Morning:
3°c
Engineer backs Boris Johnson's plan for an Estuary airport
Pippa Crerar26 Jan 2009
The senior engineer behind Hong Kong's island airport claims Boris Johnson's plan for a Thames Estuary airport would be easy to deliver.
Douglas Oakervee, who is carrying out a feasibility study for the Mayor, said it was “quite clear” it would be “relatively straightforward” to build a new airport. After visiting the site with Mr Johnson, he said he was “encouraged” that the project — which has been dubbed “fantasy island” by critics — was possible.
But the Mayor still faces major obstacles to his plan, which has been disowned by his own party, including local opposition, criticism from green groups and the problem of raising up to
£40 billion from the private sector.
Mr Johnson has appeared determined to press on regardless, commissioning the feasibility study, which is due at the end of March.
City Hall sources claimed they have already been approached by Chinese investors to find out about putting money into the project. The airport, an alternative to Heathrow expansion, would have terminals on the Kent and Essex coasts to keep the reclamation area as small as possible, and would be serviced by a high-speed rail link.
Click on the image below to see a larger version
Mr Oakervee, who is also running the Crossrail project, told LBC radio: “From what we've found in the investigation so far this site would actually be easier from an engineering perspective than other airports such as Hong Kong. The ground conditions are much better.” He added: “We have learned that there is a remote site where an airport could be built with minimal disruption to people of Essex and Kent. There are technical issues to be addressed but I see no overwhelming obstacle..”
Labour MP Nick Raynsford, chairman of the cross-party parliamentary group on the proposal, said: “This will give the prospect of meeting airport capacity for south-east England in the most environmentally responsible way.”
Mr Johnson, who has led opposition to the third runway at Heathrow, said: “A new airport in the Thames Estuary has got to be factored in as an option for London's long-term aviation needs.”
He said that the large numbers of birds inhabiting the area would not be at risk from aircraft, and he added that the impact on local people would be “virtually non existent” — as the site was offshore so they would only hear a “dim noise from planes taking off”. But he is certain to attract criticism for claiming the project would be “absolutely fantastic” from an environmental perspective. Aviation is among Britain's biggest polluters.
Former mayor Ken Livingstone dismissed the proposal as “mad” and a contradiction of Mr Johnson's pledge to tackle climate change in the capital.
He said: “Suppose he got the money to do the Thames Estuary airport, and suppose the birds obligingly flew somewhere else, you can get an airport which can be extended forever.”
Green Assembly member Jenny Jones added: “This is one of the top five internationally important sites for birds in the UK. Their presence would pose a serious risk of bird strike, a threat that would be impossible to avert.
“Boris is constantly putting blind optimism ahead of the facts. He seems to think that just because he says there is no problem, it must be so.”
Reader views (54)
Having previously supported the concept of a Thames estuary airport, in principle, I have now come to reaize the force of the arguments against this apparently logical proposal.
It is, in fact, fatally flawed, for three main reasons :
1. Operational safety. With 200-300 000 migratory birds in the estuarine area, the risk of fatal birdstrikes is
exacerbated to an unacceptable degree. (I have actually been a passenger, in a heavily laden Boeing 747, hit by a stork, in the outboard engine. This resulted in an emergency landing and a narrow escape from disater).
2. Due to global warming and the increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms, and rising sea levels, as well as melting Greenland and polar ice, the risk of a major North Sea surge and a Thames flood, reaching 30 feet (9 metres), a Thames estuary airport would be always in danger of inundation.
3. The tidal flow of the Thames would be seriously affected by two artificial islands in the river, acting as runways; and a much-needed major new Thames barrier across the estuary could seriously compromise aircraft operational safety.
Lastly, the onerous financial implications and long term needed for implementation, would also be adverse factors.
A third runway at Heathrow is no solution either. As many LHR flights are to Manchester or Paris, such regional flights could be dispersed to other airports, so relieving the pressure on LHR.
Crossrail ensures the continued life of LHR.
2.
- Peter Hancock, Maseru, Lesotho, 04/02/2009 14:30
Report abuse
Having previously supported the concept of a Thames estuary airport, in principle, I have now come to reaize the force of the arguments against this apparently logical proposal.
It is, in fact, fatally flawed, for three main reasons :
1. Operational safety. With 200-300 000 migratory birds in the estuarine area, the risk of fatal birdstrikes is
exacerbated to an unacceptable degree. (I have actually been a passenger, in a heavily laden Boeing 747, hit by a stork, in the outboard engine. This resulted in an emergency landing and a narrow escape from disater).
2. Due to global warming and the increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms, and rising sea levels, as well as melting Greenland and polar ice, the risk of a major North Sea surge and a Thames flood, reaching 30 feet (9 metres), a Thames estuary airport would be always in danger of inundation.
3. The tidal flow of the Thames would be seriously affected by two artificial islands in the river, acting as runways; and a much-needed major new Thames barrier across the estuary could seriously compromise aircraft operational safety.
Lastly, the onerous financial implications and long term needed for implementation, would also be adverse factors.
A third runway at Heathrow is no solution either. As many LHR flights are to Manchester or Paris, such regional flights could be dispersed to other airports, so relieving the pressure on LHR.
Crossrail ensures the continued life of LHR.
2.
- Peter Hancock, Maseru, Lesotho, 04/02/2009 14:30
Report abuse
There is the kind of vision that our Victorian grandfathers had that put the "great: in Great Britain. Go for it Boris. Take a note Dave that this is the sort of bold, revolutionary thinking which will put GB back on the map and which poor old, back in the fifties, Brown and his party do not have.
- Albert Hall, hove england, 28/01/2009 16:13
Report abuse
Half the commentators seem to support a new airport because Heathrow has insufficient security staff and too many shops in the departure lounge.
I've got a shocking revolutionary idea:
How about we remove some of the retail space from the departure lounges, making them bigger and more airy, and employ more security staff? It seems pretty daft to spend £70 BILLION to build a new airport because the existing one is run badly - you could make huge improvements to Heathrow with a couple of hundred million.
Aside from anything else, Terminal 5 was supposed to be big and airy, then BAA came along and filled it with shops. What's to say the same thing won't happen at the Borisport, regardless of which company runs it?
- Mark Lee, Vauxhall, 27/01/2009 14:15
Report abuse
I like the concept including the new technology to offset the energy consumption. Certainly connecting to the channel tunnel rail will further reduce the congestion around the airport. The rail links to the East of England will help also.
I share others concerns that the birds would be affected, so would like to see an environmental impact assessment.
Projects like this are like planes, they are most vulnerable at at the time of take-off. Does Boris have the skill to make this project take off, lets hope so. from the response from the public I think he's onto a winner. He may even have redeemed himself with people like me who wondered if Londoner's would be better or worse off with this new Mayor.
It just makes you ask why nobody proposed this before!
I'd rather see money spent on this project than bailing out the banks and seeing nothing in return for our taxes.
- Damien Vaugh, Greenwich, London, 27/01/2009 10:23
Report abuse
Theres been at least 164 fatalities due to air strikes, and it costs the airline industry over $1bn dollars a year, so no it's not a new thing that suddenly appear at the hudson crash.
- Tommy, London, 27/01/2009 03:01
Report abuse
Seems like we are getting a proper airport, finally!
- Peteo, Islington, London, 26/01/2009 21:38
Report abuse
Just as we have sen last week in New York - it is safer to be away from the centre of town and buildings. Water is always soft to land on...
- Jackie, Hampstead, London, 26/01/2009 21:13
Report abuse
It`s a great idea. Most of the world`s countrys already use this runway technology. It is proven, cheap and very safe. All the project needs a couple of railway lines, or a mono-rail, to get passengers in and out.
I think we should build it. British industry needs the work.
- Kim Adams, Staines. UK, 26/01/2009 19:06
Report abuse
People should do their homework. The lakes south of Heathrow are a major site for migratory birds. There are 10,000 Canada Geese alone wintering there right now who fly right past Heathrow daily on their way to feed just north of the airport.
There is a high risk at both sites, but at Heathrow, due to the urbanisation of the area, a powerless plane will probably crash into someone's house rather than land on water - as happened in New York.
- Rich, London, 26/01/2009 19:02
Report abuse
I think that it's a brilliant idea but when I have previously suggested Manston many times but recently other existing airfielda have been suggested and I should like all to be subject to a feasability study.
- Frank, BONCATH WALES, 26/01/2009 18:52
Report abuse
You cannot continue to tack on more shopping centres to the Heathrow runways. Heathrow is sad and should be closed. It also clearly is in the wrong place.
- Jonathan, London NW1, 26/01/2009 18:36
Report abuse
Sounds good plan. Anyhow, everything is better than that rubbish Heathrow äirport".
- Georgie, Islington, London, 26/01/2009 18:18
Report abuse
hang on, how can this be called a "london" airport? has anyone ever tried to commute from this forsaken part of the country into London? It's a nightmare.
If mad Boris wants to have a "London" airport as far away as this, why not Manston in Kent. It's just as far away, but has good links. The benefit is it already exists. it has one of the longest runways in the UK and about 1 passanger flight a week. There is so much derelict land surrounding it, one could build any amount of terminals and maintenance facilities. perhaps Boris can live there, then we Londoners don't have to put up with the loonytune.
- Kerry, Purley, 26/01/2009 17:44
Report abuse
It's a bold and exciting idea and I hope it's at least given proper consideration. Projects like this are what we need in a recession.
Colin, the money for the airport would come from Central Government and private investors. The money for the DLR extension would have come from TfL funds, ie: mainly from fares. Boris was criticised for putting fares up and criticised for scrapping projects that would have required putting them up more - not really fair!
- Kevin T, Beckenham, 26/01/2009 17:43
Report abuse
This is not just about capacity at ground and sea level. How congested is the airspace above, in and around these areas?
- Peter Seekings-Foster, Mildenhall, Suffolk., 26/01/2009 17:20
Report abuse
Please excuse my ignorance but it was my understanding that the Thames Estuary is bordered by Essex and Kent. If that is the case, and I believe it is, then what on earth is the Mayor of London doing sticking his grubby nose in areas beyond his domain? He knows this ridiculous scheme will probably never get the go ahead and is only pursuing this to gain brownie points from the Londoners currently blighted by aeroplane generated pollution. I think South Essex and North Kent are way over-developed already and it's about time somewhere else 'benefited' from the second-rate and greed-driven type of regeneration that we have had to endure for the past 20 years.
- Penny Ward, Bexleyheath, England, 26/01/2009 16:59
Report abuse
No money for a vital upgrade to Dagenham Dock for the DLR,yet spend away on this flying pig of an idea.Sums Boris up.
- Colin, barking essex, 26/01/2009 16:55
Report abuse
There were plans for a super airport at Foulness Essex in the late 60,s. It was then govrnment owned land used as a fireing range and would have disturbed no one. Why not revamp this one.
- Roger Turner, Algarve Portugal, 26/01/2009 16:50
Report abuse
An excellent idea that will never see the light of day - we don't do sensible things in the UK any longer.
- Morvan, Saulieu, France, 26/01/2009 16:08
Report abuse
What about expandingManston airport? Fits the bill on all counts
- Dave Williams, london UK, 26/01/2009 16:03
Report abuse
Surely an airport near an estuary which has flocks and flocks of birds there all the time, just encourages things like the New York bird strike flight? How can this be safe?
- Louise, Essex, 26/01/2009 15:50
Report abuse
It would be great to have a good new airport in London and would help the economy big time!
- Peteo, Primrose Hill, London, 26/01/2009 15:47
Report abuse
I applaud bold ideas, and new thinking is required. I wonder about the enviornmental impact - and what about flooding?
- Phil, Washington, D.C., USA, 26/01/2009 15:44
Report abuse
I and the real majority of the people of London are against the continued Heathrow place. It is a disgrace on our country to get through those terminals! I would like a modern airport!! Good on the Mayor to start the process already and not to wait.
