My questionn for the panel at Rugby is as follows:-
How can the UK state that it wishes to decrease greenhouse gases by 20% below 1990 levels by the year 2008 and at the same time plan to double or treble air traffic thus increasing grfeenhouse gasews by14%? This damage is global in its efecgts and not just a NNIMBY or luddite concern.
Richard Gunstone
Brinklow
Birmingham airport should not be moved to any other place at all. The second runway should be made at the present site.
Gurdip Singh Samra
Walsall
I would like to propose that a compromise is discussed.
The proposal on the table seems to be flawed.
Why not consider two midland airports.
Keep Birmingham and build a new one of similar size.
This would mean that the orientation of the runways would be similar to that of Birmingham, so that they do not intersect.
This proposal would therefore service north and south Birmingham.
The fact of the matter is we need additional capacity, to generate super airports creates transport problems.
If the orientation of the new runways cause a problem then a alternative site should be established.
The principle of two airports is sound.
As we have all used air transport it is hypocritical to say just no.
It is also wrong for Warwickshire to be used as a dumping ground for the nations air transport expansion.
Ben Black
Coventry
I hate to be proved right in so awful a way, but the appalling attack in Bali suggests that tourism is now being specifically targeted. Tourism there will now collapse. Where next?
My wife and I will continue to travel as far as our limited finance allows, but I was a career Diplomatic Service officer, who saw enormous violence and literally lost count of the threats which I received. Others seek a quieter
life, and may be put off travelling. If this goes on, as I fully expect, plans for airport expansion
anywhere in the UK will need to be looked at very carefully.
May I also remind any intending travellers of the Foreign Office website, www.fco.gov.uk. This contains excellent advice regarding every country in the world.
David Skinner
Kenilworth
My question for the Leamington Question Time Meeting on 14 October is:
EITHER
1. The Midlands is densely populated; all of the suggested options have significant noise/pollution implications. If more facilities are needed, does the panel agree that Cliffe Marshes, Kent (or even Maplin Sands) would be preferable locations?
OR
2. Airport planning in this country has an abysmal record. An international Hub Airport was once proposed at Maplin Sands but existing airports have been expanded instead. What does the panel think will happen this time?
John Whittle
Kenilworth
Should air traffic grow unconstrained when it is the most polluting form of transport - who pays the cost of these 拢15 flights that Coventry Airport are keen to attract?
Dave Maceluch
Bubbenhall
Brinklow and Combe Fields Anti Airport Action Group have sent us 12 questions to put to the panel at the Benn Hall debate on 17 October.
One of their points was:
A recent poll showed 76% favoured expanding Birmingham Airport, and only 4% favoured closing it and building a new one near Rugby. Does the panel agree that for Birmingham to keep its Second City status it must retain its airport?
Paul Fletcher
Rugby
Most of the air traffic from Rugby airport would be to European destinations. Why not invest instead in improving the "greener railways" and running through trains from the Midlands to Lille Brussels and Paris with onward conections. Quicker between city centres.
P.A. Moore
Leamington
Government proposals to expand Coventry Airport are made without any detailed study of the envirnomnetal impact from noise, pollution, loss of homes - shouldn't the proposal be withdrawn on this basis?
As Coventry Airport is set in the heart of a rural community, doesn't the environmental impact of any expansion require the proposals to be rejected and help save rural life?
Dave Maceluch
Bubbenhall
When air transport meets its full environmental costs through taxes and ticket prices, figures for growth will be much lower.
Will we then need a new set of airport proposals?
John Sidey
Location not specified
The Great Airport Debate - The hysteria of an unholy alliance of "Nimbies", Luddites, Canute-ists and just plain Cranks; characterised by a complete lack of sensible and constructive suggestions. - True or False?
G A McAleese
Less than half a mile from the end of Coventry airport's runway!
I think it is important to ask:
Why build new airports, when there are several large airfields available (such as RAF Upper Heyford) to cope with medium term traffic increases?
Theo A M Claassen
Rugby
At the 麻豆官网首页入口 Coleshill meeting I want to ask:
What are the relative NET gains for the West Midlands economy from the various options of B'ham airport expansion, along with East Midlands expansion?
