Boris Island feasibility study published
 

The Sunday Times reports
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...e5581066.ece):

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.

Boris Island feasibility study published
 

On Jan 25, 1:52*am, James Farrar wrote:
The Sunday Times reports
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...e5581066.ece):

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.

Whatever the merits of the location, I wonder what would be the cost
of removing the vast chemical bomb that is Canvey Island? Any plane
crashing into that would probably end up in Heathrow ...

Boris Island feasibility study published
 

MIG wrote:

Whatever the merits of the location, I wonder what would be the cost
of removing the vast chemical bomb that is Canvey Island? Any plane
crashing into that would probably end up in Heathrow ...

Hehe. I was thinking about the SS Richard Montgomery.

Boris Island feasibility study published
 

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
MIG wrote:

Whatever the merits of the location, I wonder what would be the cost
of removing the vast chemical bomb that is Canvey Island? Any plane
crashing into that would probably end up in Heathrow ...

Hehe. I was thinking about the SS Richard Montgomery.
-----------------------------------
The SS Richard Montgomery was an American Liberty ship built during WW2 &
was wrecked in the Thames Estuary in 1944 with 1500 tons of high explosive
on board ,any self respecting Muslim terrorist will now be plotting to
crash a hijacked plane onto it during the Olympics thus destroying much of
East London & getting 72 virgins, rivers of wine,a lifelong subscription to
Al Jezeera, A Synagogue to desecrate,etc etc! ! ! !

Boris Island feasibility study published
 

In message
, MIG
writes

Whatever the merits of the location, I wonder what would be the cost
of removing the vast chemical bomb that is Canvey Island?

Why? Airport Boris would be well over 20 miles from Canvey - it's off
the Kent coast, just north of Herne Bay.
--
Paul Terry

Boris Island feasibility study published
 

On 25 Jan, 17:30, Paul Terry wrote:

In message
, MIG
writes

Whatever the merits of the location, I wonder what would be the cost
of removing the vast chemical bomb that is Canvey Island?

Why? Airport Boris would be well over 20 miles from Canvey - it's off
the Kent coast, just north of Herne Bay.

"Airport Boris"? "Borisport", please!

Boris Island feasibility study published
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, James Farrar wrote:

The Sunday Times reports
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...e5581066.ece):

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.

So where are these detailed proposals, then? Oh, hang on - according to:

http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_...eleaseid=20639

"Doug Oakervees report is expected to be completed around the end of
March."

So maybe the Times has jumped the gun on the detail. Still, the good news
is that we thus have free rein to come up with whatever mad schemes we
like to fill in the blanks. Hurrah!

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.

Based on what the article says about Southend and Sheerness being the
closest towns, i'd guess that the islands would be built on either side of
the Medway channel, at about 45-50 minutes east of the meridian.

I've prepared this small map of buoyage in the estuary, showing the
Yantlet and Medway channels:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=http... es_Buoys.kml

The islands would have to be clear of those, so perhaps one off the tip of
Grain, and one off Sheernes/Minster.

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.

I don't see how splitting the island is a prerequisite for the latter. Not
that i'm complaining - more smaller islands means more coastline, which i
hope will be constructed as ecologically vital saltmarsh.

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 .

Nice.

Speaking to The Sunday Times aboard a dredger, Johnson

Not something you read very often!

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.

Given the position i hypothesise above, i assume the link would be to
Grain, and then along the route of the existing freight branch from there
to Hoo junction. I don't know what the plan is from there - carry on along
the North Kent line, to Northfleet/Ebbsfleet? New tracks long that
alignment? A new tunnel? Would Crossrail trains run through to the
airport? How would this route help get people to the Continent? Would
there be a new alignment (what i insist be called the Thong chord) across
the countryside to a junction and/or station near M2 junction 1, on the
edge of Rochester?

And what happens on the Essex side? A connection to one of the existing
Southend stations? Somehow connecting to Stansted - two sides of a
triangle via Stratford, or some new line running along the M25/M11 to join
the existing line at Harlow?

tom

--
In the long run, we are all dead. -- John Maynard Keynes

Boris Island feasibility study published
 

On Jan 25, 5:32*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 25 Jan, 17:30, Paul Terry wrote:

In message
, MIG
writes

Whatever the merits of the location, I wonder what would be the cost
of removing the vast chemical bomb that is Canvey Island?

Why? Airport Boris would be well over 20 miles from Canvey - it's off
the Kent coast, just north of Herne Bay.

"Airport Boris"? "Borisport", please!

The article said near Southend and Sheerness.

It also mentioned tunnels to Kent and Essex. You'd have to tunnel a
long way to reach Essex from Herne Bay.

Boris Island feasibility study published
 

In message , Tom
Anderson writes

Based on what the article says about Southend and Sheerness being the
closest towns, i'd guess that the islands would be built on either side
of the Medway channel, at about 45-50 minutes east of the meridian.

Unless there are rival proposals, I think you may be far too far east.
See:

http://www.teaco.co.uk/siteplan.pdf
--
Paul Terry

Boris Island feasibility study published
 

In message
, MIG
writes

The article said near Southend and Sheerness.

Unless there are rival proposals, I think the confusion arises from the
press latching on to the idea of "Thames Estuary". The plan I've seen is
way east of Essex, in what many people would regard as the North Sea:

http://www.teaco.co.uk/siteplan.pdf

It also mentioned tunnels to Kent and Essex. You'd have to tunnel a
long way to reach Essex from Herne Bay.

The proposed tunnel on the plan above seems to be lightly longer than
the Channel Tunnel !
--
Paul Terry

Boris Island feasibility study published
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Tom Anderson
writes

Based on what the article says about Southend and Sheerness being the
closest towns, i'd guess that the islands would be built on either side of
the Medway channel, at about 45-50 minutes east of the meridian.

Unless there are rival proposals, I think you may be far too far east.

West, you mean.

See:

http://www.teaco.co.uk/siteplan.pdf

That plan puts the airport nearest to Herne Bay and Whitstable; the
article explicitly says Southend and Sheerness. The article could be
wrong, but i suspect this is a different plan. Particularly since the
article says Boris claims the plan is feasible, and even he could see that
that one's bonkers - the amount of tunnel involved would be immense.

tom

--
In the long run, we are all dead. -- John Maynard Keynes

Boris Island feasibility study published
 

Tom Anderson wrote:


http://www.teaco.co.uk/siteplan.pdf

That plan puts the airport nearest to Herne Bay and Whitstable; the
article explicitly says Southend and Sheerness. The article could be
wrong, but i suspect this is a different plan. Particularly since the
article says Boris claims the plan is feasible, and even he could see
that that one's bonkers - the amount of tunnel involved would be immense.

tom


Looking around the place, that PDF is about as near to a genesis of the
project as you can find - Marinair have been around a while and tried to
get noticed in 2002, but were rejected. They seem to have found ready
ears among Conservatives, though, which probably explains it. Remember,
the level of technical knowledge and experience in the Boris camp is
near-zero. Bags of zeal and gung-ho
with-a-bit-of-courage-we-can-do-anything stuff, but seriously short on clue.

It's difficult to know exactly what Boris is proposing in geospatial
terms, but if you start sketching things out there aren't *that* many
places to put an airport - you're constrained by the shipping channels,
the S.S. Richard Montgomery, the built up area around Chatham and
Rochester and the desirability of at least being close to the M2 and
HS1. You can run your land access west of the built up area (across the
Isle of Grain and between Gravesend and Rochester) or east across
Sheppey, via the gap between Sittingbourne and Faversham*, but that's
about it. My original finger-in-air guess was along the A289/A228
corridor, but that hits the wreck and means a very long under/overwater
stretch along the Sheppey sea-front if Boris really is as far out to sea
as his dredger's path took him :

[see he http://tinyurl.com/af5guc]


The farthest point was due north of Whitstable, about 7-8 miles from
both coasts. Just because a plan's bonkers doesn't mean Boris won't
take it seriously.

