Last November, I pronounced
the plainly ridiculous proposal by London’s occasional Mayor Alexander
Boris de Pfeffel Johnson for an airport in the Thames estuary “dead and buried”. In this I was doing no
more than following the observation made almost a year earlier by Tom Barry at
Boris Watch, who
concluded that the scheme was “Not
Just Dead But Rotting”. Now it is, at last official.
What you will not see - cos it ain't being built
We know this as London’s toe-curlingly pro-Mayor newspaper
the Evening Standard, aka the London Daily Bozza, has
dared to splash the headline “Boris
Island Thames Estuary airport ‘dead in the water’ after cost estimates soar”.
When Bozza’s main cheerleader admits it, it’s game over. And the reason for the
Standard’s capitulation is all too
obvious, when
you look at the numbers.
Even last December, when the Davies Commission reported
on London’s airports, the Boris Island option came
out badly, apparently needing a subsidy of £60 billion compared to its
competitors. Heathrow and Gatwick, on the other hand, looked rather better. One
might have thought that Bozza would have stopped wasting money on the idea
there and then. One would have been wrong.
On he ploughed, telling anyone not yet asleep that the only
option worth pursuing was that favoured by Himself Personally Now. But now,
with the cost of transport links reviewed, it is clear that Boris Island was
never worth pursing in the first place. Road and rail links could end up
costing as much as £44 billion in total – in other words, more than the highest
estimate for the HS2 project (£42.9 billion).
On top of that, it is now admitted by the Standard that the
wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery
would have to be dealt with, 1,500 tonnes of TNT and all. The relevant report
tells that “Full containment or removal
are deemed high-risk and high-cost options, potentially requiring evacuation of
the local area for a period of many weeks or months”. Just in case it all
goes bang.
Despite being effectively told that Boris Island is dead,
though, Bozza’s aviation advisor Daniel Moylan is apparently in denial: “Our team will now analyse these reports in
detail but it appears they confirm the huge benefits to the country's
prosperity that would flow from moving Heathrow to a new location and prove
that there are challenges, but no showstoppers, to achieving that”. He’s
off his trolley.
He even concluded “The
Airports Commission can have no alternative but to include the estuary option
on its formal shortlist”, despite the Standard
reporting that the authors of one report “also
questioned the plan’s commercial viability, suggesting it could lead to higher
passenger costs and business lost to competitors”. So, although the Standard knows the game is up, the
Bozzabunker won’t accept it.
They sup some strong stuff at the Mayor’s office. But it won’t make this idea fly.
Moylan was on BBC London news last night,talk about a car crash interview... Worth digging out if you want a giggle.
ReplyDelete