HS2 and the Boris Island report

This morning the Davies Airports Commission published a report jettisoning the idea of the “Boris Island” (Inner Thames Estuary [ITE]) airport. The report includes discussion of HS1 and HS2 and the ways they have been included in reaching their conclusions.

Access to any airport is a key requirement. The plans for Boris Island included rail links from HS1, and had suggestions that the proposed HS1-HS2 link could form part of the wider surface access routes. But today’s report points out Higgins ‘HS2 plus’ has already rejected building the HS1-HS2 link.

The Airports Commission report explains that there are several costly infrastructure plans which would be being built at the same time, limiting the amount of money available for building other infrastructure. The report says “HS2, which would be under construction during the same period as any ITE airport, at £42.6bn for construction costs and £7.5bn for rolling stock.”

But it’s not just the current expected cost of HS2 which was relevant to the Commission. They point out that the expected costs of HS2 have risen massively from January 2012, when the expected construction cost of HS2 was £33bn, to the current cost estimate of £42.6.

But when it comes down to it, the Boris Island plan was rejected because it is a vanity project which in spite of many reports by promoters of the scheme, was incredibly expensive with no business case and a disastrous impact on the environment.

Just like HS2.

No related content found.

Share Button
Share this...
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone
2 comments on “HS2 and the Boris Island report
  1. Sir Howard Davies only says ite airport will not be taken forward by his commission, not that it will never happen if BJ becomes PM or if Labour jumps on his bandwagon to adorn ’is popular image.
    Wanting London to emulate Hong Kong, he would have HS1 become the ITE Airport Express instead of whisking travellers off to Paris or Brussels.
    Perhaps, as with HK, these could then take the many (new) ferries from the airport to the mainland.
    Why can the plebs not recognise ‘Vision’ when they are presented it?

  2. Were the actions in the High Court and Supreme Court not on the best legal track. Sir Howard Davis said today that where there are Sites of Sensitive Interest alternatives have to be considered. This was related to reasoning why the East of London Thames Estuary airport is being removed from the options list. There was also some commentary that a Politicians idea about a mega project may be about personal projection as it may have been HS2.

    It is hoped that someone with a similar methodology to Sir Howard Davies can be appointed to a new line railway commission. HS2 may have spent more money than the Thames Airport but it is a folly to continue. Hopefully Woodland Trust, Land owners of SSSI sites and local authorities can come together one more time to aggregate the SSSI and quasi SSSI sites to challenge in court this particular aspect of the law and incorporate this aspect into the UN and EU complaints. The law cases were difficult in intellectual arguments they may be easier on a more practical basis. How can the SSSI locations be brought together please.

Comments are closed.

2010-2017 © STOP HS2 – The national campaign against High Speed Rail 2