New runway for Heathrow planned
Guest
Posts: n/a
New runway for Heathrow planned
Report in the Independent.
Government likely to back new Heathrow runway
By Barrie Clement, Transport Editor
25 June 2001
Secret plans for another runway at Heathrow are expected to be approved by the Government in a decision that will anger environmentalists and enrage the hundreds of thousands of people who will live under its flight path.
Ministers were desperate to keep the scheme under wraps until after the publication of an official report, which is expected to back construction of the controversial Terminal 5 at the west London airport. While approval for the additional terminal will dismay green activists, news that ministers also intend to sanction another runway will make the furore worse.
Airlines have submitted the plan for an extra runway at Heathrow as their main solution to increasing demand for air travel. However, they have also submitted a proposal for a runway parallel to the existing strip at Gatwick as a less-favoured option. Ministers are expected to favour the Heathrow project and announce their approval next year, but wanted the storm over Terminal 5 to die down first.
The new landing strip at Heathrow would run parallel to the M4 and would be shorter than the existing two runways. It is intended to take shorter-haul aircraft to minimise the noise and nuisance. It would also be contained largely within the existing perimeters of the airport, which would mean the compulsory purchase of fewer than 100 houses.
Airlines have pointed out that the favoured scheme would free the two existing longer runways to take inter-continental aircraft only. The Gatwick option would also minimise environmental damage, according to its supporters.
Airline executives have told the Government that, without the additional capacity, Heathrow would play second fiddle to rival airports on the Continent. They say this would damage the entire economy.
Ministers will be able to minimise the power of protests through new planning procedures. Proposals for motorways and airport projects would be approved in principle by Parliament. Planning inquiries would be limited to considering "detailed and local matters''.
Ministers received a report on the construction of Heathrow's Terminal 5 some six months ago. Roy Vandermeer QC, who chaired the inquiry, is understood to have recommended that the total number of flights should not exceed 453,000 * a figure already reached.Ministers are thought likely to allow the limit to be exceeded when they approve the new terminal.
Government likely to back new Heathrow runway
By Barrie Clement, Transport Editor
25 June 2001
Secret plans for another runway at Heathrow are expected to be approved by the Government in a decision that will anger environmentalists and enrage the hundreds of thousands of people who will live under its flight path.
Ministers were desperate to keep the scheme under wraps until after the publication of an official report, which is expected to back construction of the controversial Terminal 5 at the west London airport. While approval for the additional terminal will dismay green activists, news that ministers also intend to sanction another runway will make the furore worse.
Airlines have submitted the plan for an extra runway at Heathrow as their main solution to increasing demand for air travel. However, they have also submitted a proposal for a runway parallel to the existing strip at Gatwick as a less-favoured option. Ministers are expected to favour the Heathrow project and announce their approval next year, but wanted the storm over Terminal 5 to die down first.
The new landing strip at Heathrow would run parallel to the M4 and would be shorter than the existing two runways. It is intended to take shorter-haul aircraft to minimise the noise and nuisance. It would also be contained largely within the existing perimeters of the airport, which would mean the compulsory purchase of fewer than 100 houses.
Airlines have pointed out that the favoured scheme would free the two existing longer runways to take inter-continental aircraft only. The Gatwick option would also minimise environmental damage, according to its supporters.
Airline executives have told the Government that, without the additional capacity, Heathrow would play second fiddle to rival airports on the Continent. They say this would damage the entire economy.
Ministers will be able to minimise the power of protests through new planning procedures. Proposals for motorways and airport projects would be approved in principle by Parliament. Planning inquiries would be limited to considering "detailed and local matters''.
Ministers received a report on the construction of Heathrow's Terminal 5 some six months ago. Roy Vandermeer QC, who chaired the inquiry, is understood to have recommended that the total number of flights should not exceed 453,000 * a figure already reached.Ministers are thought likely to allow the limit to be exceeded when they approve the new terminal.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A very welcome development if it happens - and unexpectedly courageous, if the government backs it all the way. With all of LHR's competing airoports in Europe having new runways - AMS, FRA and CDG - it has to be done. There's going to be opposition and lots of litigation, but the new legislation should at least prevent a repeat of the T5 debacle.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thinks: Why do we need another runway when now - supposedly the busiest time of the year - we often have periods of light traffic in the afternoon? Also the place goes dead long before the night noise ban Airlines claim it's because people don't want to travel at those times... If they did I reckon we could land another 50-100 per day with the current concrete.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sounds like more 'New Labour' spin and humbug - by the time it has got through Tony won't have to worry - so he will say whatever makes him popular. As Heathrow Director says the place could be better utilised. Labour at their best - just talk about all the fantastic investment they are going to make - yeah right!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
As a Heathrow Resident (5 miles East of airport) and aviation enthusiast I feel this is yet another example of the authorities fudging the issue.....
Heathrow is unfortunately saturated (most of the day). They did 1300+ movements in a day last week for the first time ever. It is physically constrained and does not have very good communications links. There are also some serious safety risks due to the density of population around the airport.
It also has a massive impact on the local economy (positive) and the environment ( negative)
Terminal 5 was "sold" to the inquiry and local residents on the basis of no additional runway and no increase in flight numbers. BUT then we hear about a new runway and the stealth increase of daily movements through new operating and ATC procedures (and this does lead to more noise, more polution, more traffic etc etc).
Lets face the simple fact that SE England needs a planned mega airport like Hong Kong. Positioned suitably for access to London (where circa 50% of users need to travel) and integrated into a suitable transport infrastructure.
If only we had had the courage to do Maplin Sands in the 70's!
Heathrow is unfortunately saturated (most of the day). They did 1300+ movements in a day last week for the first time ever. It is physically constrained and does not have very good communications links. There are also some serious safety risks due to the density of population around the airport.
It also has a massive impact on the local economy (positive) and the environment ( negative)
Terminal 5 was "sold" to the inquiry and local residents on the basis of no additional runway and no increase in flight numbers. BUT then we hear about a new runway and the stealth increase of daily movements through new operating and ATC procedures (and this does lead to more noise, more polution, more traffic etc etc).
Lets face the simple fact that SE England needs a planned mega airport like Hong Kong. Positioned suitably for access to London (where circa 50% of users need to travel) and integrated into a suitable transport infrastructure.
If only we had had the courage to do Maplin Sands in the 70's!
Guest
Posts: n/a
What does the article mean by "parallel to the M4" ?
Do they mean between the present 27R/09L and the M4 ? Surely not. This would place it on the present A4 and would necessitate destroying all the those swanky hotels on the Bath Road, not to mention conflict with the M4 spur etc. Perhaps there may be room somewhere on the alignment of the north perimeter road, but that would still necessitate a lot of destruction.
Could it be south of the present 27L/09R ? Hard to believe, given T4 and the cargo / VIP areas.
Just where could it be, even a shorter 6000 foot strip ? Maybe somewhere in the northwest corner of the airport towards Longford ??
And to think LHR was built originally with 6 runways (or 12 including reciprocals). ROFL
Do they mean between the present 27R/09L and the M4 ? Surely not. This would place it on the present A4 and would necessitate destroying all the those swanky hotels on the Bath Road, not to mention conflict with the M4 spur etc. Perhaps there may be room somewhere on the alignment of the north perimeter road, but that would still necessitate a lot of destruction.
Could it be south of the present 27L/09R ? Hard to believe, given T4 and the cargo / VIP areas.
Just where could it be, even a shorter 6000 foot strip ? Maybe somewhere in the northwest corner of the airport towards Longford ??
And to think LHR was built originally with 6 runways (or 12 including reciprocals). ROFL
Guest
Posts: n/a
Akerosid's posting illustrates one of the worst aspects of the Heathrow argument - that we're apparently engaged in some hairy chest competition with other European airports for business. Should we really sit crowing on top of the dump which is Heathrow, and raising the finger to the continent? Will business really go to Germany and Holland if LHR is not expanded? Business increasingly avoids Heathrow because it's a dreadful airport. How many businessmen want to turn up three hours before a flight and pay £2 for a styrofoam container of tea while they kick their heels? The majority of the passengers who pass through Heathrow aren't going to London or coming from it. Many of them spend longer getting to the airport than they do flying to their destinations. Why funnel them all into Heathrow, and then demand expansion on the grounds that it's so popular? Surely there must come a time when the interests of Big Airlines and Bloody Awful Airports come second.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A third runway at LHR will no doubt help ease the situation in the medium term, but where's the room to expand and grow after that?
In 15-20 years time, will LHR be creaking at the seams again? Is there room for Terminal 6? 7? 8? Is there room for r/w 4? 5? Probably not, unless a large chunk of the surrounding built up area is utilised.
Surely it is time for a new airport to be built, away from built up areas, with purpose built roads and train links, and with plenty of land on option for future development and growth.
Will this happen? Probably not.
In 15-20 years time, will LHR be creaking at the seams again? Is there room for Terminal 6? 7? 8? Is there room for r/w 4? 5? Probably not, unless a large chunk of the surrounding built up area is utilised.
Surely it is time for a new airport to be built, away from built up areas, with purpose built roads and train links, and with plenty of land on option for future development and growth.
Will this happen? Probably not.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would seem to me that the area north of the A4 and south of the M4 has been ear marked for this for years only the vilage of sipson (and the CAA heathrow office) will have to go as the rest is open land ,who knows with a bit of slick planing they may not have to move the VOR.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I suspect the third runway is a public relations blind for T5. At the same time as it announces approval for T5 the government could rule out a third runway, thus taking some of the sting out of the affair. You may remember BAA pulled the same stunt on the opening day of the T5 inquiry, announcing that it would not seek a third runway at Heathrow.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I also think that the third runway (at least to the north of 27R/09L) is a blind, will never happen and is a non-starter. I know the area referred to by A and C, but if built in this strip, that would leave the A4 and its hotels and other commercial facilities standing between the new runway and the existing 27R/09L, and I do not believe in a million years this will happen, or that those buildings will be razed. Not to mention the problem of bridging the M4 spur, unless the new runway stops just before the spur.
All this is possible, I suppose, but I doubt if it is safe or desirable. And in the prevailing westerly conditions, how will aircraft taxi to the eastern end of such new runway without taking a ground tour of much of the neighbourhood
All this is possible, I suppose, but I doubt if it is safe or desirable. And in the prevailing westerly conditions, how will aircraft taxi to the eastern end of such new runway without taking a ground tour of much of the neighbourhood
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sounds a bit bizarre, but to cause minimum disruption whilst adding the capacity of a new runway, why not just build a taxiway from Northolt? The runway there is adequate for most of the tiddly little short haul aircraft using Heathrow at the moment.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The proposal, as I remember it, was a third short runway to the NNW of Heathrow on the open land to the West of the Trust House Hotel. However, this was postulated in a Government report dated 1989 so I'm not sure whether this is still a viable option.
Regarding Northolt's continued operation, I played around with my radar picture today and, assuming a third parallel runway would be displaced by 1.5km, operations at Northolt would be untenable bearing in mind that the airfield is only 4.7km from 27R/09L.
Now the suggestion of just using Northolt as the third runway is not too bizzare. It's 5500' long and easily handles 737/757 type aircraft although range/payload may be somewhat limited.
I will dig out the old (public) report tomorrow and see if I can shed any light on the discussion.
Fly Safely..........
[This message has been edited by Whipping Boy's SATCO (edited 25 June 2001).]
Regarding Northolt's continued operation, I played around with my radar picture today and, assuming a third parallel runway would be displaced by 1.5km, operations at Northolt would be untenable bearing in mind that the airfield is only 4.7km from 27R/09L.
Now the suggestion of just using Northolt as the third runway is not too bizzare. It's 5500' long and easily handles 737/757 type aircraft although range/payload may be somewhat limited.
I will dig out the old (public) report tomorrow and see if I can shed any light on the discussion.
Fly Safely..........
[This message has been edited by Whipping Boy's SATCO (edited 25 June 2001).]
