE conference). Certainly the pattern of commuting into cities is growing all around the world, but there is a big difference between England and many other countries. I express that difference by stating that England is like a squeezed up version of France: similar population but one third the land area, and characterised by metropolitan areas (plus smaller conurbations) in and out of which workers commute. The ‘squeezed up’ difference is that the hinterlands of major conurbations in France are quite widely separated, while those of our conurbations now significantly overlap, and the policy (illustrated at the GMPTE conference by Janice Morphet) of putting more money where the wealth is (i.e. in the metropolitan conurbations) is making both the commuting problem and the hinterland overlap worse. In 2009, material from Prof Cecilia Wong of Manchester University showed that the volume of commuting into the metropolitan areas is growing and the average commute distance is also growing – but quite a lot of that material is several years old, some as old as 2001, so we could do with an update.

But the significance of more recent Manchester University studies is the importance of travel time rather than distance, although the cost of that travel is obviously another factor affecting the decisions of commuters [1] . Prof Wong pointed me to a study that they have recently completed for the Royal Town Planning Institute: a Map for England [6]. The aim of that study is to help encourage progress on joined-up spatial planning.

With improvement in surface transport comes reduced journey time – until congestion because of corridor overload kicks in, of course. The rail infrastructure updates and new build, and the new trains currently funded for the Great Western Main Line and Crossrail, will bring both greater capacity and reduced journey times on that historic corridor and its extension through London. Bristol is already only 90 minutes from London Paddington (using the route from Bristol Parkway station), but Paddington is not ideally situated for many people. After the improvements, and after also adding a new spur into Lyneham, the journey time from Lyneham to several central London destinations (including other mainline termini) is estimated to be 60 minutes, and not much longer to the eastern side of Greater London.

Then there are interchange air travellers, landing at Heathrow and flying out of Lyneham, or vice versa. Their rail journey is expected to be 40 mins – and the intention in suggesting that Lyneham be a commercially close coupled satellite of Heathrow is that their interchange journey should be seamless, with luggage transfer on the same train arranged for them.

For reference, for other suggested but longer term solutions:

- a new Thames Estuary Hub will be in the wrong place for those whose surface starting point or destination is anywhere other than Greater London or the nearby east coast and north Kent counties;

- an Oxfordshire/Berkshire hub will be in the wrong place for large numbers of people (something that we could alleviate with a massive development of new very high speed railway services – we will not do that);

- expansion of Heathrow by simply extending its surface area in order to build more runways appears (particularly to those many people living nearby) to be an unacceptably disruptive solution, so we must search for a viable alternative;

I submit therefore that a viable alternative, providing both air and ground transport capacity, ought to be one that is capable of being developed in a short period of time, and that, if we can identify it, we should immediately start detail planning of the development.

Synthesis 

 

Now I have been told (but have not searched for the evidence) that an early study into possibilities for expansion of airport capacity looked at not only expanding Stansted and Gatwick but also at bringing into use some new capacity at other airfields not too far from London. My correspondent said that one of the sites considered was RAF Lyneham, due to be vacated (indeed now almost entirely vacated) by the RAF, but it was declared to be a non-starter. That was then; now we have major surface rail network enhancements (including electrification and new trains) under way along and close to a very long corridor (Brunel’s Great Western Main Line) from South Wales and South West England in the west, passing close to Lyneham, along the Thames Valley, continuing as Crossrail through (actually underneath) central London (with interchanges with London Underground, major radial surface rail termini, and through rail routes) and out as far as the eastern fringes of the London metropolitan area. The line from the junction with the Great Western at Didcot Parkway through Oxford and up to the West Midlands is also to be electrified. Lyneham is also close to the M4. And, for air travel, Lyneham is outside the western boundary of the congested South East airspace. Further, much of the land around Lyneham is sparsely populated (although I do respect the fact that developing Lyneham will cause very great disturbance to those whose land will be required, and therefore trust that they will be given full support if they have to relocate, and that others living nearby who decide to relocate should also be supported). So I thought: let us throw away those comparisons with air transport hubs in other countries, and consider a new configuration: Lyneham as a commercially close coupled satellite of Heathrow.

Before considering further the possibilities it is necessary to look for government plans for the RAF Lyneham site. An 18th July news article [3] shows that the MoD is considering moving several existing army and support units to the Lyneham site, but the material in Hansard [4] indicates that the plans are not yet finalised. The 18th July statement reported in Hansard (made by Dr Liam Fox MP, then Secretary of State for Defence) did however include the information that a further statement is expected before the end of the year – so there is no time to waste if we are to have placed in the ground a stake that says "Look at Lyneham for civil air travel".

As a further aside, recently yet another study into the UK air travel capacity problem has been published [5]. Its authors Policy Exchange claim that their paper "examines all of the options for increasing airport capacity in the UK" – but it does not mention Lyneham.

So what does ‘commercially close coupled’ mean? 

It means that, for the air traveller, their experience is that they are using one airport, whichever airfield they are physically travelling from and/or to, and that transfers between the airfields are managed by the common airport operator.

As well as the obvious journey using ground transport to/from the airport from/ to which you fly, for example you could:

Drive to Heathrow, fly out of Lyneham

Drive to Lyneham, fly out of Heathrow

Seamlessly fly into one airport and out of the other

Land at either airport and take the train to the final destination

And, if one airfield is partially or completely closed when you arrive by air, the airline lands at the other airfield, with the train taking you onward.

What next? 

 

Who could do the modelling associated with Lyneham as satellite of Heathrow? Why not ask Manchester University or my alma mater Oxford? Since I read Physics, I don’t know any Oxford Geographers, but in 2009 at the GMPTE conference I did experience a little of the Manchester work. So this paper is also being sent to Prof Cecilia Wong, Professor of Spatial Planning at Manchester University.

15 October 2012

Annex: supporting material 

 

Parliamentary Transport Committee

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/transport-committee/news/aviation---tor/

There may be found the Parliamentary Transport Committee’s "terms of reference for a new inquiry that will examine the Government's aviation strategy and will focus on aviation capacity in the UK", plus a short video in which Louise Ellman MP, Chair of the Committee, explains their inquiry and invites input. Closing date for submissions is 19th October.

Relevant rail services

The Brunel Great Western Main Line passes close to Lyneham.

Major capacity and service quality enhancement for the GW Main Line is in progress. There will be a new spur to Heathrow to/from the west. Electrification will extend all the way to Bristol (possibly further into the South West)) and to Swansea, including branches to Oxford and other towns, and onwards to the Midlands. Reading Station capacity enhancement is not far off completion. New trains have been ordered. Smart Media ticketing is specified in the new Great Western franchise.

The Cardiff Valley Lines will be electrified.

Crossrail construction work has started. It will deliver journeys from the Thames Valley section of the GW Main Line, through Central London, and on to the eastern outskirts of Greater London. It will provide interchanges with other London rail termini and with the Thameslink north-south through London service.

Relevant air routes

Lyneham is outside the congested airspace of the south east, facilitating routing of aircraft in a westerly direction (including Atlantic crossings) and also both north and south.

Relevant road routes

Capacity improvements to the M4/M5 junction in the Bristol area are being constructed. The Second Severn Crossing was completed in 1996.

[1] Email exchange with the Office of the Mayor of London

Dear Mr Johnson,

Another way: develop the redundant RAF Lyneham as a commercially

close-coupled satellite of Heathrow. Quick to develop, leverages use of

the results of investment already under way and committed to the railway

network (Great Western Main Line and Crossrail and the route via Oxford

to the Midlands), is situated at the western edge of the congested South

East airspace so that delays to flights will be reduced. I'm sure that

they will make space for your bikes on the high speed shuttle trains

that will run to and from the airport.

I'm working on a paper for submission to Louise Ellman MP's Commons

Transport Committee enquiry.

Dear Mr Tomlinson,

Thank you for writing to the Mayor.

The UK's sole hub airport, Heathrow, is operating at nearly 100% of its capacity and, in the Mayor's view, cannot be expanded further without unacceptable consequences for the hundreds of thousands of people who live nearby. But the Mayor acknowledges that Britain does need a well-functioning hub airport if it is to continue to attract investment and tourism and so generate jobs and continuing economic growth. The country needs a new hub airport, located to minimise impacts on built-up areas. The Mayor is keen to explore a range of alternative solutions that meet the necessary requirements and to have a broad and open-minded debate about them. At this stage, the Mayor is not wedded to any single location; rather he is keen to ensure that decisions are made by those responsible on a proper basis, following a rigorous assessment not only of the economic costs and benefits, but also the social and environmental impacts of the various options.

 The Mayor regards the need for a solution as urgent. He is therefore disappointed that the Davies Commission, appointed by the Government to look into these questions, has been asked to report in mid-2015. But he does intend to submit detailed evidence to the Davies Commission and he is currently undertaking work that includes consideration of options for the location of a new hub airport.

