http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/...faceaccess.pdf

I was browsing the surface access study published by BAA for the
building of a third runway at Heathrow.when I came across Table 38 in
Chapter 6 - page 92. which appears to suggest that the premium pricing
models for transport to Heathrow should not be applied to either
Crossrail or Airtrack. Is it not time for all the rail infrastructure
at Heathrow to be handed over to people who understand (a) railways
(b) West London's transport needs rather than the BAA?

My personal view is that expanding Heathrow displays a blind alley
mentality that tinkers with the symptoms and not the causes. It has
outlived its purpose and that like Paris or Hong Kong the need is to
build a brand new airport that does not impose such environmental
burdens on the community. With the new HS1 route now in place and
Crossrail to be built into the Thames Gateway both north and south of
the river - surely it is time to revisit the case for a new airport
to be built in the Thames estuary.

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Mwmbwls wrote:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/...faceaccess.pdf

I was browsing the surface access study published by BAA for the
building of a third runway at Heathrow.when I came across Table 38 in
Chapter 6 - page 92. which appears to suggest that the premium pricing
models for transport to Heathrow should not be applied to either
Crossrail or Airtrack. Is it not time for all the rail infrastructure
at Heathrow to be handed over to people who understand (a) railways
(b) West London's transport needs rather than the BAA?

Yes. However, it's all owned by BAA, not the crown, and so it'd need to be
compulsorily purchased or otherwise strongarmed into state ownership,
which is a tricky thing to do.

My personal view is that expanding Heathrow displays a blind alley
mentality that tinkers with the symptoms and not the causes. It has
outlived its purpose and that like Paris or Hong Kong the need is to
build a brand new airport that does not impose such environmental
burdens on the community. With the new HS1 route now in place and
Crossrail to be built into the Thames Gateway both north and south of
the river - surely it is time to revisit the case for a new airport to
be built in the Thames estuary.

What, actually in the estuary? I've heard of this idea before, but it's
basically potty. Firstly, building an island in the estuary would be
phenomenally expensive and incredibly damaging to the ecology and
navigation. There's plenty of empty space in Kent and Essex where you
could build an airport, so this is just not necessary. Secondly, the only
place the estuary is wide enough to build an airport is out beyond the
Yantlet line, around Southend or something; the only serious proposal i
could find is for it to be north of the Isle of Sheppey. This is miles
from London, the same kind of distance as Stansted, and so not a good
replacement for Heathrow. If you're happy with that kind of distance, just
expand Stansted. Thirdly, given the geographical constraint, it's going to
be nowhere near HS1, which heads south at Chatham. Fourthly, it's also not
going to be especially close to the Thames Gateway developments, which are
close enough to London that Heathrow is still just as close. Fifthly,
Heathrow serves the home counties to the west of London, so replacing it
with an airport to the east is going to give a lot of people a much longer
journey.

If you were going to build a new airport in the east, the place to do it
would either be on the Hoo peninsula, on the marshes north of Cliffe, from
where about ten miles of track would link it to HS1 and the North Kent
line, and a similar amount of road would link it to the A2/M2, or between
Gravesend and Rochester, south of the A2 and HS1 and north of the Chatham
main line, on top of Cobham, which would take virtually no track and road
outside the airport itself to make the link.

A quick google reveals that the Cliffe site has already been proposed, and
action groups formed to oppose it. In fact, i seem to remember reading
about it in some 70s document about the siting of the London CTRL
terminus. Cobham appears to be a new idea - and probably a fairly bad one,
in terms of approach routes being on top of the Medway towns.

tom

--
space, robots, pirates, vikings, ninjas, medieval castles, dinosaurs,
cities, suburbia, holiday locations, wild west, the Arctic, airports,
boats, racing cars, trains, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Batman,
SpongeBob SquarePants, Avatar: The Last Airbender and more

In message , at
13:43:13 on Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Tom Anderson
remarked:
surely it is time to revisit the case for a new airport to be built
in the Thames estuary.

What, actually in the estuary? I've heard of this idea before, but it's
basically potty. Firstly, building an island in the estuary would be
phenomenally expensive

On Maplin Sands. Not quite as daft as you apparently think. Heck, you
could even name a chain of electronics stores after the project.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 13:43:13 on
Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Tom Anderson remarked:
surely it is time to revisit the case for a new airport to be built in
the Thames estuary.

What, actually in the estuary? I've heard of this idea before, but it's
basically potty. Firstly, building an island in the estuary would be
phenomenally expensive

On Maplin Sands. Not quite as daft as you apparently think. Heck, you
could even name a chain of electronics stores after the project.

What, because it's a disastrous British aviation project? Yes, you're
right, i suppose 'Comet' would be a decent name.

tom

--
space, robots, pirates, vikings, ninjas, medieval castles, dinosaurs,
cities, suburbia, holiday locations, wild west, the Arctic, airports,
boats, racing cars, trains, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Batman,
SpongeBob SquarePants, Avatar: The Last Airbender and more

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
13:43:13 on Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Tom Anderson
remarked:
surely it is time to revisit the case for a new airport to be built
in the Thames estuary.

What, actually in the estuary? I've heard of this idea before, but
it's basically potty. Firstly, building an island in the estuary
would be phenomenally expensive

On Maplin Sands. Not quite as daft as you apparently think. Heck, you
could even name a chain of electronics stores after the project.

What, because it's a disastrous British aviation project? Yes, you're
right, i suppose 'Comet' would be a decent name.

Given the projected sea level rise over the next 50 to 100 years,
"Jacques Cousteau" or "Captain Nemo" might be more appropriate names, or
if you want something less Franco-centric then you could use "Lionel
'Buster' Crabb".

--
Jeremy Double jmd.nospam@btinternet
Steam photos at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/10626655@N04/

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:10:35 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at
13:43:13 on Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Tom Anderson
remarked:
surely it is time to revisit the case for a new airport to be built
in the Thames estuary.

What, actually in the estuary? I've heard of this idea before, but it's
basically potty. Firstly, building an island in the estuary would be
phenomenally expensive

On Maplin Sands. Not quite as daft as you apparently think. Heck, you
could even name a chain of electronics stores after the project.

Another advantage of building a new island is that you don't have to
buy ridiculously expensive land on which to site the airport. I
suspect that it would be cheaper than building on-land.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

In message , at
15:55:01 on Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Tom Anderson
remarked:
On Maplin Sands. Not quite as daft as you apparently think. Heck, you
could even name a chain of electronics stores after the project.

What, because it's a disastrous British aviation project? Yes, you're
right, i suppose 'Comet' would be a decent name.

Whoooosh!!
--
Roland Perry

Terry Harper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:10:35 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at
13:43:13 on Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Tom Anderson
remarked:
surely it is time to revisit the case for a new airport to be
built in the Thames estuary.

What, actually in the estuary? I've heard of this idea before,
but it's basically potty. Firstly, building an island in the
estuary would be phenomenally expensive

On Maplin Sands. Not quite as daft as you apparently think. Heck,
you could even name a chain of electronics stores after the
project.

Another advantage of building a new island is that you don't have to
buy ridiculously expensive land on which to site the airport. I
suspect that it would be cheaper than building on-land.

I can think of few places in the UK less suitable for building a huge
airport than an estuary that is liable to tidal surges that threaten to
inundate the capital city, and where the land and sea-bed are sinking.
The Thames Barrier will not be able to protect London adequately by the
end of this century, yet you are proposing to reduce the capacity of the
estuary. Have you factored in the £20bn cost of an estuary barrage?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:01:47 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Terry Harper wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:10:35 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at
13:43:13 on Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Tom Anderson
remarked:
surely it is time to revisit the case for a new airport to be
built in the Thames estuary.

What, actually in the estuary? I've heard of this idea before,
but it's basically potty. Firstly, building an island in the
estuary would be phenomenally expensive

On Maplin Sands. Not quite as daft as you apparently think. Heck,
you could even name a chain of electronics stores after the
project.

Another advantage of building a new island is that you don't have to
buy ridiculously expensive land on which to site the airport. I
suspect that it would be cheaper than building on-land.

I can think of few places in the UK less suitable for building a huge
airport than an estuary that is liable to tidal surges that threaten to
inundate the capital city, and where the land and sea-bed are sinking.
The Thames Barrier will not be able to protect London adequately by the
end of this century, yet you are proposing to reduce the capacity of the
estuary. Have you factored in the £20bn cost of an estuary barrage?

The capacity of the estuary is not necessarily reduced. Where do you
think the material to build the island will come from? The second
barrage will be needed anyway if the eastern side of the UK continues
to sink.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

In message , at
21:01:47 on Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Richard J.
remarked:
I can think of few places in the UK less suitable for building a huge
airport than an estuary that is liable to tidal surges that threaten to
inundate the capital city, and where the land and sea-bed are sinking.

This sounds like a good candidate for "if the Dutch can do it..."
--
Roland Perry