BoJo airport [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

View Full Version : BoJo airport

MUFC_fan

26th Jan 2009, 17:44

BORIS JOHNSON, the London mayor, has unveiled detailed proposals for a £40 billion airport spanning the Thames estuary in a move aimed at presenting a credible alternative to the government’s plans for expanding Heathrow.

Early findings from a study by the engineer behind Hong Kong’s island airport suggest that a four-runway airport is both technically feasible and would serve Britain better. It could be built in eight years, he said.

The bold scheme entails splitting the airport in two, with runways placed on two separate islands in the mouth of the Thames.

Passengers would shuttle between the islands in a tunnel below the river bed, running from Essex on the north bank, to Kent on the south. Douglas Oakervee, who masterminded the engineering of Hong Kong’s international island airport in the 1990s, said that splitting the airport in two would reduce disruption to local wildlife. It would also enable the airport to connect to high-speed rail routes to the Continent.

Underwater turbines, built into ducts running through the body of the islands, would generate nearly all the airport’s electricity needs by harnessing the tide.

The scheme would be “simpler to build than Hong Kong”, Oakervee, the study’s lead engineer and chairman of Crossrail, said on a boat trip to inspect the site. “The engineering aspect of it would be relatively simple. In Hong Kong we had to flatten two islands and the sea was very deep. Here it’s just 15 metres or so.”

Johnson has chosen to make public his vision for an alternative “hub” airport for the capital as MPs prepare to debate the future of Heathrow in the Commons this week – two weeks after the government approved a third runway. Speaking to The Sunday Times aboard a dredger, Johnson vowed to continue to oppose the expansion of Heathrow. He also confirmed that he aims to mount a legal challenge against the government’s decision within weeks.

Lawyers representing the 2M Group of residents in west London, whose legal costs are being part-funded by city hall, are now studying the decision to see if there is a case for a judicial review.

Although Johnson has described Heathrow as “a planning error of the 1960s”, his advisers believe it could continue to work with two runways even if the new hub is built.

The two estuary terminals would be served by road and rail links. The larger terminal, in Kent, would be connected to Crossrail and the high-speed Channel tunnel rail link, whisking passengers to central London in about 35 minutes. The rail connections to Europe would cut out the need for many short-haul flights.

Because flights would take off and land over water, they would cause relatively little disturbance to the nearby towns of Sheerness and Southend-on-Sea. According to Oakervee, the location in the estuary, rather than on the mud flats, means the risk of bird strikes would be low.

Johnson said he felt “reassured” that the scheme was practical. “Coming here has put paid to talk of a fantasy island. You get a sense of just how far the airport would be from the shore.

“I’m convinced that this is an option we should look at seriously and the government’s decision on Heathrow makes it all the more urgent that we came up with alternatives.”

The £40 billion price tag would include the cost of extending the high-speed rail network, widening and extending the nearby M2 and extending Crossrail to the Kent terminal from southeast London. It compares with a £13 billion estimate for the Heathrow option.

The true strength of opposition to the third runway emerged last week after the Department for Transport revealed details of responses to its consultation document. Out of nearly 70,000 comments, just 11% supported expansion.

Not a bad idea!

Skipness One Echo

26th Jan 2009, 18:53

I assume you didn't see the site visit? BBC London accompanied Boris the Menace out to sea to visit the site. It looked like the perfect storm, visibility of near zero and the boat tossing and turning all over the place. Looked like no place to build an airport to me.

Incidentally, imagine how much this would cost with UK red tape and labour rates, EVEN in a recession. The Tories don't back it, Labour doesn't back it.

Not a bad idea!

It's a fantastic idea, in that it's rooted in pure fantasy. It'll never happen.

Aside from the fact that the market that drives Heathrow and the London hub lies to the WEST of London and the M25 not the Eseex coast....It's pure politics, don't get caught up in this nonsense. The blonde super-shagger is a politician telling the voters in West London exactly what they want to hear so he gets re-elected.

MUFC_fan

26th Jan 2009, 22:24

It is however, still a good idea in terms of the airport design.

cheesycol

26th Jan 2009, 23:05

splitting the airport in two would reduce disruption to local wildlife

Great idea, leave the flying donk stoppers in place. Its been proved that an Airbus can land on water, how about Boeings, Embraers & CRJs?

The M4, M40, M1 & M3 all have exits to the 25 near Heathrow. Shoeburyness international couldn't be more inconvienent for the populous areas of the home counties. A pure delight though if you live in Southend. Infrastructure for connecting to this proposal extends beyond high speed rail lines. E.g. from Bucks, Hants, Herts, Oxen etc, it would be a nightmare to get to. The reason Heathrow disturbs more people, is because its handy.

racedo

26th Jan 2009, 23:23

On ecological grounds alone it has no chance.

Sticking a couple of man made islands and million of tons of earth into a river estuary known for backing up as far as London will make Thames barrier probably useless.

Displacement of water will mean you got to spend billions building up onshore defences.

paarmo

26th Jan 2009, 23:30

Why bother with the defences.....it's only cokenee land after all. Us in the frozen North have been cr****d on for years. Now it's the South's turn.

johnnychips

27th Jan 2009, 00:16

I don't totally agree with Racedo's point: it's a big sea and I don't think displacement would make that much difference - but I could be proved wrong. However the SE of England is slowly sinking at 1mm per year, let alone any effects of global warming, so the defences for this airport would have to be grossly over-engineered in case a repetition of the flood surge of 1953 occured. However I have also been very convinced by the arguments of other posters: without massive railway investment, it's at the wrong end of London. Any conflict of interest that someone in Crossrail is endorsing this?

johnnychips

27th Jan 2009, 00:28

Actually, on afterthought, I do agree with Racedo, but not for the reason of displacement, but that the new airport would effectively narrow the Thames estuary. This would have the effect of funnelling the tides, making it harder for the river water to flow out; and if there were a storm surge from the sea, the narrower width would cause it not be able to disperse itself along the sides of the Thames, and head for London.Incidentally, if Boris needs a project, he needs to think about building a new Thames Barrage now.

Skipness One Echo

27th Jan 2009, 08:30

Why bother with the defences.....it's only cokenee land after all. Us in the frozen North have been cr****d on for years. Now it's the South's turn.

Executed any French speaking monkeys lately mate?

angels

27th Jan 2009, 11:37

Skipness - Like the cut of yer jib mate.

Quite right on the reasons for the airport being a non-starter and excellent dismissal of the whippet breeders. :E

You only have to look at the Manston thread to realise that geographically the airport would be in the wrong place apart for people from Southend and Romford. I'm sure there have been no studies on the tidal effects on the Thames either.

People talk about building railway lines everywhere but really this is all pie in the sky. It aint going to happen.

Splash Down

28th Jan 2009, 10:33

another point set down in EU Law

for each achre of land taken from the sea three have to be given back elsewhere so lets flood Newcastle after all who likes Newcastle.

nickmo

28th Jan 2009, 11:16

The suggestion to build in the Thames estuary needs to take the wreck of the American supply ship SS Richard Montgomery which lies close to Sheerness into account I presume.

Sunk in 1944 its a munitions ship that has so much explosve material on board it is marked as a shipping hazard that is too dangerous to either recover the cargo or to dispose of by destruction as the resulting explosion would be so damaging. Up to 3000 tons of TNT (doesn't break down in sea water) is though to be left on board - how is that going to be shifted to allow the construction of the islands in the vicinity?

It couldn't posibly be left, could it? Its not known if it would ever blow up on its own but the risk is deemed to great to tackle it.

