Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
ZKSUJ
Topic Author
Posts: 6887
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 5:15 pm

New Airport In London?

Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:26 pm

Don't know if this has been covered before or how old the news is, but I was reading this article this morning. Seems like London will be getting a new major airport, what are the views on this? Will it merge LHR and LGW traffic to make just one major London airport ?

http://nz.totaltravel.yahoo.com/a/-/...ed-for-airport-on-englands-thames/
 
lhr380
Posts: 2453
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:39 pm

RE: New Airport In London?

Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:30 pm

Quoting ZKSUJ (Thread starter):

Highly doubt it. They has been lots of talk about creating a new airport on the coast. This is just the latest idea.
(The views on this site are my own and no one elses)
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2258
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: New Airport In London?

Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:32 pm

This idea was alluded to in the past. It faces some major hurdles including:

1. Funding. The current estimate is $100 billion dollars. That will likely mean closer to $120 or higher with cost overruns.

2. Rising sea levels. The new airport would be build on "reclaimed" land in a river. This river is subject to flooding periodically so we'd need to see how that would impact the airport. Also, sea levels are rising given global warming. The tides will increase this issue. How would this be addressed?

3. There will be a massive NIMBY campaign when addressing the traffic patterns into this new airport. Areas that don't necessarily have noise impacts now certainly would when the new airport opens.

To be honest, I just don't see the funding happening in the current enviroment. That being said, the greater London area needs a new airport simply because LHR can't expand and the location of the other airports presents their own issues with expansion.
 
santos
Posts: 550
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:46 pm

RE: New Airport In London?

Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:35 pm

What about Norman Foster's latest creation?
I'm sure it will never happen.
http://gizmodo.com/5855868/the-thames-hub-truly-looks-like-the-future
 
lhr380
Posts: 2453
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:39 pm

RE: New Airport In London?

Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:37 pm

Quoting santos (Reply 3):

That's the one mentioned in the article?
(The views on this site are my own and no one elses)
 
bennett123
Posts: 10861
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:05 pm

Not being from the UK, you will not have heard of Boris Island.

However, Boris does not decide, HMG does.

The main parties have all turned their faces against any new runways in the South East.

The current position is not until 2050, I jest not.
 
dstc47
Posts: 1502
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 1999 3:53 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:58 am

When I was fairly young and just starting work, there was talk of a new airport in the estuary, at the very well named Foulness. Doubtless a new name would have emerged, with a more crowd pleasing ring.

I am retired now and LHR and LGW struggle on, with some relief at STN, so 2050 seems optimistic.
 
Oykie
Posts: 2042
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:04 am

The group currently lobbying for a new River Thames airport seems serious and has a lot of capital. It seems like Halcrow and Fosters have a more realistic vision.

From Halcrow website:

Quote:
Halcrow and world-leading architects Foster+Partners have been collaborating on a self-funded £100,000 study to produce a detailed vision for The Thames Hub – this would bring together rail freight connections between the UK’s main sea ports; a 150 million passenger airport to replace Heathrow; a tidal energy barrage and a new flood protection barrier.

The long-term vision, which spans the next 50 years into 2060, is designed to reinforce the United Kingdom’s position as the world’s leading commercial, tourist and financial centres, ensuring that the country remains globally competitive in the late 21st century and beyond. The Halcrow and Foster + Partners vision represents a significant development of the Mayor of London’s call for a new airport in the Estuary, while developing the capacity across all of the UK’s transport modes and trade routes.

The team’s vision and an initial assessment of the proposals will be released in September 2011.

Halcrow group board director, David Kerr said: “The Thames Hub would provide a major economic boost for Kent and Essex, with the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs over a number of years and provide noise and air pollution relief for London’s population. The proposals would make a significant contribution to the UK’s commitment to reduce carbon emissions.

“If the UK is to remain globally competitive, these proposals need to be seriously considered.”

