Ten years have passed since the Labour government launched its south east and east of England airports study, which the High Court initially ruled was unlawful – for excluding Gatwick – in a judicial review which I proposed.
The Thames Estuary Airport proposal, then described as being at ‘Cliffe’ (in the constituency which I now represent), was ruled out on both environment and economic grounds, but the Labour government recommended a second runway at Stansted in 2011-12, a third runway at Heathrow in 2015-20 and, eventually, a second runway at Gatwick in the mid-2020s.
None of those recommendations have been progressed under the coalition government, since they were ruled out by both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats at the 2010 election, while Labour’s always unrealistic projection of 400-600 million passenger movements in the UK by 2030 was further undermined by a weak economy.
That does not mean that we should never build any new runways in the south-east. That, as business leaders rightly argue, would be a ridiculous and highly economically damaging policy, albeit one potentially supported by the Liberal Democrats. The Conservative party was always set to review its policy for the next parliament, and government forecasts are still for 300-400 million passenger movements by 2030.
Proposals by the Mayor of London for ‘Boris Island’ or varying Thames Estuary options have rightly been derided as ‘pie in the sky’. The environmental arguments against are overwhelming, but the economics of such a new airport are also frankly incredible. The £50-80bn cost, even if paid initially by purported ‘private investors’, would add at least £50 to the price of every ticket. Why would airlines or anyone else want to pay that when existing airports could be expanded instead at a fraction of the cost?
It is now time for my party at least to engage seriously in a debate about which proposals are credible for future expansion of capacity, something which it appears even Boris Johnson is now willing to do with his suggestion of Stansted expansion supported by a Crossrail extension. I look forward to kicking off that debate with colleagues and the aviation minister in Parliament today.
Comments
Charles Norrie / July 12 2012 5:54am
TEA or Boris Island Airport is far too new Heathrow, London and well populated Kent and Essex.
There is only one location in SE England that meets the needs of remoteness, availability and size. It is to polderise the Goodwin Sands, which are marginally dry at a low Spring Tide. It will create a bund about 8 miles by 3 miles, 6 miles off the Kent Coast at Deal. That would provide enough space for two airports, one with runways aligned NE-SW and the other NW-SE, both take off and approach being carries out over the Channel, so there will be no noise problems. Flights to N America would turn back after take off and be very high before crossing the mainland.
Each airport would have four parallel runways with the terminal buildings located between each pair of runways.
Initially the airports would be connected by a branch of HS1 to London and via th Channel Tunnel to Europe, but ideally a dedicated underground maglev-vactrain line would be built, with top speeds of thousands of kph per hour, vastly out-pacing air flight. A large Europort would be based at the sound of the Goodwin sands which would replace all Thames Estuary port facilities and Rotterdam and Hamburg with fast rail connections via HS1/Channel Tunnel.
Two problems will immediately be pit forward - bird strike and explosive wrecks. These are certainly isssue but ones easily disposed of at the building stage. When dried out all wrecks would be located by air survey and made safe by explosion. Man of the wreck sites (some 2000) would provide year of easy marine archaeological research'
Bird strike is an issue but of if food is made available. There are no birds and the moment as the sands are under water most of the time, and if steps are taken to ensure there is no food resources, birds will not flock, and measures for deterring birds are well understood and have to been used at many coastal loactions. For example the sands could be covered with solar PV arrays (20 sq miles), which would provide no food for birds and make an effective contribution to the UK's power generation.
Big yes, Expensive, yes but it would solve London's Airport needs for 100 years or more and Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted could all be closed down,as well as Schipol and the Paris airports.