Sir, Most of the passengers who would use “Boris Island” would have to pass through or over the most congested part of the country to reach it. London’s transport infrastructure is already stretched to breaking point, so any new airport development requiring major investment of public money should be on a site accessible to the majority of taxpayers — that is, north of the capital, expanding either Stansted or Birmingham.
Alan Bell
Gateshead
Sir, Surely relocating a third airport to the north of the country is an ideal opportunity to redress England’s considerable economic imbalance. It would also provide a major catalyst in decreasing pressure on all forms of transport in the South East.
Jeanie Campbell
Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Sir, I disagree with your comment (leading article, Sept 3) that the rejection of a Thames estuary airport is “a depressing mistake”. On the contrary, the enormous cost and mixed technical accomplishment of another artificial island airport — in Osaka, Japan — justify the Airports Commission’s conclusion.
Advertisement
Kansai airport, with some of the highest landing fees in the world, was for a long time slowly sinking (by several millimetres a year) and was too expensive for most airlines, to such an extent that full development plans (including an additional terminal) had to be scrapped. If Japan’s planners and engineers with all their knowhow were not up to the challenge, it is not by any means certain that the developers of a Thames island airport would be either.
Andrew Newton
(Former adviser to the chairman of the UK-Japan 2000 Group)
London W1
Sir, The disagreement between Boris Johnson and the head of the Airports Commission raises one question that does not seem to have been examined either by parliament or the commission. Both seem to assume that the taxpayer is responsible for any improvement, no matter which airport is chosen — even though the infrastructure owners and the airlines are most likely to benefit. The funding of options should be given equal prominence in the run-up to the decision about extra capacity, and those who benefit most should be asked to reveal how much they intend to contribute. If we are to have foreign owners of our infrastructure (Heathrow is Spanish and Gatwick is American-controlled), let’s have foreign money for improvement.
Eamonn Hamilton
Rawdon, Leeds
Sir, Your leader was somewhat unfair in suggesting that the Airports Commission’s decision to dismiss a Thames estuary airport was “ill-considered”. The commission spent 18 months examining this proposition, at great cost, and its 45-page decision notice goes into detail on the risks and logistical difficulties it would inevitably entail. The most important issue is expense. A new four-runway airport in the Thames estuary would, according to the commission and its consultants, cost some £120 billion, of which at least £60 billion would have to be provided by the taxpayer.
Advertisement
Rather than continuing his attempt to delay the much-needed expansion of Britain’s airport capacity, Boris Johnson should review the most pragmatic solution being reviewed by the commission.
Our independent Heathrow Hub solution, which has been shortlisted by the commission, does not entail building a third runway to the north, nor the associated noise corridor that would result over west London. It simply involves extending the existing northern runway westwards and dividing it in two. Technical studies have shown that it could be readily executed at a cost which we estimate at around £10 billion and funded solely by the airport operator rather than the public purse. Moreover the entire project could be executed by 2023 if given the go-ahead next year.
Overwhelming support from the airlines, the business community, the CBI and passengers is for an expanded Heathrow. Our proposal offers exactly that while addressing many of the environmental and related issues to which Mr Johnson has correctly drawn attention.
Steve Costello
Director, Heathrow Hub