The Mayor and his staff greatly appreciate the time people take when they contact him with ideas for improving important aspects of life in London. As you can imagine, the Mayor receives hundreds of ideas and offers of advice from members of the public every year. They are gratefully received, and all suggestions are noted, recorded and given due consideration. We cannot respond to all in detail, but we will contact you again if we need help in taking any specific ideas forward.

I would like to thank you again for getting in touch with the Mayor of London on this important matter.

Yours sincerely

Nick Waterman

Transport Team, Greater London Authority

[2] Stephanie Flanders on BBC Radio 4 Today on 29/9/12:

Stephanie Flanders asked for ideas for public sector investment, particularly in infrastructure, that could get started quickly – but not to send them to her. So I sent her an email about Lyneham and smart rail ticketing topics…

Stephanie,

Investment that can start quickly?

First: develop the now redundant RAF Lyneham (just off the M4 and the

Great Western railway line) as a commercially close-coupled satellite of

Heathrow Airport (and forget the ideas for a new hub airport). With help

from material prepared by Manchester University's Geographers (Prof

Cecilia Wong's team) for other purposes, I'm preparing a paper for

Louise Ellman MP's Transport Committee (deadline 19th Oct). The design

work could start immediately. Such a development will take advantage of

investment already committed for the railways, some of it already being

spent, and would hopefully trigger a speeding up and expansion of the

rail projects.

Second (a smaller amount): we are already developing new electronic

ticketing methods for rail services in an area stretching from

Peterborough across to Reading, down to the South Coast and east of

there to encompass all the rail services south and east of London (the

SEFT project - South East Flexible Ticketing - for which £45M was

allocated in the last Autumn Statement by the Chancellor, but DfT has

not publicised it, although Norman Baker was talking about it at the LD

Conference this week). But the core technology (for which the government

owns the ITSO specifications) needs further investment in order to

ensure that it fully supports emerging technology developments and,

crucially, in order to ensure that the emerging national network of data

processing and security management nodes is of adequate capacity, is

highly reliable and resilient, operates securely, and continues to

address the growing IT security threats. The govt controls the core

company ITSO Ltd, but is starving it of development and management

money. And, alongside the SEFT project, there is a commitment in the new

rail franchising programme for the operators to fully implement the ITSO

methodology - but, on past performance, they will be very unwilling. New

ticketing and journey management methods in public transport benefit the

passenger more than the operating company - i.e. the business cases for

the operators are always weak - so there has to be a fund created to

assist in paying for the rollout and operation of the technology across

the rail network (including providing training programmes - for the

civil servants as well as for the service operators).

Declaration of interest: I am a founder Member of ITSO Ltd (a company

limited by guarantee without shares but with Members), and have recently

been retained by another company to do technical writing work for the

SEFT project.

Further updates:

- On 11/10/12 DfT made a presentation about SEFT to the Travel2020 Conference (a Landor event)

- a recent report by PwC to DfT is known to have recommended that DfT consider further interventions along the lines of the SEFT development.

[3] : http://www.lynehamvillage.com/news/lynehamraf/defencetech180711.html

RAF Lyneham to be Defence Technical Training Centre

18th July 2011

THE former RAF Lyneham base is to remain under military occupation it has been announced. The move is part of a £1.5 bn investment in UK reserve forces over the next 10 years as part of a wide-ranging shake-up of the UK's military.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox told parliament this afternoon that defence technical training programme will move to the former RAF base ‘guaranteeing its future’.

Dr Fox told MPs that the Territorial Army would form around 30 per cent of a 120,000-strong Army by 2020. In a statement to MPs Dr Fox announced major changes in the basing of forces, with RAF installations set to be taken over by Army units returning from Germany.

Speaking after the announcement, North Wiltshire MP James Gray said: "We fought long and hard to keep the RAF at Lyneham, but sadly failed, so I was delighted by the Secretary of State's announcement today that the base will instead be used by the defence technical training establishment.

"This will mean that at least 1,500 Service personnel will be moving into Lyneham in the near future to replace the departing RAF which is good news for everyone in the area".

Dr Fox told MPs £400m would be spent this Parliament on boosting the reserve forces, with the possibility of new legislation to ‘ensure that the reserves are more readily usable on operations’.

He said the growth in the Territorial Army's strength would allow a ‘progressive adjustment’ in the balance with regular troops.

"The overall package I have announced today is good news for our armed forces and means they can look forward to the future with renewed confidence because the defence programme I have announced is underpinned with real resources," he said

Military lecturer Peter Caddick-Adams, at the Defence Academy in Shrivenham, described the announcement as "excellent news". He said: "There was a great fear that the Lyneham estate would be sold off, which made no sense. It's a very intelligent use of the estate, which has had a lot of money put into it over the years and it would be a shame to see it sold off quite cheaply.

