BRISTOL FILTON ‘The Option 21, TheFiltonoption was touse part ofthe wid of theexisting runway andtoextenditby 300m to the west to give a runway of 2700m in length. This would allow operations by aera upto Bocing 767/A300 size, Further extension isnot possible Surface Access 22, Like Lulsgate, Filton is closeto the MS. Access to Filton s however beter, as itis located near the MA/MS Junction and construction ofa possible access from Junction 17 of the MS is tire partially completed, Filton salso close tothe MS, butit wouldbe difficultodevise access ‘which would avoid the MA/MS intersection. Filton has no ral ink at present, bu feight-only Tine close to the aisfel, fnks to the nearby Londor-South Wales line, on which there is spare capacity: and so a direct nk woald be feasible, A shute bus could also connect with the hously fast services from Bristol Parkway, Filion was therefore considered significantly more accessible than Lalsgate ‘Trafic Forecasts 23. Weprodced rac forecast for Filton assuming curent constants the base cas) an forthe ‘option. But we thought hat Iifing the runway length consis inthis Way gaves perhaps genercus ‘estimate of possible throughput. And we had dou about the considerable proparin of long-haul trafic projected by the made. The ton opion assumes that Lulsgate (which could be viewed aan slkemative} would be closed down, The addtional throughputs shown below pp 2000 201020152020 auditional : 49 94 126 ‘hroughput ‘We conclude that Filton’ characteristics were very similar to Lulsgate otha, inthe same way, ‘twas unlikely to make substanal contribution to meeting South East demand, 24. On noize grounds, Lulsgate is preferable 1 Filton, as Filton i situated in a much more developed area than Lulsgate Filton is particulary at risk from ground noise, due to the large ‘population living widin I mile ofthe airport boundary. LYDD and MANSTON 25, ‘These two sites, which are relatively closely situated, andro some extent substitutes, are ‘diseased together, The same demandissuesffectedbothsites and were ke tour considerations. ‘The Options 26, Theexisting runway a Lid is 1500m lng and the airport currently avait permission 10 fextend ito 1800n. The indicative plan for RUCATSE was for a runway 2100m long, with provision for futher extension to 2400. ‘The relation tothe nearby power sation, a Site of ‘Special Scientific interest and nearby active fring ranges would need to be reviewed. 27. The indicative plan for Mansion envisages extension ofthe runway by 480m to 3182m. Expansion to 8-10 mppa would requir land take of some 30 acres. 182 n UW ddd eddie names Rrmamem me TILT. I I ! i I i i 1 I i I | | | i i | | i i | ea ‘Surface Access 28. Manston i 19 mies from the end of the M2, via low capacity roads through some built up ‘areas. But the A 299 from the end ofthe M2 to Thanet is progeamined to be improved to dual 2 laneby 1996, Although the Westem secon ofthe M2/A2 suffers congestion, there is suficiet apacity to handle extra traffic to the M25. The M25 selfs not seriously congested immediately tothe south othe north ofthe M2 Junction, Lyddalkohasthe advantage of facing the more lightly used sections ofthe M25, but sccess would be via the M20, which would be carrying Channel ‘Tune traffic. Furthermoce Lyd is 20 miles from the M20, via very limited eapacty roads. [either aiport tas direct rail inks, bu both ae close to existing lines. Direct services to new stations would link to King’s Cross va the proposed New Kent mainline taking 45-S0 minutes, Using existing services, with an additonal stop, would tke 90-100 minutes io reach London 29. Weteltthat this poo accessibility would notmake these sites very altractve, However, we ‘ecognised that passengers that did use th sites would almost certainly be from the South East (anlikethe other four more remote sites) andthat beter rail and oad links might inerease demand for hem: We hrefore poised ne frecass whch asumed a direct Ink via the Chl Demand Forecasts. 30. Airspace constraints on movements at Lydd and Manston indicate that their combined ‘maximum passenger throughput would be around 15 mppa in 2013, ising to 25 mppa ater that ‘de. We therefore produced forecasts, aking account ofthese factors and assuming travel times sssosated withthe improvements in surface access. However we flt that the proximity ofthese tirports to the Channel Tunael might well affect demand for short heul route: we assumed “diversion rates of 809 on the Pars and Brussels routes and 50% on the Amsterdam roste. Our traffic forecasts were therefore: 31. _ There isa view thatthe figures inthe table above overstate the passenger traffic that woul ie achieved in practice In response fo constrains at the London sirpots airlines might opt (0 expand operations at non-Sooth Fast repional arpons rather than develop services at Lydd of “Mansion. Assuming the provision of additonal capacity at regional aispors, we forecast Significant reductions in these figures. Lydd is proferable to Manston on noise grounds, and Appeared tobe thebestof al the smaller options in noise terms, Year ‘se Case Enhanced Case Increment Theghput tyat Manon | tye Macwor | Lydd Mansion ms [a3 42 asa] amo | ss as os sa | 30s ams | 02 ee ae 32. This work indicates that incremental throughput at Lydd or Manston only becomes ‘significant around 2025, despite the fact that capacity at the London airports would be exhausted bby 2015. Development of either of the Kent aispors before 2020 would atact almost no additonal passengers, even with substantial improvements to surface access, This indicates that ‘eefits to uses rom these options would be ver low. We therefore conclided that Lyd and ‘Mansion should not be subject to detailed assessment, but shouldbe remitted to the Regional Airports Subgroup. The base case forecasts showed that the airports had significant penta as ‘epional airports Catering fr local demand. 153