Reader views (58)

 Add your view

Has anyone noticed that the location of that shown in the article means that aircraft are comming in to land through the blades of the Kentish Flats wind farm!!

Wind farms have a nasty habit of disrupting radar and landing systems to and hence they cannot be constructed anywhere near an airport. Boris is talking about building a Heathrow replacement in a wind farm and within a few miles of the London Array (the largerst wind farm in Europe).

Even if you remove this obsticle you then have the fact that the aircraft will be taking off directly into the path of other aircraft leaving London City airport, Southend and interfere with flight paths from Stansted and into Amsterdam Schipol.

Then we have the problem of finding the trained staff this side of London. there are 172,000 people employed at Heathrow who will have to commute or move to Kent or Essex to keep their jobs. As heathrow has just two runways operating for 20 hours a day and the proposed airport will be open 24/7 with four or possibly six runways, I've a feeling at least 300,000 people will be employed there. Where are they and their families going to live? What about the provision of hospitals and schools etc.

There have been numerous studies into a Thames airport going back to the days of flying boats. All have said it is madness. Albert Einstein once defined insanity as repeating the same experiment over and over again and expecting a differant answer.

Need I say more.

- Colin P, Chelmsford, Essex

Brilliant idea, go for it. Heathrow's in a silly position, rising sea levels will do for the local bird wading area anyway and the structure could be incorporated into sea defences that protect the entire estuary!

- Simon Mallett, Top of the North Downs, Kent

will aviation fuel still be cheap enough in 15 years to justify opening this madcap Boris scheme. (I'm being generous and allowing only a 50% overrun on the projected timescales)

Peak oil anyone?

- Robert Palgrave, Woking

Well its not going to fly on the environmental and construction cost alone (inc.rail/land access). However, the broader universal benefits may push it over the line - particulary in respect of investment in a poorly performing region, infrastructure, jobs, less noise over london, etc. The Montgomery (the wreck of sheppey) is a red herring, in so much as at some point it'll be encapsulated or dismantled.

If it was an easy go-no-go it would either be dead or moving at a faster pace. Simple thing to understand is what are the political benefits - and why is it being touted at this point again? Perhaps just another thing to distract Labour on - or a new re-shuffle in SEEDA/LDA/GSE Connect.

- Adam, T, Scotland, london

before you get too excited, "Royal Haskoning" acted for the Gambian Government advising on beach restoration.The work was carried out, 4 years later the beach has eroded again. So much for their Guarantee.Buy British

- Mike Cole, Kololi

"I specifically said that private consortiums have already come forward offering to build an estuary airport at NO public expense"

Yes, I pointed this out, and I don't believe them. They've been saying they've got the money since 1993, but without actually specifying on what terms this is available. I've got their 2008 company return and they're basically a one man band, so I don't think you've done your due diligence here, mate - not everyone in this world is telling the truth, or are you too dim to understand this?

Shell companies with a great line in PR, pet politicians but badly flawed plans are not the future of British transport policy. Professional organisations like Ove Arup, who came up with the HS1 routing, are better in every way.

- Tom, London, UK

Nice idea but I foresee one major problem, in addition to all those so far identified: Where does all the supporting infrastructure go? Look at Heathrow with it's support service industries that are so necessary for a modern airport. Cannot see them re-locating to islands in the Thames so easily...

- Mark Newman, Hong Kong

I can't wait to get a boat to the airport, can i use my oyster.

- Mr S.Port, London

Private business say that this airport will be built at no ones expense but the developers. Why should we take their word for it? Private finance has only ever been interested in the short to only just medium term. Baring in mind we are in a depression where the banks are not lending to anyone, where will the finance come from? The Thames Estuary Airport is an early stage proposal, no financial institution will want to commit to. How many privately funded consortia have pulled out of the Olympics because they got scared that their profit in the short term would be in jeopardy?
There are also the links to and from Central London to consider. Who will build/improve those and is this part of the private financiers plan or will the tax payer pick up the bill?
Why not have a second runaway at Stanstead? That, to me seems a far more sensible idea.

- Annoyed Of Croydon, London

This would never have happened under the Tories.

- Cyberman, London

Dear Tom London. If the Montgomery exploded it would wipe out the new airport and kill hundreds if not thousands. It doesn't matter that its 10 miles away the shock wave would be registered the world over and potentially it could cause a major flood in the Netherlands. Its estimated property both sides of the Thames estuary upto 3km inland could be seriously damaged and debris could be thrown 3000meters into the air. I seriously doubt anyone with half a brain would build an airport so near to a ticking time bomb!

- Paul Humphreys, Essex

I agree it is a brilliant idea but the point about the interruption of water flowing in and out of the Thames is a serious one. Especially as high tides and storms can cause serious flooding now, let alone when there are 4 islands in its way. Please do research thoroughly and carefully so no regrets if this does go ahead.

- Vanessa, London

Why doesn't anyone consider Brize Norton, and move the RAF to a new location, say in Norfolk?

- Mikey, Tring UK

Hey, Trunk, before you criticise others perhaps you should learn to read.

I specifically said that private consortiums have already come forward offering to build an estuary airport at NO public expense.

And why wouldn't they? An airport with guaranteed traffic is a guaranteed money-spinner - or are you too dim to understand this?

PS. This is an English-speaking site (although I know you Yanks are not very good at that): what the hell is 'hakuna matada' supposed to mean?

- Timon, London

This sounds like a first class idea it might just be what is needed to take many flights out of the sky over london.

- David Smith, Croydon

Wrong side of London for me. Therefore the scheme should be scrapped.

- Roger, Winchester, England

"There is no doubt this proposal IS the way forward"

Cobblers, there's plenty of doubt. Address the points raised, please, particular around funding, convenience and land access costs.

Re: the Richard Montgomery - the original Marinair plans from 1993 had a railway going through the wreck site (told you they were idiots). The current modified version of their plans as sold to Boris has the rail line and motorway making a wide detour to the south of Sheppey while the runway island is about ten miles east of the wreck, 55 miles from the centre of London.

"The fact is that this could be PRIVATELY funded."

Only if the government favoured its backers by mandating the closure of Heathrow, which in other words means it can't be privately funded, since that's state aid right there. It can't compete with Heathrow *as an airport*, guys, *because it takes too long and costs too much to get to*. Example: you have an office in Reading or Slough as many IT companies do. Do you fly your customer from New York to Heathrow and send a car to T5 or New York to the Isle of Sheppey and send a car halfway round the M25 and 40 miles up the M2? Would you back a scheme that offered the latter over the former with your own money? How low would you have to set the landing fees to attract airlines? How would you pay the interest on a £40bn loan out of them? What rate of interest would you have to pay?

- Tom, London, UK

Timon, look in the mirror for the cretin within.

Lets just look at your first point shall we?
Anyone that thinks this scheme will be privately funded, and profitable, with no taxpayer money used along the way is as cretinous as they come.

But hey, hakuna matada mate

- Trunk, US

Hurrah...some common sense...spot on Boris dude. Lets crack on with this and get London and UK plc the international state of the art hub airport it deserves....LHR can be closed.

- Richard, Duke Of Leeds, City of Leeds & proud of it

LHR's 3rd runway should be Northolt

- Mike, london

It's the only way forward & the 'no change' brigade haven't a leg to stand on. No need to expand Gatwick or Stanstead, & Heathrow can be downsized. Less noise & air pollution & a 24hr hub airport. Good for business & good for the environment. Vested interests are not the interests of the majority & birds can be managed. More housing will be required in an area that at present no one wants to build. It will open up the whole of East london & offer opportunities to redevelop the Heathow area which is blighted by the existing airport.

- James Marsh, London, UK

Great idea and its on the RIGHT side of London, many millions of the wealth creating people live in the south east, it will serve them well, both with jobs and infrastructure.

Anyone who disagrees, have not got the first clue about growing Britain out of this recession!

Brilliant, bring it on Boris....

- George, Hempstead - Kent

The cretins who oppose this idea don't know what they are talking about. Their objections are threefold:

1. Cost. The fact is that this could be PRIVATELY funded. A London airport is a money-printing venture (if traffic is assured - see 2 below), and, in the past, private consortiums have come forward offering to fund such an airport.

