Heathrow to be 'replaced'

The Kent Messenger reports an interesting claim that the airport, being outside London, would help Boris meet the Capital’s target of cutting CO2. See article here

Elsewhere the paper has the inevitable mention of the SS Richard Montgomery – which would have to be dealt with somehow.

As for flooding – didn’t we used to build nice flying boats nearby on the Medway? Now that is a fantasy worth having. 🙂

The potential for flooding should set the ball rolling nicely.

I was going to say the same thing; with virtually all scientists predicting that sea levels may soon begin to rise, building on the coast would be very short-sighted.

Where is the enthusiasm for aviation? It’s disconcerting to read so many negative statements on an aviation message board, which arguably should be full of aviation enthusiasts.

According to the rudimentary statistics I have obtained via 15 seconds on google, from 1994 to 2007 annual passenger traffic at LHR has climbed from 51.7 million to 68 million people. How can future growth happen without further aiport development?

Consider the old guns versus butter debate, a new airport being the butter and the Eurofighter being the guns. For less than the cost of the EF program, a new airport could have been built. New economic activity generated by further facilitating commercial air transport growth would fund more guns in the future.

Let’s not confuse enthusiasm with fantasy…;)

Where is the enthusiasm for aviation? It’s disconcerting to read so many negative statements on an aviation message board, which arguably should be full of aviation enthusiasts.

According to the rudimentary statistics I have obtained via 15 seconds on google, from 1994 to 2007 annual passenger traffic at LHR has climbed from 51.7 million to 68 million people. How can future growth happen without further aiport development?

Consider the old guns versus butter debate, a new airport being the butter and the Eurofighter being the guns. For less than the cost of the EF program, a new airport could have been built. New economic activity generated by further facilitating commercial air transport growth would fund more guns in the future.

Well, I agree there are other considerations, but you have to ask what the North Sea and English Channel would look like had it not been for humans….

All wet with waves on top, the same as they do now.

The wildlife moves to a more hospitable place, I for one doubt a species is ever wiped out by human engineering initiatives, hunting yes.

I’m in a charitable mood this evening and unusually well-disposed towards my fellow man, so I’ll assume that you’re jesting and move on.

Be bold Borris, go for it.

Grabbing a few headlines by suggesting that someone else builds a great big airport miles away from the city where you are Mayor isn’t being bold.

Who’d pay for it, anyway? Just Londoners? If not, then it’s none of Boris’s business. :p

Cost and engineering concerns aside…
will the Greens allow any new airports to be built?

To hear them talk, they want to shut down the air travel industry, not allow an entire new set of environmental issues to allow people to fly.

Yeah just like the Maplin sands plan that got binned in the 1970’s!

Beat me to it!

Let’s also bear in mind that a ‘new island’ large enough to accomodate an airport of the size envisioned would inevitably have a disruptive effect on the current flow of water within the estuary, further complicating the flooding issue – and that’s before we even begin to consider the other enviromental impacts, such as wildlife, endangered species, etc.

Well, I agree there are other considerations, but you have to ask what the North Sea and English Channel would look like had it not been for humans.
I’m referring to our ancestors who drained the fens and the Dutch, who have altered the course of many currents.
The wildlife moves to a more hospitable place, I for one doubt a species is ever wiped out by human engineering initiatives, hunting yes.
To be really silly, you could use the island as an excuse to dam the Thames, create a huge fresh water lake solving London’s water problem and generate power as you dumped the excess at low tide.
Be bold Borris, go for it.:diablo:

Yeah just like the Maplin sands plan that got binned in the 1970’s!

Never going to happen, end off.

Teaco website

The Teaco website appears to have omitted Luton airport and has the channel High Speed rail line ending in Kings Cross rather than St. Pancras! It also seems a bit bizarre only to show the proposed noise footprint from one take-off direction (written in a very difficult to pick up red).

Also don’t forget that huge areas of West London and the M4 corridor have developed because of LHR and rely on it for their existence. To simply get rid of LHR would devistate commerce and society in these areas.

1L.

Great idea, but for the long term future of London this has to be tied in with a new flood barrier as the current Thames Barrier is likely to become obsolete with rising sea levels.
So, the Island must not float and the proposed road tunnels can be replaced by a road link on top of the causeways (from both north and south).
I’d estimate about £30 billion if they started today, but the useful time would be after completion of the 2012 Olympics, when all the workers and big equipment is still on site. Solves London’s landfill problem for a while.:rolleyes:

Let’s also bear in mind that a ‘new island’ large enough to accomodate an airport of the size envisioned would inevitably have a disruptive effect on the current flow of water within the estuary, further complicating the flooding issue – and that’s before we even begin to consider the other enviromental impacts, such as wildlife, endangered species, etc.

All in all, Boris has probably had better ideas.

Great idea, but for the long term future of London this has to be tied in with a new flood barrier as the current Thames Barrier is likely to become obsolete with rising sea levels.
So, the Island must not float and the proposed road tunnels can be replaced by a road link on top of the causeways (from both north and south).
I’d estimate about £30 billion if they started today, but the useful time would be after completion of the 2012 Olympics, when all the workers and big equipment is still on site. Solves London’s landfill problem for a while.:rolleyes:

Thing is, had this been the Middle East or China, such a project would have gone ahead by now.

Perhaps not such a problem for ME (lots of open space called desert!) I suppose more ethical issues if it is anyone else though.

Impression I get though is this country of ours has more Red Tape than…a Red Tape factory. :rolleyes:

Do you mean Kai Tak? (Or did they do VHHH too…)

No I mean Chep Lap Kok, built at great expense on islands, and reclaimed land from the sea. Apparently the world’s most expensive airport construction and already (after ten years) requiring further expansion, rumoured to be more expensive than the original project.

Read all about it…:cool:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_International_Airport#History

My thoughts too, and anyone else in doubt should try and catch the often aired Discovery Channel documentary about the massive engineering problems the builders of Chep Lap Kok faced. Not insurmountable but hugely expensive and complex !

Do you mean Kai Tak? (Or did they do VHHH too…)

The potential for flooding should set the ball rolling nicely.

My thoughts too, and anyone else in doubt should try and catch the often aired Discovery Channel documentary about the massive engineering problems the builders of Chep Lap Kok faced. Not insurmountable but hugely expensive and complex !

They already have a website, this is pretty interesting:

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

At least give a reason why you think this, you cant just say you think its c**p, let alone speak for anyone else without giving a valid reason/argument against the proposals…?:confused:

The potential for flooding should set the ball rolling nicely.