Defefence Secretary Liam Fox was saying about Lyneham - RAF Lyneham is the preferred location for future Defence Technical Training. This confirms that the Department will withdraw from Arborfield, in Berkshire and Bordon, in Hampshire, releasing the sites for sale by 2014-15 at the latest. This announcement in no way threatens the existing Defence presence at St Athan. There are no plans to move or reduce the 300 technical training posts as part of the rationalisation to Lyneham. Indeed plans to relocate additional Defence units to St Athan are being developed, and if those plans come to fruition, they will bring a major uplift in employment at that base. We intend to make an announcement before the end of the year.

Arborfield - Arborfield is currently the location of the Regimental Headquarters of the Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers of the British Army. Within the Garrison is a significant area of housing, containing a mixture of military and civilian properties.

The garrison contains Hazebrouck Barracks, which is a training base for the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) School of Electronic and Aeronautical Engineering (SEAE). The potential craftsmen within SEAE, study in the school to learn a trade as aircraft technicians, avionics technicians, and electronics technicians, (which encompasses all maintenanence operatives for all land based electronic equipment).

The Defence College of Aeronautical Engineering (DCAE), established on 1 April 2004 as a result of the Defence Training Review (DTR), is responsible for training of aircraft and avionic technicians. This college from its conception has been integrated as part of SEAE.

Bordon - The School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (SEME) is a training school, providing trade (Phase 2) training for soldiers of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME).

SEME is the UKs largest electro-mechanical engineering teaching establishment. At any time there are approximately 1500 soldiers at SEME undertaking career and equipment courses and gaining transferable qualifications ranging from NVQ level 2 to HND.

SEME is committed to delivering relevant training in support of current operations, consequently the number and diversity of our technical courses is greater than ever. Their mantra is 'Soldier First, Tradesman Always' and so maintaining and developing soldiers' military skills, in parallel with their trade, is at the heart of what they do.

Currently, SEME also offers soldiers the opportunity to participate in a wide range of sporting and adventurous pursuits. The Bordon gymnasium, swimming pool and sports pitches are second to none. Also available are first class medical, dental and physiotherapy facilities.

SEME is constantly updating and modernising its technical training courses and teaching techniques. They have recently invested in new computer based learning for soldiers undertaking the Common Foundation Module and further investment this year will see Armourers' training being transformed.

Prior to today's annoucment SEME were under the apprehension that a move was on the cards. In around 2015, the Defence Training Review will relocate SEME and other Service schools to a brand new Defence Technical College at St Athan in South Wales.

SEME offers real opportunity to those seeking a challenging and rewarding career within the Army. Our courses will test soldiers' determination and commitment and in doing so prepare them for their first and future assignments.

The Secretary of State for Defence Dr Liam Fox said "This commitment to increase Defence equipment funding after 2015 will ensure our Armed Forces remain a formidable fighting force on the world stage. I am determined to maintain Britain's position in the international premier league and to ensure that our Royal Navy, Army and RAF are given the tools they need to do their vital work.

[4] The substantive part of the actual statement on 18/7/12 by the then Secretary of State, as recorded in Hansard, is:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110718/wmstext/110718m0001.htm#1107182000375

DEFENCE

     Defence Transformation

       The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox): The strategic defence and security review (SDSR), announced last October, marked the start of the process of transforming defence to meet the challenges of the future. It set out a path to a coherent and affordable defence capability in 2020 and beyond; and some of the key building blocks-such as the return of the Army from Germany, and a Royal Air Force (RAF) structured around fewer, more capable fast jets.

     This statement provides detail of our intent on future armed forces basing and rationalisation of the defence estate.

.

.

RAF Lyneham is the preferred location for future defence technical training. This confirms that the Department will withdraw from Arborfield in Berkshire and Bordon in Hampshire, releasing the sites for sale by 2014-15 at the latest. This announcement in no way threatens the existing defence presence at St Athan. There are no plans to move or reduce the 300 technical training posts as part of the rationalisation to Lyneham. Indeed plans to relocate additional defence units to St Athan are being developed, and if those plans come to fruition, they will bring a major uplift in employment at that base. We intend to make an announcement before the end of the year.

[5] Bigger and Quieter: The right answer for aviation, Policy Exchange, 5 October 2012

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/bigger-and-quieter-the-right-answer-for-aviation

Bigger and Quieter: The right answer for aviation examines all of the options for increasing airport capacity in the UK. It supports placing four runways immediately west of the current Heathrow site. This would double the existing capacity to 130million passengers, cementing it as Europe’s premier hub. If this was politically unfeasible, then a four runway airport at Luton would be the next best option. 

The report says that the UK needs a new hub airport located in the South East which has spare capacity to accommodate the likely increase in demand, especially to cope with the rise in middle class travellers from emerging markets.

It doesn’t rule out the current proposal to build a third runway to the north of Heathrow, but claims that less people would be affected by aircraft noise if the four runways were instead located 3km to the west of Heathrow.

To reduce the effect of noise the report proposes:

· A complete ban on the noisiest aircraft at all times, rather than just at night. Airlines would have to ensure their fleet complied with new decibel measures by the time the new runways were ready for use

· Imposing a complete ban on night flights. The increase in the number of slots available would mean no planes would arrive or depart between 11pm and 6:15am

· Landing narrow bodied planes at a steeper angle as they already do at London City airport. This again means they are higher over any part of West London on their descent. For example, a plane would be 925m rather than 260m above Hounslow

· In addition, moving the airport west means planes will be higher over London than at present

Because the proposal reuses existing terminals and infrastructure, the price is likely to be around half that of Foster’s proposal for an estuary airport. Approximately 700 properties would need to be demolished compared to the 1,400 that would need to go to make way for the estuary airport.  The cost and ease of travel to Heathrow as well as the fact many businesses are already located near the current airport makes it the most suitable site.

The report says that other than Heathrow, Luton is the best located London airport. It is close to a high quality, four track rail line that goes to London St Pancras in 21 minutes as well as to key cities in the Midlands. It is also close to the M1, arguably Britain’s most important road. If expanding Heathrow is politically unfeasible, Leunig proposes a four runway Luton Hub with two terminals, the first adjoining the M1, the second the Midland Main Line rail route. The disadvantage of Luton over Heathrow is that the terrain is much more challenging, and the location is not as strong.

The paper rules out:

· Foster + Partners estuary airport (aka "Boris Island") as it is too hard to get to for too many people.  The environmental and construction challenges are also much harder to overcome than at Heathrow

· Connecting Heathrow and Gatwick to become a single hub. The two airports are 25 miles apart meaning that a direct high speed rail link would cost approximately £15 billion

· A four runway airport at Gatwick. The costs are higher than for Heathrow, and the location is not as good. Instead Gatwick should consolidate its position as a good quality base for point to point traffic geared towards leisure travel and short haul flights

· A four runway airport at Stansted. Like the estuary airport proposal, Stansted suffers from a poor location, with a weak hinterland and slow connections to London and the rest of the country

No mention there of Lyneham…

[6] Royal Town Planning Institute

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/knowledge/core-issues/map-for-england/

Map for England 

Why do we need a Map for England? 

Despite the generally recognised and accepted need to ensure a joined up approach to planning infrastructure and services, there is remarkably still no single place or data source within government that makes all of these maps available to view.

Good progress has been made in various areas but with an overarching framework - a Map for England - policy makers could make better judgments about how individual policy proposals interact with and affect development of the country as a whole. It would also increase consistency in appraisal, improve security and resilience, and provide a better understanding of sectoral issues that might complement or conflict with each other.

Listen to our podcast on why we need a map for England.

Additional benefits of a Map for England include:

Helping to boost growth. Housing, industry and business would be able to make quicker and better informed investment decisions which are more closely aligned to public sector infrastructure funding plans.

Being much more transparent. Local communities would be able to find out about how government plans affect their areas and to influence them.

Saving time and money. When writing new strategies, government departments could see the existing plans for different parts of the country and relate their new strategies to them. Datasets drive innovation.

Helping to coordinate infrastructure across borders with Scotland and Wales.

Research findings

We commissioned a study from the University of Manchester examining a broad range of existing government policies and how they relate to each other. See the study (pdf, 17.7 MB) and a compendium of policies in map form (pdf, 9.7 MB).

To reach their conclusions, the researchers examined government web sites, individual policy documents and large numbers of reports to find policies and programmes that have strong spatial aspect to them: policies which potentially have a different impact in different parts of the country. It was a major task in itself to pull together almost 100 policy maps.

In about one third of these documents the implications for different places are made explicit but in fully two thirds they are not.

By overlaying a number of these maps and diagrams together, the researchers demonstrated that some policies and programmes, when considered against each other in relation to different parts of the country, may have unintended consequences.

For example, the study revealed that there is considerable overlap between broad areas where housing growth is projected in the future and where there are the greatest environmental and policy constraints to growth. These constraints include the risk of flooding and expected future household water shortages.