Doug Oakervee’s report into the estuary airport proposed by Boris Johnson’s Deputy Mayor For Policing, failed airline tycoon Kit Malthouse, has apparently “been on (the Mayor’s) desk for some time,” according to this BBC report.
Why the reluctance to publish it? Such an enormous development would undoubtedly be environmentally devastating and the inevitable damage to the less-than-green Mayor’s reputation would not be welcome at a time when the UK is threatened with fines because of the poor air quality in London.
Why, though, has the Mayor of London commissioned a report in the first place, when the proposed site of the airport is outside the Mayor’s jurisdiction and he has no powers to build an airport, anyway? London taxpayers are footing the bill for Oakervee’s report and, incredibly, Boris Johnson is proceeding with further engineering and environmental assessments – at what cost to Londoners, who’ve just been stung by the biggest public transport fares rise since the GLA was created in 2000?
I’ve also been pondering the infrastructure and labour needs of an enormous airport development.
London Heathrow, which Boris Island is intended to replace:
- Employs 68,000 staff. It is the largest single-site employer in the UK.
- Heathrow employees are drawn from not only Greater London and the Home Counties, but as far away as Cambridgeshire, Oxfordshire, Bedfordshire, Wiltshire and Hampshire.
- Heathrow is a massive retail centre. 31.2 million passengers flew from Heathrow in the first six months of 2009 and the net retail income per passenger for BAA was £5.08.
- Heathrow is surrounded by industrial parks; the Yellow Pages reveal that there are 385 logistics companies within 5 miles of Heathrow. Last year Heathrow handled 1,395,054 tonnes of cargo.
- Heathrow has its own dedicated Police Station, Fire Station, Air Ambulance, Animal Reception Centre, Immigration Removal Centre and Short-Term Holding Centre and many other associated services.
- Several local hospitals have emergency plans in place in case of terrorist attack or other major disaster at Heathrow.
So, where would 70,000-odd staff live and how would they get to work? Despite the fact that Heathrow has Underground and mainline rail links and both local and long-distance bus and coach links, many staff drive to work.
Where would all the logistics companies relocate and how would they transport millions of tonnes of cargo on existing road networks?
Who would pay for the construction of new buildings for use by emergency services and Customs and Excise, and would there be sufficient trained staff, vehicles, equipment and budgets available in Kent and Essex?
How would local health services cope in case of large-scale emergency?
In which part of the Deputy Mayor For Policing’s job description is “building airports”?
Don’t expect answers to any of these questions soon.
UPDATE: The Sunday Times claims that the report is to be published on 19 October.
Tags: 10 Comments
10 responses so far ↓
Maybe someone in City Hall should investigate to find out who is paying for these reports and survey’s and any other costs regarding this airport idea . If it is The London Tax Payer that is footing the bill then surely Londoners need to know if it is fair and legal to do so .
It crossed my mind that an airport built over the sea on an Island just of the Kent coast may be exposed to some very dangerous weather conditions including Wind Shear. The weather in and around the United Kingdom can be very unpredictable and dangerous at times especially coastal areas with the additional problem of fog , but the main concern of course would be landing in strong winds with rain. So this leads me to believe that such an airport would not be possible on the grounds of safety . Im no professional but I have been looking around on the internet and found some interesting information . For an example check this website out : http:/worldaviationjournal.blogspot.com/2008/03/top-10-most-dangerous-aircraft-landings.html . If you search the web you will find some interesting things regarding this subject. Not sure that Boris is onto a starter ?
Slight error , the website starts http:// . Not http/ . So it is Two slashes and not One .
http://worldaviationjournal.blogspot.com/2008/03/top-10-most-dangerous-aircraft-landings.html
Is this report and cost of compiling it to the tax player, somethig that an FOI request could get hold of?
Just seen the Politics Show and your friend Gareth Knight of ‘c-fit’ was on. Clearly had media training – way too professional and knowledgeable about the subject to be the grassroots group they pertain to be.
The Sunday Times — but, natch — thinks it knows what’s going on; and has an inside knowledge of the report.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article6879656.ece
Has Boris Johnson first consulted with Aviation Experts to find out what risk assessments should be carried out regarding an airport in that particular location ? . One would assume that a Risk Assessment would be carried out first before paying out for Doug Oakervee’s report along with other costs associated with this project .
This is simply an attempt of Boris ‘playing popularist politics’ by pretending he is ‘cleverer than the experts’.
I mean seriously, how many time has the airport location been looked at in the past and are we supposed to believe that the ‘experts missed a vital and simple solution’ – i.e. Boris Island?
I think this is a tiny little window into the real Boris – maybe the talk of him being clever has gone to his head!
He should stick to the things he’s good at (like running London transport badly).
…and to be taking advice from a failed airline tycoon is most bizzarre. I tried to play hockey once (and failed dismally) – but you won’t catch me advising the Olympic Hockey team!
This type of landing is done on a good day and welcome to the United Kingdom.http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1647492853543566084#docid=-3721746176099079869