British government approve third heathrow runway.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Heathrow runway 'gets go-ahead'

There was opposition from residents, environmental campaigners and many MPs

Ministers have approved a controversial plan to build a third runway at Heathrow, the BBC understands.

Despite opposition from residents, environmental campaigners and many of its own MPs, Labour is set to confirm the decision officially on Thursday.

Leading business and union figures back the project, saying it will create jobs and boost the UK's competitiveness.

But critics have said it will irreparably damage the UK's credentials on tackling climate change.

Labour unease

The government has long argued, in principle, that it is in favour of the scheme, subject to noise and air pollution limits, and undertakings about access and traffic congestion.

Alongside the commitment to a new runway, Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon is expected to announce increased investment in public transport, including a new high-speed rail link from the airport to central London.

There has been deep unease within Labour ranks about the decision, with several cabinet members reported to be unconvinced about the project and more than 50 MPs openly opposed.

In an effort to appease its critics, BBC political correspondent Jo Coburn said the government would announce new safeguards for limiting emissions with airlines using the new runway required to use the newest, least polluting aircraft.

Expanding Heathrow would shatter the government's international reputation on climate change Friends of the Earth Q&A: The issues at stake Local views on runway plan Reaction to decision

Business Secretary Lord Mandelson defended the government's commitment to environmental concerns over Heathrow.

He said: "It's a classic dilemma - we want to forge ahead in implementing our climate change ambitions when others are not but we don't want to lose our economic competitiveness in the process. We want to do both these things."

But backbench Labour MP John McDonnell, whose constituency includes the airport, said the fight against the expansion was only just "beginning" and opponents would "use every mechanism possible" including legal challenges, to stop the runway going ahead.

"If the government is not willing to listen to Parliament or the people then there is no other option but to mobilise the largest coalition of public opposition and protest to halt this disastrous proposal in its tracks," he said.

The Conservatives say a new runway would be an "environmental disaster" and have pledged to reverse the decision should they win the next election.

Alistair McGowan: 'We're prepared to fight (them) all the way'

Shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said approval of the scheme would show Gordon Brown was "deaf to the concerns of his own party and millions of people living under the flight path".

The Liberal Democrats have urged ministers to invest in high-speed rail links instead.

Asked about the decision on Wednesday, Prime Minister Gordon Brown declined to guarantee MPs a vote on the issue.

Should the government give the go-ahead, he said there would be a debate in Parliament and that the scheme would have to be granted planning permission.

This is likely to be a lengthy process, with work on a new runway unlike to be completed before 2019.

Public protests

Protests have been growing in anticipation of a decision, which was due to be made in December but was delayed amid reports of divisions within government over the issue.

About 700 homes will have to be demolished to make way for the runway, which will increase the number of flights using Heathrow from about 480,000 a year now to 702,000 by 2030.

It is at risk and if it continues to decline, then the consequences for west London and the Thames Valley will be very, very serious indeed Lord Soley Future Heathrow Battle lines drawn over expansion The case for and against the plan

Campaigners have bought some land earmarked for the construction of the runway in an effort to frustrate the expansion plans.

Environmental campaigners say proceeding with the new runway will leave the government's legal commitment to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 in tatters.

"Expanding Heathrow would shatter the government's international reputation on climate change," said Andy Atkins, executive director of Friends of the Earth.

"We need bold and urgent action to create a low-carbon economy, not more backing for the climate-wrecking activities of the aviation industry."

But the government believes the new runway will not violate its EU commitments on air and noise pollution, pointing out that new aircraft being built will reduce emissions significantly.

'At risk'

Supporters of the runway say Heathrow is already operating at full capacity and the UK economy will lose business to the rest of Europe if it does not go ahead.

They point out that rival airports such as Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam already have at least four runways and that Heathrow is at risk of falling further behind.

Former Labour MP Lord Soley is the campaign director of Future Heathrow, which represents groups in favour of expanding the airport.

He told BBC News that Heathrow brought jobs and "prosperity" to the surrounding areas and in an "ideal world" the expansion would not be needed.

"But the ideal world doesn't exist and it isn't true to say that Heathrow isn't at risk.

"It is at risk and if it continues to decline, then the consequences for west London and the Thames Valley will be very, very serious indeed," he said.

British Airways, the largest airline at Heathrow, has said expanding the airport is the only "credible option".quote>

 

Heathrow expansion: Construction

The expansion of Heathrow means the loss of 700 homes and a primary school

Plans for a third runway, a sixth terminal and a separate new rail link, if approved, will result in a massive construction project at Heathrow.

With the government set to announce approval for some of the proposals, the world's busiest international airport could expand to become the busiest in the world in terms of passenger numbers and flights.

THE RUNWAY

London's Heathrow airport currently boasts two runways at 12,801ft (3,902m) and 12,001ft (3,658m) in length.

RUNWAY CROSS-SECTION 1 Surface can be grooved to prevent build up of standing water, increase surface friction 2 Bituminous material or asphalt - stronger and more expensive than concrete, easier to repair after surface deterioration 3 Lean concrete - cheap, filler layer, less water and cement than in regular concrete 4 Granular material such as crushed limestone - construction platform, strengthens the underlying material

The third runway, set to be 7,218ft (2,200m) long, would "accommodate an efficient mix of all but the largest four-engined aircraft," according to the Department for Transport's Adding Capacity at Heathrow consultation document.

Heathrow's current runways are asphalt or flexible construction - composed of bituminous material layered over lean concrete and granular material such as crushed limestone.

To lay a new runway, first the construction crews would have to clear the existing buildings in the area.

Materials such as old concrete reclaimed from demolished buildings could be reused in the lower layers of the runway, civil engineers say. All wood, glass, metal and most brick would have to be removed.

A flexible construction runway of the length proposed could be built in as little as 12 months by a crew of about 150 operators in ideal conditions.

THE TERMINAL

PASSENGERS A YEAR Heathrow: 67.3m Terminal 5 (designed for): 35m New Terminal: 35m Gatwick: 35m Stansted: 22.8m Chicago O'Hare: 76m Paris Charles de Gaulle: 55m Amsterdam Schipol: 48m

The new terminal's layout is expected to be similar to Heathrow's latest terminal, Terminal 5.

Proposals include a main terminal building with through taxiways and aircraft parked in front of the main terminal building and around two remote satellites.

Terminal 5 was built over five and a half years, with construction starting in September 2002 and ending in March 2008.

BAA says the new terminal should support 35 million passengers per year, the same amount that Terminal 5 should manage at capacity.

Between the two terminals, Heathrow's passenger capacity could more than double.

HEATHROW RAIL HUB

Engineering firm Arup is proposing a £4.5bn rail link - or Heathrow Hub - to serve the existing airport, possible sixth terminal and an expanded high speed rail network across the country.

HEATHROW LINKS Potential Heathrow rail links [1.13MB] Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader Download the reader here

Initially, a 12-platform station would provide a direct link to Heathrow from the Great Western Main line and rail routes to continental Europe.

Arup believes the best spot for the hub, out of 22 potential locations, is on the Great Western Main Line, somewhere between the M25 and West Drayton.

The firm says the area would have the least impact and is only 3km north of terminal five.

The Heathrow Hub has been set up to continue developing the proposal and is looking for £10m in investment to carry out further feasibility studies.

Arup says the proposal - subject to the usual planning permissions - is a stand-alone project and does not require the completion of a third runway to work.

Possible completion date: 2020.quote>

[Easy Bakes 253]

They have room for a new runway?

Looks like they would have to move a lot of buildings to make that new terminal and runway.

Are they abandond buildings, Airport buildings, or homes you cant tell from the small picture.

[Shadow Assassin 336]

What could they hope to achieve in demolishing an area which, to my knowledge, could be better used for better things just to build a runway, when it is entirely possible that in future years, oil will become so expensive that flights no longer become commercially viable?

A flexible construction runway of the length proposed could be built in as little as 12 months by a crew of about 150 operators in ideal conditions. quote>

Ideal conditions? Isn't London supposed to be a little bit on the damp side, which would prove problematic for laying concrete, but not so problematic for laying asphalt?

[nthooze 13]

Concrete actually needs a damp environment to cure properly.  Builders have to water down concrete to keep it from cracking as it sets.

Either way it would seem to me that London weather will not likely be ideal for 12 straight months.

[toxicpiano 125]

No more waiting to land!

[nthooze 13]

As for the video clip, 'climate change' what used to be called global warming is a very controversial subject these days. There is a growing population of scientists who say that human impacts on climate are not responsible for the receding ice we have seen. They state that sun storm activity is a far far larger influence. They point to similar warming that has occurred on other bodies our solar system including mars and moons around Saturn and Jupiter. A common catch phrase I've heard is "What about the melting ice caps on mars? Can't exactly blame that on hummers." Additionally this year has been the coldest year in over 50 years, the ice caps have actually grown this year, as much as 30%, this also parallels one of the quietest years on record of sun activity. There does seem to be some real science to all of this.

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't do what we can to move to sustainable non-polluting energy, just that this hysteria to give up our way of life to save the earth is blown way out of proportion and needs to be looked at with a skeptics eye.

[your_adress_here 11]

I see it as a good thing.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[toxicpiano 125]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa Being an American, my opinion means diddly-squat, but I don't see the big deal.  Satellite photos do not exactly show any sensitive wild areas, but only developed territory.  Heathrow is one of the busiest airports in the world and flight traffic is not going to diminish, regardless of fuel concerns.  Trains are nice, but they are not always the best choice, especially since it really only applies to domestic travel, and perhaps the Chunnel to France.  Beyond that, it can take far too long to conduct business.

SFO is also looking to expand, and it involves moving out onto the Bay.  I can relate to the environmental concerns here, but at the same time, I think that the expansion is needed, or else a new airport will need to be built to alleviate the pressure (and that is even less likely than expanding the current airport).

