Let's agree to disagree
Normally I see a white flag fluttering alongside that statement, but actually, let's keep disagreeing. Compared to the Fantasy Island thread on AA&R, this one actually has quite an interesting discussion, and a few more people prepared to back it.
However, I'm not one of them:
It would require very innovative thinking
Not really. This airport has been proposed many times before, and rejected on each occassion. All that has happened now is that one of our leading architects has come up with a specific layout proposal, although on closer inspection, it looks far too much like a C&P job from HKG.
legacy of names/projects such as <snip> Concorde, Channel Tunnel?
The former was a vanity project approved by a champagne socialist in the name of the champagne quaffing rich, however beautiful she was.
The latter is indeed a remarkable feat of engineering, but not a good investment.
Is building a fairly big floating concrete pontoon in the middle of nowhere really that much more expensive than laying an equivalent concrete slab between the A4 and M4?
Err - did you hear the one about the concrete life jacket?
We're talking four runways + foundations + terminal complexes, and you are comparing that with one short runway and one long taxiway?
it is the first and only Channel tunnel
It is the first and only
completed Channel tunnel, several false starts.
we're not talking about a Mirabel/Dorval situation.
No, Fantasy Island is worse, because it would have to be privately funded. This raises the prospect of it either not being completed, or needing a massive bailout before opening - and all that is long before anyone gets round to answering the question of what a typical PSC might be at the new airport.
Also, Mirabel was just supposed to replace Dorval, LGW, LCY, STN & LTN would still be open.
no-one would suggest that it (Chunnel) was not a good idea
Lots of people would. Economist has done expose on this, pointing out the lack of ROI. Any of the nimbys and fiscal conservatives who opposed it at the time will now be saying they were vindicated.
I will admit to being pro high speed rail in theory, but in reality, when I tried to book Eurostar to go to Paris in March and include a stop in Lille, it was just too complex. For most people in the Midlands, it is still easier to fly as the network is still not properly joined up.
will last a 100+ years
Unfortunately, in net present value accounting terms, 100 years is an eternity.
It does not (and as far as I know, never has) run at full capacity because the LCCs arrived and changed the game for the whole world.
I don't think that is the biggest reason. Eurostar still carries more than all airlines combined on LON > PAR / BRU - but then so it should! How many loco routes are there in these city pairs? Largely just Easy on LTN-CDG?
However, the Locos may have decreased people's
expectation of how much the train should cost, thus bringing down yields.
I suspect that the real reason why the whole Eurotunnel project has not been a financial success is that the projections of passenger numbers were over stated (as they are for modal shift from air to HS2), and the costs were under-stated - as they tend to be on major engineering projects, because there are always unquantifiable risks.
Can anybody seriously imagine what LHR would be like - even with a third runway - in 50 or even 20 years?
Yes I can - quite possibly just like it is now, a bit busier, a bit fatter, don't think anyone says it is perfect but it is the least bad option.
I don't think there is any reason to automatically assume the airline industry will keep growing exponentially anyway - just as there are reasons for growth, there are also significant negative factors beyond the economic ebbs and flows - cost of fuel, teleconferencing and environmental concerns for starters.