Heathrow expansion to go ahead

[Nigel C]

From www.news.com.au
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...32-401,00.html

Government gives green light to Heathrow expansion

Reuters
January 16, 2009 12:56am

CONTROVERSIAL plans to build a third runway at London's Heathrow airport have been given the go-ahead by the British government.
Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon announced plans for a third runway and sixth terminal at the world's busiest international airport despite fierce opposition from environmentalists, nearby residents and local MPs.

The government argues the £9 billion ($19.85 billion) project will bring economic benefits to Britain, but green campaigners say the expansion will spell disastrous for climate change.

The government hopes the new runway can be completed by 2020.

However opponents, including Greenpeace, have vowed to launch legal battles to stop it going ahead.

Hoon said Heathrow's expansion was "critical to this country's long term economic prosperity".

"An additional terminal and a slightly longer runway ... are the best way to maximise the efficiency of a larger airport," he said.

The expansion will mean an extra 600 flights added each day to Heathrow's busy schedule, with passenger numbers expected to rise to 122 million from 66 million.

[Joseph D]

How is it disastrous for climate change?? Won't the extra flights will be diverted from around Europe. These greenies don't know what they are on about sometimes.

[Adam P.]

More concrete to land on = better landing rate = less holding = less unnecessary emissions?

Shirley?

[NickN]

And also less time holding on the ground queing up to depart.

[damien b]

This could get ugly. There was a report a few days ago that people have purchased land that would be used for the third runway with no intention of selling including some heavy weights in the UK environmentalist scene. The Anti-Aviation Lobby is getting alot of support in the UK over carbon emissions. I'm a little surprised that the government actually gave the third runway the green light.

[Ash W]

Originally Posted by damien b

This could get ugly. There was a report a few days ago that people have purchased land that would be used for the third runway with no intention of selling including some heavy weights in the UK environmentalist scene. The Anti-Aviation Lobby is getting alot of support in the UK over carbon emissions. I'm a little surprised that the government actually gave the third runway the green light.

It was greenpeace that brought some land. I beleive the UK government can forcefully aquire land like we can in Aus but it will get messy if they dig their heals in.

So stupid, it is really needed and the way I see it it will reduce emmissions by reducing holding time in the air and on the ground and besides there is no other viable alternative. Fast trains are good but only for rail journey times in the sub 3-4 hour range, and currently only Paris and Brussels fit this bill both of which are linked by high speed rail.

[Matt D]

It will reduce those annoying 10-20 minute holds in the stacks between FL90 and FL140, but the extended centreline for the new runway crosses:

Elephant and Castle,
almost overhead Waterloo,
just south of Westminster (Big Ben etc at approx 12DME/~3500ft)
Victoria,
Kensington (just south of Hyde Park at ~3000ft),
Hammersmith (9DME),
Chiswick.....

When westerly ops run, it brings a lot of new arrivals noise much closer to the centre of London.

Given the Cranford agreement doesn't allow departures off the existing 09L, London is effectively spared of all traffic when the easterly blows now. That will have to change with additional capacity and a new runway. I expect much of suburban west London will cop departing aircraft (in a very similar vein to Petersham and Summer Hill do in Sydney) they've not had before.

On the positive side it will give some great spotting opportunities from around the M4


Matt

[Anthony T]

The King William pub will be obliterated



Anthony T

[Joseph D]

Originally Posted by Ash W

It was greenpeace that brought some land. I beleive the UK government can forcefully aquire land like we can in Aus but it will get messy if they dig their heals in.

So stupid, it is really needed and the way I see it it will reduce emmissions by reducing holding time in the air and on the ground and besides there is no other viable alternative. Fast trains are good but only for rail journey times in the sub 3-4 hour range, and currently only Paris and Brussels fit this bill both of which are linked by high speed rail.

Exactly. Whether the environmentalists like it or not, air travel is here to stay. Might as well have the infrastructure in place to support it.

[James Smith]

I presume the proposed third runway is parallel to the existing 27 L&R runways. If so, is it to be located north or south and what spacing will there be with the closest existing runway? None of the references went into this detail.