Lord Foster, founder and chairman of Foster+Partners, said: “These visionary proposals are far from future fantasy. They are both essential and down to earth. When you look at the eastwards thrust of London’s infrastructure, with the Channel Tunnel and the Olympics, you can see how it would be possible to create a 24-hour airport. This move would greatly improve the quality of life for Londoners by reducing pollution and improving security. It would also allow London to compete with rapidly expanding airports in Europe and the Middle East. The arguments are extraordinarily persuasive and the precedents are also compelling. More than 10 years ago Hong Kong built what was then the world’s largest airport at Chek Lap Kok, an island reclaimed from the sea - in just four years.”

The Halcrow and Foster+Partners Thames Hub vision is supported by renowned economist Bridget Rosewell, chairman of Volterra Consulting and founder member of The Thames Estuary Research and Development Company (TESTRAD).


Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 2):
2. Rising sea levels. The new airport would be build on "reclaimed" land in a river. This river is subject to flooding periodically so we'd need to see how that would impact the airport. Also, sea levels are rising given global warming. The tides will increase this issue. How would this be addressed?


As the article says, they will use a flood protection barrier.

Quoting ZKSUJ (Thread starter):
Will it merge LHR and LGW traffic to make just one major London airport ?

The planners say they will not go into this discussion. They will just have regulatory approval to continue their effort to raise capital.

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...s-heathrow-congestion-woes-364246/

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 2):

To be honest, I just don't see the funding happening in the current enviroment. That being said, the greater London area needs a new airport simply because LHR can't expand and the location of the other airports presents their own issues with expansion.

It will be hard, but as you also say London and the UK really needs a larger airport than LHR if they want to continue serving as a world hub.

Here are some pictures from the new project:



More information and a video: http://www.halcrow.com/Thames-Hub/

[Edited 2011-11-04 02:20:38]
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2372
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:07 am

Why dont they just build it in the middle of the North Sea and have it even further away from all those companies along the M4 corridor and alike west of LHR.

LHR works for so many because of its geographical location...adding something bigger in the middle of nowhere will not address that, besides which I very much doubt it will see the light of day. I am of the view that one day, probably after I am pushing daisies up we will see a third runway at LHR.
 
Oykie
Posts: 2042
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:26 am

Quoting ual777uk (Reply 8):
LHR works for so many because of its geographical location...adding something bigger in the middle of nowhere will not address that, besides which I very much doubt it will see the light of day.

That's what I thought as well when OSL replaced FBU. OSL is really in the middle of nowhere. But it turns out that OSL has been very successful, and the highspeed rail makes it only 20 minutes from the capital, and 60 minutes from my home. I also believed it was a mistake to move HKG, but that turned out a success.

Quoting ual777uk (Reply 8):
I am of the view that one day, probably after I am pushing daisies up we will see a third runway at LHR.

I believe this airport will be built way before LHR will get a third runwas.

As the Gurardian says:

Quote:
Could it happen? Could we soon be flying in and out of one of the greatest ports in the world where fleets of modern aircraft, ships and trains power Britain's economy into a newly competitive age? Will we live in fine new homes connected to brand new transport, energy and communications spines and hubs? Or will we decide it's business as usual in little Britain and carry on building junk housing on what were once meadows and unsustainable supermarkets and shopping malls on the land that's left and between overcrowded roads and railways? Foster and his team have offered a big-spirited vision of Britain, but do we have eyes to see it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesi.../02/lord-foster-thames-hub-project
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4973
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:36 am

Quoting oykie (Reply 9):
That's what I thought as well when OSL replaced FBU. OSL is really in the middle of nowhere. But it turns out that OSL has been very successful, and the highspeed rail makes it only 20 minutes from the capital, and 60 minutes from my home. I also believed it was a mistake to move HKG, but that turned out a success.

London is particularly old and crowded so the above two examples are not good analogies. Getting across London, even with Crossrail is still going to be awful
 
ARN
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 12:34 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:54 am

What about this scenario?

1. Heathrow stays without implementing mixed mode runway operation (which would only increase landing and takeoff slots with about 10-15%), but exclusively for carriers from Oneworld and Skyteam alliances as well as for non aligned airlines.