Its reported that the explosion would be the biggest non-nuclear blast in the world if it did go 'pop', so cheerio to Sheerness, the LPG terminal and the town and the surrounds then, following the blast and the resultant tidal wave.......that would spoil a few skinny lattes on the day in London!

aztruck

28th Jan 2009, 12:16

Airships. Google Hybrid air vehicles and have a look at what is cooking up in Cardington. 20 to 1000 metric tonne payload.
Doesnt need a runway.
Marsh is just fine. Leaves the birds alone. Transatlantic freight terminal roll on roll off onto the rails/truck straight into europe.
:ok:

pug

28th Jan 2009, 12:24

HUDSON CRASH LANDING STILL BETTER THAN HEATHROW http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/templates/ja_mercury/images/printButton.png (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1514&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=78) http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/templates/ja_mercury/images/emailButton.png (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index2.php?option=com_content&task=emailform&id=1514&itemid=78) PASSENGERS on the plane which crash landed on the Hudson river last night insisted the terrifying experience was much better than Heathrow.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/images/stories/huds2.jpg So much nicer than terminal four

As the stricken US Airways jet drifted over the skyscrapers of Manhattan before ditching in the freezing water, dozens of frightened passengers thanked God they were not arriving in London.

Tom Logan, a New York businessman, said: "As someone who has flown into Heathrow twice in my life, today's experience was like having a long, soapy shower with Heidi Klum.
"I hear they're planning a third runway at Heathrow. They should build a large moat instead. It would improve the experience immeasurably."
Kathy Cook, a sales assistant from New Jersey, said: "I looked out the window and saw the water getting closer and closer. I thought of my children, my husband, all the things I've never done and then I thought, 'oh well, at least it's not Heathrow'."

She added: "Minutes later we were all squeezed onto the wing in the freezing cold waiting to be rescued and it occurred to me that this was actually much less crowded than Heathrow and with better facilities."

Aviation experts said the pilot, Chesley Sullenberger, was a hero for guiding the plane to a safe landing and saving the 155 passengers from a Heathrow-like nightmare.

Sullenberger said: "I kept saying to myself 'come on Ches, make it better than Heathrow. Just make it better than Heathrow'."

A US Airways spokesman said the passengers should receive their luggage within 48 hours, adding: "It's not as if the plane has been anywhere near Heathrow. It's just partially submerged in the Hudson river."

I thought it might be relevant :ok:

MUFC_fan

28th Jan 2009, 13:36

How would they know?!

And, as it is America OBVIOUSLY it was better!:ugh:

We see that the Captain of the US Airways flight gets the key to New York, one of the world's largest cities, yet the BA pilots were suspended...:ugh::ugh:

Why does America have to go OTT on everything?

When 9/11 happened the world came to a standstill yet when the London bombings happened the public services were quick into action and by 6am the next morning people were back to work as per usual as if nothing had ever happened!

It amazes me that the US seem to be 'hit the worst' or 'do everything the best.'

If the Captain had not been able to safely bring the aircraft down earlier this month he would have hit housing. If the BA problem happened minutes earlier, it would have knocked out many of the world's banks and institutions in the city!

Maybe its just my 'British opinion' in that we should just get on with it and complain...

***Well done to all the crew flying on both the US and BA flights, you all did fantastic jobs!***

Rant over...:ok:

Skipness One Echo

28th Jan 2009, 13:47

Non binding vote on Heathrow is this afternoon in the Commons.

pug

28th Jan 2009, 13:56

MUFC_fan

28th Jan 2009, 14:10

Never would have noticed!:}

But seriously...I do still stand by my views!:ok:

aztruck

28th Jan 2009, 15:23

Airsub 320?

13Alpha

28th Jan 2009, 16:50

Aside from the fact that the market that drives Heathrow and the London hub lies to the WEST of London and the M25 not the Eseex coast....

I thought the justifications for runway 3 and terminal 6 were they were needed to handle more transfer traffic and allow LHR to compete with the likes of Amsterdam and Frankfurt as a _European_ hub ?

Should the location of the UK's 21st century international transport hub be driven by the narrow provincial needs of the people and businesses of Bucks and Berks ?

13Alpha