Guest 697- Registered: 13 Apr 2010
- Posts: 622
18 January 2011
18:3989444#1
Boris Johnson is in the news again today with his plans for an airport off the Kent coast. There's been a lot of comment about the impact on the environment, but not much about the possible economic benefits for Kent. Isn't there an argument that this could actually be very good for Kent to have a major London airport on our doorstep? Such a facility would create a lot of employment for people in East Kent, Sheppey and Medway, all areas that are acknowledged as being in dire need of economic stimulus. I personally think Boris may be on to something.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
18 January 2011
18:4589449#2
I would agree, certainly better for Kent than further expansion of Gatwick and Heathrow, it makes geographic and access sense too.
That said - we have Manston on our doorstep and instead have an expansion there, with fast rail link and improved road access, would be even better for Kent and us in particular. The road and rail infrastructure wont be greater cost than constructing an island in the estuary and the environmental impact less.
Guest 697- Registered: 13 Apr 2010
- Posts: 622
18 January 2011
19:0589451#3
I agree, Barry, Manston would be preferable. Having said that, I can't help but think that if Manston was an option it would have happened by now. Manston was on the list when they eventually plumped for Stansted as London's third airport. Either way, I think that some politicans in Kent are giving out the wrong message, and should actually be entering into the debate with an open mind.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
18 January 2011
19:1489453#4
the bit about an island in the estuary is just a pipe dream of boris, the cost would be prohibitive.
i would plump for expansion of manston, but as we know from the difficulties of expanding lydd, nimbyism will stop that happening.
Guest 697- Registered: 13 Apr 2010
- Posts: 622
18 January 2011
19:2889457#5
Agreed, Howard, the cost would be huge. But Hong Kong proved it can be done with the Chek Lap Kok airport. If London is to retain its position as the world's busiest international airport, then sooner or later a big decision is going to have to be made. Investors are out there who would be willing to invest in such big projects. My key point is that Kent shouldn't rule itself out by putting up the barriers now on future development.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
18 January 2011
19:3589459#6
From what I have understood about the only person banging on about a new airport is Boris. If he is that desperate for a new LONDON (not Kent) airport mabe he should cement over the Thames and leave Kent alone.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
18 January 2011
19:5389461#7
The estuary airport is intended as a replacement for Heathrow not an additional site. The eventual release of the Heathrow site would yield a substantial part of the cost of the new facility. There are no close neighbours five miles offshore, no birds live there, the new island would provide a further Thames crossing and construction would not disrupt existing airport operations. It may work out more costly in the short term but I think the extra investment would be worth it.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson