Discussion
109er said:
Fittster said:
NST said:
I am all for Boris island. Very fast links to central london (30mins), links to HS1 and HS2.
How does Boris island connect to HS2?with HS1, how would you incorporate a commuter service (due to numbers of flights)
onto a high speed service, unless you put in a station/junction but, that turns HS1
into a commuter service and defeats the object of 'High Speed'.
Closest point for a connection would be 'Rochester And Cobham Park Golf Club'
or 'Shorne Woods Country Park' and I don't think that would go down well.
109er said:
Don't know about HS2, wrong side of London for Boris Island and as to a link up
with HS1, how would you incorporate a commuter service (due to numbers of flights)
onto a high speed service, unless you put in a station/junction but, that turns HS1
into a commuter service and defeats the object of 'High Speed'.
Closest point for a connection would be 'Rochester And Cobham Park Golf Club'
or 'Shorne Woods Country Park' and I don't think that would go down well.
The non-Eurostar trains on HS1 are commuter trains.with HS1, how would you incorporate a commuter service (due to numbers of flights)
onto a high speed service, unless you put in a station/junction but, that turns HS1
into a commuter service and defeats the object of 'High Speed'.
Closest point for a connection would be 'Rochester And Cobham Park Golf Club'
or 'Shorne Woods Country Park' and I don't think that would go down well.
Edited by 109er on Wednesday 18th December 14:33
How much is the extra pollution argument against expanding heathrow a fallacy given the number of airplanes queueing both in the sky and on the ground for runway space? Every time we've used it we seem to be in a traffic jam for 20 mins just to take off.
I'm putting the relative lack of campaign against Boris island as indicative that no-one with a couple of brain cells to bang off each other thinks (rightly or wrongly) it's going to happen...
I'm putting the relative lack of campaign against Boris island as indicative that no-one with a couple of brain cells to bang off each other thinks (rightly or wrongly) it's going to happen...
p2c said:
The trouble with developing around boris island is two fold, A good chunk of it is in the north sea so not really viable. The existing HQ's that benefit from international links are M4, M3 based so if the have to move, why wouldn't they go to china et al rather than Kent.
The benefits of the hub in the UK and transfer passengers is that the person flying from NYC to Dubai, fly's through the UK and generates demand for a NYC-UK flight and UK-Dubai flight, all of these add up and mean the home of the hub has lots of flights to lots of places, that benefits us as locals as we can fly all over the world easily and it attracts business as they can do the same. Without the transfer passengers we would end up with Manchester, Glasgow (pick the regional airport of your choice) you can fly direct to a few places, but for a lot you have to go to LHR first, but if LHR isn't there your off to Amsterdam, Madrid etc, Not a big deal if your already on a spoke from the hub, but we lose those business that want to be close to a hub. We are also in an ideal place to pick up the transatlantic traffic and forward it onto Europe and beyond, we have a marginal advantage (maybe) over Amsterdam on distance but if the last 40 minutes of the flight is going in circles that's out the window. On that note as for the environmental and pollution aspects, Get the aircraft on the ground sooner and they wont be polluting as much!
Even better, put it on the Kent coast (it is viable - just ask the Dutch) and then planes can take off and land all day and night in a purpose designed hub, rather than a dogs breakfast at LHR. The benefits of the hub in the UK and transfer passengers is that the person flying from NYC to Dubai, fly's through the UK and generates demand for a NYC-UK flight and UK-Dubai flight, all of these add up and mean the home of the hub has lots of flights to lots of places, that benefits us as locals as we can fly all over the world easily and it attracts business as they can do the same. Without the transfer passengers we would end up with Manchester, Glasgow (pick the regional airport of your choice) you can fly direct to a few places, but for a lot you have to go to LHR first, but if LHR isn't there your off to Amsterdam, Madrid etc, Not a big deal if your already on a spoke from the hub, but we lose those business that want to be close to a hub. We are also in an ideal place to pick up the transatlantic traffic and forward it onto Europe and beyond, we have a marginal advantage (maybe) over Amsterdam on distance but if the last 40 minutes of the flight is going in circles that's out the window. On that note as for the environmental and pollution aspects, Get the aircraft on the ground sooner and they wont be polluting as much!
p2c said:
The trouble with developing around boris island is two fold, A good chunk of it is in the north sea so not really viable. The existing HQ's that benefit from international links are M4, M3 based so if the have to move, why wouldn't they go to china et al rather than Kent.
