Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/ |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Road Pricing Petition Sign-Up | London Transport | |||
Road Pricing Petition Sign-Up | London Transport | |||
Road Pricing Petition-sign up. | London Transport | |||
Travelcard pricing - is this really correct? | London Transport | |||
Stansted Express Train - Express ride to a missed flight | London Transport |