There is another plan floating about that I'd like to see again, which
was a tidal barrage in roughly the same area. There are elements of
that in the plan glimpsed today.

Tom

* or Rainham and Sittingbourne, but HS1 is in the North Downs Tunnel at
a likely junction. Mind you, a 200+km/h underground flying junction is
not going to be the most loony part of the proposal.

Boris Island feasibility study published
 

On 25 Jan, 22:09, Tom Barry wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

http://www.teaco.co.uk/siteplan.pdf

That plan puts the airport nearest to Herne Bay and Whitstable; the
article explicitly says Southend and Sheerness. The article could be
wrong, but i suspect this is a different plan. Particularly since the
article says Boris claims the plan is feasible, and even he could see
that that one's bonkers - the amount of tunnel involved would be immense.

Looking around the place, that PDF is about as near to a genesis of the
project as you can find - Marinair have been around a while and tried to
get noticed in 2002, but were rejected. *They seem to have found ready
ears among Conservatives, though, which probably explains it. *Remember,
the level of technical knowledge and experience in the Boris camp is
near-zero. *Bags of zeal and gung-ho
with-a-bit-of-courage-we-can-do-anything stuff, but seriously short on clue.

Nicely put! It's this rousing good-old inventive British spirit stuff
that he loves. In his mind I suspect this is how he thinks he'll
govern Britain from Number 10.

Boris Island feasibility study published
 

Tom Anderson wrote:

Not that i'm complaining - more smaller islands means more
coastline, which i hope will be constructed as ecologically vital
saltmarsh.

Unless they invent a new engine which is birdproof, I think not.

Would Crossrail trains run through to the airport?

Good thinking - I'd say so.

And what happens on the Essex side? A connection to one of the
existing Southend stations? Somehow connecting to Stansted - two
sides of a triangle via Stratford, or some new line running along the
M25/M11 to join the existing line at Harlow?

NIOL [Not In Our Lifetimes].

Boris Island feasibility study published
 

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

Not that i'm complaining - more smaller islands means more
coastline, which i hope will be constructed as ecologically vital
saltmarsh.

Unless they invent a new engine which is birdproof, I think not.

I was hoping nobody'd think of that!

From what i remember of my biology lessons, and a youth spent living next
to one, salt marshes are not enormously brilliant habitats for birds;
they're mostly about invertebrates and simple plants, and doing all sorts
of valuable but dull low-level nutrient recycling (including selenium - i
don't know why i remember thus, but basically, without saltmarshes, the
selenium cycle is stuffed). If birds are a problem, then salt marsh
covered with acres of chicken wire slung between low poles would still be
hugely ecologically valuable.

Would Crossrail trains run through to the airport?

Good thinking - I'd say so.

I worry it might be a bit far for what is really a suburban railway. But
then i'm someone who thinks Maidenhead is too far.

And what happens on the Essex side? A connection to one of the
existing Southend stations? Somehow connecting to Stansted - two
sides of a triangle via Stratford, or some new line running along the
M25/M11 to join the existing line at Harlow?

NIOL [Not In Our Lifetimes].

Sad but true.

tom

--
Finals make a man mean; let's fusc up and write!

Boris Island feasibility study published
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Tom Barry wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

http://www.teaco.co.uk/siteplan.pdf

That plan puts the airport nearest to Herne Bay and Whitstable; the
article explicitly says Southend and Sheerness. The article could be
wrong, but i suspect this is a different plan. Particularly since the
article says Boris claims the plan is feasible, and even he could see
that that one's bonkers - the amount of tunnel involved would be
immense.

Looking around the place, that PDF is about as near to a genesis of the
project as you can find - Marinair have been around a while and tried to
get noticed in 2002, but were rejected. They seem to have found ready
ears among Conservatives, though, which probably explains it.
Remember, the level of technical knowledge and experience in the Boris
camp is near-zero. Bags of zeal and gung-ho
with-a-bit-of-courage-we-can-do-anything stuff, but seriously short on
clue.

But he's got this Douglas Oakervee, who is apparently an actual engineer
of some standing (eg he runs Crossrail), on board, which means it can't be
completely pie-in-the-sky, doesn't it?

It's difficult to know exactly what Boris is proposing in geospatial
terms, but if you start sketching things out there aren't *that* many
places to put an airport - you're constrained by the shipping channels,
the S.S. Richard Montgomery,

How much of a problem is that, really? Could it not be dealt with?

the built up area around Chatham and Rochester and the desirability of
at least being close to the M2 and HS1. You can run your land access
west of the built up area (across the Isle of Grain and between
Gravesend and Rochester) or east across Sheppey, via the gap between
Sittingbourne and Faversham*, but that's about it. My original
finger-in-air guess was along the A289/A228 corridor, but that hits the
wreck and means a very long under/overwater stretch along the Sheppey
sea-front if Boris really is as far out to sea as his dredger's path
took him :

[see he http://tinyurl.com/af5guc]

Good data!

The farthest point was due north of Whitstable, about 7-8 miles from
both coasts.

And a nearer point is the one i was suggesting, roughly. Could also be a
site on the Kentish Flats, north of or replacing the wind farm.

However ...

Just because a plan's bonkers doesn't mean Boris won't take it
seriously.

.... the Staaaahnrd has an article:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ort/article.do

With a map:

http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/20...an-800x353.jpg

That puts the airport at the far end of the dredger's trip, with the
tunnels making landfall at the eastern tip of Sheppey and near
Shoeburyness.

* or Rainham and Sittingbourne, but HS1 is in the North Downs Tunnel at
a likely junction. Mind you, a 200+km/h underground flying junction is
not going to be the most loony part of the proposal.

The ES map certainly suggests a junction like that. But it doesn't suggest
that its indications are very detailed.

tom

--
Finals make a man mean; let's fusc up and write!

Boris Island feasibility study published
 

"Tom Barry" wrote:
Mind you, a 200+km/h underground flying junction is not going to be the
most loony part of the proposal.

The real killer for Boris is a much, much simpler one; it doesn't have to be
a castle in the air; even an airport built on sand will fail.

The cost of underpinning both (all three?) runways to the seabed, at one
pile every twenty metres or so, will make costs astronomical, and put
building times well into the cathedral class.

Even a Low Tide Only Airport will need to be raised some 15 - 20 metres
*above* the level of the migrating sand, and firmly anchored 15 - 20 metres
*below* it .

It Ain't Gonna Happen.

--

Andrew

Boris Island feasibility study published
 

Tom Anderson wrote:

* or Rainham and Sittingbourne, but HS1 is in the North Downs Tunnel
at a likely junction. Mind you, a 200+km/h underground flying
junction is not going to be the most loony part of the proposal.

The ES map certainly suggests a junction like that. But it doesn't
suggest that its indications are very detailed.

tom


It is indeed rather indistinct, but it's clear that the M2 and HS1 links
follow different routes, the former to about the nearest available
junction point, the latter having to go further south to avoid the tunnel.

Tom

Boris Island feasibility study published
 

"Andrew Heenan" wrote in message

"Tom Barry" wrote:
Mind you, a 200+km/h underground flying junction is not going to be
the most loony part of the proposal.

The real killer for Boris is a much, much simpler one; it doesn't
have to be a castle in the air; even an airport built on sand will
fail.
The cost of underpinning both (all three?) runways

Four, actually, a pair on each of two separate islands (probably built
in two phases).

Boris Island feasibility study published
 

Mizter T wrote:

"Airport Boris"? "Borisport", please!

Boris Ostrova?