No flight of fancy...
18 JANUARY 2011
One of the most important decisions taken by the coalition government was to rule out a new runway at Heathrow – and they were right. It was a decision supported by millions of Londoners.
I am sitting at my desk in North London, at 6am, and already I can hear waves of planes descending on one of the busiest airports in the world.
With another runway, and another 200,000 ATMs, the noise and disruption would be spread across the city.
And yet we must recognise that this decision has considerable economic consequences. Over the next 20 years this country’s natural demand for air travel is set to expand from 240 to 460 million passengers per year.
We have no strategy for getting those people up in the air. Correction: we have no strategy for getting ANY of those extra flights.
Of course there are strong environmental objections to air travel, which currently causes 2.5 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. That is why it is right for the aviation industry to speed up development of cleaner 'Prius' planes, and that is why the government is right to focus on high-speed rail as a means of replacing short-haul flights.
But you cannot take a high-speed train to Beijing or Sao Paolo. High-speed rail can only abstract a maximum of 10 per cent of Heathrow’s current traffic; and if we continue with our zero-growth approach we will do serious long-term damage to the economy.
Twenty years ago Heathrow served more destinations than any other European airport. It has now slipped to seventh place, way behind Paris and Frankfurt.
UK business people are paying the price, losing access to the very markets – in the Far East and Latin America – that we will depend on for growth. London’s airports can collectively muster five flights a day to China – to Beijing and Shanghai.
Paris CDG already sends 11 flights a day to four destinations in China, and Frankfurt sends 10 flights to six destinations – and the figures for Latin America look even worse.
We are not only losing tens of thousands of jobs in the aviation sector to our more ambitious and more confident rivals. We are failing to give UK business the easy connections they need.
Heathrow is already running at 99 per cent capacity, and in spite of Terminal 5 the airport is perpetually struggling to fit a quart into a pint pot.
When 40 per cent of flights are delayed – compared to 25 per cent in Amsterdam, Paris or Frankfurt – it is no wonder the Heathrow experience can be so miserable.
We desperately need more runway capacity – indeed we could have another 85m passengers per year and still be within the government’s limits set for greenhouse emissions.
The UK market is so strong that we could easily support a two-hub solution on the lines of JFK/Newark or Munich/Frankfurt. But where?
No solution is easy. The government’s South East Airports Task Force is right to consider all the options. We should look at airports around London, where they may be room to grow; we should also look at high-speed links between Heathrow and provincial airports.
We should certainly look at the Thames estuary, where the environmental impacts will be lowest. People will object that we can’t afford big new projects, though they may underestimate the attractions of investing in this kind of infrastructure.
The real question, long term, is whether we can afford not to.
Comments
Building an Airport in the Thames Estuary is perfect.
Aircraft noise will be removed from London and the home-counties flight paths.
The risk of a serious air accident over central London is removed.
Local Aircraft noise at the new site will be massively reduced as take off and/or landing will be over River /Sea.
The Airport can be Properly planned and expanded in the future without problem.
Heathrow is very dated and not the showpiece it should be but an embarrassment of poor design, and compromise.
Heathrow should be raised to the Ground and a fabulous National Exhibition Centre and Trade Fair Centre put in its place.
The investment will be an enormous boost to the economy .
The Thames River bed should be utilised as a tunnel Road & Rail system to get straight in to London Very quickly, ending up at Heathrow - the new National Exhibition Centre for England
This way avoiding traffic jams and the buying and destroying of massive sections of London’s costly real estate.
Let’s start work now
2 March, 2012 19:25
Comment submitted by markscott
I am very disturbed to see this idea rearing its tired head again. Aside from all the environmental arguments, which I think are just a pertinent mid-"crisis" as before, I would really recommend that someone takes a look at what has happened to the many empty and useless "white elephant" airports constructed in Spain before accepting empty promises regarding the long-term prospects of those living in the South East.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/8807723/Spains-white-elephants-how-countrys-airports-lie-empty.html
Want a good way of needlessly pouring tax revenue into the pockets of large construction companies? Look no further.
18 January, 2012 15:13
Comment submitted by J Grellier (not verified)
"But you cannot take a high-speed train to Beijing or Sao Paolo."
Oh Boris, what lack of imagination. What 20th century thinking.
In future, intercontinental travel will be via a network of maglev trains in vacuum tunnels. It will be faster, greener, cheaper to run, and potentially safer than flying. China is already developing the technology. We should be taking a lead in driving this forward. Otherwise we’ll be left behind – literally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain
http://www.maglev.net/news/vacuum-maglev-test-train-breaks-speed-record/
www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-04/trans-atlantic-maglev
18 January, 2012 11:34
Comment submitted by Thomas Lion (not verified)
Can you please tell me what you are going to do about the new Euro4 ruling that is coming into force in 2012,as a transport company we have found that this is going to create a lot of problems for us.We have got to look at buying new vehicles which are £95,000 plus,as a small company this is going to put us and lots more small companies out of business.How can this be good for the economy when there are going to be more people unemployed.As it is hgv drivers have to pay out on tickets in london because we can not deliver goods to shops that are on or near a bus lane without getting a ticket,we even get tickets when there is a loading/unloading time zone.Where is the right in that.The transport industry is already on its knees with the fuel prices.This could be the final nail in the coffin for the transport industry in this country.
16 February, 2011 20:16
Comment submitted by Anonymous (not verified)
I have worked in the Airport business for 30 years from T4 through to T5 and beyond. The business issues of airports are very complex and fragile in some cases. The case for a new airport in the Thames estuary does not hold water and never will do. It cannot be delivered until 2025 at the earliest. So what do we do in the interval? No airline will sign up to that. The plans I have seen of the new proposal are not workable. This is a pie in sky scheme dreamt up by the Mayor to stir up the political mire. These schemes were not practical 40 years ago and they are even less practical now. All those years ago the government could have forced airlines like BA to move to a new airport. That is no longer the case. An airport in the estuary would be the biggest white elephant know to man. Fog, future sea levels are just a few of the issues let alone £50bn initial cost and not least where is the workforce of 70,000 coming from? Forget what the Mayor is up to, it is very easy for him to talk about something that will never happen in our liftime. The truth is we need addtitional capacity in the SE within the next 7 to 10 years. I suggest he wakes up to the real world of the need for a 3rd runway at Heathrow.
20 January, 2011 00:32
Comment submitted by Ian Booker (not verified)
As an Part Time inhabitant of Sittingbourne, (and worker in London,) on the brink of your isle of Sheppey plan for the Island airport I can see both positives and negatives. It is true that areas such as Leysdown and Sheerness are blighted with some of the most deprived areas in the UK. High unemployment ( over 23%) and drug and crime issues. An airport would change this forever. also its quite close to St Pancras, and the majority of the loud noise would be over the sea. However there are other concerns which i feel will not be possible to address. This exact area is designated as a area of bio diversity and extremely important to wading birds etc. it also , even in summer, gets very foggy, and in winter very windy. And in case you hadn't noticed, the sea scape is home to one of Europes biggest off shore wind farms. ( is this ideal next to an airport?) A better option would be, as I am sure you have thought of, the current site at Manston. already the UKs longest runway, it could be connected to a super high speed 200mph rail journey into St. Pancras, and having flown out of there i can tell you that no sooner do you take off than you are out at sea. it is up higher than sea level so avoids the worst of the sea mist, and is also near an area of low unemployment.
It makes more sense. there is the little matter as well , that you are the mayor of London, not Kent! When its Prime Minister Boris, then we might be talking!
19 January, 2011 16:16
Comment submitted by cyberbell
Why not get a friendly airline approaching Heathrow to get 6 aircraft to do simulated approaches to the proposed airport and abort at 500 feet then simulate takeoff and land normally at Heathrow. Space decibel meters on the shorelines and cameras to watch the birds. Don't tell anyone beforehand,especially the birds. I bet no one will notice!
19 January, 2011 13:06
Comment submitted by David Parkin (not verified)
REF: Boris Johnson - and new airport !
I suggest to Boris, to put the money into giving the commuters into London, an acceptable journey in. ie the train service from out of London areas, should be fast, uptodate, a seat for all the communters who are paying approx £5,000 a year fare and on time.
OUr commuters are enduring a third world service. Surely it is the responsibility of the Goverment, to get the London ( after all the capital of our country) workers into their place of work as soon as possible, and as comfortably as possible.
This should be a priority, not another airport
Angela Chinnery
18 January, 2011 20:16
Comment submitted by Angela Chinnery (not verified)
I totally agree with Boris Johnson, on his arguments for an Estuary Airport, this was an idea born in the 60's as Foulness Airport. It has been delayed far to long, and unless it goes ahead we will continue our "Industrial nosedive" as a Country of World leadership. This is a National Coalition decision, and needs to be fast forwarded.
18 January, 2011 19:22
Comment submitted by Peter Leason of Ipswich Suffolk (not verified)
Regarding the search for a new airport location.
Mr BORIS JOHNSON
You should seriously look at cranfield airport in Bedfordshire. It already has the infrastructure and is very close to the M1 and mainline train services. Also , it is in the commuter belt to london. You already have enough london airports in your crowded locality. This would serve a larger part of the U.K. community not just people in London. Filling a need not only for london and southeast but for the growing new City of Milton Keynes which is continually expanding and attracting new business . This would definitely be the way forward and should be looked into seriously.
18 January, 2011 19:03
Comment submitted by lawton01