Thames Estuary airport
Discussion
"The government is to hold a formal consultation on controversial plans for a new airport in the Thames Estuary.
The study on the airport, championed by London Mayor Boris Johnson, is due to be announced in March.
Downing Street said no decisions had been made but ministers wanted to explore all options for maintaining the UK's status as a global aviation hub."
Right, so we are spending $36 billion building a high speed railway line to Birmingham airport, which will take 49 minutes from London.
So why not expand an existing airport than build a new one??
The study on the airport, championed by London Mayor Boris Johnson, is due to be announced in March.
Downing Street said no decisions had been made but ministers wanted to explore all options for maintaining the UK's status as a global aviation hub."
Right, so we are spending $36 billion building a high speed railway line to Birmingham airport, which will take 49 minutes from London.
So why not expand an existing airport than build a new one??
Fittster said:
"The government is to hold a formal consultation on controversial plans for a new airport in the Thames Estuary.
The study on the airport, championed by London Mayor Boris Johnson, is due to be announced in March.
Downing Street said no decisions had been made but ministers wanted to explore all options for maintaining the UK's status as a global aviation hub."
Right, so we are spending $36 billion building a high speed railway line to Birmingham airport, which will take 49 minutes from London.
So why not expand an existing airport than build a new one??
Expanasion of Heathrow has too many poitical obstacles it seems (though that is probably the ideal solution)The study on the airport, championed by London Mayor Boris Johnson, is due to be announced in March.
Downing Street said no decisions had been made but ministers wanted to explore all options for maintaining the UK's status as a global aviation hub."
Right, so we are spending $36 billion building a high speed railway line to Birmingham airport, which will take 49 minutes from London.
So why not expand an existing airport than build a new one??
If the UK wants to retain a 'hub' airport then urgent action is required.
JagLover said:
Fittster said:
"The government is to hold a formal consultation on controversial plans for a new airport in the Thames Estuary.
The study on the airport, championed by London Mayor Boris Johnson, is due to be announced in March.
Downing Street said no decisions had been made but ministers wanted to explore all options for maintaining the UK's status as a global aviation hub."
Right, so we are spending $36 billion building a high speed railway line to Birmingham airport, which will take 49 minutes from London.
So why not expand an existing airport than build a new one??
Expanasion of Heathrow has too many poitical obstacles it seems (though that is probably the ideal solution)The study on the airport, championed by London Mayor Boris Johnson, is due to be announced in March.
Downing Street said no decisions had been made but ministers wanted to explore all options for maintaining the UK's status as a global aviation hub."
Right, so we are spending $36 billion building a high speed railway line to Birmingham airport, which will take 49 minutes from London.
So why not expand an existing airport than build a new one??
If the UK wants to retain a 'hub' airport then urgent action is required.
If you can't expand Heathrow, why not Birmingham?
It doesn't seem very joined up thinking to spend billions putting in a high speed rail line right next to Birmingham airport, then say "Oh, lets build another airport (plus infrastructure from scratch)".
Stick another runway into Brum, job done (in 2026).
Beacause it would, amongst other things;
become the hub that Heathrow could never be.
regenerate huge swathes of east London, Essex and Kent.
be able to trade 24 hours a day.
massively improve the lives of London & SE residents.
integrate with HS1 and HS2 and increase public transport usage.
inject massive amounts of money into the economy, and be worth something at the end
be able to be used as an apprentice training platform of massive scale.
There are others, but that's a small selection of why it is worthy of consideration.
become the hub that Heathrow could never be.
regenerate huge swathes of east London, Essex and Kent.
be able to trade 24 hours a day.
massively improve the lives of London & SE residents.
integrate with HS1 and HS2 and increase public transport usage.
inject massive amounts of money into the economy, and be worth something at the end
be able to be used as an apprentice training platform of massive scale.
There are others, but that's a small selection of why it is worthy of consideration.
Fittster said:
"The government is to hold a formal consultation on controversial plans for a new airport in the Thames Estuary.
The study on the airport, championed by London Mayor Boris Johnson, is due to be announced in March.
Downing Street said no decisions had been made but ministers wanted to explore all options for maintaining the UK's status as a global aviation hub."
Right, so we are spending $36 billion building a high speed railway line to Birmingham airport, which will take 49 minutes from London.
So why not expand an existing airport than build a new one??
Am i getting the wrong end of the stick here, or are you hinting towards expanding Birmingham, now we are investing so heavily in HS2?The study on the airport, championed by London Mayor Boris Johnson, is due to be announced in March.
Downing Street said no decisions had been made but ministers wanted to explore all options for maintaining the UK's status as a global aviation hub."
Right, so we are spending $36 billion building a high speed railway line to Birmingham airport, which will take 49 minutes from London.
So why not expand an existing airport than build a new one??
if that's the case - i agree.
loafer123 said:
Beacause it would, amongst other things;
regenerate huge swathes of east London, Essex and Kent.
If you want to regenerate parts of the country I'm struggling to see why you'd start in the S/E it's hardly an employment black spot.regenerate huge swathes of east London, Essex and Kent.
The only way is Wolverhampton isn't like to match TOWIE.
Fittster said:
Expanding all airports or building a new one will take years.
If you can't expand Heathrow, why not Birmingham?
It doesn't seem very joined up thinking to spend billions putting in a high speed rail line right next to Birmingham airport, then say "Oh, lets build another airport (plus infrastructure from scratch)".
Stick another runway into Brum, job done (in 2026).
I think expanding Birmingham is taking the Ryanair definition of a 'London' airport a bit far. Bear in mind the Heathrow express is, what, 15 minutes? to central London.If you can't expand Heathrow, why not Birmingham?
It doesn't seem very joined up thinking to spend billions putting in a high speed rail line right next to Birmingham airport, then say "Oh, lets build another airport (plus infrastructure from scratch)".
Stick another runway into Brum, job done (in 2026).
MATTP77 said:
Fittster said:
"The government is to hold a formal consultation on controversial plans for a new airport in the Thames Estuary.
The study on the airport, championed by London Mayor Boris Johnson, is due to be announced in March.
Downing Street said no decisions had been made but ministers wanted to explore all options for maintaining the UK's status as a global aviation hub."
Right, so we are spending $36 billion building a high speed railway line to Birmingham airport, which will take 49 minutes from London.
So why not expand an existing airport than build a new one??
Am i getting the wrong end of the stick here, or are you hinting towards expanding Birmingham, now we are investing so heavily in HS2?The study on the airport, championed by London Mayor Boris Johnson, is due to be announced in March.
Downing Street said no decisions had been made but ministers wanted to explore all options for maintaining the UK's status as a global aviation hub."
Right, so we are spending $36 billion building a high speed railway line to Birmingham airport, which will take 49 minutes from London.
So why not expand an existing airport than build a new one??
if that's the case - i agree.
If we are going to spend $36 billion building a high speed railway line right next to Birmingham International airport it would seem to be to make sense to put another runway there.
"HS2 'will bring Birmingham Airport closer to London'"
"Birmingham Airport says the proposed new high-speed rail link between the city and London could be a solution to runway capacity problems in the South.
Airport bosses said it will be quicker to get to London from Birmingham than from London Stansted if it is approved.
Proposals for the 250mph rail link show it will take 39 minutes to get from Birmingham International to London"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-12...
It just seems easier and cheaper to expand Birmingham International than build a complete new airport (plus rail and road) network in the Thames Estuary.
loafer123 said:
Laudable though it is, Birmingham is a bit far from the continent, if you are trying to take business from the other European hubs and integrate with the euro rail network.
But isn't that the point of HS2? You now do Birmingham to London in 40 minutes.If your plan dumps you at Sheppey then what?
Fittster said:
But isn't that the point of HS2? You now do Birmingham to London in 40 minutes.
If your plan dumps you at Sheppey then what?
Every plane which is acting as a feeder to continental travellers has to fly an additional 100 miles there and 100 miles back. It isn't going to happen.If your plan dumps you at Sheppey then what?
Fittster said:
loafer123 said:
Beacause it would, amongst other things;
regenerate huge swathes of east London, Essex and Kent.
If you want to regenerate parts of the country I'm struggling to see why you'd start in the S/E it's hardly an employment black spot.regenerate huge swathes of east London, Essex and Kent.
The only way is Wolverhampton isn't like to match TOWIE.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117
loafer123 said:
Fittster said:
loafer123 said:
Beacause it would, amongst other things;
regenerate huge swathes of east London, Essex and Kent.
If you want to regenerate parts of the country I'm struggling to see why you'd start in the S/E it's hardly an employment black spot.regenerate huge swathes of east London, Essex and Kent.
The only way is Wolverhampton isn't like to match TOWIE.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117
Worst affected areas:
Birmingham Ladywood
Birmingham Hodge Hill
Birmingham Sparkbrook (although letting that bunch near planes might be iffy).
I'm not seeing evidence that regneration money is needed in the S/E (wasn't that the point of the billions spent on the Olympics?)
loafer123 said:
Your post makes it seem like the whole of east London, Essex and the south east is populated by RRS driving, champagne swilling, cokehead bankers, and that isn't true.
I certainly agree that Birmingham also needs regeneration, which is presumably why HS2 is so important.
There are problems in the S/E but there is a hell of a lot more opportunity. How far would someone in Tottenham have to go to get a job if they actually wanted one? Now look at the N/E, N/W, Black country.I certainly agree that Birmingham also needs regeneration, which is presumably why HS2 is so important.
If you can't find work in the S/E you aren't looking.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff