BORIS ISLAND

[jabird]

I have previously dismissed any kind of new airport east of London as a total fantasy.

But this article (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23974562-boris-johnson-thrilled-by-fosters-new-plan-for-thames-island-airport.do) is interesting, because the details has come from Lord Foster, who is an architect with significant experience of airports from Stansted to Hong Kong to Beijing.

It claims it would be the world's largest at 150m pax pa - compared to planned capacities of 110m for DEN, or 120m for DWC, or 89m actually handled by ATL in 2010. Not sure what maximum planned capacity for BJS is, stated current capacity is 78m.

I remain sceptical for three reasons:

1) London 'East' was dismissed by the 2003 White Paper.
2) The government wants to discourage air travel. Building an airport which could handle more traffic than all of London's current airports combined would contradict that.
3) The cost is stated at £40-50bn. I didn't see a costing for Cliffe, but Rugby Airport (3 runways) had a tag of £7bn.

As an outline proposal, it has no explanation of who would pay, or what would happen to the other London airports, but there is plenty of history of new megaprojects getting undercut by their cheaper and more central rivals.

I still think that Londoners would rather tolerate the ongoing noise from LHR than see £5000 (each) being invested into a project which would completely change the capital's geography.

So should we completely ignore a proposal from someone who is one of the world's most accomplished architects, aswell as being a (crossbench) peer?

[Skipness One Echo]

So should we completely ignore a proposal from someone who is one of the world's most accomplished architects, aswell as being a (crossbench) peer?
Yes he likes to build shiny new things and raise the profile of his profession. Not the same thing as a rigorous cost analysis coupled with a decent business case.

The current "strategy" talks of taking the strain off Heathrow. Unless you legislate to remove the critical mass of connectivity OUT of LHR and move it no this facility, then the business case is empty. Without regulation, you won't have anyone moving to a facility further out than STN and LTN even if it is well connected to London. Gatwick is a piece of cake to get to from London but can't compete with LHR on that level.

Either build a new airport and shut LHR completely or expand LHR. There is no comprehensible case for a middle ground argument here as existing capacity exists at STN already and a second runway could be built much cheaper than UK PLC shelling out to build and massive new island on a Western European economic cost base.

I would remind people once again that LHR suffers from being surrounded by urban sprawl to the South and *one* slightly rubbish village to the North. The major issues is NIMBY-ism in well-to-do West London. Anyone talking of taking the "strain off Heathrow" with this vanity project has no understanding of why LHR succeeds as a hub with critical mass and connectivity. I might add that closing LHR cuts off the the huge econimic driver of the M4 corridor from the air transport network and not closing LHR makes Boris Island Mirabel-on-Sea for our times.

Meanwhile London burns.....

[JSCL]

There are some nice sites close to LHR and London in general which would be better suited - trust me.

[GROUNDHOG]

I'd go along with that JSCL!

[jabird]

SOE,

Yes, I agree with all your points. I don't think 'LBI' would be contemplated without the closure of LHR, and as I said in my first post, this would involve rotating London's office geography through 180deg.

There is a natural tendency of politicians to want to build shiny new follies, and of those working within the industry to be against them. A major advantage in favour would be the noise reduction - yes, all airports havea noise footprint, but LHR's is significantly higher than most other comparable hubs. However, I'm not sure if noise alone is a sufficient driver to close an airport - it is an externality which isn't currently paid for by the airport, except for a small number of homes adjacent to the perimeter, which will already have been insulated. So I'm just not sure how you get a financial ROI from that. Yes, you would win votes in several constituencies, but you would equally lose votes from those who work at the airport or use it frequently.

I don't quite think this wold be Mirabel-on-Sea, although there is never a comparison which exactly fits the situation! Mirabel failed for several reasons, but one major factor was the removal of the stopover requirement for transatlantic flights into Canada. The fundamentals of London's geography are that more people want to travel to, from, and via her 6 airports than any other city in the world. The very connectivity which LHR provides is constrained by the two runways and the limited space in the current 5 terminals.

There is no cheap answer to this problem. I still suspect that the expensive answer does not justify its cost - but if HKG is one of the closest examples of how a city can successfully build a brand new mega-airport, then I will still take interest when the man that designed it suggests an alternative for London.