The Bull  permalink

Thames estuary airport

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 94
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Todaymueller - (U8053762) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/u...

    Thought I would bring this up for discussion. I live close by so it would effect me. However I can see both sides to the argument. Building an airport would bring in massive investment, create 1000's of jobs and help get the economy moving. On the other hand it would bring pollution and blight the homes of many. On top of destroying some widlife habitat.
    The local council are using taxpayers money to oppose the scheme, however not everybody is against it. So is that right?
    I think I will get a bumper sticker saying ' I don't care if they build the aiport one way or the other ' That will make me popular with the neighbours!

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Interesting. I've been to Grain a few times, although not recently, and meaning no disrespect to your neighbourhood, I recall it as a remote and pretty unattractive corner for which the words "ripe for development" might have been coined. There are a power station and an oil refinery there, which I suppose don't favour either the wildlife or the aesthetics of the place.

    You say the Medway council is spending money to oppose it. Lots of money? Spent how? I suppose it's their job to take a view on environmental impact and on the human inhabitants' interest, if they do so properly and honestly. But I think Kent CC should butt out with its view that it would be better to develop airports elsewhere: that's outside its remit.

    Personally, I tend to be unmoved by talk of destroying wildlife habitat, unless it's something especially rare and valuable. They're even quoted as saying it would "destroy swathes of North Kent", which is really OTT, as well as showing that someone should learn what swathes actually are. Kent wouldn't be "destroyed", it would be used by people. That's what people do, and indeed every species does. Where we stand, another creature can't; that's life. We could go back to living in trees, I suppose, reducing our numbers by 99.999% or whatever, but even that would "destroy" the habitat of some birds and bats. (And we're not going to.)

    This, from an on-link from your link, might be interesting:
    "The full debate will be broadcast on BBC Radio Kent on Friday 2 November at 16:45 BST and on Saturday at 13:00 BST."

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by My Mum is turning in her grave (U13137565) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    I haven't been following this aprt from thinking this was proposed before (25 years ago?) and wouldn't it be better to develop Manston, especially now there is a high speed rail link with east Kent?

    I have a friend who lives on the Isle of Grain and he moved there precisely because of its remoteness and wildlife. I imagine it is fairly unique so close to London. It will certainly affect both Kent and Essex.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    I like London but I live nowhere near it, and have only flown to it a handful of times.

    At the forefront of my mind is the question of cost. The estuary airport is projected to cost £50 billion. The 3rd runway of Heathrow is projected to cost £10 billion. So if anybody wants to go for the estuary option, they need to provide very good reasons for that decision.

    Of course cost is not the only thing that has to be considered. A recent report shows that there would be 50-100 extra deaths per year, from the effects of pollution, if the 3rd Heathrow runway was built. That is a very small number (bear with me on this), when you consider that the number of deaths by natural causes across London is probably about 100,000 a year. I don't think anybody has done a study on how many more deaths would result from the pollution of an estuary airport (consider the fact that presumably more vehicles will have to travel for longer to get there, and therefore cause more pollution) but I would guess that would be on the same sort of order.

    You have to take into account the quality of life of the people who live near Heathrow who have to suffer the virtually constant noise of aircraft. Ultimately the market is the best judge of who, and how, to ensure people are not intolerably inconvenienced. Suppose the airport authority were to say, before the 3rd runway was built, that it would buy any house in the area, at the current market price, so that the residents could move out if they really wanted to. Judging from the price the houses are now, I don't think many would take up the offer, and I don't think Heathrow would have any difficulty for finding new buyers for any houses that it did acquire, but at least the exercise would show that the people who live near the airport are doing so out of their own volition. I am envisaging that only a few thousand would want to take up the offer anyway, and there would be people willing to come along and buy them, maybe at 10% discount. If 5000 properties and sell at a loss of £20,000 each, that would be a £100 million loss, which quite small in comparison to the £10 billion cost of the new runway.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by Buttey (U14563284) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    I haven't been following this aprt from thinking this was proposed before (25 years ago?) and wouldn't it be better to develop Manston, especially now there is a high speed rail link with east Kent?

    I have a friend who lives on the Isle of Grain and he moved there precisely because of its remoteness and wildlife. I imagine it is fairly unique so close to London. It will certainly affect both Kent and Essex.

     

    The HS1 link is only high speed until it hits Fawkham Junction, which is a bit before Gravesend (I think ... open to correction). Anyway, the rest of the route from the medway towns to Ramsgate, which is close to Manston, is the terrible, low-speed, delay-prone N. Kent line. At the moment HS1 trains on that line terminate at Faversham.

    Actually developing Manston and the associated HS1 route would be of huge benefit to the region and update one of the countries most woeful transport links. I'm not sure how much capacity the Manston site could handle, and of course it would be, even on a fully developed HS1, about an hour from London.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Poorgrass (U12099742) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Funny how the issues of dangerous climate change and the finite and increasingly precarious supply of oil seem to have been completely forgotten. Personally I don't think we should be expanding air travel at all, much of it is unnecessary, wasteful of resources and damaging to the environment. Rich people don't need several exotic holidays a year, and in my experience much business travel is often questionable. Some "important" people seem to have to travel even though videoconferencing and Internet would probably do the business adequately. But looks like the "business lobby" is going to get its way, and to hell with the planet and the environment.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Go away historians of the future (U1484964) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Local people keep campaigning against expanding Manston, which is in the middle of nowhere anyway.

    Basically, everybody agrees that Heathrow's full up and more capacity is needed, but they all think it should be built somewhere else.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by My Mum is turning in her grave (U13137565) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Sorry, I could hve sworn I got on a hi=speed train at Whitstable a couple of years ago but now I think about it I probably changed at Faversham.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Ell Kaye (U2222944) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    I've always thought RAF Upper Heyford should be an option...just off the M40...centralish England & the runways take HUGE airplanes....

    That's assuming we really need more, skype & internet should stop a lot unnecessary business junkets, tourism ...not personally bothered & freight is the only important consideration IMHO.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Funny how the issues of dangerous climate change and the finite and increasingly precarious supply of oil seem to have been completely forgotten. Personally I don't think we should be expanding air travel at all, much of it is unnecessary, wasteful of resources and damaging to the environment. Rich people don't need several exotic holidays a year, and in my experience much business travel is often questionable. Some "important" people seem to have to travel even though videoconferencing and Internet would probably do the business adequately. But looks like the "business lobby" is going to get its way, and to hell with the planet and the environment.  Poorgrass, can you show us what proportion of total pollution is air travel? If people are to travel by rail or car instead, can you show that would reduce pollution?

    If you want to reduce the use of transportation altogether, how do you propose to do that? Yes you could tax fuel punitively, but that is what is being done now (about 80% of the price of a litre of petrol is tax and duty).
    Fair enough, the growth in car use has been arrested.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    fasc, I can't follow your ideas at all.

    You say "You have to take into account the quality of life of the people who live near Heathrow", but then ignore all those already affected by Heathrow, in your "extra deaths" figure and in your house-buying scheme. In your cost analysis, how can you ignore the undoubted benefit to those (175,000 people, according to B. Johnson on Today today*) suffering from noise pollution at the moment, from moving the whole thing away? And the benefit, whether in cash or in productive housing and commercial property, from redeveloping the Heathrow site?

    And how would buying affected houses and selling them again help matters? The same number of houses would be occupied, presumably by about the same number of people, suffering from noise and chemical pollution. They would just be different people; in your thesis people "willing" to live there despite the noise, which would mean somewhat poorer people, which in these times would largely mean people who happen not to have benefited from the past property boom. What''s the point of that?

    * BJ and a Baroness Valentine were in the Today 09.12 interview, debating Heathrow R3 vs. the rest.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Building an airport would bring in massive investment, create 1000's of jobs and help get the economy moving. 

    Or plunge us even deeper in debt and create a massive white elephant.

    Remember, this is a 'hub'; somewhere where people not intending to visit the UK change planes. Yes, this could make money for the airport operating company, but it will do precious little for anyone else. And since we are constantly being reminded that all over Europe they are building rival hubs then, as the supply goes up, the profitability will go down. Because Heathrow as an early player made money, it doesn't follow that every airport does. Many more recent ones - especially ones that involved artificial islands and the like - never cover their construction costs. And the same applies within the UK. Any jobs created in the Thames estuary will have come from sucking business and jobs away from Heathrow.

