Heathrow Expansions Revealed.

[efq]

They should realize that its getting way to far and stop expanding...

Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly has set out proposals for a third runway and a sixth terminal at Heathrow. Announcing options for consultation, she said without growth the airport's status would suffer, but any expansion must meet noise and pollution tests.
Among options are a 2,200m third runway built north of Heathrow by 2020, and a sixth terminal, which will require the destruction of an entire village.
Critics say more than 50 communities and towns will suffer increased noise.
If nothing changes, Heathrow's status as a world-class airport will be gradually eroded


Ruth Kelly



At-a-glance: Heathrow plans
In quotes: Reaction to plans


Analysis published by the government on Thursday suggests an expanded Heathrow could meet air pollution and noise limits over time.
It says three runways could be operated from 2020, without breaching air quality limits - thanks to developments like cleaner aircraft engines.


See noise projections for Heathrow's expansion
But it says take-offs and landings should be limited to 605,000 a year initially, to meet noise restrictions.
As older, noisier planes are phased out, this could rise to 702,000 by 2030. Currently there are 480,000 a year.
The third runway is among proposals in a consultation process which will run until 27 February.

See the proposed site in detail

Enlarge Map


Another is a sixth terminal to serve the new runway, which would require 700 properties to be bulldozed, including the village of Sipson.
In the meantime, the two existing runways could be used for both take-off and landings - currently arrivals are switched from one to the other after 3pm to give residents a break from the noise.
And agreements governing the direction in which aircraft leave and arrive at the airport could be changed.
The government says it would have to be confident that any expansion would be able to comply with EU limits on air pollution and would not breach limits on the size of the area significantly affected by aircraft noise.
'Running scared'
Ms Kelly said: "Heathrow supports 170,000 jobs, billions of pounds of British exports and is our main gateway to the global economy.
"But for too long it has operated at nearly full capacity, with relatively minor problems causing severe delays to passengers.

"If nothing changes, Heathrow's status as a world-class airport will be gradually eroded - jobs will be lost and the economy will suffer."
But shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said there were "tough questions" to answer as Prime Minister Gordon Brown had said he would look at whether carbon emissions could be cut by 80%.
And she said: "This is one of the most important decisions we face as a nation and it is scandalous that Ruth Kelly won't answer in Parliament to the MPs who represent people whose lives are directly impacted by the future Heathrow."
'Over capacity'
Ministers have backed in principle plans to expand Heathrow, first put forward in the 2003 aviation White Paper.
Airport operator BAA's chief executive Stephen Nelson told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "It's been over capacity for 17 years, it's now handling 60,000 more passengers a day than it was built for - that puts us under extraordinary pressure."
Proposals would mean some areas get more noise, some get less


He said the airport brought tourists, businesses and jobs to London. BA has argued a third runway could be worth £9bn a year to the national economy.
But John Stewart, chairman of the anti-airport expansion group Hacan, questioned the figures, telling the BBC: "There's a mantra here that it's important for the economy - the expansion of Heathrow. What has never been worked out is how those figures are arrived at."
And he said the proposals could be defeated by the strength of opposition to them from local authorities, MPs and "direct action activists".
'Robbed of peace'
The 2M Group, which represents 12 local authorities in the Heathrow area, says the plans will mean 900 extra flights a day and increased noise for more than 50 towns and communities, from Maidenhead, west of Heathrow eastwards into Kensington and Chelsea in London.
Susan Kramer, the Lib Dems' transport spokeswoman, whose Richmond Park constituency is among those affected, said the plans would rob people in west London of the "half day of peace" they currently get.

She added: "At a time of climate change, with aviation having such a big impact, shouldn't we be completely rethinking this and putting that kind of investment into rail?"
But the GMB union said expansion was needed because the current infrastructure was worn out and a major cause of delays to flights.
And David Frost, of the British Chambers of Commerce, added: "Heathrow expansion is one of the fundamental infrastructure projects necessary to keep the country competitive."

PROJECTED NOISE FOOTPRINTS FOR HEATHROW EXPANSION

2002 Recent noise footprint showing sound at 57 decibels - the point at which the government says noise becomes "a community annoyance". There were 466,000 Air Transport Movements (ATMs) in 2002; defined as a plane taking off or landing.
2015 Indicative noise contour if planes were taking off and landing on both of Heathrow's runways. 540,000 ATMs a year.
2020 A projection showing three runways in action with 702,000 ATMs a year.
Source: Department for Transport

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7106524.stm

[-Xiangu-]

i think its a stupid idea making all those people leave their homes for a stupid runway, heathrow or the community does not need it. just a waste of money

[-:Undertaker:-]

Heathrow does need it - fact.

[Frodo13.]

It wouldn't be under development if it wasn't need it. And it annoys me how all these people living near the airport complain about noise. I mean, what do they expect? They aint exactly going to get a noise free life being a neighbour to a airport are you?

[bubble79]

The poeple I feel sorry for are people who had homes before the airports were built because then their house prices go down, they have huge amounts of noise and they probably can't sell their house, but I have no sympathy for people who buy houses when the airport is there.

However the thing is people do want to fly mroe and more and if you ever see Heathrow it's horrendously busy and theres a plane going every 45 seconds or something which can't be good for safety or delays with so little give-time so muhc as I am against flying and think that people need to find alternatives, especailly for within-Britain flights then as long ast eh flying boon continues, Heathrow needs this new runway.

[-Xiangu-]

im all up for the development just not the destroying of peoples houses. thats what i meant to say and i didnt know heathrow needed it undertaker thanks, +rep Edit: must spread

[efq]

There getting bigger and bigger and causing loads more problems.

Forcing people to move out. Noise and theres being collisions on the runway.

Theres no space anywhere.

[le harry]

i agree.......

ive never been there but yh

[lAscend]

heathrow is big enugh why dont the expand the other airports in the london area instead its stupid

[Jordy]

No one's ever happy when a new runway wants to be built. It's there fault for buying a house near it? There's always the risk they'd expand one day...

It's the same with Alton Towers, the reason AT doesn't build many roller coasters isn't because they don't have the land or the money, it's because of sound pollution, they're forever getting sued for it and having to close them down. They're not even allowed to do their fireworks display anymore as it's to loud for the neighbours? lmao disruption for 20 mins a year? I just don't get people like this.