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.

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 ...

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.

"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! ! ! !

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

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!

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

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.

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

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