2. Gatwick will be exclusive for Star Alliance which would make it a world hub with connections to every corner of the world given Star´s many member airliners. BA and VS move their longhaul leisure traffic to Luton Airport. Longhaul charter traffic from other carriers could stay.

3. Luton Airport will get its sole runway increased to 3000 m or more. BA and VS move their leisure traffic here. Current charter carriers stay as well. Connections to Luton Parkway Station could be improved with more links and longer trains.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:20 am

Norman Foster is bidding for the design of the Worlds largest airport to be built in China.This proposal is no more than a demonstration to the Chinese that they understand and are capable of designing an airport structure on this scale.Nothing to do with London at all.
 
Oykie
Posts: 2042
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:23 am

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 10):
London is particularly old and crowded so the above two examples are not good analogies. Getting across London, even with Crossrail is still going to be awful

Then you have not read the proposition from Halcrow:

Quote:
A new high-speed Orbital Rail route around the north, east and west of London
will open up fast rail connections – passenger and freight – from the North of the
UK to Europe, bypassing London’s congestion. Incorporating two high-speed lines
and two conventional lines, it will improve transport connections dramatically
for industry and greatly reduce travel times for passengers.

See page 14 here about how to avoid London's Congestion.

http://www.halcrow.com/Thames-Hub/PDF/Thames_Hub_vision.pdf

This project is about redefining infrastructure in the U.K, linking the airport to the high speed rail network in Europe and the U.K.

30 minutes from central London to the Thames HUB.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
Oykie
Posts: 2042
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:27 am

Quoting parapente (Reply 12):
Norman Foster is bidding for the design of the Worlds largest airport to be built in China.

Do you have pictures and more info about this airport?

Quoting parapente (Reply 12):
This proposal is no more than a demonstration to the Chinese that they understand and are capable of designing an airport structure on this scale.Nothing to do with London at all.

Are you sure? This project would be good for London and the U.K. It is a complex like this that the U.K would need.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
skipness1E
Posts: 4973
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:35 am

Quoting oykie (Reply 13):

Then you have not read the proposition from Halcrow:

Apologies, let me clearer. The day that we can clear a pavement outside St Pauls in less than six months is the day I believe this multi billion pound fantasy project on the wrong side of town is a good idea. I live in London, I know the local politics. Did they really have the longest public enquiry in history just to shut T5? No, Heathrow is here to stay for better or for worse. Floating airports on islands, like HS2 are fantasy ideas with fantasy budgets when we need the capacity now.

This is a big shiny distraction to say "Look what WE could have" ( in the future ) as the electoral cycle is only 4-5 years. This is not serious.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9719
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:50 am

Excellent presentation by Lord Foster. What is really convincing is that he does not only propose a new site for a new airport but a whole integrated infrastructure system that includes not only all modes of transport but utility lines including broad band as well.

All this is integrated, connected where needed and makes a lot of sense, One core argument in his explanation was that this partially pays for itself as operating the new lines will be more efficient than the 19th+ 20th century infrastructure the UK currently has to cope with.

In total, yes.The UK should start today, not necessarily with the airport but the HSR circumvention of London would be a good start.
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
lhr380
Posts: 2453
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:39 pm

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:58 am

Quoting ARN (Reply 11):

Do you know, thats actually not that bad!
(The views on this site are my own and no one elses)
 
ARN
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 12:34 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:10 pm

To lhr380:

Thank you sir.  

Just my humble opinion.

In that scenario perhaps Gatwick couldn´t cope with Star AND Easy Jet AND all the Thomas Cook operations, given the single runway? What do you say?

But moving all Star airliners from LHR would indeed free up many slots. SK has 21 and LH about the same. And of course BMI as the second biggest carrier currently at LHR.

[Edited 2011-11-04 05:26:00]
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2372
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:16 pm

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 15):
Apologies, let me clearer. The day that we can clear a pavement outside St Pauls in less than six months is the day I believe this multi billion pound fantasy project on the wrong side of town is a good idea. I live in London, I know the local politics. Did they really have the longest public enquiry in history just to shut T5? No, Heathrow is here to stay for better or for worse. Floating airports on islands, like HS2 are fantasy ideas with fantasy budgets when we need the capacity now.

This is a big shiny distraction to say "Look what WE could have" ( in the future ) as the electoral cycle is only 4-5 years. This is not serious

Excellant post, could not agree more.
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:39 pm

What is being proposed is not just an airport, but a whole new integrated transport system built for the 21st rather than the 19th century. Makes good sense. A pity it will never happen...
 
airbazar
Posts: 10427
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:21 pm

London just got a new Airport. It's called Madrid-Barajas Airport  
 
tayser
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:49 pm

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:38 pm

4 runways isn't enough.

Needs 14.

 
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1658
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:25 pm

Alternatively, the European economy slumps into double dip recession, dragging the rest of the world down with it. Consumers tighten their belts, reducing unnecessary business trips and Ryanair weekend breaks as costs rise while salaries and pensions fall.

And as a result, air travel remains static for the next decade...
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10833
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:34 pm

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 2):
2. Rising sea levels. The new airport would be build on "reclaimed" land in a river. This river is subject to flooding periodically so we'd need to see how that would impact the airport. Also, sea levels are rising given global warming. The tides will increase this issue. How would this be addressed?
Quoting oykie (Reply 7):
As the article says, they will use a flood protection barrier.

It will need to in the very long term. Irrespective of sea level rise, the South East is sinking by 0.3-0.4mm/year.

Quoting parapente (Reply 12):
Norman Foster is bidding for the design of the Worlds largest airport to be built in China.This proposal is no more than a demonstration to the Chinese that they understand and are capable of designing an airport structure on this scale.Nothing to do with London at all.

I disagree. Foster and Partners worked with NACO and Arup to deliver Beijing Terminal 3 - then the world's largest airport terminal, there is no need to usurp pedigree like that. However NACO have already been appointed as master planners for the new airport, so it will be they who produce the layout and spatial design. I would be surprised however if Foster and Arup weren't selected to work with NACO again on the terminal design, because projects on this scale demand skill and resources which few companies have.

No doubt this concept demonstrates how Foster and Partners are forward thinking in their approach to airport planning and environmental adaptation but, in my view, the presiding message which they want to convey right now is that the broader benefits of HSR and integrated connectivity to both the city of London as well as at a national and international scale should be underlined. The graphics, orientated towards such high speed rail led connectivity, reflect this by illustrating that an airport in the Thames could sit at the center of a UK-Western European HSR network.

I think this could be a very clever and strategic approach. The location of any new airport for London will be won on peripheral arguments like the environment and connectivity, so by focusing on these first they are essentially removing future obstacles - even turning them into supporting arguments for the new location. Case in point; an orbital HSR line for London - a beneficiary people can immediately identify with. Foster spent well over £100,000 on this and even brought in engineering consultants Halcrow -it isn't your normal concept project. Aside of a desire for the UK to remain competitive, they see a future opening here for some major contracts and want to be the ones pushing ideas ahead.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2258
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:16 pm

After looking over the articles and the plans, I think the proposal is spot-on with what the UK needs. I think Londoners could be reassured about its location so long as the rail/tube links from central London to the hub are no longer than the LHR express train running now. The orbital high speed rail could address those living to the west of London near LHR.

Its clear that continuing the current course won't work for the UK long term. The competition is too keen and the UK stands to lose a ton of cash if they don't upgrade their transport infrastructure.

It also looks like the approach to this new airport would impact far fewer people than are currently impacted by LHR traffic patterns which would be a good thing. Will the British people (and government) endorse such a far reaching plan?
 
kaitak
Posts: 10081
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:28 pm

The key problem is political will; the new Transport Secretary seems to be in ostrich mode to the same extent as everyone else in the UK govt and I think the LDs will probably put the kibosh on any move. There have been some positive signs that Osborne might dump some of the sillier green policies as a means to develop economic growth and aviation will be a key beneficiary if that happens. However, with Labour only this week officially dumping R3 at Heathrow, I think that we are still seeing a fundamental lack of courage.

Firstly, there needs to be a Transport Secretary with long term vision; there needs to be a co-ordinated approach led from the top, which would involve the Ministers for Transport and the Environment, particularly. The legislation would need to be in place to ensure that there would be a limited time available for a public inquiry, with all sides accepting the result of that inquiry - no appeals to the High Court, much less Europe. There would be a high security access to the site, with an exclusion zone, to keep out troublemakers/environutters.

This can be made to happen, if the political will is there; sadly, it just isn't. At least, not yet.
 
point2point
Posts: 2093
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:54 pm

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:53 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 16):
What is really convincing is that he does not only propose a new site for a new airport but a whole integrated infrastructure system that includes not only all modes of transport but utility lines including broad band as well.

In one sense, I can see the benefits. But living in the world that we live in today, and having all of this in what is one location, wouldn't this sort of be an easy target if anyone (or any nation) wanted to cause a good deal of disruption in Great Britain? So in the other sense, wouldn't it be too easy of a target?

I only bring this up, because whenever projects here in the U.S. are envisioned, security, and all that is related to it, usually gets first priority now.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2258
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:56 pm

The hub won't be the only airport for London. LGW, LHR, STN, LCY, LTN will all continue to operate. Its safe to assume steps will be taken to protect this hub as much as possible. You can't "NOT" build it because of a possible attack.

Given somewhat recent publicized incursions at LHR during the runway protest period, I think a new hub would be safer than LHR  
 
ghifty
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:12 pm

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:22 pm

Isn't this an old concept? I recall reading something about a proposed-but-never-passed reclaimed land-airport for London ages ago..
Fly Delta (Wid)Jets

Comments made here reflect only my personal opinions.
 
User avatar
Semaex
Posts: 803
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:17 pm

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:24 pm

Please update me, as I'm not quite familiar with UK politics or the frame-of-mind of the people:
Which political party would not be in favor of the new "Thames Hub" as proposed by F+P? I guess I'm lacking insight, but wouldn't such a project be in the best interest of the vast majority of Londoners and the overall economy of the region? Surely, people at the Thames inlet will suffer more than now from a new airport, but looking at GoogleEarth it does not seem to be a major urban area.
Overall, and that's my question; why wouldn't politics approve of such a project which brings more benefit than harm?
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast if you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2258
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:26 pm

Quoting ghifty (Reply 29):
Isn't this an old concept? I recall reading something about a proposed-but-never-passed reclaimed land-airport for London ages ago..

The concept has been floated in some form of fashion for years. This proposal is much more detailed and ambitious then past ideas IIRC.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10833
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:24 pm

Quoting Semaex (Reply 30):
Please update me, as I'm not quite familiar with UK politics or the frame-of-mind of the people:
Which political party would not be in favor of the new "Thames Hub" as proposed by F+P?

Basically all of them - all paranoid of tripping over an environmentalist and getting their faces covered in climate change dung. It's ridiculous. Looking years ahead there is some light at the end of the tunnel; Boris Johnson, current Mayor of London and vocal supporter for an airport in the Thames, is widely tipped to be the next leader of the Conservative Party after David Cameron. Should he become Prime Minister then an airport in the Thames is almost guaranteed. As are a torrent of indecipherable mumbles and gaffes, but I'm willing to accept these for a decent airport.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
bennett123
Posts: 10861
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:43 pm

I think that you are being optimistic.

Firstly, it is unlikely that the Tories will change leader pre 2015. Doing so after the start of 2014 would probably be political suicide.

Post 2015, it is unclear why a successful Tory party would want to change leader.

Secondly, even if Boris became PM, it is by no means certain that the money could be found.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10833
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:09 am

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 33):
Firstly, it is unlikely that the Tories will change leader pre 2015. Doing so after the start of 2014 would probably be political suicide.

Post 2015, it is unclear why a successful Tory party would want to change leader.

I wouldn't be thinking that short a time frame, more 10-20 years. But I don't really want to make this thread political.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 33):
Secondly, even if Boris became PM, it is by no means certain that the money could be found.

Depends on the cost and the economic circumstances. It would almost certainly be private sector funded.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
Oykie
Posts: 2042
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Sat Nov 05, 2011 10:19 am

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 15):
I live in London, I know the local politics.

When you as a local do not believe it is possible for London to re-invent infrastructure, then I your negativity helps those who try to kill progress. If Londoners do not believe in this concept, neither will its politicians.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 16):
What is really convincing is that he does not only propose a new site for a new airport but a whole integrated infrastructure system that includes not only all modes of transport but utility lines including broad band as well.

This is a very well thought futuristic progress. It will no doubt boost the U.K. economy.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 24):
It will need to in the very long term. Irrespective of sea level rise, the South East is sinking by 0.3-0.4mm/year.

Putting the barriers into this project also makes it more believable. Why not finance the barriers through an infrastructure project?

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 25):
I think Londoners could be reassured about its location so long as the rail/tube links from central London to the hub are no longer than the LHR express train running now.

That would absolutely be necessary. If the new airport would take more time to get to, LHR would still offer value above the Thames HUB. The projects suggestion to first build the railway and infrastructure prior to opening the airport is a good call.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 26):
The key problem is political will;

That is bugging me. Lord Foster should have some political influence should he not? I am sure that if this project gets endorsed by Londoners, then I am sure politicians will follow. Unfortunately it is those who scream the most that gets politicians attention. In order for this to come through there should be some ground movement pro future that could speak up. Being silent and complaining about it only makes the other side win.

Quoting point2point (Reply 27):
But living in the world that we live in today, and having all of this in what is one location, wouldn't this sort of be an easy target if anyone (or any nation) wanted to cause a good deal of disruption in Great Britain? So in the other sense, wouldn't it be too easy of a target?

It would of course be a tempting target, but even with today's rate of terrorist attacks you are more likely to get killed by bad hygiene in a hospital than die from a terrorist attack. So I believe U.K government keeps an eye on things  
Quoting Semaex (Reply 30):
wouldn't such a project be in the best interest of the vast majority of Londoners and the overall economy of the region?

   It would. And the Londoners should speak up and be vocal about supporting this idea. Otherwise only plane stupid groups will be the most vocal, and I am sure they are a minority. They are just a loud minority,

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 32):
Basically all of them - all paranoid of tripping over an environmentalist and getting their faces covered in climate change dung.

I still believe politics works in the sense that those who screams the most, get more attention. This project can easily be agree to have positive effects on the environment. It will make it easier to switch between rail and airport. There will not be unnecessary pollution due to bad infrastructure and movement of cargo between ships, planes, trucks and rail. The part with the fiberoptics infrastructure makes less traveling needed. Building of the barrier will keep London from flooding in the future. There are so many good arguments here. But those who would like to see a project like this realized has to be vocal about it. Start a campaign to get signatures from Londoners who are Pro future. I am sure you will be heard by the politicians. But the problem now is that we sit silently and complain. And that gives politicians a problem. They do not know how to navigate.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2072
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Sun Nov 06, 2011 2:49 am

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 2):

2. Rising sea levels. The new airport would be build on "reclaimed" land in a river. This river is subject to flooding periodically so we'd need to see how that would impact the airport. Also, sea levels are rising given global warming. The tides will increase this issue. How would this be addressed?

They have been reclaiming Kent from the sea since Elizabethan times so this is nothing new, the "Isle of grain" is not an Island any more is it?

This looks like a well thought out plan, the flood barrier is going to be necessary anyway and building in ecopower and a new transport infrastructure is a good plan. It would require political will though and Heathrow would need to be closed to compensate.

This airport site is in Medway btw which administratively is neither London or Kent which may be good as it would make this little area, which has not really benefited from the growth very rich indeed! Medway is already an industrial area so even though the site is greenfield the locals don't pretend that its rural. It would probably take about 10% of Medway but boost revenues by 1000% in rates alone. It would make Sheerness a loud place to live though (but its not in Medway so they don't get a vote, haha) and displace wading birds but apart from that its all good.

The deal breaker would be SS Montgomery, 1400 tons of explosives can ruin your day but it doesn't seem to stop traffic up the Thames estuary however some way of dealing with it would have to be found, but they have been talking about that since I was a kid (grew up in the area) and no way has yet been found.
BV
 
bill142
Posts: 7867
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:50 pm

RE: New Airport In London?

Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:03 am

Quoting oykie (Reply 7):
Quoting ZKSUJ (Thread starter):
Will it merge LHR and LGW traffic to make just one major London airport ?

The planners say they will not go into this discussion. They will just have regulatory approval to continue their effort to raise capital.

It would have to other wise it would risk becoming a failure like Mirabel and to a lesser extent, Narita. If I were the developer of this airport, I wouldn't be proceeding without a rock solid assurance that LHR and LGW are going to be closed upon completion.
 
Oykie
Posts: 2042
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:56 am

Quoting bill142 (Reply 37):
It would have to other wise it would risk becoming a failure like Mirabel and to a lesser extent, Narita. If I were the developer of this airport, I wouldn't be proceeding without a rock solid assurance that LHR and LGW are going to be closed upon completion.

Lord Foster said he believed that at least LHR would need to be closed, but stressed that for now they are only seeking a government backup of this plan, and that the discussion about closing LHR can wait. It would probably be wise to close down LHR and LGW as a part of this plan.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10833
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Sun Nov 06, 2011 2:16 pm

Personally I think that closing either of the other London airports would be very foolish; Heathrow is in desperate need of a new runway, Gatwick could do with one too, so you would be going from a requirement for five runways to having four. Doesn't make any sense, especially given the long term view that has to be taken.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 36):
The deal breaker would be SS Montgomery, 1400 tons of explosives can ruin your day but it doesn't seem to stop traffic up the Thames estuary however some way of dealing with it would have to be found, but they have been talking about that since I was a kid (grew up in the area) and no way has yet been found.

Over 3000 tons actually, the 1400 is figure 'just' TNT. But yes, something really does have to be done, not just because of the potential airport site, but because that wreck is a ticking time bomb. The structure is falling apart and the munitions corroding, one day soon it's just going to go bang. According to a study and documentary, when it does it will be one of the biggest peace-time explosion the world has seen, it will send a 10,000ft plume of water into the sky, shatter tens of thousands of windows, cause a five meter high Tsunami in the Thames estuary that will spread across the North Sea, and the shockwave will flatten everything in a large radius.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
Oykie
Posts: 2042
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:07 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 39):
Personally I think that closing either of the other London airports would be very foolish; Heathrow is in desperate need of a new runway, Gatwick could do with one too, so you would be going from a requirement for five runways to having four. Doesn't make any sense, especially given the long term view that has to be taken.



I am sure that it is easier to add a fifth or sixth runway to the Thames hub than there will be adding one runway at LHR or Gatwick. More available space there, than at LHR. There is so much resistance because adding a runway at those airports will add noise over central London, but at the Thames HUB that would be less of a problem. Of course for those who live out there it will be annoyance, but to fewer people than in LHR.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2072
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:30 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 39):
Personally I think that closing either of the other London airports would be very foolish; Heathrow is in desperate need of a new runway, Gatwick could do with one too, so you would be going from a requirement for five runways to having four. Doesn't make any sense, especially given the long term view that has to be taken.

Er, no! Close Heathrows 2 runways, add four new runways you have a net addition of 2 runways, 5 in total with Gatwick. Not sure where you are getting the 5 from anyway as a third runway at LHR would only bring LHR + LGW to 4.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 39):
Over 3000 tons actually, the 1400 is figure 'just' TNT. But yes, something really does have to be done, not just because of the potential airport site, but because that wreck is a ticking time bomb.

A non ticking timebomb..

Its difficult to see how you could remove that amount of unstable munitions safely, and obviously a controlled explosion is unfeasible, being in 30 feet of water is the worst location you could think of.
BV
 
User avatar
Semaex
Posts: 803
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:17 pm

RE: New Airport In London?

Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:39 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 39):
Personally I think that closing either of the other London airports would be very foolish; Heathrow is in desperate need of a new runway, Gatwick could do with one too, so you would be going from a requirement for five runways to having four. Doesn't make any sense, especially given the long term view that has to be taken.

It's the same argument they used for BER. Close two airports in favor of expanding the third. The net reduction of runways available doesn't play a role in this scenario. I know it's nonsense on a logical thinking basis, but it does seem to work out. Other than that: The new airport would have enough space for another runway (or at least you would think that building a new airport without the option of adding a runway is foolish in these days)
// You know you're an aviation enthusiast if you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10833
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Sun Nov 06, 2011 6:10 pm

Quoting oykie (Reply 40):
I am sure that it is easier to add a fifth or sixth runway to the Thames hub than there will be adding one runway at LHR or Gatwick. More available space there, than at LHR. There is so much resistance because adding a runway at those airports will add noise over central London, but at the Thames HUB that would be less of a problem. Of course for those who live out there it will be annoyance, but to fewer people than in LHR.

Without doubt it's easier to build in the Thames, it's been the logical choice for decades. As you say there will be a lot less resistance at building there than at Heathrow. Just to make it clear, I am very much in favor of building an airport in the Thames.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 41):
Er, no! Close Heathrows 2 runways, add four new runways you have a net addition of 2 runways, 5 in total with Gatwick. Not sure where you are getting the 5 from anyway as a third runway at LHR would only bring LHR + LGW to 4.
Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 39):
Heathrow is in desperate need of a new runway, Gatwick could do with one too, so you would be going from a requirement for five runways to having four. Doesn't make any sense, especially given the long term view that has to be taken.

This was in response to the suggestion that a Thames airport should only be built if LHR and LGW are closed. Both airports are limited by runway capacity and need expanding, therefore three current runways plus a minimum of two new runways required between them equals five. It is my view that replacing two airports which ideally need five runways altogether with one that has four is foolish because, even with improved operations, you would approach capacity again very quickly.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 41):
Its difficult to see how you could remove that amount of unstable munitions safely, and obviously a controlled explosion is unfeasible, being in 30 feet of water is the worst location you could think of.

Incredibly difficult, and I wouldn't like to be the person to do it. Really I think the solution would preferably be robotic, there is just too great a risk to human life, taking small amounts of explosive to a safe location far away for detonation. It's time which is ticking; IIRC the fuses can corrode or the ship can further break apart, either causing an explosion. The latter was shown by recent surveys to become a possibility very soon. The full report and details have not been published, no doubt because with a fairly improvised device your average terrorist could make a huge mess.

Quoting Semaex (Reply 42):
It's the same argument they used for BER. Close two airports in favor of expanding the third. The net reduction of runways available doesn't play a role in this scenario. I know it's nonsense on a logical thinking basis, but it does seem to work out.

In the case of Berlin I can see why it worked; TXL, THF, and SXF might have had five runways between them but the volume of traffic was/is significantly less - approximately 23 million passengers per year. Heathrow and Gatwick meanwhile had a combined throughput of 97 million in 2010, and that was down on the previous year.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
User avatar
nighthawk
Posts: 4890
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:33 am

RE: New Airport In London?

Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:25 am

Now that BAA's ownership of the london airports has been broken up, this new Thames Estuary Airport is even less likely to happen. Such an airport would only be feasible if both Heathrow and Gatwick are both closed.

When both airports were owned by BAA, closing LHR/LGW and building a new airport and offering it to BAA to operate was feasible. But now that LHR/LGW are owned by different companies, this becomes a little harder. Which owner would be given the license to operate the new airport?

Which ever company is not given the license will be demanding a huge amount of compensation, which will significantly increase the cost of the project...

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos