• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Airport expansions

43066

On Moderation
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
11,532
Location
London
Pretty sure breathing fuel is not good for one's health! Travel pollution (cars/taxis/buses) is a definite killer. Roads will be getting significantly less unhealthy as electrification kicks in. Airliners wont be, whatever the greenwashers say.

So no evidence that living near an airport is as bad as living near a road? Roads may be getting safer but I’m not convinced there’s any evidence that living near airports is unhealthy to start with. It’s tiny numbers of people in comparison, in any case.

What about all the people who were born in the vicinity of the airport? Or live under the expanded flightpath the third runway will create. And the noise pollution spreads out over a huge area.

Not everyone spends their lives living exactly where they were born, so it’s probably a case of tough luck? I say that has someone who lives close to one of the approach paths in SE London.

If you don't believe in climate change I don't think there's any point arguing this further.

People might acknowledge climate change but simply see economic growth as more important - especially as the UK’s contribution to carbon emissions is tiny in global terms.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
14,809
Location
Isle of Man
So no evidence that living near an airport is as bad as living near a road?
Funnily enough, there is.

A new study has revealed the health risks of living near an airport.

Researchers found people who live near airports – and are subjected to noise from planes taking off and landing – may be at greater risk of poor heart health.

Exposure to noise could increase the likelihood of suffering heart attacks, according to the study.

The team said this can lead to heart attacks, life-threatening abnormal heart rhythms, and strokes.

The study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, looked at heart imaging data from 3,635 people who lived near Heathrow, Gatwick, Birmingham or Manchester airports.

The hearts of those who lived in areas with higher aircraft noise were compared with those of people in lower aircraft noise areas.

Those living in higher noise areas had stiffer and thicker heart muscles that contracted and expanded less easily and were less efficient at pumping blood around the body.

This was especially the case for those exposed to higher aircraft noise at night, which researchers believe may be because of impaired sleep and people being more likely to be at home at night and therefore exposed to the noise.

Separate analyses of people not exposed to aircraft noise found these types of heart abnormalities could result in up to a four-fold increased risk of an event such as a heart attack, life-threatening heart rhythms, or stroke, when compared with people without these heart abnormalities.

Senior author Dr Gaby Captur, of the UCL Institute of Cardiovascular Science and consultant cardiologist at the Royal Free Hospital, London, said: “Our study is observational so we cannot say with certainty that high levels of aircraft noise caused these differences in heart structure and function.

“However, our findings add to a growing body of evidence that aircraft noise can adversely affect heart health and our health more generally.
Earlier research led by the University of Leicester estimated that about 5% of adults in England were exposed to aircraft noise exceeding 50 decibels during the day or night.

And a third runway at Heathrow just spreads the love even further across London. The early morning flights were noticeable enough to wake me up when I lived in Hemel Hempstead and Muswell Hill, both of which are twenty miles from Heathrow.
 

renegademaster

Established Member
Joined
22 Jun 2023
Messages
1,697
Location
Croydon
As I said further upthread, it is truly amazing how people like Reeves don’t demand infrastructure be built in their back garden. Reeves objected to Leeds/Bradford expansion for that reason.

Starmer professes to hate NIMBYs so fine, let’s reincarnate the Ringway plans and build a flyover right by his bedroom window and prevent him from moving. Same with any MPs complaining about anti-nuclear campaigners: make them live next door to Dungeness. If it’s so safe and so pleasant they won’t mind, will they?
Your post is basically an argument to build nothing ever.
Local input to planning applications is rarely good faith. I don't blame them , it's logical once you have gotten up the ladder to pull it from behind you, everybody would like a nice quiet house in the countryside, but realistically on an island of 60 million most people won't get that.

Most homeowners and politicians are NIMBYS when it comes to their locality , that's nothing new, however even them believe something should be built , just not where they live. We *need* new construction and shouldn't use some hypocrite politicians as an excuse to block a needed development
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
9,139
So no evidence that living near an airport is as bad as living near a road?

