Jan 25 2008
A View of the Proposed Heathrow Expansion from the Other Side
Inel has has a series of posts lately about the proposed Heathrow Expansion. The lastest being Calling all students! Help Stop Heathrow Expansion. Please. I don’t live anywhere close to Heathrow, but for what it’s worth here’s my opinion. Expansion of any airport close to a large city is likely to be unpopular. The principal complaint is that the increased air traffic will contribute to the overall noise-pollution of the city.
Looking at a Stop Heathrow Expansion site, they offer four reasons to oppose construction of a new runway. (If you’re short for time, scroll down to the bottom and read the last one.)
It is not necessary
“78% of businesses in London oppose it.” While I have not read the citation used (The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment, published by the Ashden Trust), I don’t doubt that most businesses oppose a new runway at Heathrow, but I don’t think that they fully understand how important airports are to the economy. Airports do not just deal with the movement of people - but also with the movement of freight. While shipping is currently the most cost effective way to move most freight across/over oceans, for time sensitive material the only way is through the air.
But being a necessity does not mean that businesses need it. Currently the two runways at Heathrow. If capacity was capped at its currently levels, a third runway would provide an extra level of safety. Consider the recent “final landing” of the 777 at Heathrow. I read that it did one circuit in the queue/stack/hold (citation needed). If there were three runways, perhaps they would have needed zero turns in the hold and then whatever problem they had would have occured on the ground, where there would have been no damage to the aircraft and no injuries.
In general, more runways means an airport is safer, not the other way around. A good example is Denver International Airport, which opened in 1995. It has 6 runways. Other large airports in the United States similarly have a large number of runways. DFW has 7, plans at ORD call for an expansion to 8 runways. More runways means that aircraft have more separation between them on approaches and departures; this is a good thing. An added runway at Heathrow would increase safety, not decrease it.
It will contribute to climate change
While on the surface it may appear that adding additional capacity will necessarily mean more gasous waste from airplanes, it is more complicated than that, especially in the short term. I don’t know specifics, but according to this this BBC report the new runway is scheduled to be opened in 2020. According to the advocacy site, aviation “accounts for 13% of UK global warming emissions”.
Like many of the largest airports worldwide, aircraft arriving during the busiest times must be put into stacks, or holding patterns for those of us on the left side of the pond. If holding times could be reduced, that would reduce CO2 emissions. It is unlikely that the reduction in holding patterns would be able to be kept near zero as capacity was approached on the third runway.
Will a new runway at Heathrow contribute to climate change in the long-term? The answer is likely yes. But even allowing for this point does not mean the runway should not be built. In my opinion, the root cause of climate change is overpolulation. We use much more raw materials than the Earth can sustainably support. The the primary solution is to either lower birth rates or live in a more sustainable manner. My preference would be for the former, although I don’t think many others agree. Part of the solution to a more sustainable life may be to reduce air traffic. However, in my view air traffic will continue to grow as long as there is available oil to turn into jet fuel. Besides, there are other ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most notably in the production of energy. Switch to a renewable source such as tidal, wind, geothermal, or solar.
It will destroy communities
It will destroy one community. I saw two estimates of the number of people affected; one said 700 and the other said up to 1500. If it was my home that were to be removed, I would not like it. However, it is the governments job to determine if the purchase of the affected lands would be a greater good than the non-removal of the ~1000 people. This is entirely up to the people of the area.
It will destroy people’s quality of life
Most of my disagreement is on this point. This is the noise part, and this is where I get to show nice pictures. The two images below show the current flight tracks used for approaches and departures from Heathrow airport. Flight tracks from Stephen Boyle’s page at the University of London Observatory. The red represents arrivals, and the blue represents departures.
East Landing Configuration:
|
(Click to embiggen; with town names)
West Landing Configuration:
|
(Click to embiggen; with town names)
As can be seen, there are several clearly defined tracks that are used to get aircraft from the holding patterns to the ground, and different tracks used for departing aircraft. By necessity both of these tracks are connected to the ends of the runways. But notice that the tracks for departing aircraft and for arrivals up until the final approach course are all the same. If a third runway were added that was parallel to the other two were added, the same departure and arrival sequence could be used, thus not adding ground area in which noise was a problem.
In general on the above images, areas of wide splotches of red or blue would indicate low traffic volumes and areas of narrow paths high traffic volumes. The most obvious example of high traffic areas are the final approach courses, indicated by the two parallel red lines on each of the images. All aircraft fly these paths to reach the runways, and thus those living under these paths are subjected to high noise levels.
