London Britannia airport (proposed)

This is a very interesting read. Instead of expanding (the very small) LHR site with a 3rd runway, build a brand new [massive 6 runway] airport in the Thames estuary on a man made island approx 60km (40mi) east of London, with connections to the M2, and HS1 (the high speed rail line from Paris-London).

What is interesting to note to cruise passengers is that it also plans for passenger ship facilities, so if this is built, I would guess that cruising out of Harwich (and to a lesser extent) Southampton would be a thing of the past.

http://testrad.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Thames-estuary-brochure.pdf

This is a very interesting read. Instead of expanding (the very small) LHR site with a 3rd runway, build a brand new [massive 6 runway] airport in the Thames estuary on a man made island approx 60km (40mi) east of London, with connections to the M2, and HS1 (the high speed rail line from Paris-London).

 

What is interesting to note to cruise passengers is that it also plans for passenger ship facilities, so if this is built, I would guess that cruising out of Harwich (and to a lesser extent) Southampton would be a thing of the past.

 

http://testrad.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Thames-estuary-brochure.pdf

At first glance, it looks like a wonderful concept. Two points however:

-I doubt the environmental impact would be as minimal as they make out;

-Countless examples have shown that having an airport far away from the city centre is a disadvantage - and if you're going to go that far, why not just expand LGW/STN/LTN?

At first glance, it looks like a wonderful concept. Two points however:

-I doubt the environmental impact would be as minimal as they make out;

-Countless examples have shown that having an airport far away from the city centre is a disadvantage - and if you're going to go that far, why not just expand LGW/STN/LTN?

I totally agree with the 1st comment. It's assumed that there are zero problems on building in the estuary (I imagine sea birds are a big big issue), and Kansai hasn't been perfect in terms of the man made island settling.

However, I think the 2nd comment about distance is negated by making sure the high speed connections are in place like PVD. Major airports a long way from town that have failed (and YMX is the poster child here) are because nothing was done on the ground link side. They appear to have their ducks in a row here with connections to HS1 / Crossrail and the M2.

The bigger issue for London is the splitting of traffic. You can't be an effective hub if you have 3-6 smaller airports vs one large one. This is what killed YMX/YUL. You couldn't use Montreal as a hub if the international traffic went into one airport and the local traffic left from another.

As for expanding LGW, STN or LTN (all effectively single runway airports) there really isn't the space or local will to expand any of those either. If they're smart they'll close one or two of London's tertiary airports to help fund this proposal.

I lived in the UK when the "third London airport" was being planned in the 70s. What an immense waste of public resources and newsprint.

My quick reaction to this is, "in your dreams."

Likely the idea of a third airport in the London area with LHR made back into villages, towns and housing will take place, if at all when I'm too old to travel.

I watched as Dallas-Fort Worth international airport was built and that took many years of land buying (mostly in secret) and we had miles and miles of land for the purpose.

and the land was cheap.

In the London area the masses of money needed to build such a third airport could about pay for a colony on the moon. I don't think it will happen.

I am of an age when I remember the huge floods in the Thames estuary that submerged Canvey Island.

From the drama at the time, I still harbour doubts that any site in the Thames estuary woudl be immune to such flooding in the future, especially with the expected rise in sea levels due to global warming.

I can't see this happening for many many years. Also, the cost of this project is huge.

I'm not so sure about the feasibility of all of this.

 

In the London area the masses of money needed to build such a third airport could about pay for a colony on the moon. I don't think it will happen.

Did you read the proposal? In the Thames Estuary, where they would build an island, not purchase other people's land.

Did you read the proposal? In the Thames Estuary, where they would build an island, not purchase other people's land.

Now, instead, let's create a complete man-made island, with land for all of the terminal and support structures, at least 4 runways, and how much will that run for a country already struggling to find financing for its proposed HS2 rail line??

I'll wager anyone on this....and our grandkids can settle the bet.

Thanks for sharing this.

Keith

Never going to happen. Why? because politicians are making the decisions. It took 10 years just to get Terminal 5 at LHR through planning process.

London has many airports, Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, Southend, and somehow Oxford (not sure how that happened though). The capacity is there, just no in the right place. People/business want to fly to Heathrow becuase that is nearest to their businesses and just about the easiest to get into London from.

If Heathrow was closed and moved to Boris Island it would cause a massive impact on employment and the economy. Many thousands of jobs in the Heathrow area only exist becuase of Heathrow (not counting those actually employed at the airport). Many people employed at the airport do not earn a furtune, and it would be impossible for those people to move all the way over to the other side of London for work.

Heathrow used to have 5 runways in the 'old days'.

I have seen the power of a storm in the North Sea. I used to live on the Essex coast and was there when the worst flooding in the Thames estuary occurred - 1953, I think. The Thames flood barrier was built after that, to protect London itself from such storm surges.

To build an artificial island in the Thames estuary that is big enough for the proposed airport and all its associated transport options, as well as to protect it from storm surges, would be a massive and expensive project. And, IMHO, a foolhardy one.

The "bigger is better" mentality in air travel, along with monster hub airports, is fading away. While there certainly are A380s and 747-800s being built, by far the biggest growth is in point-to-point service, in fuel-efficient planes able to make money out of flying 250 passengers from Oslo to Newark. Why would I want to land in the Thames estuary if I want to get to Birmingham or Brussels?