£50bn Thames Estuary airport plan too expensive, says report (From Southend Standard)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us Click here for details »
£50bn Thames Estuary airport plan too expensive, says report
7:50am Wednesday 4th July 2012 in News By Jasmin McDermott
A vision of a new airport in the Thames
PLANS to build a £50billion airport in the Thames Estuary have been slammed in an independent report.
A report by the South East Local Enterprise Partnership said the airport would not solve short-term air capacity issues and that building it would be too expensive and take too long.
It recommended expanding other airports in the south, including Gatwick and Heathrow, to meet increasing air travel demands.
It was also suggested other airports in the south east could address the capacity problem and claims Stansted is only running at 50 per cent capacity.
The report states: “There must be a short-term solution to develop additional spare capacity over the next decade as a stop gap to enable the planning and construction of significant additional capacity.
“It is essential that spare capacity available in the south east system is used creatively in the short-term to avoid a loss of business and income to the UK.”
A consultation will be launched later this summer by the Government about aviation strategy. Two plans have been put forward for the estuary, including London mayor Boris Johnson’s initial idea for a floating airport off the coast of Kent, and Lord Norman Foster’s proposal for a four-runway airport on the Isle of Grain, in Kent.
Both would have a major impact in south and would be visible from the Southend and Canvey coastlines.
It is also not clear how a new airport would impact on the revived Southend Airport.
Jon Fuller, member of campaign group No Estuary Airport said the air transport problem stemed from capacity issues at Heathrow.
Mr Fuller, 54, from Westcliff, said: “If Heathrow was managed more efficiently and short-haul flights were moved to other airports such as Gatwick, Stansted or Luton, which still have capacity, there would be no need to replace the hub airport.
“There is no need for another airport at all. In fact, there is enough capacity in the south of England until at least 2030.”
Comments(25)
Charles Norrie
says...
8:15am Wed 4 Jul 12
Alan Craig
says...
8:47am Wed 4 Jul 12
Charles Norrie wrote:Come back Maplin, all is forgiven!
The TEA is very silly idea. It would be much better placed on the Goodwin sands, where there would be no property take, all take-off and landing routes would be over the sea, would be near the line to the Channel Tunnel, and there would space for up to 8 runways and a Europort for freight and passenger liners
doginabag
says...
9:11am Wed 4 Jul 12
jacb
says...
9:11am Wed 4 Jul 12
TrifidV
says...
9:15am Wed 4 Jul 12
Lefty Cyclist Type
says...
9:21am Wed 4 Jul 12
TrifidV wrote:Hopefully by then people will have woken up to the idea that airports can also be built in the north of the country.
So what happens when all the airports in the SE are out of capacity in 2030? Considering they reckon it will take 20 years to build... I'd rather have the airport out further in the estuary as Boris suggested instead of the one floating off the Isle of Grain though.
boothy90
says...
9:23am Wed 4 Jul 12
It will be expensive but that cost will be split over certain amounts of time and parts of the airport can open while the rest is being built. This will eventually add to our economy , boost our construction industry and sort our air congestion problems.
Plus once the design for the airport is done (which the basics are there, just needs detailed design) the airport will take less than 10 years to complete. Look at Hong Kong airport.. that is a "floating" airport and only took 6-7 years to build!
howironic
says...
9:27am Wed 4 Jul 12
Lefty Cyclist Type wrote:Oh yes, I can see the Chinese wanting to fly into that mega financial hub known as Middleborough.
TrifidV wrote: So what happens when all the airports in the SE are out of capacity in 2030? Considering they reckon it will take 20 years to build... I'd rather have the airport out further in the estuary as Boris suggested instead of the one floating off the Isle of Grain though.Hopefully by then people will have woken up to the idea that airports can also be built in the north of the country.
wobblybob
says...
11:04am Wed 4 Jul 12
Charles Norrie
says...
11:11am Wed 4 Jul 12
like: no food on the flats; sparrow-hawks and kestrels; noise and lights; small aircraft imitating hawks and kestrels; No need to turn to poison. How many strikes are there at Heathrow or Kai Tak in a year.
Don't raise straw men arguments.
Lefty Cyclist Type
says...
11:35am Wed 4 Jul 12
Charles Norrie wrote:Heathrow is not in the middle of one of the largest wetland migratory areas in Europe. There's also the question of the SS Richard Montgomery, sitting there with thousands of tons of unexploded WW2 munitions.
There is no difficulty in keeping birds away from airport sites. At the moment the Goodwin sands re under water and have few birds on them. When they are dried out they become mud flats and there are all sorts of technique for getting ring of the.
like: no food on the flats; sparrow-hawks and kestrels; noise and lights; small aircraft imitating hawks and kestrels; No need to turn to poison. How many strikes are there at Heathrow or Kai Tak in a year.
Don't raise straw men arguments.
Add to that the airport would be on the KENT side of the estuary it offers absolutely nothing to the economy of south Essex. In fact it promises more unemployment and less investment.
Charles Norrie
says...
11:48am Wed 4 Jul 12
Your argument might apply to the TEa site, but not Goodwin.
Lefty Cyclist Type
says...
11:54am Wed 4 Jul 12
Charles Norrie wrote:Do you have any concept at all of what 'migratory' means? The Thames estuary, and the channel are one of the busiest bird migratory routes in the world. Slapping a massive air hub in the middle of that is foolhardy in the extreme.
You do not save a straw man argument by repeating the offence. In fact Heathrow has had bird problems in the past, because of the presence of refuse tips in the area, and these have been dealt with by scrupulously burying the rubbish. And Goodwin is underwater most of the year and is not a mud flat, except and extreme low water.
Your argument might apply to the TEa site, but not Goodwin.
I notice you did not address the economic impact such a hub would have on Essex.
r6keith
says...
1:50pm Wed 4 Jul 12
jayman
says...
1:53pm Wed 4 Jul 12
statement from there website..
This is the largest single regeneration area in Europe and the strategic focus of our wider LEP area. With DP World’s new container facility and the Port of Tilbury in Thurrock, Ebbsfleet’s fast rail services to Europe, and Southend Airport, the Thames Gateway alone provides four key drivers of economic growth for our LEP area. As a national priority, the growth planned in the Thames Gateway provides significant opportunities for new businesses in new sectors and new employment opportunities.
part of there economic strategy includes.... yes you guessed it! Southend airport..
all these clowns want do do is pack aircraft around our other wheezing and congested international airports like a flock of pigeons around a discarded big mac. why worry about the long term future when these clowns want to make profit now..
Lefty Cyclist Type
says...
2:03pm Wed 4 Jul 12
jayman wrote:Building more and more airports is even more shortsighted.
the 'South East Local Enterprise Partnership' is far, far, far! from independent..
statement from there website..
This is the largest single regeneration area in Europe and the strategic focus of our wider LEP area. With DP World’s new container facility and the Port of Tilbury in Thurrock, Ebbsfleet’s fast rail services to Europe, and Southend Airport, the Thames Gateway alone provides four key drivers of economic growth for our LEP area. As a national priority, the growth planned in the Thames Gateway provides significant opportunities for new businesses in new sectors and new employment opportunities.
part of there economic strategy includes.... yes you guessed it! Southend airport..
all these clowns want do do is pack aircraft around our other wheezing and congested international airports like a flock of pigeons around a discarded big mac. why worry about the long term future when these clowns want to make profit now..
Charles Norrie
says...
2:10pm Wed 4 Jul 12
wobblybob
says...
2:44pm Wed 4 Jul 12
Charles Norrie wrote:What rubbish, you can't keep the skies clear with ANY of these tactics. As a birdwatcher I can assure you none of the flocks that fly over this area will take any notice of your so called scarers. Yes, they won't land on the airfield, but they do fly along the estuary & WILL be a hazard. Birds follow set routes, & the Thames estuary is their version of the M25.
There is no difficulty in keeping birds away from airport sites. At the moment the Goodwin sands re under water and have few birds on them. When they are dried out they become mud flats and there are all sorts of technique for getting ring of the.
like: no food on the flats; sparrow-hawks and kestrels; noise and lights; small aircraft imitating hawks and kestrels; No need to turn to poison. How many strikes are there at Heathrow or Kai Tak in a year.
Don't raise straw men arguments.
Charles Norrie
says...
2:53pm Wed 4 Jul 12
Lefty Cyclist Type
says...
3:23pm Wed 4 Jul 12
Charles Norrie wrote:Fifteen pounds of Goose into a jet engine is a very serious hazard. Even more so if a plane hits a whole flock.
And I watch birds too, and they really aren't a very serious hazard. Apart from the film "The Birds is coming", how many airports have been closed by our feathered friends?
Charles Norrie
says...
3:29pm Wed 4 Jul 12
And one reason why RR has problems with developing their new engines in the 970s was that they forgot to de-freeze the simulated goose before funnelling it into the new carbon fibre blades under power.
True.
Charles Norrie
southendshrimper
says...
7:45pm Wed 4 Jul 12
& hopefully Southend Airport.
BASILBRUSH
says...
11:27pm Wed 4 Jul 12
Mr Fuller, 54, from Westcliff, said: “If Heathrow was managed more efficiently and short-haul flights were moved to other airports such as Gatwick, Stansted or Luton, which still have capacity, there would be no need to replace the hub airport.
So if i am correct, Mr Fuller suggests existing Airports should be used more efficiently instead of building new?
However Mr Fuller is doe's not realise that Heathrow is at capacity and if you move the Short haul flights away from Heathrow (assuming the operators would want to move), you no longer have a Hub. It is the Hub that attracts global business to the UK and the reason it it vital the UK provides the capacity. But I too agree that using existing Airports is the best way (without building a Boris Island) to help absorb the demand.
So then, why is Mr Fuller so against the development of Southend Airport which is an existing Airport brought upto modern safety requirements to allow it to do what it used to do whilst doing exactly as he suggests by reducing the need to build a new hub Airport?
Then again god fordid anyone would suggest any kind of development or increase in activity at any Airport in front of Mr Fuller....
http://www.saen.org.
uk/tag/jon-fuller/
UK Fan
says...
4:14pm Thu 5 Jul 12
Peek oil has been and gone, fuel, any fuel will become ever more expensive, putting up prices for flights, reducing (hopefully) the number of fliers, reducing the number of flights and airports required.
Flights are way too cheap anyway but that doesn't matter anymore, the thing has just been laid to rest again.
Lefty Cyclist Type says...
8:14am Wed 4 Jul 12