2. 'No demand by airlines'. Obviously airlines would prefer to use Heathrow, but so what? What sort of cretin would let THEM make the decisions? The government should enforce a reduction in flights at Heathrow (not closing it down, just reducing its size) and force airlines to use the Estuary airport instead - thus guaranteeing usage and ensuring that it could be funded privately. Besides, as flights would not need to go over London this airport could operate 24hrs, which is what many airlines do want.

3. Environmental. The RSPB object to everything - such as the proposed Severn barrage and this idea. The fact is this airport would be extremely environmentally beneficial. The bird issue is trivial as this area is not of major importance to them, whereas the noise reduction in west London on the other hand would have significant health benefits for the humans living there.

There is no doubt this proposal IS the way forward.It is obvious that this is the best way forward so let's do it NOW.

- Timon, London

And when the first plane comes down due to bird strike, they'll all be standing there scratching their heads and wondering why no one saw it coming....

- Mark, Gravesend

"When big infrastucture projects are suggested in the U.K most of them never get off the drawing board because of red tape and pessimism."

Yes, that's why that *Eurostar* I took from *St. Pancras* along *High Speed One* the other day was entirely a figment of my own imagination?

A) of course we can do big stuff
B) that doesn't mean we should do pointless stuff like indulging eldery Tory peers in forty year old pet schemes that prove to be barmy every time anyone cons a politician into wasting his time and our money investigating them

Sometimes things don't get off the drawing board because they're daft. The important stuff that makes a real difference to people's lives is rarely the product of a politicians vanity.

"I just can't understand the time issue"

Time is money. Specifically, look at the Eurostar share of market figures as the time taken to get to Paris and Brussels was reduced over the years. Why take an hour just to reach Sheppey when you can take under two hours to reach Brussels, or, for that matter, Paris Charles De Gaulle airport? Get on and build a high speed rail link to Heathrow from the north, east and west, scrap the third runway, tax domestic flights out of existence and let's have no more of this nonsense.

- Tom, London, UK

Perhaps the planners need to take into account that a few miles from this proposed site is a World War 2 wreck (The SS Richard Montgomery)laden with over 2000 tonnes of high explosive.When it goes bang it would wipe out the new airport with a blast like a small atom bomb.

- Paul Humphreys, Essex

Erm, what are they going to do about the SS Richard Montgomery?

- Anthony, Esher, Surrey

Georgie,you are correct,but the MOST IMPORTANT thing they must do is to reinstate Fox Hunting,I hope on their first day in office,as Kate Hoy MP for Vauxhall says,this move must be made as a matter of extreme urgency.

- Ted Taylor, Lambeth

Anyone who believes that Heathrow is the right place for a huge international airport is as thick as two short proverbials, certifiably stupid in fact. Therefor we have to look at a long term alternative for the next 50 years. It's no good the enviros getting all het up, it has to happen, see Amsterdam, HK and Singapore. But the enviros would rather we all walked everywhere, cuddled up to mother nature and the population was culled by 50%.
Keep looking Boris and eventually a solution will be found.
No-one mentions that Heathrow could remain as a local airport like City Airport or that it would become the first proper business park that London has ever had.

- Antoine Desmoines, London, UK

It's not viable ignores salient factors like an unexploded ammo ship sitting three miles away tht would destry it if anyone ever tried to blow it up.

The runway is going to Gatwick Boris knows it the toreis know it they are just trying to ensure they kep their marginal seats in Sussex.

The land on Sheppey is owned by a few families who will want a Kings ransom for it. The infratstructure is already there at STanstead if you want an airport that farout and Stanstead has far less popukation density than north kent.

Another Tory showing that people in the Thames Estuary are not a concern for them

- Duncan, Kent

We have 5 airports around London already - the focus should be on expanding not building more! People will still be flying to Heathrow since that is where the most connecting flights will be and as it is overcrowded with air traffic, expansion will eventually be inevitable. This would just be another Stansted / Luton i.e. full of budget airlines.

- Dean, London

I like it. I hope the new government can do this.

- Georgie, Islington, London

LOOK OUT, here come the sandel wearing, tree huggers.

- Terry, London

This project should be approved,it should also have a sister airport in the Bristol channel. Then we could close Gatwick,Stansted and Heathrow.

Both Airports could be eco Green friendly and use tidal power. Why Gordon could even tax the tide.

The Airports would bring buisness to Kent and Essex and also to South Wales and Nother Devon and SOmerset.

We could even have an overground line Mono rail using fast bullet traisn that follow the River path to get passengers into Canary Wharf and central London fast aproximately 20 mins central London from the Thames Airport.
All powered by Tidal power. The mono rail could be enclosed in a perspect tube to ensure weather and natural elements were not a problem.

As for the Birds how about we give up Gatwick and Stansted to a new RSBP bird sancturY.

- Peterb, Chelmsford, Essex

An absolutely brilliant idea from our equally wonderful Mayor. The Thames Estuary and Essex in general are quite rundown and ugly areas so this would be the perfect place for an airport, and would mean the removal of planes over west London which blight the nicest and richest part of London.

- Kimberley, London

If it can be done in 10 years then they should start now,Heathrow is now a sprawling mess,everytime I pass through terminal 3 returning to London it makes me ashamed to be British,London needs a modern clean airport,if it upsets a few Tory birdwatchers so be it,the enviromental benefits of planes not having to fly over Central London,dumping fuel on the population outweigh the loss of a bit of marshland and a few crows.London is a major player on the World scene and needs an airport that can cope with the constant expansion of this huge city,other countries Hong Kong,Bangkok,Singapore can do it why cant London,we have got some of the best architects and engineers in the world.When big infrastucture projects are suggested in the U.K most of them never get off the drawing board because of red tape and pessimism.

- Jim Ex Pat,Islington N1, thailand

Big question. Whose going to pay the £40 billion (and the £40 billion overrun costs)

I assume all the people in West London and surroundinga reas will be happy to pay the cost for the improvement in their air quality and noise.

Be realistic, The country is in a big enough debt already. Don't give Gordon more ideas for spending money he hasn't got!

- Ian, Maidstone, Kent

Yet another piece of common-sense thinking from Boris.

Of course this is a good idea, so come on, let’s put petty political partisanship to one side, get behind Boris and show the world that Britain and London can get things done, done well, done quickly and done cheaply!

- St, London

£40bn could fund a network of high speed lines across the country which would last for generations and give the country something to be proud of. Another airport in an environmentally important location is a dangerous white elephant this country doesn't need.

- John Buckeridge, London

I just can't understand the time issue. What difference does it make whether it takes 35 minutes or 55 minutes? We suffered for many years using the Piccadilly line from Heathrow (which for some who didn't have to suffer it, is slow and uncomfortable).....and we have suffered many many years of planes stacked over West London with the huge potential of trouble. I say again, let's get behind this idea as it will improve many lives. Bring it on!

- Rod, Epping, UK

*sigh*

1) Not a new idea - been pushed for years by a company called TEACO set up by two elderly Tory peers in 1993 - they always say 'it's got funding!' but it hasn't.
2) This comes round every few years and is always killed by the enormous land access costs - this is grossly underplayed. Livingstone looked at it in 2002 and rejected it, as did the Government a year or so later.
3) No support from the airlines
4) No support from business, particularly those located in West London and the Thames Valley
5) The site is 55 miles the wrong side of London, massively increasing cross-London traffic to get there from the current airport catchment It's 30% of the way to Holland, in fact.
6) Requires an entire town built to house the workforce you're forcing to move.
7) Huge logistical difficulties in shipping everything to the islands - fuel, baggage, staff, aircrew, firemen, spares, cargo
8) The author hasn't checked her facts - 35 minutes from central London on Crossrail is physically impossible (it's 17 minutes to Abbey Wood, which implies about a 90mph average speed the rest of the way on Kent commuter lines). 35 minutes by high speed rail is about right, but would cost about £30 return at current prices.

So it's pushed by idiots, won't work as an airport, isn't well thought through, is supported by grossly misleading PR, isn't funded and the Mayor is wasting his time on it. Now watch 30 people say 'great idea Boris!' while being ignorant of the facts.

- Tom, London, UK

It gets my vote.

- Rich, London

Another case of the NIMBY brigade wailing their grievances...

- Adam, London, UK

Firstly, it will only be ready 10 years after the approvals and inevitable public inquiry are out of the way, and even then it wont have two separate rail links and the water turbine power is pure fantasy if one is serious about turning out a top class international airpoirt hub (though there is nothing wrong with the principle and plugging into the grid), which brings us to...

...secondly, just because it gets built it doesn't mean it will surpass Heathrow as the hub of choice by the airlines, which is the real hurdle to overcome, not back yards or the greater breasted warbler.

- Escobar A-Lop-Lop, Mad as hell and not taking it anymore...

"...other than obese humans flying to places they don't need to go.

- Judith C"

...What about obese humans flying where they do need to go?

Strangely, the best reasons for building an airport on what used to be called Foulness Sands are never mentioned. Firstly, the noise level over London will go down, which is what is called a "universal health benefit". Secondly, the runways can be facing the right way to take advantage of the prevailing wind, which will save an enormous amount of fuel and be much easier on the planes for take-off and landing.

The last time building this airport was suggested, it was not acted upon because at that time Heathrow was still expandable, and nobody thought that air traffic would grow like it has. Also, the RSPB had the late Queen Mother as patron, and she didn't care for the idea much.

- Kate, London

A second runway at Gatwick would make more sense ... but upset more Conservative voters

- Tonyb, Melbourne, Australia

The Olympics and the redevelopment of AWE are both over budget. Why would this figure be accurate?

- Dave Davies, Basingstoke, Hants

"The terminal in Kent could be linked to the new Crossrail line, so passengers could be in central London within 35 minutes."

Wouldn't that be the terminal in Essex! It's the channel tunnel rail link in Kent. Not sure I can trust the rest of the article now, if the "city hall" reporter can't even get that simple thing right. Pretty shoddy for the supposedly new and improved Evening Standard.

- Aidan Reid, london, uk

Gary, Brentwood.

I absolutely agree with you. So much safer being where it is proposed. Let's get behind this plan big time!

- Rod, Epping, UK

*sigh*

1) Not a new idea - been pushed for years by a company called TEACO set up by two elderly Tory peers in 1993 - they always say 'it's got funding!' but it hasn't.
2) This comes round every few years and is always killed by the enormous land access costs - this is grossly underplayed. Livingstone looked at it in 2002 and rejected it, as did the Government a year or so later.
3) No support from the airlines
4) No support from business, particularly those located in West London and the Thames Valley
5) The site is 55 miles the wrong side of London, massively increasing cross-London traffic to get there from the current airport catchment It's 30% of the way to Holland, in fact.
6) Requires an entire town built to house the workforce you're forcing to move.
7) Huge logistical difficulties in shipping everything to the islands - fuel, baggage, staff, aircrew, firemen, spares, cargo
8) The author hasn't checked her facts - 35 minutes from central London on Crossrail is physically impossible (it's 17 minutes to Abbey Wood, which implies about a 90mph average speed the rest of the way on Kent commuter lines). 35 minutes by high speed rail is about right, but would cost about £30 return at current prices.

So it's pushed by idiots, won't work as an airport, isn't well thought through, is supported by grossly misleading PR, isn't funded and the Mayor is wasting his time on it. Now watch 30 people say 'great idea Boris!' while being ignorant of the facts.

- Tom, London, UK

No doubt it would be on budget too !

- Paul, London

And the funding comes from where ?

- Graham, Fleet

Sounds interesting, there should be an open and sensible debate about this plan.

- Dominique, london

I am all in favour of a new airport in the Thames Estuary. Heathrow was never planned to be a major airport and is in the wrong place.

- Simon Ellis, London E8

Brilliant idea. Its gonna bring all the environmental fascists out of the woodwork!

- Stephen Garneys, kirby Le Soken UK

At last an imaginative concept to meet the air transport requirements of the next 40 years (?) or so. Let's get on with it in a positive singleminded manner as an alternative to the mealy mouthed, diddering which appears to be a characterisic of UK infrastructure projects. At least there is no backyards to worry about and I sure the birds will cope. Can't wait for all the negatives to be flagged-up

- Sam Dickins, London

Boris, you fool. Leave a little bit of our wild place wild for the benefit of real winged creatures other than obese humans flying to places they don't need to go.

- Judith C, London, UK

What a very good idea. I wish people like the RSPB would stop bleating environmentally its the best place, so many planes flying over the capital is a joke.

- Gary, Brentwood

Add your comment