London's Proposed New Airport...
Dec 9th, 2013, 11:14 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London's Proposed New Airport...
Plans have recently been announced for a new major London airport - dubbed Boris' Island Airport in some sources - to relieve the beleagured Heathrow and Gatwick airports - both Heathrow and Gatwikc want to add a new runway but efforts at Heathrow have been stymied by local opposition to yet more flights landing over a rather populated area - the new airport promises to have 24 hours of operation - something Heathrow cannot do I guess because of the noise at nearby residences.
A recent NYTimes article showed how special noise-proof domes have been built in some schools to shield kids from the constant noise of behemoth jets landing and taking off not far above.
So here are the plans for the new London airport - and good luck getting approval for what most folks say is desperately needed to relieve conditions at two of the world's busiest airports.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24895965
https://www.google.com/search?q=lond...04%3B795%3B582
A recent NYTimes article showed how special noise-proof domes have been built in some schools to shield kids from the constant noise of behemoth jets landing and taking off not far above.
So here are the plans for the new London airport - and good luck getting approval for what most folks say is desperately needed to relieve conditions at two of the world's busiest airports.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24895965
https://www.google.com/search?q=lond...04%3B795%3B582
Dec 9th, 2013, 12:06 PM
#2
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it ever gets built, which I seriously doubt, it will be interesting to see how it copes with a tidal surge ans storm like we had last week. Given sea levels are rising the surges will only get worse.
Dec 9th, 2013, 12:09 PM
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps Howard Hughes Spruce Goose will be revived - I believe it is a plane that can take off from the water.
https://www.google.com/search?q=hugh...=1600&bih=1074
https://www.google.com/search?q=hugh...=1600&bih=1074
.
Dec 9th, 2013, 01:05 PM
#5
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No man is an island, especially not Mayor Boris Johnson, who loves to dive into the deep end so long as there is an audience. The city region has five airports and the most obvious expansion is a fully functional second runway at Gatwick. Noise will be a problem anywhere, especially if it drowns out Boris's funny speeches.
Dec 9th, 2013, 09:26 PM
#6
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Given sea levels are rising the surges will only get worse."
The 2013 North Sea tidal surge caused higher tides in some places than the same places saw in February 1953. But in most of the North Sea, the tides were lower.
Surges aren't getting "worse" (ie more severe) in the North Sea. But our ability to manage their effect has soared out of all recognition. 307 people in Britain were killed in the February 1953 tidal surge: not a single person died in last week's (there were a couple of deaths in the associated storm - but over 100 miles inland of the tide)
The North Sea is prone to high, often terrifyingly high, tides. The fact that the Netherlands exist at all demonstrates humans, and the infrastructure of a complex economy, can easily co-exist with them, given the right management.
The 2013 North Sea tidal surge caused higher tides in some places than the same places saw in February 1953. But in most of the North Sea, the tides were lower.
Surges aren't getting "worse" (ie more severe) in the North Sea. But our ability to manage their effect has soared out of all recognition. 307 people in Britain were killed in the February 1953 tidal surge: not a single person died in last week's (there were a couple of deaths in the associated storm - but over 100 miles inland of the tide)
The North Sea is prone to high, often terrifyingly high, tides. The fact that the Netherlands exist at all demonstrates humans, and the infrastructure of a complex economy, can easily co-exist with them, given the right management.
Dec 9th, 2013, 10:12 PM
#7
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 19,881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excluding bird-strikes, SS Richard Montgomery, rearranging ATC for Amsterdam, Brussels & Paris as well as local weather, the main problem with any airport east of London is the lack of infrastructure to support the airport.
The Dartford Crossings are already some of the busiest roads in Europe yet people want to add Heathrow's & Gatwick's traffic load to the area, how are the people needed to run an airport going to be shipped 60 miles or so across London, along with the companies who support Heathrow / Gatwick as well as the major companies who based themselves in the Thames Valley just because of Heathrow.
If it was 1947 and starting from scratch then an airport east of London would make sense - but they aren't, so an airport remaining in the Heathrow area is the only choice.
The Dartford Crossings are already some of the busiest roads in Europe yet people want to add Heathrow's & Gatwick's traffic load to the area, how are the people needed to run an airport going to be shipped 60 miles or so across London, along with the companies who support Heathrow / Gatwick as well as the major companies who based themselves in the Thames Valley just because of Heathrow.
If it was 1947 and starting from scratch then an airport east of London would make sense - but they aren't, so an airport remaining in the Heathrow area is the only choice.
Dec 9th, 2013, 11:39 PM
#9
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much of the debate about Boris Island, of course, obscures the real problem.
London is the world's soft power capital, but lacks a decent airport. And it can't possibly have one for another decade, whether we eventually add runways to Heathrow, Gatwick or an island in the Thames Estuary. Or even create extra capacity in Manchester or Birmingham.
Meanwhile a third of Heathrow passengers provide no value to the London - or British - economy. By transiting in London, they merely inflate the profits of the Spanish and Chinese owned BAA and the largely American owned IAG group, British Airways' (and Iberia's) holding company
So tax them out of existence. Charge quadruple airport fees on transfer passengers. That'll immediately send all those frequent-flyer card Americans off to congest Schiphol and Frankfurt with the freebie Chicago-Johannesburg flights airlines have bribed them for simply doing the jobs they're paid to do.
And free up enough capacity at Heathrow for it to absorb the next decade's growth in people coming here.
Then we can debate where to put its replacement. Because Heathrow simply isn't going to get extended.
Wittering about nimbyism is fine if you're not one of the 12 million people in Heathrow's or Gatwick's back yards. No politician needing their votes can indulge in fatuous name-calling. Or ignoring their wishes.
London is the world's soft power capital, but lacks a decent airport. And it can't possibly have one for another decade, whether we eventually add runways to Heathrow, Gatwick or an island in the Thames Estuary. Or even create extra capacity in Manchester or Birmingham.
Meanwhile a third of Heathrow passengers provide no value to the London - or British - economy. By transiting in London, they merely inflate the profits of the Spanish and Chinese owned BAA and the largely American owned IAG group, British Airways' (and Iberia's) holding company
So tax them out of existence. Charge quadruple airport fees on transfer passengers. That'll immediately send all those frequent-flyer card Americans off to congest Schiphol and Frankfurt with the freebie Chicago-Johannesburg flights airlines have bribed them for simply doing the jobs they're paid to do.
And free up enough capacity at Heathrow for it to absorb the next decade's growth in people coming here.
Then we can debate where to put its replacement. Because Heathrow simply isn't going to get extended.
Wittering about nimbyism is fine if you're not one of the 12 million people in Heathrow's or Gatwick's back yards. No politician needing their votes can indulge in fatuous name-calling. Or ignoring their wishes.
Dec 10th, 2013, 12:25 AM
#10
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,971
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<i>Plans have recently been announced for a new major London airport...</i>
Those plans were announced ages ago. Here is more recent news:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...be-dumped.html
;-)
Those plans were announced ages ago. Here is more recent news:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...be-dumped.html
;-)
Dec 10th, 2013, 01:41 AM
#11
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If any new airport is intended to replace Heathrow, and is expected to be the major national airport, then building it on the Kent marshes seems to be the least suitable location. The majority of the population outside London live to the west and the north, so the new airport would be virtually inaccessible to them. Even for Londoners, it will be a tortuous journey.
Also, we may be underestimating the role that Crossrail will play when it is completed in 2018. Heathrow will then have fast and frequent trains to central London.
Meanwhile, I wait with interest how we answer the question "I am flying from Los Angeles to the new London airport and want to visit Bath and the Cotswolds. How do I get there?"
Also, we may be underestimating the role that Crossrail will play when it is completed in 2018. Heathrow will then have fast and frequent trains to central London.
Meanwhile, I wait with interest how we answer the question "I am flying from Los Angeles to the new London airport and want to visit Bath and the Cotswolds. How do I get there?"
Dec 10th, 2013, 01:47 AM
#12
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>Meanwhile, I wait with interest how we answer the question "I am flying from Los Angeles to the new London airport and want to visit Bath and the Cotswolds. How do I get there?"<<
"Have you tried Canvey Island?"
"Have you tried Canvey Island?"
Dec 10th, 2013, 01:54 AM
#13
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
""I am flying from Los Angeles to the new London airport and want to visit Bath and the Cotswolds. How do I get there?""
A lot faster and more painlessly than today.
A high speed train from LBA to the Tottenham Court Rd Crossrail interchange will take about 25 mins (St Pa to Ebbsfleet takes 18 mins). From TCR to Charlbury, possibly with a same-platform connection at Maidenhead or Oxford, will take another 65.
That's less than the bus from LHR takes to get to Oxford.
A lot faster and more painlessly than today.
A high speed train from LBA to the Tottenham Court Rd Crossrail interchange will take about 25 mins (St Pa to Ebbsfleet takes 18 mins). From TCR to Charlbury, possibly with a same-platform connection at Maidenhead or Oxford, will take another 65.
That's less than the bus from LHR takes to get to Oxford.
Dec 10th, 2013, 08:14 AM
#15
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Gatwick North was built in 1979, the then BAA promised not to seek planning permission for a new runway. That agreement - which is inherited by subsequent buyers - remains binding till 2019.
The underlying problem - apart from the abuse of London airport resources by foreign businesses - is that "London" airports, taken together, already have more flights than any other city in the world.
Britons travel abroad more than most other developed nations (and travel intercontinentally more than other Europeans), air travel is the only effective way off the island for most destinations - and an absurd series of policy decisions means there are virtually no intercontinental flights from anywhere outside SE England
And what people living in horrible parts of Britain call nimbyism is simply Londoners not seeing why their lives should be destroyed for United Airlines to pander to American businesspeople who believe they're entitled to a bribe for travelling on business.
The ONLY solutions acceptable to London are LBA (London Boris Airport), a ban on transfer passengers or more capacity elsewhere. We're perfectly happy to see all three.
The underlying problem - apart from the abuse of London airport resources by foreign businesses - is that "London" airports, taken together, already have more flights than any other city in the world.
Britons travel abroad more than most other developed nations (and travel intercontinentally more than other Europeans), air travel is the only effective way off the island for most destinations - and an absurd series of policy decisions means there are virtually no intercontinental flights from anywhere outside SE England
And what people living in horrible parts of Britain call nimbyism is simply Londoners not seeing why their lives should be destroyed for United Airlines to pander to American businesspeople who believe they're entitled to a bribe for travelling on business.
The ONLY solutions acceptable to London are LBA (London Boris Airport), a ban on transfer passengers or more capacity elsewhere. We're perfectly happy to see all three.
Dec 10th, 2013, 09:59 PM
#17
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"How are people who aren't in London supposed to get to the new airport?"
I live 70 miles west of London. Getting to LBA by train will be faster than getting to Heathrow currently is.
The money-grubbing Spaniards who own Heathrow are so contemptuous about their customers they haven't even bothered developing a westward or northward railway connection. And they've forced practically all domestic flights out.
How are people who aren't in London supposed to get to Heathrow? On Europe's worst, and most congested, motorway network.
I live 70 miles west of London. Getting to LBA by train will be faster than getting to Heathrow currently is.
The money-grubbing Spaniards who own Heathrow are so contemptuous about their customers they haven't even bothered developing a westward or northward railway connection. And they've forced practically all domestic flights out.
How are people who aren't in London supposed to get to Heathrow? On Europe's worst, and most congested, motorway network.
Dec 11th, 2013, 02:14 AM
#19
"When Gatwick North was built in 1979, the then BAA promised not to seek planning permission for a new runway. That agreement - which is inherited by subsequent buyers - remains binding till 2019"
Which is only 5 years away. I know they'd have to go through planning, consultation etc, but would a runway take that long to build? (I honestly don't now - is it hugely different from half a mile of motorway even if you include all the taxiways etc.)
I presume that even if they got the green light tomorrow, Boris Island would take at least a decade to build.
Which is only 5 years away. I know they'd have to go through planning, consultation etc, but would a runway take that long to build? (I honestly don't now - is it hugely different from half a mile of motorway even if you include all the taxiways etc.)
I presume that even if they got the green light tomorrow, Boris Island would take at least a decade to build.