A third runway would be parallel to the other two, placed north of the existing runways and be roughly equally spaced from the others. From this knowledge it is possible to project probable flight paths to the new runway. The approach paths are the easiest to project. They need to be parallel to the runways and be 5-15 miles long. The good news is that for both the east and west configuration, much of the approaches would be above M4 (a motorway / highway). Therefore, this ground area is relatively unpopulated.
More difficult to see is that when the airport is in the east configuration, the north runway is not used for takeoffs. This is the Cranford agreement. What this means is that the noise generated by departing aircraft that would usually be spread out over two runways is not concentrated on one. Because one runway is being used exclusively for landings (north), the other is mostly used for departures. This means that those living on the arrival end of the north runway, such as those in Windsor, has twice as much air traffic above them as they would if this agreement were not in effect.
The departure tracks created by the new runway are unlikely to change, and in both configurations the departing aircraft would be able to enter existing tracks. This would not lead to a great noise source on the departure end of the equation.
Conclusion
While a new runway is definitely not a solution to the long-term climate change problem, some of the arguments being used by those opposing it are either wrong or poorly thought out. When arguing about something as important as transportation infrastructure, thought needs to be given to the impacts not only of those near the proposed infrastructure change, but also by those more distant. London’s Heathrow airport is one of the busiest in the world; it services more international passengers than any other airport. It is a necessity of the local people and economy, whether they choose to accept that or not.
This is by no means an endorsement for a new runway. However, environmental groups have often enhanced the dangers of new airport and runway construction. While there is no denying that aircraft emit pollutants, the positive impacts of a new runway at Heathrow need to be accurately presented along with its detriments before an enlightened decision can be made.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Related Posts:
7 Responses to “A View of the Proposed Heathrow Expansion from the Other Side”
To reduce spam, comments are automatically closed 30 days after the last comment. If you would like to comment on any closed thread, please use the contact form at the top of this page.
You are wrong on a number of points. You need to read the NATS technical reports regarding the approaches and departures. You also need to speak to the 10,000 people left sitting within metres of this new airport boundary (which creeps 1500m to the north of the current one). You need to speak to the 3000+ people who will lose their homes (not 1000). You need to speak to all the families round here who will have no schools to send their children to. You also need to consider the safety issue. Had that plane been landing on the 3rd runway it would not have cleared the church located at the end of it. There is also a school at the end of the third runway - within the public safety zone that the DfT and BAA think is OK to leave there. Also on safety planes would be landing/taking off within metres of the M4 motorway and the M4/M25 interchange. Thousands of people will still be living here - how is that safe. Thousands of people will be sandwiched BETWEEN the current north runway and a 3rd runway - how is that safe. The government is not purchasing the “affected lands” but BAA can have it all at a knock-down price. Since when do we let foreign-owned companies retain the compulsory purchase rights of the British companies they buy?
With regard to noise. Noise will be a huge problem. The 57dBA contour cannot exceed the area it was in 2002. Not a problem because Concorde is not flying - so now we have dozens of planes taking off making constant noise instead of just a couple of Concorde episodes per day. Also the 54dBA noise contour will increase for some people this is an increase of 6-8dBA - a huge increase if you know enough about noise. This impacts on hundreds of thousands of people who don’t even know it because its not in the DfT consultation document.
The areas beside the M4 are not largely inpopulated. Come and visit, I’ll show you around.
The government is using the economic argument, yet businesses are contradicting what they’re saying. Businesses are fully aware of the contribution airports play in the economy, but they don’t want an expanded Heathrow.
An expanded Heathrow will do nothing for the local economy. A third runway is to facilitate transfer passengers. Currently 32% of passengers at Heathrow transfer with a third runway this will rise to over 50% - over half the passengers using Heathrow will never see the outside of the airport, but hey they will be adding to that Spanish company’s coffers quite nicely.
They won’t rule out further expansion after this - when will it stop. How many more homes need to be lost? How many more schools need to be demolished or subjected to indescribable noise under the flight paths? How much longer are we prepared to put up with the erosion of our communities? Are we really prepared to destroy our heritage - the 5 Heathrow Villages are ancient medieval villages with some fantastice heritage sites - do we just give all that up for the sake of making BAA money?
[Reply: As I said in the post, this is an important argument. I am not from the area, so do not know how important these villages are to the local culture. As such, I decided not to comment on this aspect. If you think this is important, then I fully support your views against expansion.]
I’m not an environmentalist, I’m not anti-flying or anti-Heathrow. I’m an ordinary mother of three small children who has decided its time to take a stand for my friends and family who live in this area. The area I was born in, the area my husband was born in, the area my sons where born in, the area the a lot of my friends were born in. We didn’t move here we were born here and we are not going anywhere.
Time to put peoples lives before profits!
You have forgotten the hundreds of thousands of people who, till now, are unaffected by aircraft noise, and whose homes will be overflown by the extra planes which will, in my family’s case, mean that not only have they moved their entire family from St Margaret’s to avoid the incredible noise from landing planes, but their new house in Acton which they have spent time and money doing up, will be under a flight path (as will so many across the whole of London, from east London to Windsor and beyond, so this is not just a local Heathrow issue) and cause them to move the entire family once again, this time well away from London, thus breaking up my family, and I am sure this pattern will be replicated throughout the capital.
You will also have ignored the fact that we have now had a taste of what is to come should the Cranford agreement be done away with, after the terrifying crash at Heathrow; those people near the north runway had noise day and night while planes took off in a continuous stream from one runway. A third runway would not help because the 50% increase in flights will mean that each runway is used to maximum capacity all day.
[Reply: The Cranford agreement only restricts the use of the north runway for takeoffs departing eastward. It says nothing about landings to the west. Since most of the time the airport is landing to the west, any additional noise experienced near Cranford is likely the result of needing to land all aircraft on the north runway. Since the Cranford agreement did not involve landing aircraft, the additional noise is not likely to be similar to what you would experience if the Cranford agreement is dissolved. In fact, since departure noise is now less than arrival noise (contrary to when the agreement was reached), redaction of the Cranford agreement would likely reduce noise experienced by those in places such as Windsor when the airport is landing traffic to the east.]
I live in Twickenham, and welcomed Concorde twice a day at precise times, it was w wonder to behold and we knew exactly when it was taking off and landing. Now we have planes thundering through the sies just above us for half the day, that is hardly bearable, to ask us to have them all day is unforgivable.
I just hope that the incumbent mayoral candidates stick to their words and highlight for ALL Londoners just what is in store for them ALL should we worry about economies, instead of people’s lives.
Dear atmoz,
Thanks for highlighting my post.
Heathrow expansion does not entail merely the addition of a runway.
By capacity, this is the equivalent of adding an airport the size of Gatwick to Heathrow.
ATMs (air transport movements, which most people simply call ‘flights’) will rise from 460,000 to 720,000 by 2020, under different scenarios listed in DfT proposals for Adding Capacity at Heathrow airport Annex C.
The UK is the first country to introduce a national Climate Change Bill.
DfT proposals make a mockery of the Climate Change Bill.
The DfT proposals for Adding Capacity at Heathrow airport ignore climate change, except where emissions can be traded away, by aviation over-emitters paying other industries to reduce their emissions further. This is totally unrealistic (dare I go so far as to say unfair?).
Government-blessed expansion of greenhouse gas emissions by the aviation industry flies in the face of the latest assessments from the IPCC and shows disrespect to the work of thousands of world-class scientists who continue to call for significant cuts in emissions.
Unrestrained growth in demand for air travel is what BAA are basing their ATM projections on.
At some point many systems burst through incessant expansion. Enough’s enough.
The Tyndall Centre produced a report for Friends of the Earth on ‘Aviation in a low-carbon EU’ and called for strengthening of the EU ETS. The Tyndall servers are down until Monday, but FOE have press release with links to summary and full report if you want to check out their considered advice this weekend.
Some of our local arguments may well be criticised for appearing wrong to anyone who does not live under the flight path.
Needless to say, despite living under the current plane-a-minute scenario, I am more concerned at the climate change implications. The two-faced nature of a government that on the one hand says, through Defra, each of us must do our little bit to combat climate change and every little helps, while every little bit we do is completely swamped and swept away by grand plans announced by DfT, with BAA grandstanding its fabulous “Future Heathrow” “Heathrow Project” “Heathrow City” and “New airport for London” campaigns and ideas to attract and keep stakeholders happy.
By the way, in addition to a third runway, sixth terminal, near-doubling of flights and doubling of passengers and traffic in the Heathrow area, …
… BAA states that it plans to remodel the entire Heathrow site in the next few years …
… and BAA this week refused to rule out plans for further expansion, including a fourth runway (they have identified which villages to destroy for that one already) and a seventh terminal.
We need to draw a line in the sand now.
This is it.—————————————————————
Hence my call to all students to help spread the word online. This is not just a local issue. Airport expansion is symptomatic of the forces around the world that require incessant growth to survive and oppose actions to combat climate change.
Hey, where did you get those screenshots of the cool Google maps from? I poked around and couldn’t find anything.
I had already made my own Google map annotation, showing which people will be affected by an overflight every 140s (on arrival) if a third runway is built.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=103855413165361614799.00044375b01ca0c588b01
Your logic regarding noise is flawed and really highlights the fact that you live nowhere near LHR or indeed any airport if I had to hazard a guess. There will obviously be another thin red line going over Brentford, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Earls Court and Kensington. Planes land from the west 70-80% of the time. [Editor's note: I believe he meant to say that planes land from the east most of the time. Or land to the west. This is consistent with the rest of the paragraph.] I live under a thin red line “way out in Fulham” and although the govt won’t admit there’s a problem, it is horrible during the peak hours (around 90s between arrivals the whole time) and annoying the rest of the time (some larger spacings as some planes join closer to touchdown). Summer is the worst as you can imagine. Thankfully there is a half day of relative peace as planes land on the other runway. When this alternation is removed (for 10 years, or longer if you don’t trust the government), planes will land at slightly larger spacings (140s, to allow takeoffs in between) but they will have to line up way out over central London. I know this because I’ve read the NATS technical document and I’ve asked ATC people on the web. That means relentless arrivals for at least tens of thousands more people. The relentlessness is what really degrades quality of life. Imagine a pizza delivery moped going past your house every 140s all day. As pam said above, you would happily swap 50 of those for one (insert name of ridiculously noisy motorbike or sports car here).
I don’t know much about departures so will not say anything about that.
I admit that some of the extra blight for runway 3 will be over the M4, but not that much. For example these people won’t be too happy:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=103855413165361614799.00044375b01ca0c588b01&ll=51.49115,-0.3789&spn=0.007883,0.018947&z=16&om=0
nor will people who used to enjoy this park
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=103855413165361614799.00044375b01ca0c588b01
Another thing, on safety… do you honestly believe that a third runway will be built (with private money, I believe is the case) and it will not be used to full capacity? Even the government is not that naive - the consultation does make it clear that all available capacity will be used (I guess unless local pollution limits are exceeded).
Good to get the debate out here on the web though. Most of the people I saw at one (packed) public meeting were not exactly the blogging generation!
The Google maps park link should be this:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=103855413165361614799.00044375b01ca0c588b01&ll=51.493034,-0.350361&spn=0.015765,0.037894&z=15&om=0
sorry for the inconvenience.
Thanks for all the comments. I just want to say that I do live near an airport, 5 miles (8 km) on the centerline of a runway. It is obviouly not as busy as Heathrow, but I do understand aircraft noise.
Another thing I don’t understand are the local politics. In the US, airport expansion is very unpopular, and as a result politicians who favor it are usually voted out of office. Airport contraction, or closure, is much more favored by the public. Would it not be possible to vote these people out of office?
From my limited research this planning for expansion has been going on for a long time; enough that I would think an election has occured. In my view, that is the proper way to deal with disagreements you have with the government.
To Bob: As I said in the post, the flight tracks are from this site. I then used an image processing program to overlay the tracks onto the map from Google. Feel free to use them if you’d like. You can even add the new centerline for the new runway. But please download them; don’t hotlink. And a link back would be nice (but there’s no way I could enforce that).
Dear Atmoz,
Some politics are the same the world over. Look at Bush’n'Co on climate change!
There is a big disconnect between local and national politics on issues such as climate change and energy policies.
Airport expansion is opposed by local MPs and MEPs ~ there is complete cross-party unity on Heathrow! Locally, this is not a partisan issue, as it reflects deeper human concerns.
Meanwhile, airport expansion is supported by ministers (front-benchers) because government economic considerations ignoring climate impacts are symbiotically aligned with the need for growth in the construction, energy and transport industries—political risk assessment is a question of pitting the common benefit of such powerful businesses against the health and welfare of the world and near powerless individuals.
Yes, elections have occurred, but national elections are not won nor lost on local issues, especially when national media coverage has been minimal. There has been a dearth of information on airport expansion nationally. The Sunday Observer does a good job of redressing the balance today.
Incidentally, I have heard from various sources (exit poll by our borough council at DfT public exhibition, for instance) that the large majority of local objections to this DfT consultation include climate change. This is why the airport expansion deserves to get wider attention than a traditional NIMBY project.