The benefits of the hub in the UK and transfer passengers is that the person flying from NYC to Dubai, fly's through the UK and generates demand for a NYC-UK flight and UK-Dubai flight, all of these add up and mean the home of the hub has lots of flights to lots of places, that benefits us as locals as we can fly all over the world easily and it attracts business as they can do the same. Without the transfer passengers we would end up with Manchester, Glasgow (pick the regional airport of your choice) you can fly direct to a few places, but for a lot you have to go to LHR first, but if LHR isn't there your off to Amsterdam, Madrid etc, Not a big deal if your already on a spoke from the hub, but we lose those business that want to be close to a hub. We are also in an ideal place to pick up the transatlantic traffic and forward it onto Europe and beyond, we have a marginal advantage (maybe) over Amsterdam on distance but if the last 40 minutes of the flight is going in circles that's out the window. On that note as for the environmental and pollution aspects, Get the aircraft on the ground sooner and they wont be polluting as much!
But how does the transfer traffic you note generate GDP here? UK citizens having easy access to holiday destinations is great....for the destinations.The benefits of the hub in the UK and transfer passengers is that the person flying from NYC to Dubai, fly's through the UK and generates demand for a NYC-UK flight and UK-Dubai flight, all of these add up and mean the home of the hub has lots of flights to lots of places, that benefits us as locals as we can fly all over the world easily and it attracts business as they can do the same. Without the transfer passengers we would end up with Manchester, Glasgow (pick the regional airport of your choice) you can fly direct to a few places, but for a lot you have to go to LHR first, but if LHR isn't there your off to Amsterdam, Madrid etc, Not a big deal if your already on a spoke from the hub, but we lose those business that want to be close to a hub. We are also in an ideal place to pick up the transatlantic traffic and forward it onto Europe and beyond, we have a marginal advantage (maybe) over Amsterdam on distance but if the last 40 minutes of the flight is going in circles that's out the window. On that note as for the environmental and pollution aspects, Get the aircraft on the ground sooner and they wont be polluting as much!
Businesses here may find it easier to get abroad....but if they had an international business model they could equally execute it via an airport in the East of the country, no?
HQs wouldn't have to move with a decent transport network supporting this hub. But even if they felt like moving would they really go to China? I suspect the UK has a number of other advantages that outweigh LHR - the timezone and language benefits. Also, how many of the large international corporates down the M4/M3 corridor are HQ'd here (and/or have the bulk of their operations here)?
I think we'd do more for attracting HQs if we scrapped corporation tax personally.
greygoose said:
The non-Eurostar trains on HS1 are commuter trains.
If you can call a 68 mile route with only 4 stations a commuter route.St Pancras Int (terminus), Stratford Int, Ebbsfleet Int and Ashford Int.
From my location to London (app 36 rail miles) there are 29 stations.
That is what I would call a commuter route. (No insult intended)
Its like the governments argument re HS2 and its benefits.
As far as I can see at the moment, unless you want to get to Birmingham
and not somewhere in between your OK but (if its along the route) say I
wanted to get off at Banbury - - would I be able to or not.
109er said:
greygoose said:
The non-Eurostar trains on HS1 are commuter trains.
If you can call a 68 mile route with only 4 stations a commuter route.St Pancras Int (terminus), Stratford Int, Ebbsfleet Int and Ashford Int.
greygoose said:
The trains go on to Folkestone, Dover, Deal, Canterbury, Margate, Ramsgate etc etc but the high speed line only goes from the Channel Tunnel to St Pancras.
This what I was saying - HS1 is high speed link, how would/could Boris Island linkwith HS1 without a junction or station. The remark about the 'HS1 commuter trains'
is incorrect. The commuter trains run on the 'old' system which most of the time is in
close proximity to HS1.
Murph7355 said:
But how does the transfer traffic you note generate GDP here? UK citizens having easy access to holiday destinations is great....for the destinations.
They fly both ways, So there are lots of people in the world with a handy flight to the UK. If their flight is to Amsterdam, they may make the effort to cross the North sea or channel, but they may also stay in mainland Europe. The Chinese apparently view us as a tourist destination, how do they view Ireland with the extra effort to get there without direct flights. You only have to look to Dubai for the economic benefits of being a hub, both tourist and business benefitsMurph7355 said:
Businesses here may find it easier to get abroad....but if they had an international business model they could equally execute it via an airport in the East of the country, no?
HQs wouldn't have to move with a decent transport network supporting this hub. But even if they felt like moving would they really go to China? I suspect the UK has a number of other advantages that outweigh LHR - the timezone and language benefits. Also, how many of the large international corporates down the M4/M3 corridor are HQ'd here (and/or have the bulk of their operations here)?
I think we'd do more for attracting HQs if we scrapped corporation tax personally.
Obviously its a complex system and each company will have its own criteria and even they probably wont know what it is. Its not a case of Do A and B will happen. I doubt there will be a board meeting along the lines of "well LHR is dead we are off to china" but there are a lot of corporations in the M4 corridor, it cant be chance that they have sprung up there with LHR at the end of the M4, it they were just here for other UK benefits why didn't they set up in kent where the land is cheaper. If you move the reason for them being there, some will have to move with it because they depend heavily on the flight links and they have to be in the UK, others may scale back, opting to start new projects in other European offices or even further away, others may not care, may just grumble a bit because they now have an extra 1-2 hour drive to get to an airport, but for some when faced with the change they may consider other options outside of the UK, it may be the final straw that sees them move their entire operation to the developing countries, consolidate to Europe, go somewhere with favorable tax, for some companies they may not be viable and so they close down.HQs wouldn't have to move with a decent transport network supporting this hub. But even if they felt like moving would they really go to China? I suspect the UK has a number of other advantages that outweigh LHR - the timezone and language benefits. Also, how many of the large international corporates down the M4/M3 corridor are HQ'd here (and/or have the bulk of their operations here)?
I think we'd do more for attracting HQs if we scrapped corporation tax personally.
On the flip side with Boris island, we will see a boom in Kent as those companies that need the airport move, other spring up around them, in 50 years Kent will be covered in housing pod estates, but development will be limited, it cant go very far east as the north sea is in the way, London already occupies the west, The river to the north will limit Essex by the crossings, each new one being a similar large government project taking 25 years. Then you have the problem that once Kent and Essex are full from the boom growth every one will start moaning about the aircraft noise departing to the west.
p2c said:
On the flip side with Boris island, we will see a boom in Kent as those companies that need the airport move, other spring up around them, in 50 years Kent will be covered in housing pod estates, but development will be limited, it cant go very far east as the north sea is in the way, London already occupies the west, The river to the north will limit Essex by the crossings, each new one being a similar large government project taking 25 years. Then you have the problem that once Kent and Essex are full from the boom growth every one will start moaning about the aircraft noise departing to the west.
Have a look on google maps before you do any of the above.90% of the area around where 'Boris Island' could be built is farmland.
If you build on any of this, where may I ask is the rest of the country to
make up the shortfall? Buy in from other countries and we are open to
exploitation (yet again)
109er said:
greygoose said:
The trains go on to Folkestone, Dover, Deal, Canterbury, Margate, Ramsgate etc etc but the high speed line only goes from the Channel Tunnel to St Pancras.
This what I was saying - HS1 is high speed link, how would/could Boris Island linkwith HS1 without a junction or station. The remark about the 'HS1 commuter trains'
is incorrect. The commuter trains run on the 'old' system which most of the time is in
close proximity to HS1.
greygoose said:
109er said:
greygoose said:
The trains go on to Folkestone, Dover, Deal, Canterbury, Margate, Ramsgate etc etc but the high speed line only goes from the Channel Tunnel to St Pancras.
This what I was saying - HS1 is high speed link, how would/could Boris Island linkwith HS1 without a junction or station. The remark about the 'HS1 commuter trains'
is incorrect. The commuter trains run on the 'old' system which most of the time is in
close proximity to HS1.
They are wonderfully quiet as well
109er said:
p2c said:
On the flip side with Boris island, we will see a boom in Kent as those companies that need the airport move, other spring up around them, in 50 years Kent will be covered in housing pod estates, but development will be limited, it cant go very far east as the north sea is in the way, London already occupies the west, The river to the north will limit Essex by the crossings, each new one being a similar large government project taking 25 years. Then you have the problem that once Kent and Essex are full from the boom growth every one will start moaning about the aircraft noise departing to the west.
Have a look on google maps before you do any of the above.90% of the area around where 'Boris Island' could be built is farmland.
If you build on any of this, where may I ask is the rest of the country to
make up the shortfall? Buy in from other countries and we are open to
exploitation (yet again)
Is this a trivial query ? If Boris Island was to be developed, how much would it cost to arrange for fuel supplies to reach the site ? As far as I know, all the aviation fuel supplied to Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted comes by huge diameter underground piping - which comes on a highly secret route, to make sure that no members of the low life try to interfere with it.
Just think of the expense of adding new piping, pumping stations, etc, to a part of the UK which is not already served.
Just think of the expense of adding new piping, pumping stations, etc, to a part of the UK which is not already served.
AAGR said:
Is this a trivial query ? If Boris Island was to be developed, how much would it cost to arrange for fuel supplies to reach the site ? As far as I know, all the aviation fuel supplied to Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted comes by huge diameter underground piping - which comes on a highly secret route, to make sure that no members of the low life try to interfere with it.
Just think of the expense of adding new piping, pumping stations, etc, to a part of the UK which is not already served.
Refinery at Canvey a few miles away. Deep Container port also on the doorstep.Just think of the expense of adding new piping, pumping stations, etc, to a part of the UK which is not already served.
rich1231 said:
AAGR said:
Is this a trivial query ? If Boris Island was to be developed, how much would it cost to arrange for fuel supplies to reach the site ? As far as I know, all the aviation fuel supplied to Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted comes by huge diameter underground piping - which comes on a highly secret route, to make sure that no members of the low life try to interfere with it.
Just think of the expense of adding new piping, pumping stations, etc, to a part of the UK which is not already served.
Refinery at Canvey a few miles away. Deep Container port also on the doorstep.Just think of the expense of adding new piping, pumping stations, etc, to a part of the UK which is not already served.
A plan for an island airport in the Thames estuary will be rejected, the BBC understands.
In response, an advisor to London mayor Boris Johnson, Daniel Moylan, said if true, it is "sadly short-sighted".
Known as "Boris Island" because of Mr Johnson's backing, it was one option being considered by the Airports Commission on how to expand airport capacity in the UK.
An official announcement is expected on Tuesday.
"Airports policy has been stalled for nearly five decades, ricocheting like a billiard ball between Heathrow and Gatwick," said Mr Moylan.
"We have only one opportunity to break out of that but it seems the Commission has taken us back to the same old failed choice."
He added that the final decision would rest with the government. "The key question now is whether the Airports Commission will play much of a role," he continued.
Earlier, the Financial Times reported that Whitehall sources had confirmed the "Boris Island" plan would be ruled out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29021459
In response, an advisor to London mayor Boris Johnson, Daniel Moylan, said if true, it is "sadly short-sighted".
Known as "Boris Island" because of Mr Johnson's backing, it was one option being considered by the Airports Commission on how to expand airport capacity in the UK.
An official announcement is expected on Tuesday.
"Airports policy has been stalled for nearly five decades, ricocheting like a billiard ball between Heathrow and Gatwick," said Mr Moylan.
"We have only one opportunity to break out of that but it seems the Commission has taken us back to the same old failed choice."
He added that the final decision would rest with the government. "The key question now is whether the Airports Commission will play much of a role," he continued.
Earlier, the Financial Times reported that Whitehall sources had confirmed the "Boris Island" plan would be ruled out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29021459
Brilliant waste of time and money to bring us right back to where we started, only 3 years down the road; dazzling. A runway at Heathrow and another at Gatwick will barely touch the sides of what's needed, by the time they're built more capacity will be required; another 20+year wait after that?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff