Boris will not get his island – at least, unless he can get his hands on a lot more power first. That will disappoint the London mayor, and perhaps many in the City. But it should be a relief to everyone else in the UK.
Boris Johnson has campaigned hard and long to convince policymakers to expand the capital’s airport capacity by building a new airport at the Isle of Grain in the Thames estuary, at an estimated cost of £70bn-£100bn.
Johnson argued London needed a brand new hub airport to compete in the 21st century. Heathrow Airport, to the west, was not suitable because flights to it must pass over heavily populated parts of the city, where many residents oppose further expansion of Heathrow for noise reasons.
His plan involved ultimately closing Heathrow and using the land for shops and houses.
Many support the idea, believing the UK needs to plan for the long term, and should be willing to take on such large and transformative projects.
But the Airport Commission, set up by the government to consider options, has shortlisted three other plans. Two involve expanding capacity at Heathrow, either with a third runway or extending an existing one, at a cost of about £18bn. The other possibility is a £9bn second runway at Gatwick.
By ruling out the Boris Island, the Airports Commission has made the right choice, for many reasons.
Expensive does not mean good
It is easy for politicians and leader writers to dismiss the enormous cost of the Thames estuary plan. “Put it down as economic stimulus,” they argue. That is true – the money spent would be recycled through the economy.
But that is equally true of any spending – on cancer drugs or caring for the disabled, for example.
The City would also love to get involved in financing such a huge investment. That does not make it a good idea.
The £70bn-£100bn price tag is today’s estimate, and we all know large infrastructure projects nearly always bust their budgets. That would ultimately have to be paid for – in an ideal world, by users of the airport. In the best scenario, that would be a burden on travellers for decades to come.
More likely, as with the Channel Tunnel, the amount that could realistically be extracted from the project once complete would never be enough to repay the construction costs. These would ultimately be borne by private sector investors, through massive defaults (as with the Tunnel) or by the government.
Better options
We are all glad the Channel Tunnel exists, even though it has been a financial disaster. It has transformed travel between the UK and the continent, reducing pressure on airports.
But with the Tunnel, there was little choice. It was either a tunnel at Dover or no tunnel. That is not the case with airports.
London has five in its immediate vicinity: Stansted, Luton and the small City airport besides Heathrow and Gatwick. Others in Kent, Essex and even Southampton also have claims to serve London.
Building an entirely new airport is clearly the riskiest option, and by several times the costliest. It may also be the most glamorous – probably the reason it appeals to the publicity-hungry Johnson.
Wrong place
But there are other objections besides cost. An island in the Thames may sound good to Londoners, eager to be free of overflying planes. But it would make the airport much less accessible to people in other parts of the UK, who use Heathrow as much as Londoners – for example, all the international businesses that have set up in the M4 corridor.
The Thames Estuary is a very valuable habitat for birds. Claims they could be moved elsewhere are unconvincing.
Above all, the argument that London needs a single hub airport is bogus. About two thirds of London air traffic is UK residents going to and from holiday, with the other third split between business travel and incoming tourists.
Nearly all these people come to London or the UK to spend more than a few hours, so do not mind if they have to fly in and out from different airports.
London acting as a transfer stop for people flying between continents brings next to no economic benefit to the UK, only pollution, and can anyway be accommodated at the existing airports.
Having several large airports also spreads the UK’s risk, in case of severe weather disruptions or other problems affecting one site.
Back the winners
Heathrow and Gatwick already exist; they work as regulated airports, competing with each other, and have proven track records of delivering infrastructure projects, financed with private sector equity and secured bonds.
A decision to expand either – or both – would serve London’s needs much more cheaply and effectively than building a new airport.
For the moment, the UK has escaped falling victim to infrastructure-itis – the delusional mania that comes over people in power when they contemplate grands projets, often leading to a complete loss of common sense. Anyone in the vicinity is likely to be showered with costs.
Of course, if Boris Johnson’s inexplicable rise continues, there is a serious risk of a relapse.