LOX · London Oxford Airport Study

Preface: In the Salon de Refusé

Has the White Paper on Air Transport advanced the "Best Practicable Environmental Option" for airport expansion?

LOX (London Oxford Aiport) is a proposal for a new 4 runway airport in the Vale of the White Horse, Oxfordshire. It was put forward in the recent Public Consultation as the 'Best Practicable Environmental Option' solution to the impending crisis in airport capacity in the South East Region of the United Kingdom.

The Future of Air Transport

Extract from the White Paper: The Future of Air Transport, December 2003 [note 1]

Chapter 11: South East Region: Alternative proposals

11.115 So far as the London Oxford proposal is concerned, it is accepted that the location of the airport in relation to centres of demand would mean that it could be well used without the need for market intervention by the Government. Nevertheless, the promoters accept that such a project could not be financed conventionally by the private sector. However, the net economic benefits of the airport with four runways by 2030 are estimated to be no greater than for a two-runway strategy at Stansted and Heathrow. There would be a need for substantial new investment in road and rail access, and there were significant doubts about the feasibility and capacity of the promoters' proposals in this regard. The proposal would require a very large landtake, including the loss of 23 Grade II listed buildings; and capacity might be constrained by the high chimney of Didcot power station.

11.116 In the light of these particular concerns, the evidence currently available to the Government, and all other relevant factors, the Government does not consider that any of the above proposals can be considered to offer a solution that is both superior to the preferred options for development of existing major airports, as previously described, and clearly viable within the timescale concerned.

"The Future of Air Transport": A critique

This is an initial response, a fuller analysis of the White Paper will be posted here in the next few days. In addition to substantive criticism, this will consider:

• Why was Cliffe selected in the SERAS review when it is so evidently defective?
• Why was LOX not selected in the SERAS review when – in the worst case – its sole 'defect' is with its funding? It should be borne in mind that this is a necessary characteristic which was shared by all non-BAA schemes - and every large international airport ever constructed de novo! On that basis no new airport sites should have be studed in the SERAS review - but then the Department for Transport would have been bereft of the essential diversions of fig-leaves and stalking horses...
• Why was LOX 'buried' and not put before the Select Committee for Transport?
• Does the Government covertly propose 5/6 runways for the South-East? Since the selected projects – a second runway at Stansted and a third at Heathrow – will provide for less than two-thirds of the forecast excess passenger demand by 2030, setting aside that demand may continue to grow after that date. Where are the ‘hidden’ projected runways to be? A suggestion: 2 additional runways at both Stansted and Gatwick.

11.115 So far as the London Oxford proposal is concerned, it is accepted that the location of the airport in relation to centres of demand would mean that it could be well used without the need for market intervention by the Government.

Nevertheless, the promoters accept that such a project could not be financed conventionally by the private sector.

However, the net economic benefits of the airport with four runways by 2030 are estimated to be no greater than for a two-runway strategy at Stansted and Heathrow.

There would be a need for substantial new investment in road and rail access, and there were significant doubts about the feasibility and capacity of the promoters' proposals in this regard.

The proposal would require a very large landtake, including the loss of 23 Grade II listed buildings

and capacity might be constrained by the high chimney of Didcot power station.

11.116 In the light of these particular concerns, the evidence currently available to the Government, and all other relevant factors, the Government does not consider that any of the above proposals can be considered to offer a solution that is both superior to the preferred options for development of existing major airports, as previously described, and clearly viable within the timescale concerned.

The LOX project team

Master Planning and airspace planning: Pleiade Associates.
Cost Planning and Project Management: Gardiner & Theobald.
Engineering, Transport, Economics & Planning, and Environment: see acknowledgement.

Acknowledgement

Ove Arup & Partners and Arup Economics & Planning contributed greatly to the engineering, transport, environmental impacts, economic and planning aspects of the LOX project from its inception through to mid 2000. Conflicting commercial interests emerged which led to their withdrawal from the Project Study Team: Arup are not presently associated with the project.