No Third Runway? The ThamesEstuary Option

Christian Carey

Abstract In 2008, prospective Tory candidate for London Mayor, Boris Johnson,suggested building a major new international airport in the Thames Estuary toreplace the ‘planning error’ that is Heathrow. Once elected, Johnson commis-sioned a serious study, headed by civil engineer Douglas Oakervee, into thepotential for construction of an airport in the Thames Estuary. This chapter looksat the discussion held around the possible development of a fourth London airportin the Thames Estuary.

1 Why?

But what is the demand for the expansion of aviation, particularly in the south eastof England? In 2000 the Department of the Environment released forecasts for thegrowth of air traffic in the UK for the next 30 years. These indicated a huge growthin passenger numbers—4.25% per annum—and were accompanied by the caveatthat past forecasts have often underestimated demand. Were this demand to be met,five new runways—three in the south-east—would be required. As a major avia-tion hub, Heathrow was chosen for the site of one of these runways, as announcedby transport secretary Geoff Hoon in January 2009. The importance of Heathrow tothe south-east and to Great Britain as a whole cannot be underestimated. It plays avital role in the economy and employs at least 100,000 people directly, and is partof a sector contributing £11 billion a year to the economy. Heathrow annually

C. Carey (&)Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford,Oxford, UKe-mail: christian.carey@smithschool.ox.ac.uk

O. Inderwildi and Sir David King (eds.), Energy, Transport, & the Environment,DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-2717-8_28, � Springer-Verlag London 2012

513

handles some 68 million passengers, on 477,000 flights, running at 99% of its totalcapacity [1]. Heathrow’s European competitors—Frankfurt am Main, Paris Charlesde Gaulle and Amsterdam Schiphol—are running at 75% capacity [1]. This isreflected in the number of routes flown regularly from Heathrow: 133 destinationsare served at least once a week, 20% fewer than competitors [2].

There are a number of issues that constrain the expansion of Heathrow. Theairports operational capacity is limited by several factors, including airspace, thenumber and length of runways, the area available for use as taxiways and aprons,the number and size of terminals and landside facilities and access [3, 4]. Whileinfrastructure issues—the need to provide space and access for new facilities to bebuilt—are common for the expansion of any airport, environmental aspects mustalso be considered.

Of the environmental issues, probably the single most important impact of anairport on its local environment is noise. The frequency of aircraft movements, thesound level of the individual aircraft and the relative proximity of the airport’sarrival and departures routes to local communities are the main factors affectingnoise levels and therefore operational constraints. A number of technologicaladvances have been made, such as shielding landing gear and faired slats (high liftdevices on a wing leading edge), that reduce the noise generated by aircraft. Butthese have been offset by the increased growth in air travel to such an extent thatmost major airports have operational constraints or capacity limits based uponaircraft noise. These can be operational restrictions on noisier aircraft, night cur-fews, limits based on noise budgets or the extent of a noise exposure contour. AtHeathrow a quota count (QC) system is used where each aircraft type is classifiedand awarded a QC value depending on the amount of noise it generates undercontrolled certification conditions. Heathrow has a fixed QC depending on theseason (summer/winter), which is gradually reduced year on year to reduce overallairport noise. Further constrains are placed on night flights, with Heathrow pre-venting the use of aircraft with a QC greater than 2 (95.9EPNdB) such as the arrivaland the departure of Boeing 747-100/200/300 [5, 6]. The UK government uses a57 dB sound level exposure to determine whether communities are significantlyaffected by aircraft noise, which equated to 264,000 people at Heathrow in 2003.Any expansion of capacity will increase the number of individuals who fall underthis limit, increasing the number of operational constraints on the airport.

