Is Boris right to call for a new London Airport out on the Thames Estuary? Watch

Poll: Is Boris right?
Yes, Boris is right - we need a new airport in the Thames Estuary (19)
40.43%
No, we should expand Heathrow (20)
42.55%
We should do neither and limit air traffic to a maximum level (8)
17.02%
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Is Boris just proving again that he's basically clueless? Or does his argument for a Thames Estuary airport make sense?

The Airports Commission has shortlisted Heathrow and Gatwick for new runways today and whilst it doesn't completely ignoring Boris's more radical proposal for a new mega-airport out on the Thames Estuary somewhere (perhaps Isle of Grain or Canvey Island), it does put it on the back burner, with a deadline for new arguments set for next year.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...orts-expansion

The mains pluses and minuses of Heathrow - vs - Thames Estuary appear to be:

Thames Estuary

* Will remove overflights from South and South-West London ++++
* New location so can be very modern +++
* Damage to wildlife, threats to aircraft from birds, etc ---
* Cost ----

Heathrow Expansion

* Works with existing hub +++
* Heathrow has existing connections ++
* Cost ++
* Yet more planes over London, including N. London ----
* Massive delays on roads - M25 to be closed for years ----
* Politically very difficult ----

I believe that air travel has to have limits set on it for CO2 emission reasons (it is not included in government CO2 targets and that is wrong), but I also think that estimates of air growth are unlikely to be correct given the state of the global economy and increased access to high speed trains to other parts of the UK and Europe in the future.

Conservative politicians and many other politicians seem to be ignorant of the environmental consequences of permitting unlimited air travel growth, or else don't care because they prioritise the views of this heavily subsidised industry and the better-off regular air traveller.
0
reply
Padwas
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
yes and no if it helps I'm undecided
1
reply
Isleworth
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
Whatever don't give a fak about external costs just build it whereever
0
reply
lubus
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
Is the environment, a couple of houses, and increased noise levels really worth the billions you are wasting losing out on air travel and investment, along with planning expensive alternatives?
0
reply
Solemn Rain
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
Boris is absolutely right - we need a new airport.
1
reply
Solemn Rain
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
If we are to compete globally we need a new airport .simple as that.
0
reply
Solemn Rain
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
I understand the environmental concerns but that's a risk we have to take in order to maintain our global status as one of the best economies in the world.
0
reply
Fizzel
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
I'd say yes. Building or not building will have no effect on CO2 emissions, they will just occur, along with the wealth production, wherever decides not to share such concerns. The capacity requires it, as does our economy. We will expand air travel so we might as well be smart about it.

Heathrow has nowhere near the capacity required and has the problems of the location, high speed rail is massively expensive and we can barely manage normal rail. We should build another airport and long term the Thames Estuary makes sense, with a suitable rail link into the capital. I'd imagine its been discounted as the cost will be large with a whole new airport and the infrastructure that goes with it, and like most government projects, it makes little sense to spend large amounts of money for the benefit of the nation beyond your time in office, might as well spend it pleasing the electorate.
0
reply
Grim_Squeaker
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
They will have to figure out what to do with the big bloody bomb off Sheerness first. In case the construction disturbance sends the whole shebang up.
0
reply
Lady Comstock
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
Heathrow is past it.

Weren't you complaining the other day about no funny threads? Case in point?
0
reply
Mockery
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
Expand Leeds-Bradford instead. Bring some international business our way...
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by Grim_Squeaker)
They will have to figure out what to do with the big bloody bomb off Sheerness first. In case the construction disturbance sends the whole shebang up.
Is this bomb a serious threat then? What is it exactly?

An expert on Radio 4 earlier was saying that an estuary site would be plagued by sudden, intense fogs which could cause havoc even with modern equipment.
0
reply
Grim_Squeaker
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
SS Richard Montgomery. Liberty ship that broke its back on Sandbanks towards end of the 2nd World War .... I mean world disagreement.

Got about 1500 or so tons of munitions still in its holds. They suspect the deteriorating state of the vessel and its cargo might be reaching a point were mere isolation of it via an exclusion zone is going to become insufficient.

The last Survey of the site is interesting reading

http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/2000_surve...montgomery.pdf

Former colleague of mine was one of the divers involved. The back story to the wreck is rather fascinating really for history buffs.

The issue with the airport plan is that the disturbances cause to the seabed and even the increased traffic (dredgers, barges etc) involved might increase the risk of something going wrong...... Sheerness is a bloody depressing hole however so might be a tolerable mistake.

As to old BJ, I very much suspect he merely plays the buffoon to put political opponents and voters off their guard. He may very well be a seriously potent and dangerous political prospect.
0
reply
Alfissti
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Is Boris just proving again that he's basically clueless? Or does his argument for a Thames Estuary airport make sense?

The Airports Commission has shortlisted Heathrow and Gatwick for new runways today and whilst it doesn't completely ignoring Boris's more radical proposal for a new mega-airport out on the Thames Estuary somewhere (perhaps Isle of Grain or Canvey Island), it does put it on the back burner, with a deadline for new arguments set for next year.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...orts-expansion

The mains pluses and minuses of Heathrow - vs - Thames Estuary appear to be:

Thames Estuary

* Will remove overflights from South and South-West London ++++
* New location so can be very modern +++
* Damage to wildlife, threats to aircraft from birds, etc ---
* Cost ----

Heathrow Expansion

* Works with existing hub +++
* Heathrow has existing connections ++
* Cost ++
* Yet more planes over London, including N. London ----
* Massive delays on roads - M25 to be closed for years ----
* Politically very difficult ----

I believe that air travel has to have limits set on it for CO2 emission reasons (it is not included in government CO2 targets and that is wrong), but I also think that estimates of air growth are unlikely to be correct given the state of the global economy and increased access to high speed trains to other parts of the UK and Europe in the future.

Conservative politicians and many other politicians seem to be ignorant of the environmental consequences of permitting unlimited air travel growth, or else don't care because they prioritise the views of this heavily subsidised industry and the better-off regular air traveller.
A new airport is needed.

Heathrow has been at capacity for a long time and is already struggling for the most part. A new runway doesn't really improve things as eventually it will be used up and many suggest this extra capacity will be used up within 2 months of it opening. Also the disruption it would bring during the construction stage would be immense especially the need to reroute the motorway which won't be cheap. I'm doubtful of the person who did the costing of having a new runway and probably significantly underestimated the amount of lawsuits and delays this would come up against, not to mention the cost to relocate the numbers of people who would be affected by this.

A new runway doesn't solve a pressing issue, UK needs 24/7 flight operation, the lack of it is a major bottleneck today. I'm sure you understand the concept that time = money.

A new airport is a good idea, even Norman Foster supports it. I'm not sure I trust that monkey Howard Davies on this issue, hardly the person who should be chairing such a committee. Also a new airport could be built for less and ready much sooner, I personally support building this airport and shutting down Gatwick and Stanstead.

Environmental effects, air travel CO2 emissions slowly but surely are falling as aircraft become more fuel efficient. End of the day you can't live without air cargo or cheap flights which your benefit scrounging bunch think off as a right since they want a holiday each year too on the cheap
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by Grim_Squeaker)
SS Richard Montgomery. Liberty ship that broke its back on Sandbanks towards end of the 2nd World War .... I mean world disagreement.

Got about 1500 or so tons of munitions still in its holds. They suspect the deteriorating state of the vessel and its cargo might be reaching a point were mere isolation of it via an exclusion zone is going to become insufficient.

The last Survey of the site is interesting reading

http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/2000_surve...montgomery.pdf

Former colleague of mine was one of the divers involved. The back story to the wreck is rather fascinating really for history buffs.

The issue with the airport plan is that the disturbances cause to the seabed and even the increased traffic (dredgers, barges etc) involved might increase the risk of something going wrong...... Sheerness is a bloody depressing hole however so might be a tolerable mistake.

As to old BJ, I very much suspect he merely plays the buffoon to put political opponents and voters off their guard. He may very well be a seriously potent and dangerous political prospect.
Gosh, that sounds quite something. How big a bang would that make if it blew up?

Agreed about Boris up to a point, but I also feel he is often somewhat out of his depth as Mayor and lacks both expertise and an ability to work hard enough on problems.
0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
Boris is wrong. As usual. Estuary Airport is another example of the ridiculous projects Boris likes to undertake - and I am sure his passion for this particular folly was spurred on when the press began dubbing the idea "Boris Island".

For a start, as with almost anything Boris related, it will probably come in grossly over budget. I imagine that the taxpayer will be promised that their liability for financing the airport will be limited. Then, in 75 years time, when it is finally completed, we will learn that we paid a lot more than we thought we were going to. I expect that it will also turn out that, desperate to secure investment, Boris will have signed a deal with a rich Middle Eastern nation which specified that flights to and from Israel are not permitted...

You then have the problems of the area being packed full of birds at certain parts of the year. Added to that, the fact that the area where they plan to build the airport is right on the edge of our airspace. Where would they stack arriving aircraft? Are the French ok with us having our approaches in their airspace?

I suggest we just expand existing airports.

(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Gosh, that sounds quite something. How big a bang would that make if it blew up?
I live fairly near the area. They promise that it will blow out our windows!
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Is Boris just proving again that he's basically clueless? Or does his argument for a Thames Estuary airport make sense?

The Airports Commission has shortlisted Heathrow and Gatwick for new runways today and whilst it doesn't completely ignoring Boris's more radical proposal for a new mega-airport out on the Thames Estuary somewhere (perhaps Isle of Grain or Canvey Island), it does put it on the back burner, with a deadline for new arguments set for next year.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...orts-expansion

The mains pluses and minuses of Heathrow - vs - Thames Estuary appear to be:

Thames Estuary

* Will remove overflights from South and South-West London ++++
* New location so can be very modern +++
* Damage to wildlife, threats to aircraft from birds, etc ---
* Cost ----

Heathrow Expansion

* Works with existing hub +++
* Heathrow has existing connections ++
* Cost ++
* Yet more planes over London, including N. London ----
* Massive delays on roads - M25 to be closed for years ----
* Politically very difficult ----

I believe that air travel has to have limits set on it for CO2 emission reasons (it is not included in government CO2 targets and that is wrong), but I also think that estimates of air growth are unlikely to be correct given the state of the global economy and increased access to high speed trains to other parts of the UK and Europe in the future.

Conservative politicians and many other politicians seem to be ignorant of the environmental consequences of permitting unlimited air travel growth, or else don't care because they prioritise the views of this heavily subsidised industry and the better-off regular air traveller.
It kind of makes sense really. There's a big one to the north west, a big one to the south west and nothing to the east. It would also ease some congestion on rail and road links on the west of London.

interesting you raise your concerns about environmental issues. There was a good discussion on radio 4 at 6:30 this morning covering it. Basically we've seen an massive increase in air travel over the last ten to fifteen years, but with improvements in engine design although there's more planes, there's less noise and pollution emissions than we had back then.

or is your plan just to allow the rich to travel?
0
reply
InnerTemple
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
It would also ease some congestion on rail and road links on the west of London.
True. If there is anything we need more of on the eastern side of the M25, it's traffic.
0
reply
bigwhalegambler
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by Padwas)
yes and no if it helps I'm undecided
Top-class analysis there my friend:congrats:
1
reply
Padwas
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by bigwhalegambler)
Top-class analysis there my friend:congrats:
thanks
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (116)
24.27%
Pop (110)
23.01%
Jazz (22)
4.6%
Classical (25)
5.23%
Hip-Hop (87)
18.2%
Electronic (37)
7.74%
Indie (81)
16.95%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise