Morning:
11°c
Replacing Heathrow with an airport in the Thames Estuary, as the Mayor proposed yesterday, would not only rid us of an international laughing-stock. It would not only end decades of reinforcing failure. It could also be the biggest single step anyone could take to tackle London's poverty and redistribute its wealth.
In this capital, we never stop telling ourselves how wonderfully diverse we are. In other ways, we are not. London consists of two cities: the poor, largely in the east; and the unpoor, far more often in the west.
West London is socially mixed, the great melting-pot of liberal self-congratulation. East London, a few pockets aside, is a mono-class enclave with a significant BNP vote. Two east London boroughs have lower levels of employment and greater welfare dependency than the most deprived areas of the Tyne, Mersey or Clyde. Moving the airport would do more to shift the city's centre of gravity eastwards than anything else.
It would, in time, pull in many of the high-tech, international-economy companies clustered round Heathrow and the overheated Thames Valley (this plan clearly marks Boris's final break with Henley.) It would create hundreds of thousands of well-paid jobs east of London; many of those workers would move east. It would re-ignite the moribund Thames Gateway housing development at a stroke, and make the Olympics look the economic irrelevance that it is.
Opponents call Boris Island “impractical.” What, and Heathrow isn't? With a high-speed rail link, Johnson International would be reachable from the City in about the same time as Heathrow is now, and with much less chance of a flight delay once you get there. Yes, fewer people could drive to the airport but surely that's a good thing?
Borisport might even be big enough to take the flights now handled by Gatwick, too. That would create a monster hub, making London the unchallengeable centre of world air transport and helping preserve our threatened status as global financial capital.
But the Johnson dream would be enormously expensive. Presumably to contain the cost, Boris has gone for an airport south of the Thames, which would need only a branch from an existing high-speed line. An airport on the northern bank — east of Southend, say — would cost more to serve but would do much more for the East End, and distance the jets from North Kent coastal towns.
In London, there would be losers as well as winners. Richmond and Putney would get quieter. But even if flights could come in over the North Sea, outgoing flights would have to leave in the opposite direction, over land, or the Thames estuary. And some flights come from places to the west. They would have to fly over more of London than they do now, perhaps disturbing vast new areas.
Yet the real obstacle may not be this, or money (a third runway at Heathrow would also cost billions.) It's the fact that this idea demands adjustments in previous thinking. It is against all the traditions of British government. It's also the fact that Boris doesn't own Heathrow, or the Isle of Sheppey, and has no control whatever over either place. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear Boris Island may never fly.
Reader views (13)
Boris is bonkers if he realistically beleives that you can build an airport in the Thames. To start off with we need only look back to the crash in the Hudson in February when a flock of Canadian geese caused a plane to crash shortly after take-off. in the Thames the bird life includes cranes and swans which would do considerably meore damage.
Add to that the site is neibouring the Kentish flats wind farm which would effectivly disrupt the radar and modern bad weather landing systems as well as potentially providing a considerable obsticle to landing aircraft.
Not forgetting the disruption to the shipping lanes into and out of one of the UK's major ports; causing noise blite to the South Essex and North Kent coast, therefore killing off the areas tourist industry; the lack of housing and inferstructure to provide for the needs of the staff to man such an airport and the devistation that would be caused to the West London economy with the closure of Heathrow.
Then we have the technical issue of building an airport in an area suseptable to storm surges predicted to reach over 8 metres high and the surface conectivity to move the volume of passengers that will be using the airport if it is built.
To move the current levels of passengers using Heathrow by high speed rail alone would require an average of one high speed train every 3 minutes. Remember Heathrow hasjust two runways operating 20 hours a day. this airport is designed to work 24/7 with up to six runways.
- Colin,, Chelmsford, Essex
Boris is merely replacing Heathrow as an international laughing-stock...
- Steve, London
i like the views of peter from tadworth
- R Elphick, north devon
Picking up on David from Teddington's point of an airport "easily accessible from a wide catchments area", I'd suggest that this is not a description of a transport hub on the Eastern side of London, which is patently not easily accessible for the majority of the UK. There is already a fast rail link from Heathrow, it goes to Paddington. Also, in addition to the 70,000 or so directly employed by Heathrow there is the entire associated infrastructure already in situ to the West of London. So we can assume that the disruptive costs of Boris' plan will be greater than the £50bn suggested. Andrew G is making a number of assumptions about the capability of a region susceptible to possible future flooding to accommodate all these extra people, facilities and infrastructure - and whilst it may make good copy it really cannot be seen as a credible solution. The solution is to make Heathrow work – and this requires a political will and the level of investment that (as I noted earlier) has been lacking for years. On the basis that you reap what you sow, that Heathrow is in Andrew’s words an international laughing-stock, reflects on a long term lack of political will and serious investment.
- Peter, Peter, Tadworth, Surrey
I'd say carry on and expand Heathrow - but by adding extra rail links rather than a new runway. Have a Eurostar station as well as Crossrail. Create direct links to Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow and Edinburgh as well as Bristol and Cardiff. This will still cause disruption to the surrounding area, but might be more bearable than constant flights. Link air traffic more closely with the rest of the (public) transport system. It could work - if the aero industry loosens its apparent death-grip on the government ...
- Katie, London, UK
Of course London needs a major, efficient 24 hour airport, easily accessible from a wide catchment area,and with growth potential (if we find the century needs more airport capacity). That airport is not Heathrow. It could have been the wonderfully named Foulness in the Thames estuary (off Southend) if Government had been brave enough to push that through in th 1960's. It could equally be built off Sheppey now. It's proven technology - both Hong Kong and Tokeo have sucessfully moved their major airports to new man-made island sites in the last 20 years(and British taxpayers paid for Hong Kong's).Don't compound the errors of the 1960's. The under-used high speed rail line already exists (at UK taxpayers expense), easily linked into Crossrail if wanted. Go for it Boris and lobby for a decision that offers a real strategic bonus for both business and the enviroment - for the whole of London and the south-east for generations to come. David taylor
- David Taylor, teddington
Heathrow - designed for 45m passengers, now taking in 70m a year - hence the need for a new runway. Look at the significant investment in Heathrow since Ferrovial took over; and their plans for more investment. Heathrow’s problems are historically a lack of investment and a lack of political will – typically British failings. As I understand it the plan is for an airport in the East and a new business park in the West; why not vice versa? So the East still gets a slew of new investment. Heathrow works; but definitely can be improved. But please don't try and convince us that a new facility in Kent is the answer to all our problems. Boris / Andrew, you may think us naive, but we're not stupid.
- Peter, Tadworth, Surrey
Why not use Manston?
- Frank, BONCATH, WALES
As an ex-Londoner expatriot I feel this is well worth consideration: I feel exasperated that some deem this a politically motivated stunt based on tit for tat thinking. Cost appear excessively high, no doubt due to numerous "consultants" commanding huge fees, inquiries which enrich the lawyers, never mind the accountants. Our predecessors who engineered the Industrial Revolution had ambition with the skill to match, yet today we don't. Too many interest groups bogging down the system - no wonder it will cost 50 billion. No, I say someone needs to take control of this situation, be brave and create something of quality that will become an emblematic of Britain. If Heathrow has had its day then so be it.
- Michael, Budapest, Hungary
Gilligan,
This is fantasy stuff, why on earth engage such a ridiculous idea. Damage limitation? The Johnson idea is arrogant, unsustainable and frankly ridiculous. Only someone with a PR agenda for Johnson would refrain from ripping it to shreds.
- Chaz, London
In reality Hackney's house prices are growing (yes still growing!) more than almost anywhere in the country as it rockets through gentrification, and there is a gastro pub on every corner.
Even Walthamstow and Tottenham have art galleries and fancy restaurants if you know where to look!
- Dan, East London
yes i agree with gilliagan its all kens fault
- Mat, london
Tut Tut - Boris is upsetting the voters in marginal Kent seats!
- Martin, Scotland