The quality of air near an airport is also a major contributor to capacity con-straints. Local air pollution is not only generated from aircraft movements, butapron activities and ground transport related to the airport’s function are alsosignificant factors in air quality. This has caused several airports to introducestringent emission controls, particularly in relation to nitrous oxides and volatileorganic compounds. To reduce these emissions, a reduction in ground transport bygreater use of public transport, together with improvements in aircraft technologyand apron activity procedures are required. However, as Heathrow is surroundedon three sides by housing and by the London orbital motorway (M25) on thefourth, the potential for expanding public transport is limited.

514 C. Carey

Similarly, the risk to surrounding communities also rises with airport expansionas accident rates on approach and departure paths also rise. While aviation acci-dent rates are falling, the increasing growth in air traffic has offset this benefit [7].In the UK and the Netherlands, a risk contour measuring approach is used whichpredicts the area within which it is unacceptable to live or work due to theincreased level of risk. A 1997 NATS report indicated that 2,222 people livedwithin an area where there was a 1:100,000 annual risk of death due to an aviationaccident due to operations at Heathrow [7]. As a result, airports can be obliged topurchase and demolish properties to remove people from the areas of highest risk.

A lesser issue with Heathrow is the effect airport expansion has on biodiversity.Airports cover large areas of land with either inhospitable areas (built environment)or ecological monocultures (mown grass land) and therefore represent a challenge tothe biodiversity of an area. This is particularly so where airports are built on greenbeltland surrounding major conurbations, which can restrict airport expansion.

All these issues could be involved with the expansion of any of the currentairports in the south-east. Land is required for construction and it is inevitablycommunities will be affected by increased air and ground traffic. However onepossibility for reducing these impacts is to locate airports away from communities,such as on reclaimed land in the Thames Estuary.

2 Not a New Idea

The possibility of an expansion of airport capacity by construction in or around theThames Estuary was initially suggested previous to Heathrow accepting civiliantraffic. In 1943 a combined airstrip and flying boat port was proposed at Gravesendby a Mr FG Miles. The project was expected to handle eight million passengers ayear and ‘great quantities of freight’ but received no government backing [8].A Thames site was again proposed during the selection of a secondary site for anew London airport, with a site at Cliffe Marshes being rejected in favour ofdeveloping Gatwick [9]. The site was dismissed due to air traffic control (ATC)issues, limited transport infrastructure, construction cost and poor weather.Thames sites were again considered when the site for the third London airport,which eventually became Stansted, was under investigation [10]. A number ofonshore and offshore sites were considered including Cliffe Marshes and GunfleetSands (8 kilometres offshore from Clacton-on-Sea) [11]. The advantages of theThames sites were the low value of the land and proximity to London, but againthey suffered from poor communication links to London, ATC issues, flood riskand secondary uses such as firing ranges, weather and the high construction costsof reclaimed land when compared to a dry inland site. The choice of Stinted was acontroversial one with a government enquiry and commission (the Roskill Com-mission Inquiry) as well as a number of local government and independent groupsproducing reports [12]. When the Roskill Commission reported after nearly twoyears of research in 1970, it recommended Cublington in Buckinghamshire which

No Third Runway? The Thames Estuary Option 515

Edward Heath’s Conservative government then overturned in favour of Foulness(or Maplin Sands) as the site for London’s third airport, opposing the earlier choiceof Stansted [13, 14]. This finding was backed by an earlier report, published onbehalf of the Noise Abatement Society, which concluded that Foulness waspreferable to Stansted [12]. The Maplin Sands project was then considered for thenext nine years until finally dropped under Margaret Thatcher’s Conservativegovernment in 1980, on the grounds of environmental damage, cost and developmenttime. The idea for a Thames Estuary international airport resurfaced as the Marinairproposal. Located five kilometres north east of Minster, on the Isle of Sheppey, thescheme was not the ‘son of Maplin’ as discussed in newspapers of the day, but a trueoffshore island, with more in common with the Gunfleet sands proposal from the1960s. The original scheme was estimated at £20 billion and was based on a two-centre model with terminals at East Tilbury and runways on an artificial island 35kilometres away. High speed trains running in tunnels would link the passengerterminals to the aircraft waiting on the offshore island. The scheme failed to beshortlisted by the Government following the South-East Regional Air Services Study(SERAS) and was dismissed in the White Paper ‘The future of air transport’ due toinsufficient information and the prohibitive cost of road and rail links (even withsupport from then Mayor of London Ken Livingstone [15]). The future of airtransport White Paper also considered a number of alternative Thames Estuaryproposals such as Thames Reach (on the Hoo peninsular) which were also discounteddue to cost, environmental impact and an over reliance on rail access [16]. SaharaGroup has recently proposed a multi-modal scheme which includes a container portand an airport with four parallel runways on an 18 by 2 kilometre reclaimed island offthe Isle of Sheppey. It is linked to the southern shore by overland road and rail and thenorth shore by a tunnel. It also includes plans for a level of flood protection but not alower Thames barrier. A more holistic approach is offered by Eleanor Atkinson, whoproposes an offshore location linked to both shores by road and rail and incorporatingtidal lagoons for energy generation, tidal barrier as well as shipping and leisurefacilities [17].

The reason for such a high number proposals is the considerable advantages oflocating an airport in the Thames. With few human neighbours, the airport couldoperate round the clock because noise levels would be less significant. Therewould be a less pollution because a new airport would be much ‘greener’, andthere would be better public transport than is possible at Heathrow. The third partyrisk is also removed to a significant extent with approach and departure over water.The possibilities of expansion of the airport at a later date and no requirement forcompulsory purchase of property or the demolition of historic buildings, due to thenature of the site, are also significant benefits. The regeneration effects in theThames area are also of note. Also, possibly surprisingly, an offshore airport wouldhave better visibility than Heathrow.

But there are also disadvantages with this approach, not least the £40–50 billioncost of constructing an airport on reclaimed land, and improving transport linkswith central London. This compares to £10–13 billion for a third runway atHeathrow. The technical challenge of reclamation has been achieved at a number

516 C. Carey

of locations including Hong Kong’s Chek Lap Kok and Haneda Airport in TokyoBay, and less successfully at Kansai International airport, Osaka which has suf-fered from high rates of settlement; it has sank nearly 3 m in the 14 years since itopened, so successful construction is not a forgone conclusion [18–20]. Howeverthe geology in the Thames Estuary, clay overlying chalk, is well suited to this sortof scheme. Another challenge is the airlines themselves. When legislation changedin 1991 and 2000, there was a desire for the big international airlines to leaveGatwick for Heathrow so to attract them away from Heathrow will require somethought. Also, while the development of a new airport east of London willfinancially benefit the people there, there is a corresponding deficit for the west ofLondon. An extra airport would considerably complicate air traffic control in thesouth-east, requiring wholesale changes to its structure. Also, the proximity of theeastern airspace boundary of the UK’s ATC zone and the busiest airspace inEurope increases the difficulties for air traffic management. The location also has anumber of physical challenges such as wind turbines at the London Array andKentish Flats, but these would have served their working life by the time an airportopened in 30 years’ time, and could be re-located on renewal. The estuary hasfeatures dating back to the Second World War; the wreck of the SS RichardMontgomery and a number of forts collectively known as the Maunsell Sea Forts.The SS Richard Montgomery was a liberty ship which sank carrying ammunition.While most of it has been removed, the equivalent of 1,500 tonnes of TNT remainsis a hazard to local shipping and is protected by an exclusion zone [21]. TheMaunsell Forts are anti-aircraft and anti-shipping platforms in a poor state ofrepair, some of which have already collapsed into the sea.

It is not just an airport that has a claim on the Thames Estuary; the site is a busyshipping area with some 53 million tonnes of freight being carried to the variousPort of London locations [22]. There is also the new London Gateway Portexpected to open in 2011 which is expected to handle 3.5 million containers a yearmaking it the busiest container port in the UK. This will have an impact on anysignificant construction in the area. Leisure and fishing industries on the NorthKent coast and in South Essex will have to be considered as well as there is asignificant bird population. The Thames Estuary is an important area for birdlifeand the increased noise and pollution, as well as potential habitat loss due to theconstruction of the airport, would be detrimental [23]. The risk of bird strike andrelated incidents could also increase, but an offshore site would be several milesfrom the mudflats where they feed. Other uses for the Thames Estuary are as aflood defence for London and the surrounding area and energy generation. Severalpower plants both on and offshore are already in operation with others planned.

So while there are a number of benefits that are only possible in a ThamesEstuary location, such as 24-h airport operation, there are also issues to be con-sidered. Not least of these is the huge cost and difficulty of construction withoffshore sites. Increasing capacity may be possible in other ways and should beconsidered. Freeing up capacity by shifting domestic flights to a renewed railsystem, improving links between central London and Gatwick, Stansted and Lutonor reviewing landing charge control to increase competition between airports

No Third Runway? The Thames Estuary Option 517

should all be considered. However if Heathrow is, as claimed by Johnson, a‘planning error of the 60’s’ is it not time to put this right?

References

1. Adding Capacity at Heathrow: Decisions Following Consultation (2009) Department forTransport, London

2. Boon B, Davidson M, Faber J, Nelissen D, Van de Vreede G (2008) The economics ofHeathrow expansion. CE, Delft

3. Upham P, Thomas C, Gillingwater D, Raper D (2003) Environmental capacity and airportoperations: current issues and future prospects. J Air Transp Manag 9(3):145–151

4. Atkin JAD, Burke EK, Greenwood JS, Reeson D (2009) An examination of take-offscheduling constraints at London Heathrow airport. In: The 10th international conference oncomputer-aided scheduling of public transport (CASPT06), Leeds, June 2006

5. Monkman DJ, Deeley J, Beaton D, McMahon J, Edmonds LE (2007) Noise exposurecontours for Heathrow airport 2007. Directorate of Airspace Policy, ERCD, Civil AviationAuthority

6. Heathrow London (2007) London Gatwick and London Stansted airports noise restrictionsnotice 2007. NATS, Civil Aviation Authority

7. Evans AW, Foot PB, Mason SM, Parker IG, Slater K (1997) Third party risk near airports andpublic safety zone policy, National Air Traffic Services Ltd, R&D Report 9636

8. Land and sea terminals by Thames estuary (1943) The Times, London, 21st July9. Boyd-Carpenter J (1954) Gatwick Airport (Development), Department of Transport and Civil

Aviation10. Decision for Stansted (1967) Flight International, 18th May11. Alternatives to Stansted (1967) Flight International, 25th May12. Foulness: A Feasible Alternative? (1967) Flight International, 9th Nov13. Report, Commission on the Third London Airport (1971) Roskill Commission14. Researching for Roskill (1970) Flight International, 5th Mar15. Waugh P (2002) Livingstone backs Eighties plan for £30bn floating airport on Thames. The

Independent, London 3rd Aug16. The Future of Air Transport (2003) Department for Transport17. Atkinson E (2009) Thames Estuary Airport, www.thamesestuaryairport.com/18. Pickles AR, Tosen R (1998) Settlement of reclaimed land for the new Hong Kong

international airport, Geotechnical Engineering, Proc Inst Civil Eng, 13119. Douglas I, Lawson N (2003) Airport construction: materials use and geomorphic change.

J Air Transp Manag, 920. Nakada H, Akimoto K , Kanazawa H, Tsuji Y, Inada, Haneda M (1997) Airport offshore

expansion project, civil engineering international, Proc Inst Civil Eng, 12021. SS Richard Montgomery Survey Report (2003) Maritime and Coastguard Agency22. Annual Review 2008 (2008) Port of London Authority23. Mulholland H (2009) Thames estuary airport would have ‘disastrous’ environmental impact

London mayor told. The Guardian, Manchester 14th Jan

518 C. Carey