Yeah, I saw that on the discovery channel too. Was very interesting. It was a question of geology. So if the Geology of SD bay is different it could work different. Sort of the way that skyscrapers need to be anchored to solid bedrock and not giant sand deposits and land fill.SkeLeton said:...(no, it's not that the seas are rising, it's the island that's sinking) ......
It was either History channel or Discovery channel that had a series on "extreme engineering" and there are plans for just that - one acrodd gibraltar and the other over the berring strait. The Chunnel already existing, and there is a proposal for a tunnel that would be anchored and "float" about the ocean floor, from Nova Scotia to Scotland. The travel time New York to Paris in a high speed train would be cut to something like 1.75 hours. The increase in commerce would justify it, once the engineering issues are addressed.Plannerbabs said:Flying is bad enough without having to worry about your red-eye flight ditching in the bay. When are they going to built transcontinental bridges?
Yeah it was cool. There would be trains with auto carrier cars and passenger cars (I wouldnt doubt FedEx package cars too!)Plannerbabs said:A train would definately be a safer way to go.
Thank you.. my bad!jordanb said:The airport is in Kansai, not Tokyo.
How many miles out to sea will the airport be located? The noise from taking off or landing begins several miles from the airport. If your inland destination airport shuts early, you still won't operate 24 hours. There are other impacts. I can see having a shore terminal and shuttling people to the airport, but what about freight? As for safety, I think that is likely to be the opposite. Airports have a lot of room on the ground to maneuver, and going off the taxiway means going onto the grass, not into the ocean. Planes will compete for airspace over a floating airport just as they do over ground.Takeoffs and landings would all be over water affecting no populated areas, thereby virtually eliminating noise pollution and substantially reducing aircraft accident risks. The airport could operate 24 hours per day without impact on populated areas.
It is just so difficult to bulldoze ground and lay cement, right?Unlike land based airports, growth and alterations in configuration would be relatively easy to achieve.
The hovercraft will take you right from FloatPort to the monorail.FloatPort could be the hub of an offshore mass transit system that would utilize high speed surface vessels to connect all the coastal communities. Such a system would provide a new form of mass transit with a minimal infrastructure investment.
Yeah, right. It won't impact coral reefs. It won't disrupt fisheries. It won't lie in the migration path of a whale species.Compared to a land based alternative, FloatPort would be environmentally benign.
Uh huh. Time to ressurect the monorail thread?With its multiple functions -- airport, shipping port and inter nodal transportation port -- FloatPort could be one of the few vital infrastructure projects that could produce enough revenues to pay for itself.