Boris Johnson unveils £40bn Heathrow-on-Sea

Some of the posts here seem to assume this is being put forward as an alternative to Heathrow, & write as if they expect Heathrow to close if this airport is built.

It’s being put forward as an alternative to expanding Heathrow. In the unlikely event that it’s built, Heathrow would lose traffic, at least in the short term, but I can’t imagine it closing – and I would think the older terminals, & the tangled mess around them, more likely to close (or be demolished & rebuilt in a more efficient layout) than T5.

I think it’d be more of a threat to the existence of the minor London airports than Heathrow. There’s too much invested in Heathrow, & it’s too convenient for too many people, to close it. As for the jobs, etc – well, W. London & the Thames Valley has a lot of scope to soak up any slack resulting from a diminution of traffic through Heathrow (normally – not at the moment, but the current recession should be over before any impact would be felt from a new airport), & look at the proportion of the population which is transient, & could simply move away. The Thames estuary is comparatively depressed, with much higher unemployment & much less pressure on land. Moving sources of employment from here to there would probably produce a net economic benefit. BTW, that’s one of the arguments put forward in favour of the proposal, exactly as it was last time round.

I see the flaws in the idea (& they’ve all been rehearsed before, when the original Foulness – or Maplin Sands – airport was mooted – though I note this proposal addresses some of the drawbacks of that plan), & don’t believe it’ll ever be built, because of them, but there’s no need to invent spurious arguments against it.

“Pie in the sky”

Some problems i see with this are:

-fog. Heathrow already suffers badly from it, as MAN has a regular influx of aircraft once it sets in.
Can you imagine how bad this is going to be at the estury!?

– you are simply moving the environmental impact from one area to another, not solving it

-expansion will be just as contreversial/costly as the current LHR setup. Instead of paying to flatten villages, you are paying to put in islands and destroying eco-habitats (I am not a pro to that, but its one of the points)

-arrivals may still be tracked over london (if runways are east/west) and the landings are on 09’s (like I say, purely speculation based on runway positioning)

-why spend the amount of money on T5 if you are going to knock it down after 10 years anyway.

-we will end up having ‘high speed lines’ criss crossing everywhere at this rate, connecting a-b, then c-d then d-e etc etc etc

Just my 2 cents

Maplin Sands was muted in the 1970’s and guess what……………………………………………….nowt came of it,all pie in the sky so to speak!!:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maplin_Sands

It’s not just a case of the airport itself. What would happen with everything west of London that LHR depends on, and depends on LHR?

It’s never going to happen!

It’s easy to “unveil” a project when you know you’ll never have to manage or fund it

Very true.

1L.

It’s easy to “unveil” a project when you know you’ll never have to manage or fund it, or provide the infrastructure to support it. :rolleyes:

MMMM I never thought of that , roads and rail that are there now , would be overrun very quickly.
I suspect the cost of a new multi line rail system and what would be another M25 would cost has much as a new airport would.

Yes and yes.
40 Billion?
If every other civil project is anything to go by, then expect to double the original estimate.
40 years too late though.

Maybe 40 years is to much , has for the cost if it was to go ahead.
The land that Heathrow is on now, BAA would sell it ,would that not cover at least 1/2 of the cost to build the new airport.
That is persuming that BAA were to run any new London Airport,if not what would they do?

It’s easy to “unveil” a project when you know you’ll never have to manage or fund it, or provide the infrastructure to support it. :rolleyes:

Has it not been put forward before?

Foulness – 40 years ago, after the proposal to flatten several Buckinghamshire villages for an airport north of Aylesbury was rejected. I never understood that one, BTW: seemed far too close to Luton.

Yes and yes.
40 Billion?
If every other civil project is anything to go by, then expect to double the original estimate.
40 years too late though.