Reported in the Standard, Boris wants a new airport.
Fortunately, it's politically impossible to build new airports anywhere near London. They blight such a large area, the number of people affected results in well-organized protests on a massive scale that unite people from right across the political spectrum.
I thought we'd got beyond the 'predict and provide' approach to transport, whereby some 'business leaders' say jobs will be lost, companies will go abroad and the whole economy will go to hell in a handcart unless we build a new airport. With those magic words all considerations of climate change, pollution and the health and quality of life of Londoners are cast aside.
It rather makes a nonsense of the case for high-speed rail if it's not going to displace most domestic air travel onto the railways. More short-haul European flights will be displaced to rail as through services increase. Oil price increases may make flying less attractive. Legislation to reduce CO2 emissions may restrict flying. And crucially, technology will be displacing travel, as companies realise how much time and money they can save by making increased use of videoconferencing. In other words, the only way to make a case for a new London airport is to shut your eyes to many of the likely developments over the next ten years, and assume that demand for air travel will simply increase in a fairly linear, business-as-before fashion.
Building a new airport is a good way to damage the health and quality of life of a large section of the population. It's also a good way to lose an election.