|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: MwmbwlsMwmbwls Date: Jan 3, 2008 01:36
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/heathrowconsultation/technicalreports/surfaceaccess...
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.
|
| |
|
| | 13 Comments |
|
|
Author: Tom AndersonTom Anderson Date: Jan 3, 2008 05:43
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Mwmbwls wrote:
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/heathrowconsultation/technicalreports/surfaceaccess...
>
> 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.
|
| Show full article (3.61Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Roland PerryRoland Perry Date: Jan 3, 2008 07:10
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
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tom AndersonTom Anderson Date: Jan 3, 2008 07:55
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
|
| Show full article (1.01Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Jeremy DoubleJeremy Double Date: Jan 3, 2008 09:54
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.
|
| Show full article (1.10Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Terry HarperTerry Harper Date: Jan 3, 2008 10:45
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:10:35 +0000, Roland Perry perry.co.uk>
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.
|
| Show full article (0.91Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Roland PerryRoland Perry Date: Jan 3, 2008 12:31
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
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Richard J.Richard J. Date: Jan 3, 2008 13:01
Terry Harper wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:10:35 +0000, Roland Perry perry.co.uk>
> 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 ...
|
| Show full article (1.37Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Terry HarperTerry Harper Date: Jan 3, 2008 14:08
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:01:47 GMT, "Richard J."
blueukder.co.yon> wrote:
>Terry Harper wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:10:35 +0000, Roland Perry perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>>> In message , at
>>> 13:43:13 on Thu, 3 Jan...
|
| Show full article (1.72Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Roland PerryRoland Perry Date: Jan 3, 2008 14:16
In message <%%2cfj.72140$c_1.11823@ text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, at
21:01:47 on Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Richard J. blueukder.co.yon>
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
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