    Even if it never made a profit, this project would make money for lawyers, architects, construction firms, property speculators etc. which is why they are for it, because they can walk away with the cash while we are left with the debt. But don't swallow the phony line that this is for the the benefit of the UK as a whole.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by My Mum is turning in her grave (U13137565) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Yes you could tax fuel punitively, but that is what is being done now (about 80% of the price of a litre of petrol is tax and duty).
    Fair enough, the growth in car use has been arrested.
     


    I thought aircraft fuel wasn't taxed.

    I still don't understand the reason why business people waste so much time jetting around the world for face to face meetings. Surely it's more or less unnecessary with today's technology?

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Former Archers Listener known as Fausto etc (U14266958) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Yes it would create jobs.
    However the Thames estuary is a protected area and the legal battles to get an estuary airport built would be huge.

    None of the major airlines have expressed any desire to relocate from their present sites.

    Over recent years business flights have dropped by 25%, pleasure flying has remained static.

    We will in the next few years hit peak oil where the cost of flying will increase dramatically, thus reducing demand.

    The Thameside marshes are at present hosting tens if not hundreds of thousands of migrant birds, some of which are large birds or habitually fly in large flocks. As well as depriving them of habitat, until we have killed them all off the chances of an aircraft coming to disaster because of a bird strike are big.

    It will take at least a decade before the first dollop of concrete could be laid to get the scheme underway. Other measures could well have turned the economy around by then.

    Babble on Boris.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    But it's not primarily lawyers, speculators etc. who are the prime demanders of more and better capacity, it's business as a whole, and by no means only in the London area. You know, business: what gives us our jobs and taxes.

    And it can't be doubted that a country that has good international connections is to that extent better placed in business; or that the UK is more dependent on international business and investment for its living than most; or that it is peculiarly well-placed by geography to be a bridge, both physical and conceptual, between the dense intra-European communications and other continents. So the case for considerable benefits to the country as a whole, not just those directly interested in the structure, seems to me to be made.

    As a cross-check: would the country suffer if Heathrow, as is, were simply closed down, with no replacement? If not, then the UK doesn't get any benefit from intercontinental communications, and therefore wouldn't benefit from better ones, and your case would be proved. But I don't think that's the case - do you?

    And BTW: how to property speculators "walk away with the cash while we are left with the debt."? What cash, what debt, who's "we"?

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    BTW,
    "The full debate will be broadcast on BBC Radio Kent on Friday 2 November at 16:45 BST and on Saturday at 13:00 BST."

    Are we to gather from that that BBC Radio Kent, or perhaps all of Kent, haven't put their clocks back?

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by auldhairy (U14258268) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Many people in our area were hoping that RAF Lyneham would become a civil airport when,
    It had been thought the MoD would sell off the base which will close in 2012.
    Unfortunately this happened,
    Defence Secretary Liam Fox told the House of Commons that the Defence Technical Training Change Programme centre would move there.
    and many people told this bloke that he is stupid,
    North Wiltshire's Conservative MP James Gray said he was "delighted" at the news.
    I have a friend (ExRAF) who lived in your area and worked at Heathrow and he emigrated to Canada. I'll email him this information as he will be interested.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by BryanLuc (U12989423) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Why don't they expand Gatwick or Stansted
    Both have existing good links to London

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Ell Kaye (U2222944) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Yes I think that is the point, there are many redundant RAF airports lying around without building a new one on the Thames, & London is too over populated & too far away from other parts of the UK.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    auld,

    I mean no offence, but do you think that has any relevance at all to a Thames estuary airport, or any London airport, or any airport at all?

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Former Archers Listener known as Fausto etc (U14266958) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Why don't they expand Gatwick or Stansted
    Both have existing good links to London 


    There is a crying need to expand business and hence employment prospects away from the Sout East. Why should links to London be the criteria for everything?

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Not < for everything >; just for a London airport.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Go away historians of the future (U1484964) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    BBC Radio Kent hasn't changed its calendar since about 1950, so expecting them to change their clocks is a bit much.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    But it's not primarily lawyers, speculators etc. who are the prime demanders of more and better capacity, it's business as a whole, and by no means only in the London area. You know, business: what gives us our jobs and taxes. 

    Yes; profitable business may generate jobs and taxes, but enormously expensive building projects that never cover their costs destroy them.

    So sure, business owners are all for projects which will transfer taxpayer's money into their pockets. As far as they are concerned, it is profit. But the taxpayer should think about their own interests.

    It is peculiar that when old labour types suggest we could get out of debt by expanding public services and increasing wages, because this would stimulate the economy generally, they are derided. Yet offer exactly the same arguments using business speak and the right swallow them whole.

    And it can't be doubted that a country that has good international connections is to that extent better placed in business; or that the UK is more dependent on international business and investment for its living than most; or that it is peculiarly well-placed by geography to be a bridge, both physical and conceptual, between the dense intra-European communications and other continents. So the case for considerable benefits to the country as a whole, not just those directly interested in the structure, seems to me to be made. 

    It is a hub. Where people change planes. A US businessmen booking tickets to Shanghai will be totally indifferent as to which country the intermediate airport is situated in. He won't think; 'I see I am on an island in the Thames estuary for the next 30 minutes. I'll just nip into Rochester and find something to invest in.'

    As a cross-check: would the country suffer if Heathrow, as is, were simply closed down, with no replacement? If not, then the UK doesn't get any benefit from intercontinental communications, and therefore wouldn't benefit from better ones, and your case would be proved. But I don't think that's the case - do you? 

    Once again, the main value of Heathrow to the UK is that people use it to bring themselves or their goods to the UK. The problem with Heathrow is not that it does not have capacity to service the UK, it is that it cannot continue to do this different task i.e. serve as a hub. So the question is whether building a hub in the Thames estuary is the best use of our money.

    And BTW: how to property speculators "walk away with the cash while we are left with the debt."? What cash, what debt, who's "we"? 

    We are the taxpayers. We (and our children) will have to pay off the debt we have incurred building the infrastructure. But building this infrastructure will also incidentally benefit some property owners. They will get that benefit up front, whether the project works or not.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    fasc, I can't follow your ideas at all.

    You say "You have to take into account the quality of life of the people who live near Heathrow", but then ignore all those already affected by Heathrow, in your "extra deaths" figure and in your house-buying scheme. In your cost analysis, how can you ignore the undoubted benefit to those (175,000 people, according to B. Johnson on Today today*) suffering from noise pollution at the moment, from moving the whole thing away? And the benefit, whether in cash or in productive housing and commercial property, from redeveloping the Heathrow site?

    And how would buying affected houses and selling them again help matters? The same number of houses would be occupied, presumably by about the same number of people, suffering from noise and chemical pollution. They would just be different people; in your thesis people "willing" to live there despite the noise, which would mean somewhat poorer people, which in these times would largely mean people who happen not to have benefited from the past property boom. What''s the point of that?

    * BJ and a Baroness Valentine were in the Today 09.12 interview, debating Heathrow R3 vs. the rest. 
    I can't see how it is relevant to say I am "ignoring those already affected". The extra deaths are if a third runway is built, and as it is not built yet, people are not already affected by it. My house purchase scheme is for the building of the third runway. Those already affected by Heathrow as it now is have basically chosen to buy a house near the airport as it is now. Maybe their should be a house purchase scheme for them to, but that is not relevant to the discussion about expanding/building airports in London.

    I did think of the benefit of redeveloping the Heathrow site At a guess the place is probably about 1000 acres which could perhaps be sold for maybe a billion or two. How many millions would it cost to demolish all those buildings - probably many millions.

    Another benefit would be a quieter area around the airport. Presumably this would be reflected in higher house prices. If, as you say, there are 175,000 affected, and my guess is that house prices would go up about £20,000 each without an airport, that equals a benefit of £3.5 billion. So the total benefit of completely removing Heathrow might be of the order of £5 billion, still very much less than the cost of the Estuary airport.

    You say that it would be somewhat poorer people who would move in under the my purchase scheme, but do you have real evidence of that? Anybody buying a house in that area presumably has the means to pay for a house, we are not talking here of the destitute who must either get a house near Heathrow or sleep under a bridge! I know the house owners are not rich, they are having to make hard choices, and their mortgage payments, for many, are a terrible strain, but that raises the whole issue of housing in Britain, particularly in London, and the lack of housing supply. That is tangential to the discussion about airports. There ARE cheaper areas to live in and around London, I assume that MOST people are living there because they judge the air traffic noise as "not so bad". Presumably many of them work in the airport.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Adaptery (with brackets) (U13803003) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    A while ago, I dreamt that I read an article in the telegraph about a group of business men making a bid for a completely new airport to the west of London, Near Reading or Swindon. I even remember looking these up on a map...........

    The reasoning was that Heathrow has been built in a piecemeal manner since the 1950s with add-ons when the situation becomes desperate. A third runway would not be enough by the time it was built, and the buildings and other infrastructure are not good enough. Therefore, it is better to start again and build a fit for purposed airport.

    Thames is fraught with problems so will take ages to be built.

    Therefore, they were looking to buy land where you could get into London quickly and also access HS2 for the rest of the country.

    Never heard anything since.

    I thought I dreamt it because I have spent absolutely ages trying to find it again. However, I have found an IoS article which may be what I was thinking about...........

    www.independent.co.u...

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by VF (U5759986) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Isn't the SS Richard Montgomery still in the Thames Estuary off Sheerness?

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by auldhairy (U14258268) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    auld,

    I mean no offence, but do you think that has any relevance at all to a Thames estuary airport, or any London airport, or any airport at all? 

    Lyneham is near to London with good rail links. London should not have any more air traffic than it already has. This existing airport would not require massive financial input.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    < enormously expensive building projects that never cover their costs destroy them >

    Why do you assume that it wouldn't cover its costs? Does Heathrow not cover its costs?
    In any case, once you admit there's a general economic benefit, it's a matter of proportion and degree, isn't it? It is universally accepted that the state has to finance some infrastructure at a "loss", because of the greater economic and/or social gain overall: that is, to some extent, what a state is for. Why should an airport be any different?

    < So sure, business owners are all for projects which will transfer taxpayer's money into their pockets. >

    Please explain to me how businesspersons who plead for a bigger and better London airport (for its own sake, not because they're going to be connected with its building or operation in any way) expect to get taxpayers' money transferred into their pockets.

    < It is a hub. Where people change planes
    ...
    The problem with Heathrow is not that it does not have capacity to service the UK, it is that it cannot continue to do this different task i.e. serve as a hub. >

    Where they change planes, among other things.

    However that may be, it is incontestable that hubs are much liked by airlines, because they concentrate streams of traffic, lower costs per seat and increase business and profitability. So a hub tends to attract lots of airlines offering lots of services. So they are attractive airports for travellers, because they have a wider choice of how to get there, and how to get away, whether back home or on to another destination. And an attractive airport for travellers is a asset for a country that wants to do business. So being a hub is not < a different task > from that of servicing the UK.

    (To take a trivial example, your American travelling to Shanghai might not be indifferent to where he changes planes, because he might like to stop off for a day or two, whether for R&R or a bit of business on the way; and it would be useful to attract his business, or at least give him the opportunity. He might even prefer to spend his unavoidable 4 hours' waiting-time in a large airport with lots of facilities rather than a tin shed somewhere, such as there used to be when Prestwick and Shannon were the early hubs.)

    < We are the taxpayers. We (and our children) will have to pay off the debt we have incurred building the infrastructure. But building this infrastructure will also incidentally benefit some property owners. They will get that benefit up front, whether the project works or not. >

    What infrastructure do you mean? The whole airport structure? Why would the taxpayer incur debt to build that?
    Or do you mean the public road and rail links etc.? Yes, they would cost the taxpayer, but to object to that is to object to all transport facilities whatsoever, unless you would rather go back to turnpikes and toll bridges everywhere.

    And what property owners? The people who now own the land would be bought out, of course, and by compulsory purchase if not willingly. But Grain is an extremely poor and undeveloped area, not even much good for agriculture, so the land values would be trivial in the context (and far, far below the value of the land released at Heathrow, in any case). The new owners would be the people who operate the various airport and ancillary services, or the people who collect rent from them. How would they get any < benefit up front > Or "walk away" with the taxpayers' money, as you put it before?



    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by HenGog (U14769745) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    I was very impressed by Howard Davis on this morning's Today programme. His involvement may have been the result of the governments desperation to push the decision beyond the next election, but we may for once, have done the right thing, if not for the right reasons.

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by BryanLuc (U12989423) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Sensible post
    I actually agree with all of it
    Makes a nice change

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Yes it would create jobs.
    However the Thames estuary is a protected area and the legal battles to get an estuary airport built would be huge.

    None of the major airlines have expressed any desire to relocate from their present sites.

    Over recent years business flights have dropped by 25%, pleasure flying has remained static.

    We will in the next few years hit peak oil where the cost of flying will increase dramatically, thus reducing demand.

    The Thameside marshes are at present hosting tens if not hundreds of thousands of migrant birds, some of which are large birds or habitually fly in large flocks. As well as depriving them of habitat, until we have killed them all off the chances of an aircraft coming to disaster because of a bird strike are big.

    It will take at least a decade before the first dollop of concrete could be laid to get the scheme underway. Other measures could well have turned the economy around by then.

    Babble on Boris.  

    Yep, they have just all arrived, they make about us much noise as Heathrow.

    www.healthylifeessex...

    They come for the eelgrass and when that is stripped move onto the farm crops.

    en.wikipedia.org/wik...

    Eddie is about to extend the terminal at Sarfend, Easy Jet take off and land right over the Isle of Grain.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by VF (U5759986) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Isn't the SS Richard Montgomery still in the Thames Estuary off Sheerness?  Seems she still is.

    I doubt they will be pouring any concrete near her for some while.

    en.wikipedia.org/wik...

    www.kentonline.co.uk...

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Isn't the SS Richard Montgomery still in the Thames Estuary off Sheerness?  Seems she still is.

    I doubt they will be pouring any concrete near her for some while.

    en.wikipedia.org/wik...

    www.kentonline.co.uk... 

    It's down river a bit from the Isle of Grain, off Minster on the Isle of Sheppey.

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by VF (U5759986) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    www.dft.gov.uk/mca/1...

    Not that far though Haesten!

    The wreck lies about one and a half miles from Sheerness and the Isle of Grain and five miles from Southend. It lies on a bank across the tide. 

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    www.dft.gov.uk/mca/1...

    Not that far though Haesten!

    The wreck lies about one and a half miles from Sheerness and the Isle of Grain and five miles from Southend. It lies on a bank across the tide.   

    The exclusion zone is 4 miles east of Grain, the paddle steamers from Sarfend pier used to pass it on the way down to Margate, the last time I was sailing off Minster I sailed quite close to it, a bit eerie.
    The shipping channels are much closer to the Kent side, the Maplin Sands where they were going to once build the airport are on the Essex side

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by VF (U5759986) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    www.dft.gov.uk/mca/1...

    Not that far though Haesten!

    The wreck lies about one and a half miles from Sheerness and the Isle of Grain and five miles from Southend. It lies on a bank across the tide.   

    The exclusion zone is 4 miles east of Grain, the paddle steamers from Sarfend pier used to pass it on the way down to Margate, the last time I was sailing off Minster I sailed quite close to it, a bit eerie.
    The shipping channels are much closer to the Kent side, the Maplin Sands where they were going to once build the airport are on the Essex side 
    Bet it was eerie! When you think just how much stuff is still on board it would be a hell of a bang if it went off! From what Ive read they survey it on a regular basis and have decided that its best left alone.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Friday, 2nd November 2012


    During the war Sarfend pier was HMS Leigh, the command centre for incoming and outgoing convoys to the Thames. The ships would moor up inside the Shoebury boom and wait their turn for a pilot ship to take them up to the Pool of London.
    The Montgomery dragged her anchor in a blow and went aground in the shallows, breaking her back.

    www.gnometech.freese...

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Mr_Edwards (U3815709) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Surely freight could be carried by nice environmentally friendly clipper ships?

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by Poorgrass (U12099742) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Surely freight could be carried by nice environmentally friendly clipper ships?  Same goes for those "important" people that simply "have" to travel everywhere. And not only would the clipper ship be relatively benign for the environment, it would also have the bonus of keeping all those annoying people out of our hair for months on end.

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by VF (U5759986) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    <quote.Same goes for those "important" people that simply "have" to travel everywhere</quote>

    Like those who fly in from far and wide to preform at a concert thats to highlight the dangers to the environment?

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by auldhairy (U14258268) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Some one mentioned Boris and I've just seen this,

    Stop the flight delays! Boris accuses Cameron's airport tsar of 'utter inertia'

    Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/...
    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Friday, 2nd November 2012


    It doesn't look like Eddie Stobart thinks the Grain airport will happen.

    www.echo-news.co.uk/...

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by Todaymueller - (U8053762) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Some interesting thoughts. I feel the choice is between growth and stagnation. We can choose to stay as we are. This would help the envoroment. But the population is expanding, people want better health care, better schools, a better standard of living. To pay for that we need growth. Plus if we stay as we are the rest of the world will forge ahead.
    On ballance I say build the thing.

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    Morty

    < enormously expensive building projects that never cover their costs destroy them >

    Why do you assume that it wouldn't cover its costs? Does Heathrow not cover its costs?
    In any case, once you admit there's a general economic benefit, it's a matter of proportion and degree, isn't it? It is universally accepted that the state has to finance some infrastructure at a "loss", because of the greater economic and/or social gain overall: that is, to some extent, what a state is for. Why should an airport be any different? 


    I assume it won't cover costs because that has been the case with similar off-shore airports built elsewhere. As I said before, Heathrow was built a long time ago on a nice flat site next to London at a time when costs were lower, planning was easy and there was less international competition. As to whether the taxpayer should finance such infrastructure because it will bring overall gains to the taxpayer, whether it will do so is the point we are discussing.

    Please explain to me how businesspersons who plead for a bigger and better London airport (for its own sake, not because they're going to be connected with its building or operation in any way) expect to get taxpayers' money transferred into their pockets. 

    Perhaps for the same reason you do; they have been taken in by the hype!

    < It is a hub. Where people change planes
    ...
    The problem with Heathrow is not that it does not have capacity to service the UK, it is that it cannot continue to do this different task i.e. serve as a hub. >

    However that may be, it is incontestable that hubs are much liked by airlines, because they concentrate streams of traffic, lower costs per seat and increase business and profitability. So a hub tends to attract lots of airlines offering lots of services. So they are attractive airports for travellers, because they have a wider choice of how to get there, and how to get away, whether back home or on to another destination. And an attractive airport for travellers is a asset for a country that wants to do business. So being a hub is not < a different task > from that of servicing the UK. 


    I often change trains at Clapham Junction. All I care about is getting a fast connection. I am never tempted to holiday or do business in Battersea because it hosts that particular railway station.

    < We are the taxpayers. We (and our children) will have to pay off the debt we have incurred building the infrastructure. But building this infrastructure will also incidentally benefit some property owners. They will get that benefit up front, whether the project works or not. >

    What infrastructure do you mean? The whole airport structure? Why would the taxpayer incur debt to build that?
    Or do you mean the public road and rail links etc.? Yes, they would cost the taxpayer, but to object to that is to object to all transport facilities whatsoever, unless you would rather go back to turnpikes and toll bridges everywhere. 


    I'm fine with infrastructure - if you can make an economic case for it.

    And what property owners? The people who now own the land would be bought out, of course, and by compulsory purchase if not willingly. But Grain is an extremely poor and undeveloped area, not even much good for agriculture, so the land values would be trivial in the context (and far, far below the value of the land released at Heathrow, in any case). The new owners would be the people who operate the various airport and ancillary services, or the people who collect rent from them. How would they get any < benefit up front > Or "walk away" with the taxpayers' money, as you put it before? 

    In one section you argue that the airport will provide broad gains for the economy, now you say that the only ones to gain will be the airport owner.

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by LooseWheel (U2499574) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    I live in north Kent. I think the estuary airport is a done deal. About 20 years ago I acted as secretary to a local pcc and I remember the chair saying our area would be changed beyond recognition by Thames Gateway within 30 years. The new London Gateway port is already being built - due to open next year I believe. When local protests staved off the threat of the new airport being built near Cliffe, I thought then, and still think it was a temporary reprieve, though the exact location may have shifted slightly.

    North Kent has some very deprived areas, despite the proximity to London, lord knows my own town is pretty deprived in parts with high unemployment & the typical proliferation of fast food joints, betting shops & pound shops. The high speed rail link stops at Ebbsfleet & Gravesend before speeding to Ashford, but it doesn't seem to have made much difference to local businesses. Hopefully the new port might stimulate a bit of growth. I'm not against the airport, even though I'd be directly affected, being pretty close to any of the proposed sites.
    LW x

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    < < Please explain to me how businesspersons who plead for a bigger and better London airport (for its own sake, not because they're going to be connected with its building or operation in any way) expect to get taxpayers' money transferred into their pockets. >

    Perhaps for the same reason you do; they have been taken in by the hype! >

    That's a 'no', then.


    < I often change trains at Clapham Junction. All I care about is getting a fast connection. I am never tempted to holiday or do business in Battersea because it hosts that particular railway station. >

    Very interesting, I'm sure.

    As you like analogies instead of actual cases, would you agree that a bus station performs the function of a bus stop, but also a wider one that benefits its region in a way that is qualitatively and quantitatively better? So much so, in fact, that a public authority might reasonably put some public money into it?

    Either way, is it or is it not a fact that hubs are highly desired by airlines, travellers and governments, and do attract business? And are currently being developed in three neighbouring countries? Are they all < taken in by the hype > ?


    < I'm fine with infrastructure - if you can make an economic case for it. >

    Good. That's quite a retreat from your #24, when you were apparently against any taxpayer contribution, on the grounds that "enormously expensive building projects that never cover their costs destroy them (= jobs and taxes)": and "We (and our children) will have to pay off the debt we have incurred building the infrastructure ... ".
    So shall we wait and see what the economic case is, before we judge the matter?


    < < The new owners would be the people who operate the various airport and ancillary services, or the people who collect rent from them. How would they get any < benefit up front > Or "walk away" with the taxpayers' money, as you put it before? >

    In one section you argue that the airport will provide broad gains for the economy, now you say that the only ones to gain will be the airport owner. >

    Another question not answered, then.
    And wherever do I < say that the only ones to gain will be the airport owner. > ???
    (That's actually more like you, in #12.)





    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by VF (U5759986) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    One thing I have always wondered about air travel and transportation...Is it really as necessary as it once was? I was reading a Jeremy Clarkson book (stay with me!) that had a section about Concorde.In it he said that one of the reasons that Concorde retired was that it was too slow,that Mach 2 was trumped by the internet.If you really needed to be in direct contact with New York you could do it in minutes rather than 4 hours...

    Now Im not a luddite on all this,but I wonder whether that given that our infrastructures rely on a finite resource should we be building another airport or building another super port?Cargo ships carry far more than aircraft can,but obviously a lot slower.Does the world need to rethink its logistical chain?

    I would be interested to hear views.Im not anti airports as such but I do wonder whether they are an answer to future problems?I wonder what will happen when hypersonic aircraft come along?

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by Brentford_Nylon (U2565713) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    ...or building another super port? 

    I think that's what the London Gateway is going to be.

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by goodlookingone (U6012246) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    I first heard about this airport from a London Colleague who came to work out here in S Essex. As I understand it, the Mayor of London has decided to abdicate solving London's Airport by lumbering it on to Essex and Kent. It seems to me that the true solution is to apply some tecchnology - after 100 years of aviation I'm sure that it should be possible to land and despatch an aircraft in a much shorter runway than those at Heathrow. If not, Why not... The cost of airports implies that there is plenty of money to throw at the runway length problem.

    Now consider he cost . Where do airport employees live .. probably near Heathrow. If expansion is needed then presumably even more people are needed to invade Essex/Kent than currently support the inadequate Heathrow. What will it cost to house them. Obviously the Houses they leave behind in Heathrow will devalue pretty quickly once their Raison d'etre has gone, so they are going to need pretty hefty grants/or enhanced income from the airport for us to pay.
    Yup, more rail connections will be needed, but of course, why would the trains terminate here? They would go on to France or Belgium or Germany .. Remember, so far we have only built the first Channel Tunnel, A new rail network would give the impetus to further and faster rail links to City Centres. If Boris were really worried about his city He would clear a space in the centre - say, from Tottenham Court Road to Kensington Gardens to land his planes to bring visitors into the City. If He can suggest cutting up Essex and Kent, then obviously He can Sacrifice his own Balliwick for his electors benefit.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

This messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2014 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.