CallMeIshmael - 31/07/2011 12:16 GMT
What are your views as to whether Boris Island Airport - Thames Estuary, Isle of Sheppey - becoming a reality?
Boris Island
Posts
Bullfrog - 31/07/2011 13:09 GMT
Great idea !
Of course it will be expensive. It will put London where it needs to be, 'centre stage'. The value of the Heathrow site will help offset the massive cost.
VintageKrug - 31/07/2011 13:25 GMT
http://www.businesstraveller.com/discussion/topic/A-New-Airport-in-the-Thames-Estuary
http://www.businesstraveller.com/discussion/topic/The-Moylan-Report-A-New-Airport-for-London
LuganoPirate - 31/07/2011 14:55 GMT
I love the idea of putting it there, very convenient for me but I wonder what would happen to LCY?
However, I would put it further out to sea, make12 runways and connect it with high speed rail links to AMS and Brussels. All three airports could then be closed and turned over to housing!
VintageKrug - 31/07/2011 15:56 GMT
When Boris is Prime Minister, this will be at the top of his agenda.
transtraxman - 31/07/2011 20:18 GMT
I am afraid I consider such a proposal as utter rubbish.
With the two references mentioned by "Vintage Krug" my own opinions are well voiced.
A new airport in the Thames estuary is simply not on.
One of my comments made 17 months ago,was "The possibility of building an airport in the Thames Estuary was looked at nearly 40 years ago – Maplin Sands – and rejected at a public enquiry. I do not see how the adverse weather conditions and wildlife habitats will have changed substantially in that time."
I standby my comments made then on those threads, as also can be seen on my blog.
Other (non-South East England) priorities are much greater and will be for some time in the present economic climate.
It would be criminal to spend such vast amounts of money on new infrastructure when the present facilities offer so much to be developed at less cost and more convenience.
Bury it.
RichHI1 - 01/08/2011 09:45 GMT
Just a suggestion but why not take somehwere like Brize Norton as a startign point. It would be possible to build HS2 to run by it with may be 30 mins to Euston or Paddington (74 miles at 184 mph) and rail connections north through Oxford to Midlands and upwards. Could be linked to M40 via spur (hardenign of A40 too) allowing Motorway access to Midlands and up or back to London and M25. History of aviation so weather patterns known. Space for proper development from Day 1 with 4 or 6 runways able to take off heaviest loaded Pax and Freighters (748, 225, 380 etc)
Room for infrastructure.
Downside it won't be popular in the locale but starts to make a compromise between taking pressure away from LHR as Major London Hub and also provides easy access from North and Midlands and Scotland / Wales.
Now come the posters from Oxford.... (Boris is no longer the Member for Henley on Thames, Oxon)
stevescoots - 01/08/2011 10:00 GMT
I seem to remember something about Alconbury in Cambs a while back. If I am not mistaken it already has one of the longest runways in europe, its a big site (ex USAF) (2 runways) its effectivly in the middle of no-where with huntigdon the closest town some 7-8 miles from the airport.
Its right next to the A1M/A14/M11 so excellent road network N, E, S and W. The mainline is close by so adding a spur to hook strait down to the line and into Kings cross in 30 mins at HS would be no problem.
oh and its close to me :)
transtraxman - 01/08/2011 13:49 GMT
I am astounded by the ease at which some people are ready to spend other people´s money.
You have an inherited infrastructure on which you build. When you reject other built projects you are throwing down the drain millions, nay billions, of perfectly usable assets. What is wrong with what you have already?
Of the proposals laid out here I have this to say.
Brize Norton is out in the boondocks. The only connection to it at present is a two lane (one each way) A40 road from Oxford to Cheltenham. It is a one runway airport which means provoking a great mass of Nimbys to make it any sort of half successful alternative to anything in or near London - it is definitely not on.
Alconbury is on a par with Birmingham International. Apart from what I said in the preceeding paragraph it is also a one runway air station with no near rail links. If you want Alconbury, Stansted is a nearer, already developed alternative with the necessary connections in place.
I have said, already, several times that you should build on what you have. Mega airports are not necessarily a good thing. London (excluding LCY) has four possibilities for development. Cannot the mind change and think of other alternartives with these assets?
The Government´s prohibition for extension refered by name to Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. No mention was given to Luton airport. Here Conservative nimbys would not be affected so much as those at LGW and STN. It is an area with a need of new employment opportunities. The infrastructure is good with the M1 motorway and Midland Main Line nearby for connections both to London, and to East Midlands and South Yorkshire. Where else could you develop an airport so easily at such a reduced cost., with two three or even four runways.
Some positive lateral thinking , please
RichHI1 - 01/08/2011 14:17 GMT
Yes infrastructure costs.
Short to medium term it makes more sense to extend ad hoc as LHR shows.
However it is possible long term that an integrated transport plan may show benefits in broadening the scope.
The current economic climate makes investment difficult to finance but such investment could provide the economic activity we need.
Either way wherever you put it the Nimbys will put pressure on their MP to kill it, as happens with every planning application in England.
VintageKrug - 01/08/2011 14:37 GMT
Quite right, RichHI1.
I am in total agreement with transtraxman, that it would make sense to further develop existing assets; however there are a number of issues with that approach:
1. We are unable to develop existing assets because legal, planning, NIMBY, environmental or other concerns not to mention the significant cost of doing so.
2. Those existing assets would be worth billions in terms of property/land values if they were made over to another Canary Wharf style mixed development, so it's not a simple loss of value as is suggested.
3. We need to think big, start with a fresh piece of paper and plan for the next 100 years, just as the Victorians did. It's about time someone had this sort of courage, and was able to put in place a proposal - be it Boris Island or some other alternative - which actually addresses the problem with a solution, rather than hoping the issue goes away while we all suffer with the inadequacies of LHR.
We are talking beyond 2030 here, not the next two decades.
Adding the odd runway here or there simply isn't going to cut it.
continentalclub - 01/08/2011 15:29 GMT
The trick, I suspect, is to accept that from an economic perspective, what's required is an airport for Britain - not just one for London.
For that to happen, we need an individual to champion the cause; one with a national perspective. Someone, possibly, like Boris Johnson were he to be PM, rather than mayor. It's almost certainly not going to be Steve Hilton.
The issue is a huge one for the country to face, and it's undoubtedly complicated by the fact that political terms are a tiny fraction of the timescales involved in infrastructure development. That tends to lead to an persistent unwillingness to invest in short term, deliverable but expensive projects (Crossrail), and/or superficial support for grandiose plans designed to distract attention from the critical need to make short term improvements (HS2).
It's also complicated by the fact that any large project requires the continuation of investment in current infrastructure, especially when it is already operating at capacity, but which is extremely difficult to justify to investors.
It does rather seem that the Boris Island proposal is largely unworkable from a practical point of view though - putting environmental issues to one side, many approaches would have to be through Dutch airspace which is likely to be a non-starter. London City would also be forced to close, as the approaches would conflict.
Heathrow is an enormously valuable site, as VK notes, and redevelopment would present an incredible opportunity to expand the Berkshire technology campuses (campii?) into a capital-encroaching Silicon Dale.
I'm very much in support of the idea to finally construct the Heathrow-Gatwick-Ashford rail line which, even if Heathrow and/or Gatwick were ever decommissioned, would still represent a hugely valuable London-avoiding link from the North, Midlands, Wales, West and indeed the new developments on the former airport sites to the tunnel and continental Europe. Fundamentally, it appears something of a no-brainer to progress without delay.
Any completely new airport must be easily accessible for the country as a whole though, not just London - and this is another major problem with an estuarine location.
Luton is fundamentally compromised not by the lack of available space for runways and taxiways, and unforgiving terrain, but because it is already on the most congested part of the M1. That road corridor, at that location, is simply not able to absorb the additional traffic that Britain International would generate.
If there's a blueprint around, it's Munich, and if there's a spatially-optimal location (that follows many of the Bavarian airport's geolocational signposts) it's not in the sea, it's in Northamptonshire.
As VK also notes, this has all been dicussed at length in two previous threads.
It's perhaps too easy to forget that what the Victorians did for us was to throw huge sums of private capital, which tended to be held in the hands of relatively few insanely wealthy individuals and families, at ambitious but scatter-gunned projects with almost no overall strategy whatsoever.
The idea of government-controlled mass infrastructure development is a much more early 20th Century mainland European thing, usually delivered by and for military constructs.
A modern-day approach that combines Victorian vision but with Cameronian sensitivity would be for Brookfield Multiplex to join forces with Deutsche Bahn, Westfield, British Airways and DHL to buy a whopping great tract of land and force Government into issuing the permissions it needs, developing a commercially-viable, strategically-linked facility and then asking every other airline to choose between it and Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, Birmingham and Bristol.
Shortly afterwards, there'd probably be a rather large listing on Ferrovial's eBay page.
Binman62 - 01/08/2011 16:01 GMT
What is important in this is not so much that Boris has or has not got a working plan but that the country starts to think seriously about improving it's infrastructure. Heathrow is simply wrong for the UK, it is congested and suffers from far too many restrictions.
We need to think about this and come up with a feasible alternative which involves a HS rail link across the country putiing the airport no more that 2 or perhaps at most 3 hours from the major cities such as Glasgow, Edinburgh Manchester.
continentalclub - 01/08/2011 16:06 GMT
Absolutely right, binman62.
And I wouldn't even need cosmetic teeth-fixing prior to me, my handkerchief and my handbag taking office, VK.
:-)
Bill_Hants - 01/08/2011 17:25 GMT
Continentalclub is spot-on:
Blue sky thinking and a greenfield site.
Besides Boris Island is on the wrong side of London for me.
Bill in Hants
Bill_Hants - 01/08/2011 18:18 GMT
VK: not really. too far south.
Ideally north / west of LHR, but integration with other transport modes, existing or planned is key. It needs the big picture approach, not piecemeal tinkering.
RichHI1 - 01/08/2011 18:59 GMT
Sound slike Oxfordshire or Berkshire to me where Nimbyism and Governemnt MP's are thickest on the ground.
CallMeIshmael - 02/08/2011 20:32 GMT
Lord (Norman) Foster, designer of Chek Lap Kok in Hong Kong also built on reclaimed land lends weight and designs to the discussion.
http://londonist.com/2011/08/norman-foster-weighs-in-on-thames-airport.php