Rod Annandale
I think these questions should be asked at the 麻豆官网首页入口 airport meetings:
"Will the midlands economy start to stagnate because investment at and around Birmingham Airport will stop immediately should the Government decide to build a new airport in rural Warwickshire?"
"What investment would be required in Air Traffic Control systems to support the level of expansion forecast by the Government in UK Air transport."
"How realistic does the panel feel the passenger forecasts are, which show growth from 180m passengers per annum to 500m ppa in 2030?"
"Will the midlands economy start to stagnate because investment at and around Birmingham Airport will stop immediately should the Government decide to build a new airport in rural Warwickshire?"
"Should growth in the Aviation Industry be constrained, if so how could this be achieved? If not how would the consequences on the environment be managed?"
David Bonner
Stretton on Dunsmore
I would like to ask - taking into account wind directions, can the proposals of the situation of the runways be accurate?
Eileen Van Werkhoven
Frankton Anti Airport Group would like to know when were the forecast figures for air travel produced and how were the figures arrived at?
Is there any intention to revise these figures given:
a) the decline in air travel over the last 12 months
b) the likelihood of aviation fuel taxation + rising insurance costs
c) advances in technology reducing the need for air travel?
N Plimmer
Given the worldwide over capacity experienced prior to Sept 11th and made worse by that event. This downturn pre 9/11 has not been included in the report figures. Therefore does this not reflect a significant over estimate by the government report on future travel?
Given the forecast of oil reserves being limited to 25-30 years. Is it not quite possible that technology will advance to such an extent that the runways of the future will be nothing like the runways we have today?
Therefore to plan such a project for a projected future possible demand, which has such a devastating affect on so many things (roads, pollution, people, countryside) is irresponsible.
It is most unlike a government to look so far ahead with a project!
Michele Johnson
Warwickshire
I live in Elmdon, Solihull and I am disappointed that while we are advsied by the CPRE, at a meeting this week in Sheldon, to support no further expansion in airports not shout to dump on the residents of Coventry & Rugby, the residents of Coventry & Rugby are quite happy to shout to dump it on BHX because we already have the disruption.
We will loose 1,500 acres of green belt and a listed church in the Domesday Book as well. I will have a 30 METRE grass bank in my view and unbelievable noise and air pollution and the loss of value on a home in which we have invested an enormous amount of time and money
The Government want all of the regions to be at odds with each other so they can inflict their wants anywhere they wish. In the end it is LONDON and the South East who cannot be accommodated with flights.
The regions must stand united not at at odds with each other.
It is not just rural England that is at risk but the lives of 180,000 Solihull residents and that of 100,000s of Birmingham residents that will be blighted.
We cannot be short-sighted because this is not about politics these plans are only the beginning.
The Goveernment does not want us to use cars but utilise public transport and trains to conserve engery and reduce pollution but hey fly when-ever and where ever you like to pollute the WORLD.
R Teagle
Solihull
The Plans for Rugby airport have come as a shock to thousands of people in an area far greater than that immediately affected.
Your correspondents should send for the free DOT consutation document; they will be even more horrified by the detailed studies that have been carried out by planners who seem to just see a 'gap' on a map & have no consideration for any person or creature that inhabits it.
Use the information in the document that outlines the environmental degredation expected & the complete transformation that our area will undergo, write to Alastair Darling, Michael Meacher etc, ask difficult questions. Are we willing to concrete the Midlands & put our rivers in culverts just because some people think 1.5 hours too long to drive to Stansted?
Ann Tarrant
Leicestershire
The destruction of rural communities and beautiful countryside to provide airport expansion is really unacceptable.
Why therefore does the government not consider other alternatives such as choosing spacely populated coastal areas of no special beauty (HongKong solution?) or disused military airfields in remote areas? Surely people come first before coastal wildlife?
I hope you can consider my questions. Many thanks!
Peter Wareham
Coventry
I may not be able to make the meeting on 9 October, but I'd like to know what consideration was given to re-opening what used to be the V-bomber base at RAF Gaydon? It is close to junction 12 of the M40, about 15 miles from the airport and may well be a cheaper site in terms of environmental and financial cost.
Mike Walpole
Coleshill
I would like to ask the following question, which nobody else seems to be
doing:
Are any of the airlines (no-frills or other) going to be happy paying the exorbitant landing charges this new airport would have to charge if it is going to be economically viable?
If it will not be viable, is it right for the government to subsidise the closure of an already highly effective regional airport at Birmingham, to be replaced by a "10-Dome White Elephant" 30 miles outside the city?
James Avery
Leamington
I attended the meeting last night which was good - Ed Doolan kept the meeting in order...
However, I would like to say that there were not enough people on the panel to give a sense of the economic realities with which to balance the possible environmental damage that will be caused, which is what this is all about.
The environmental ladies were very good, but the issues they raised are well known. The Warwickshire politician tried to bring a sense of balance, apart from outright opposition to the Rugby/Coventry airport but did not give any real facts.
Too much of the meeting was taken up with the Rugby/Coventry airport - to me this is very unlikely to be a starter, so the real issue is whether there is any case for expanding Birmingham airport, what infra-structure this will entail and how this relates to East Midlands airport.
Brian Skinner was careful not to push Birmingham Airport too hard - but an economist who would put the possible benefits into perspective would complement him. Are there any tame economists that the 麻豆官网首页入口 can entice out or have all the slots been taken?
Rod Annandale
What will be the effect of the air traffic and increased road traffic on local air pollution levels?
Graham Romer
Existing Midlands runways could cope with over 40 million passengers per year by 2030. Warwickshire's consultants forecast 33 million passengers. Why do we need a new runway, let alone a new airport?
Peter Langley
In view of the billions being spent on upgrading long distance rail travel, does it really make any sense to spend similar amounts but with far greater environmental destruction, on new airport facilities in the middle of the country?
Surely airports should be sited on the coast, on reclaimed or brownfield sites, so none of us will be overflown and none of our countryside will be blighted.
Transport integration should be the name of the game. Many of us are already prepared to travel by road or train to connect with long distance flights from Gatwick, Heathrow or Stansted, so I don't see my suggerstion as being too radical.
Graham Lockley
Kenilworth
Airports have blighted the South East of England and cause misery for thousands of people every day.
Why do we wish to impose that curse on even more people? Surely the answer is to maintain air traffic at about the levels that pertain now, and find larger aircraft to move more people with the same amount of take-offs and landings.
This may mean expanding some of the facilities at exisiting airports but it would not mean more runways or, heaven forbid, the destruction of yet more countryside for a new airport.
David Way
Location not supplied
I consider there should be RESTRAINT and TAXATION on air travel -why is it privileged against all other travel?
The scale of increase in personal flying envisaged amounts to many journeys per year for each UK inhabitant and is UNSUSTAINABLE!
Eric Gray
Location not supplied
This airport will devastate the local area. As well as the airport itself there are all the services that go with it such as car parks, hotels and cargo centres.
100,000 people will be employed at this airport. If we assume that 50,000 are newcomers to the area, then that is 50,000 new homes. If there are two adults in each home that equals 100,000 people. In addition there are children that could equal a further 100,000 and then the number of additional cars on our roads, two per family that equals another 100,000.
So, 100,000 adults, 100,000 children and 100,000+ cars, all of which have to share existing schools, hospitals and roads.
It is not just the airport that will destroy the area but the effect caused by the airport's existence.
Many people say that it is not near them so it doesn't matter, but the figures above show that it will affect them; and the town of Nuneaton, with all the people and cars, could not accomodate the numbers above.
C Berry
Nuneaton
NO MORE AIRPORTS please or if and when they are necessary out in the sea like other crowded islands. This is one of the most crowded countries in the world, no room for more concrete or asphalt!
And it was said (by so called Right to Fly), if we don't that will cost 拢100 more per flight - about time that is a small price to pay. It is UNSUTAINABLE for flyign to increase at thre rate predicted.
J Gray
Bedworth
| 