- Johnny, London NW1, 26/01/2009 15:40
Report abuse
Awesome idea, Boris. About time the loony left who haven't spent a penny on infrastructure for twelve years, had a major project forced upon them. Coupled with the high speed rail links we will finally have a tory generated, infrastructure related, recovery program.
Go for it.
- Robin, London, 26/01/2009 15:26
Report abuse
The existing facilities at Heathrow continue to consume massive resources and and yet the service you get is no better , sometimes worse each year. The congestion getting to Heathrow is horrendous for much of the week.Congestion at the terminals is also bad. The new terminal 5 has so much retailing space you can hardly find a seat unless you consume coffee/snacks or have a BA Exec silver/gold club card. Slow security processing means more delays even though they spent a fortune on the place. Start afresh and build for the future with plenty of expansion capability, good rail and road links. We seem to care more about birds than we do humans . The people who live in W London and Hounslow, Slough, Windsor and beyond get noise, pollution and congestion. Move this to the Thames estuary and it will massively reduce the environmental impact on humans. The energy requirements will be met from tidal flow and the growth in the Thamesside towns will provide new housing for the many people who will be employed at the airport. There will still be plenty of space for bird life further down the estuary. Once Heathrow is closed maybe some of the land might be returned to a natural area of heathland again,providing a habitat for birds and wildlife . Having been an international traveller for 25 years much of it through Heathrow, I think it is time to match and exceed the designs and capabilities of all other airports in the world to give us the ultimate competitive edge.
- Geoffrey, London, 26/01/2009 15:17
Report abuse
I don't care if it's built in the middle of the Thames or the middle of Hounslow, just don't let BAA run it! It will just turn into another Bluewater with runways, which is what Heathrow and Gatwick are now.
- Nobby Clark, Perth, Scotland, 26/01/2009 15:14
Report abuse
What about the people who don't live in the South East and would then have to travel another 50 miles to get to the airport, any pollution there and you can imagine how the rest of the country will feel about this selfish plan.
This is a pipe dream/nightmare, stop wasting time and money Boris and concentrate on retaining business and increasing trade.
- Jim, London, 26/01/2009 15:06
Report abuse
Boris criticised everything Ken did when he was mayor, now he's in power he's ignoring the REAL issues: kids getting stabbed, transport rotting away, jobs disappearing. Instead he's spending taxpayers money (at least £100,000 on feasability studies for this airport. Boris must forget this pie in the sky rubbish and solve some of london's problems.
- Elliot Franks, Muswell Hill, 26/01/2009 15:05
Report abuse
If Boris says that people will only hear a dim noise from planes taking off, then this must also be true for people in London who are a similar distance from Heathrow. Also, it is simply not correct to say that aviation is among Britain's biggest polluters. Carbon emissions from aviation accout for about 6% of the UK total, much less than power generation, industry, residential and other transport emissions.
- Paul, Bucks, UK, 26/01/2009 14:38
Report abuse
This is even more stupid than I thought it was - two terminals, two runway islands, miles of undersea tunnels down which everything has to travel (workers, bags, passengers, fuel, food, drink...) with no obvious technological solution off the shelf, let alone in eight years. Hijacking the Southend Victoria rail line, blithely reworking Crossrail to include an extension before it's built - this is not the product of serious engineers but inexperienced politicians with big egos.
Also, those people saying 'great idea Boris' - you haven't bothered to look at it. For instance, 'St', it's miles *downstream* of Tilbury, so of course ships are going to go past it! Use some common sense, please.
- Tom, London, UK, 26/01/2009 14:34
Report abuse
Kiwi Expat - you've obviously never flown into the US then!
I do agree though, with the exception of T5, most of Heathrow is an embarrasment.
- Rick, London, UK, 26/01/2009 14:27
Report abuse
I hope this one can get decided by the concerned people of London. I hope that Crash Gordon's politburo not going to push through against the majority of citizens the Heathrow joke! Good on Boris to do the smart thing. We need a new airport!!