Barbarossaquote>

The Eurostar is good for Belgium as well.

[psander5 198]

Easy Bakes: There isn't enough room! That label "Sipson" in the expansion diagram is a living village! People live there, and to my knowledge they don't really want to move. There are parts of several other villages that will also need demolishing if the plan does "get off the ground".

I guess the plan would make Heathrow function better. I've never used it so I haven't suffered first hand, but the Heathrow experience is notorious!

[Haljackey 17,398]

Well, because this is the busiest airport in the world, I'd support this. I don't know much about the background, but more capacity should help reduce congestion and delays.

[ILL Tonkso 1,239]

A lot of the eco-warriors dont realise that the 3rd runway will actually REDUCE pollution as planes will not have to circle around in the stack waiting to land. The 3rd runway is not to increase flights but to allow room for the existing flights. Unfortunately yes, the level of flights will increase, BUT the planes currently using the heathrow stack will be allowed to land quicker, reducing the overal fuel consumption of planes in the area.

Scrub that, London has 6 International Airports, and 3 or 4 more domestic ones, 68% of Heathrow's flights are connecting flights, not people entering/leaving the UK. Expand Gatwick with a second runway or Stanstead. Liverpool Street Station surely has enough room to stick a better Stanstead Express train that what it already has...

London City, the smallest of Londons internationals has just got a scheduled London-NYC flight... and is better suited to business class travelers than the other airports due to it's Location on the DLR Metro system and proximity to Canary Wharf.

[hummer0328 6]

The third busiest airport in the world only has 2 runways? Wow!

[krbe 193]

When it comes to movements (wether there are three or 300 passengers matters less for runway congestion), LHR is actually only number 14 with 481,479 movments per year. But that is still a pretty high number for a two-runway airport, which is operating at 99% capacity. Atlanta Hartsfield-jackson, the busiest, has 5 runways—and all airports before LHR on that list have three to seven runways.

[david1314 44]

Originally posted by: ILL TonksoLondon City, the smallest of Londons internationals has just got a scheduled London-NYC flight... and is better suited to business class travelers than the other airports due to it's Location on the DLR Metro system and proximity to Canary Wharf.quote>

...well, it's mostly well suited to biz class travellers because an A318 with sufficient fuel to make it to NYC cannot take off in 4,500' with 100 pax.

Though, I've heard that JFK and EWR, rather than the obvious choice of LGA for the closest thing to Manhattan-to-City service available....that part seems a bit stupid to me.

[belfastuniguy 18]

The very fact that Heathrow is at 99% capacity is ridiculous. The smallest issue and the airport is thrown into chaos with delays lasting days and in some cases weeks. That is not the way to run an airport and I welcome the new runway and terminal. Heathrow is BY FAR the best airport for London, Gatwick and Stansted are utterly crap and take forever to get to from London along commuter rail. While you have the tube and Heathrow Express serving Heathrow. With this expansion the very real possibility of it also having high-speed connections to the rest of Great Britain, Paris/Brussels and connection to Crossrail.

Not allowing Heathrow to develop will restrict the growth of London and the wider UK economy.

[Yoman3 5]

Anyone who has used Heathrow before knows that its awful (particularly if you don't use T5). Last time I flew into the airport my flight circled London three times (50 km large turning radius also), which is just ridiculous. The villagers who would need to be moved have a legitimate concern of course, but the environmentalists need to go jump off the cliffs of Dover. I don't see something that will barely have any effect on pollution (in the local area yes, but world wide? No), as a reason to force the London area economy to stagnate, if there was more economic growth there is more money to build wind farms etc with anyway

[Shadow Assassin 336]

Heathrow is BY FAR the best airport for London, Gatwick and Stansted are utterly crap and take forever to get to from London along commuter rail.quote>

Then fix the transport system to Gatwick and Stansted. It's needed for the 2012 Olympics anyway. I can't believe that I haven't heard anything about improving links to those two airports.

[hamsterTK 93]

If they wanted more people to use trains maybe they'de make them go faster than 125 mph...

I am a big proponent of high-speed rail, but I think high speed trains are more medium-distance transportation not a replacement for plane travel.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: Shadow_Assassin

Heathrow is BY FAR the best airport for London, Gatwick and Stansted are utterly crap and take forever to get to from London along commuter rail.quote>

Then fix the transport system to Gatwick and Stansted. It's needed for the 2012 Olympics anyway. I can't believe that I haven't heard anything about improving links to those two airports.quote>

Why fly into Gatwick or Stansted when at Heathrow you are directly connected to all of London's transport lines, you have a very fast Express service taking you to Paddington, the tube linking the airport almost everywhere in London in a fraction of them time it takes to get to Stansted and even then the train service is a stopping one.

That may be alright for the casual traveller, but for those in a hurry wanting connections or business travellers then Heathrow's benefits far outweight the issues/problems.