- Phil, Islington, London, 26/01/2009 14:15
Report abuse
I think this is an excellent idea, self sufficent in power, how cool is that!. You will always get opposition in whatever you do. However this is by far the best alternative. I will complete the airport axis, Heathrow in the west, Stanstead, City Airport in the east along with the Thames Esturary, Gatwick in the South and Luton in the North. It must be rembered that the top two flights from Heathrow are Manchester and Paris. Perhaps assinging and optimising destinations from London Airports may give us better flexibility. Encouraging rail travel such as the Thames Estruary proposal has got to be a better alternative , provding th UK with much needed infrastructure and chance for us to re-demonstrate our excellent engineering skills with a proper sustainable future. Well done Boris !
- Chris, Croydon,UK., 26/01/2009 13:47
Report abuse
The small matter of a sunken WW2 ammuntion ship is being ignored here. To build any airport you would have to move it or someone will use it for target practice and wipe put the airport and a fair bit of the Isle of Sheppey.
Stop wasting tax payers money Boris
- Duncan, Kent, 26/01/2009 13:27
Report abuse
The probability of a major aviation disaster ocurring somewhere in London increases each day. The current set-up is a town planning anomaly that should never have happened. Heathrow itself is an embarrassment - the inward flow of passengers must put up with torn carpets stuck down with gaffer tape, dirt and no sort of welcome in the signage (don't do this, don't do that, etc) or in the attitudes of some staff who seem inadequately trained for their vital PR role.
Every other developed country I have flown into puts some effort into welcoming travelling guests to their international airports and to do their best to present their country and city positively. It all seems like too much bother here.
- Kiwi Expat, London, UK, 26/01/2009 12:59
Report abuse
One key fact appears to be missing from the article: Boris has said that Heathrow would remain in operation if this airport was built.
So building this airport will not reduce the noise over West London. It will only serve to increase the number of flights and emissions that blight this city.
- Mark Lee, Vauxhall, 26/01/2009 12:59
Report abuse
Build it in the Estuary!!!!
Has anybody notices that it took 15 years to get Terminal 5 built and as soon as it is built we need another runway at Heathrow.By the time(if it is built,that is)it is built the probibility is that the powers that be would need further expansion.
Problem.....where could you expand to at Heathrow......NO MORE ROOM.....so ultimately another airport is needed,so why put of what needs to be done and be ahaead of the game for once...GO FOR IT BORIS
- Nigel, wimbledon, 26/01/2009 12:58
Report abuse
If there is any possibility of London getting an airport anything like Hong Kong's, which is a pleasure to travel through, unlike the chaotic cesspit that is Heathrow, then it should be thoroughly explored. The case of Hong Kong has demonstrated the wisdom of starting from scratch on a new site.
- Andrew, london, 26/01/2009 12:37
Report abuse
go Boris! It worked for the Chinese - why not us? The British are some of the best engineers and designers in the world.
- Mark, London, 26/01/2009 12:17
Report abuse
I just cannot fathom why anyone who looks at this objectively, ie puts aside any party-political leanings, could object to it. People are shouting about birds and shipping lanes, but the reality is that the birds will find somewhere else to live – that’s how nature works – and the ships will have plenty of room, although I suspect a great many of them may not actually travel so far down the Thames that they would have to pass the airport.
The economy is in a mess and whilst this isn’t going quite as far as paying people to bury £50 notes in bottles in the ground and then letting other people dig them up, it would be an absolutely massive boost to the British economy, in terms of jobs, as well as to the Thames Gateway area which has always been massively under-utilised.
In short, the only people who would lose out are BAA, a Spanish-owned company which has somehow managed to get the Government on their side, despite around 90% of the British people objecting!
- St, London, 26/01/2009 12:12
Report abuse
Of course the engineer supports the viability - he's getting paid handsomely. The skies over London are already too congested. Why should we now dump on Essex and Kent, and ruin a bird haven as well? Many passengers into Heathrow are merely in transit - let them go to Amsterdam and Paris - let's put quality of life for everyone first, rather than profits for vested interests in the airline industry.
- Ab, London, 26/01/2009 12:11
Report abuse
Two runways in the Thames?, has someone taken into account that busy shipping lanes exist in the Thames and it will very busy with large ships at Shellhaven once the new port is built, these container ships don't turn on a sixpence. I don't think this has been thought through properly.
- Glenn, Dovercourt England, 26/01/2009 11:34
Report abuse
Heathrow is a dead duck, the laughing stock of the world. An extra runway will not change this, though blight the lives of hundreds of thousands of Londoners. Good work Boris. We just need now to get rid of these jokers in power....
- Da, london, 26/01/2009 11:26
Report abuse
One of the worse places to site an airport. Too many birds and the incidence of bird strikes will be inevitable.
- Sue, Orpington, Kent, 26/01/2009 11:21
Report abuse
This would be an infrastructure project worth every penny of the investment, and a statement that we still lead the world in engineering excellence. If we follow the eco-loonies with their silly, empty, leftie prattling, we might just as well pull the plug on the UK now.
- Ken, Bexleyheath, 26/01/2009 11:16
Report abuse
Ever since the incident in New York the bird strike threat has been blown out of all proportion. Can anyone remember another occasion when a bird strike has bought down a commercial airliner? At least such an even in the Thames estuary would give the pilot a bigger stretch of water (or mud) to aim at.
- Paul, London, 26/01/2009 11:16
Report abuse
I'm sure he would back it, he will probably will plan the thing.
What a waste of money.
I'm sure that the newly formed anti third runway alliance will be happy with this propsed green masacre.
- Harry, London, 26/01/2009 11:10
Report abuse
An airport in the Thames Estuary would be environmental vandalism on a grand scale!
Climate change remains the greatest threat to biodiversity and mankind and alongside a broad coalition of millions of people including RSPB, Womens Institute, Greenpeace, WWF we believe that there should be no further airport expansion.The construction of a massive new airport in the Thames Estuary will have impacts that extend far outside the immediate area. Emissions from aircraft remains the fastest increasing source of greenhouse gases and the demand for flights should be managed rather than just accepted as necessary.
The whole issue was exhaustively investigated between 2002 and 2005 in the Government’s Aviation White Paper. The idea of an airport in the Thames Estuary (not just Cliffe) was conclusively ruled out and upheld by the High Court.
Bird strike
An airport in the Thames Estuary would be unsafe.
Even with an aggressive bird hazard management programme (i.e. destruction of habitats and shooting or scaring the birds away), the bird strike hazard would be up to 12 times higher than at any other major UK airport.The governments own birdstrike hazard report from the 2003 SERAS study stated that 'It is difficult to envisage a more problematic site anywhere in the UK'
Friends of the North Kent Marshes
- Gill Moore, Cliffe Kent, 26/01/2009 10:49
Report abuse
I spent several months last year working in London. I stayed in a hotel in Kensington with a south facing room. It was just amazing to see the constant procession of planes coming in over west London. Also, one Sunday, I visited Kew Gardens which is a lovely place. Unfortunately the experience was completely ruined by the constant aircraft noise. Surely, London would be much better for having an airport which does not rely on planes taking off and landing over densely populated areas. Just one word of caution:- Mr. Oakervee should not be believed when he says the estuary airport would be a “relatively straightforward” project. No major project in the UK is “relatively straightforward” due to all the political interference and general lack of co-operation between external parties which would be involved in the project. Good luck to Boris, anyway.
- Ian, Bangkok, Thailand, 26/01/2009 10:35
Report abuse
Gosh, yes, lets put the welfare of birds in front of the health and safety of tens of thousands of Londoners currently living in the Heathrow flightpath. Well done Boris - someone with initiative and forward thinking at last.
- Jim, london, uk, 26/01/2009 09:55
Report abuse
Birdstrikes: Heathrow has a terrible problem with birds, with many Canada Geese roosting in the lakes to the south and feeding to the north of the runway.
- Rich, London, 26/01/2009 09:36
Report abuse
I don't see how you can write off the impact on bird life in the Thames Estuary like that. This area is as important to birds as a hub for international travel as Heathrow currently is for people. Surely to reduce the risk of bird strikes, there would even have to be a widespread cull of bird life in the estuary.
- Mcw, London, 26/01/2009 09:24
Report abuse