Aviation is a primary source of PM pollution around airports. A significant share (14% of aviation PM emissions occur during the relatively short landing and take-off cycle, and PM emitted by aircraft spread in a larger area surrounding airports compared to road transport PM emissions. Long term exposure to aviation PM emissions results in an estimated number of premature deaths between 14,000 and 21,200 every year, and may be related with cardiovascular issues and hospitalisation for asthma, respiratory, and heart conditions. Short term exposure can cause symptoms like coughing and difficulty breathing.
The study provides a first estimate of the health effects caused by aviation-related UFP in Europe, by summarizing the available scientific evidence, and extrapolating data from the Amsterdam Schiphol Airport area to the main European airports. The analysis estimates that a total of 280,000 cases of high blood pressure, 330,000 cases of diabetes, and 18,000 cases of dementia may be linked to UFP emissions among the 51,5 million people living around the 32 busiest airports in Europe
PM=Particulate matter
UFP = Ultra Fine Particles
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
14,809
Location
Isle of Man
Your post is basically an argument to build nothing ever. Local input to planning applications is rarely good faith.
There is no 'good faith' on the developers' side either, yet those demanding ever more expansion don't ever seem to acknowledge this.

As we see time and time and time again, developers will promise the bare minimum to hoodwink local planning authorities into accepting proposals. If that doesn't work "pressure" (to choose my words carefully) will be put on national political leaders to trample over local opposition. This is across the political spectrum; the SNP decided, after "persuasion", that Donald Trump's golf course in Aberdeen was a matter of the utmost national interest. The promised mitigations for the valuable and fragile sand dunes never happened and enforcement there came none.

It happens all the time. Where I used to live in Cumbria, a company was given permission to build a stone quarry on the condition that, when the quarrying ended, they would restore the land. Come the last day of quarrying the operator "went bust" and there was no money for the restoration. Amazing coincidence that they had enough money for 25 years of operation but they ran out of it the second they had to restore the land.

Of course people don't want a stonking great airport/motorway/nuclear power station built in their back garden. That much is obvious. But on top of the utmost bad faith we see from developers when it comes to paying for mitigations, there's also precious little good faith present in the choosing of the locations for these facilities either.

The prime consideration seems to be whether the people who live there are rich enough to fight back. People in Hounslow and Uxbridge boroughs probably aren't, so screw them seems to be Heathrow's attitude. Which is why they're proposing to expand northwards instead of southwards. The rich people around Staines might have rather more to say about the plans.

Starmer was ranting again about 'NIMBYism' yesterday. He's not offering his £10M worth of pristine Surrey countryside up for development for new houses/airports/motorways/nuclear power stations. Why might that be, I wonder?

It's the same everywhere. Here in the Isle of Man it's apparently a national imperative to build an onshore wind farm. By far and away the best land to build it on will be in the north of the island. But the Chief Minister- a man who is Margaret Thatcher made by Temu- lives in the north of the island in a very large and very expensive home. So, purely coincidentally, the government here have decided that the north of the island isn't the best place for it after all. I'm sure that decision was completely above board.
 
Last edited:

renegademaster

Established Member
Joined
22 Jun 2023
Messages
1,697
Location
Croydon
The prime consideration seems to be whether the people who live there are rich enough to fight back.
Or that their is a lot more empty land to the north than their is to the south, so less houses to demolish, not everything is a class war conspiracy
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
14,809
Location
Isle of Man
Or that their is a lot more empty land to the north than their is to the south, so less houses to demolish, not everything is a class war conspiracy
Except there's as much lightly-developed land to the south of the airport as there is to the north. Not many people live on Staines Moor.

It's not a class war conspiracy, it's a pragmatic approach to take from Heathrow. Pick on people who can't fight back. We saw exactly the same with HS2; the line will go under Amersham and The Chalfonts but will go through places like Southam and Brackley.
 
Last edited:

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
3,264
The prime consideration seems to be whether the people who live there are rich enough to fight back. People in Hounslow and Uxbridge boroughs probably aren't, so screw them seems to be Heathrow's attitude. Which is why they're proposing to expand northwards instead of southwards. The rich people around Staines might have rather more to say about the plans.
Although the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, which will likely have a lot more landing aircraft closer to the ground passing over than with current operations, definitely has the money and will to fight it!
 

Mawkie

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2016
Messages
674
Although the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, which will likely have a lot more landing aircraft closer to the ground passing over than with current operations, definitely has the money and will to fight it!
According to the BBC, it's on the brink of bankruptcy

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg4rgll4k9o

A local authority has warned it could go effectively bankrupt without a "significant council tax increase".

Leaders at the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (RBWM) have proposed a 25% hike as part of draft budget plans.
 

Mawkie

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2016
Messages
674
If you think that will stop them, think again.... They'd probably rather merge with Slough than allow Heathrow to expand.
Another council that already declared a Section 114 notice.

Councils around the airport might not even have the cash to fight the plans.
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
3,264
Another council that already declared a Section 114 notice.

Councils around the airport might not even have the cash to fight the plans.
I think that you have missed the point. A good chunk of the RBWM hates Slough with a passion. They will find the cash to fight it if they have to.
 
Joined
9 Jul 2011
Messages
799
Although the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, which will likely have a lot more landing aircraft closer to the ground passing over than with current operations, definitely has the money and will to fight it!

Taking off from Heathrow, aircraft initially follow Noise Preferential Routes (NPR’s), which constitute the first part of the various Standard Instrument Departures (SID’s).
These are designed to avoid or minimise noise nusiance to local areas.

On westerly operations, which accounts for about 70% of operations during the year, departures heading west towards Windsor, either turn to fly well south of the town, or fly between Windsor and Slough, overhead the open area between Eton and the M4/Slough.

Westerly departures from a new northern runway, would follow similar routings.

On easterlies, the approach path centreline for the current northern runway (09L) is directly overhead the Windsor town centre and the castle. This presents the worst noise nuisance for Windsor.
Aircraft landing on 09R fly just to the south of the town and affect far fewer homes.
An easterly approach to a new northern runway, would pass north of the town, overhead the open space between Eton and Slough.
With 3 runways, the likelihood is that Windsor will experience reduced noise impact, even with a significant increase in movements.

Aircraft noise is much reduced these days, compared to the 1970’s and 80’s, or even the early 00’s.
I can speak from direct experience of living in the centre of Windsor, not far from the castle, for nearly 10 years from the late 70’s until the late 80’s.
Easterly landings passed directly overhead. It was very noisy on those days.
Modern airliners are a world apart from those noisy Tridents, 727’s, DC9’s, early (classic) 747’s, Tristars, DC10’s, 707’s, DC8’s etc, that flew overhead every couple of minutes.

After moving from Windsor, I lived in Maidenhead for 8 years.
Aircraft noise was almost a non-issue and that was back then!





.
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
3,264
Taking off from Heathrow, aircraft initially follow Noise Preferential Routes (NPR’s), which constitute the first part of the various Standard Instrument Departures (SID’s).
These are designed to avoid or minimise noise nusiance to local areas.

On westerly operations, which accounts for about 70% of operations during the year, departures heading west towards Windsor, either turn to fly well south of the town, or fly between Windsor and Slough, overhead the open area between Eton and the M4/Slough.

Westerly departures from a new northern runway, would follow similar routings.

On easterlies, the approach path centreline for the current northern runway (09L) is directly overhead the Windsor town centre and the castle. This presents the worst noise nuisance for Windsor.
Aircraft landing on 09R fly just to the south of the town and affect far fewer homes.
An easterly approach to a new northern runway, would pass north of the town, overhead the open space between Eton and Slough.
With 3 runways, the likelihood is that Windsor will experience reduced noise impact, even with a significant increase in movements.

Aircraft noise is much reduced these days, compared to the 1970’s and 80’s, or even the early 00’s.
I can speak from direct experience of living in the centre of Windsor, not far from the castle, for nearly 10 years from the late 70’s until the late 80’s.
Easterly landings passed directly overhead. It was very noisy on those days.
Modern airliners are a world apart from those noisy Tridents, 727’s, DC9’s, early (classic) 747’s, Tristars, DC10’s, 707’s, DC8’s etc, that flew overhead every couple of minutes.

After moving from Windsor, I lived in Maidenhead for 8 years.
Aircraft noise was almost a non-issue and that was back then!





.
Even if the new runway's departures pass near Eton, that is still some very valuable land, including an institution with a lot of money!

I do appreciate that technological advancements have changed the amount of noise generated by aircraft, but I don't think it's changed to the extent that the eastern Thames Valley authorities will just accept a 3rd runway.

I remember hearing aeroplane pass over my primary school in northern Reading regularly (only about 10-15 years ago, and it is still noticeable when I visit the area), which was noticeable even that far out. Even with reductions in noise, the impact on communities that do have the money to fight back is going to be significant.

We need to relocate hub airports away from dense urban areas and hence Heathrow needs a new site.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
14,809
Location
Isle of Man
Although the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, which will likely have a lot more landing aircraft closer to the ground passing over than with current operations
Luckily they won’t be affected. The current paths are mostly over the uninhabited Great Park. The new paths will likely be over Slough.

Modern airliners are a world apart from those noisy Tridents, 727’s, DC9’s, early (classic) 747’s, Tristars, DC10’s, 707’s, DC8’s etc, that flew overhead every couple of minutes
They’re better but not much better. And whatever you save in decibels you lose in flight frequency- there’s a third more flights at Heathrow than there was in 1990.
 

AlastairFraser

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
3,264
Luckily they won’t be affected. The current paths are mostly over the uninhabited Great Park. The new paths will likely be over Slough.
Eton/Eton Wick is in the RBWM and the area just west of that would be Dorney in Bucks I believe.
 

Dr_Paul

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2013
Messages
1,471
The prime consideration seems to be whether the people who live there are rich enough to fight back. People in Hounslow and Uxbridge boroughs probably aren't, so screw them seems to be Heathrow's attitude. Which is why they're proposing to expand northwards instead of southwards. The rich people around Staines might have rather more to say about the plans.
The proposed new runway at Heathrow will be to the north of the Bath Road, and thus its approach when the wind is in the west will be over scruffy Brentford and not affluent Richmond and Kew. With an east wind, the approach will be over Slough, and Staines and Windsor won't be subject to more noise.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
9,139
The proposed new runway at Heathrow will be to the north of the Bath Road, and thus its approach when the wind is in the west will be over scruffy Brentford and not affluent Richmond and Kew. With an east wind, the approach will be over Slough, and Staines and Windsor won't be subject to more noise.
If there are more planes there will be more noise in Windsor - plane noise affects a much wider area than just underneath, particularly during climbing and descending.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
8,057
Location
West Wiltshire
The proposed new runway at Heathrow will be to the north of the Bath Road, and thus its approach when the wind is in the west will be over scruffy Brentford and not affluent Richmond and Kew. With an east wind, the approach will be over Slough, and Staines and Windsor won't be subject to more noise.
The plan to build runway north of Bath Road goes back to 1946, almost 80 years ago. At the time would have been 3 runways approx 60 degrees to each other as piston engine planes couldn't tolerate crosswinds like modern planes.

There is article with maps and plans on this link

 

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
3,255
Location
Stevenage
The plan to build runway north of Bath Road goes back to 1946, almost 80 years ago. At the time would have been 3 runways approx 60 degrees to each other as piston engine planes couldn't tolerate crosswinds like modern planes.
I believe it was more a combination of tail wheel undercarriage and the general state of aircraft design than the engine type. Modern propellor aircraft can handle crosswinds.
 

renegademaster

Established Member
Joined
22 Jun 2023
Messages
1,697
Location
Croydon
Anyone accusing the planned runaway to be deliberately avoiding the posher residents needs to propose an alternate runway, given the geography around it the only really logical decision would be to put the runway immediately to the north , running the same heading as the others
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
8,057
Location
West Wiltshire
Heathrow commits to steel charter (to buy UK steel for expansion) per this Government announcement today

  • Heathrow Airport announces new multibillion-pound investment programme to expand airport, including new terminal buildings, aircraft stands, passenger infrastructure and work towards its third runway.
  • Government welcomes major vote of confidence from Heathrow in its growth mission after backing a third runway, expected to secure thousands of steel jobs across the UK.
  • Heathrow signs the UK Steel Charter and commits to using UK-made steel for its construction projects wherever possible, giving a major boost to the sector.

 
Joined
9 Jul 2011
Messages
799
…..They’re better but not much better. And whatever you save in decibels you lose in flight frequency- there’s a third more flights at Heathrow than there was in 1990.

The increased movements at Heathrow have mostly been accommodated by filling out the early morning and evening periods.
During the peak daytime, there hasn’t been much, if any increase, due to the fact that since the 1970’s, aircraft were already tightly packed in to the minimum allowed departure and arrival spacing, during the long peak periods.
(Note: time separation is used for departures and lateral distance (in nm’s) is applied between arrivals).

In fact, the increased use of “Heavy” aircraft types, reduces the hourly movement rate, because of the wake vortex separation minima.

Although the airport has always been very busy with early morning long haul landings, until the late 1990’s / early 2000’s, the first flights departing Heathrow, didn’t get airborne until after 0715’ish (usually BA302 to Paris CDG), with not many departing flights until after 0730-0740.
These days, departing flights to European destinations are setting off not long after 0600 and both runways are in full flow by 0630.


.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,815
Location
UK
The Green Party has issued a thoughtful comment in response to this news.




One alternative to airport expansion is to make better use of existing capacity for more longer distance international/intercontinental flights by restricting short distance flights where surface transport provides a reasonable alternative, as has been done in France. For London Heathrow, flights could be prohibited to destinations that have a regular direct train service from central London at least every 2 hours and taking less than 5 hours. If this was implemented, Brussels, Edinburgh, Glasgow (Abbotsinch), Manchester, Newcastle and Paris (Charles de Gaulle/Orly) would no longer be served, freeing up a significant number of slots for longer distance flights.
This is a simplistic argument.
The short haul slots don't necessarily convert to long haul slots. The destinations you mentioned are at A gates which don't fit Long Haul planes.
There needs to be a longer gap between takeoffs of bigger planes Vs an A320. So more A320s can take off Vs a Boeing 777.

The slots need to exist at the destination airport, because of the time differences on long haul routes. Newcastle/Manchester departures may not marry up if the slot means arriving at the destination at the middle of the night.

BA also has a shortage of Long Haul planes anyway
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
4,708
Location
The Fens
The destinations you mentioned are at A gates which don't fit Long Haul planes.

BA also has a shortage of Long Haul planes anyway
Neither of these are insurmountable obstacles.

Terminals can be reconfigured, as demonstrated by today's announcement.

The BA fleet is not frozen in perpetuity, and they have plenty of time to rebalance the fleet.
 

renegademaster

Established Member
Joined
22 Jun 2023
Messages
1,697
Location
Croydon
The Green Party has issued a thoughtful comment in response to this news.




One alternative to airport expansion is to make better use of existing capacity for more longer distance international/intercontinental flights by restricting short distance flights where surface transport provides a reasonable alternative, as has been done in France. For London Heathrow, flights could be prohibited to destinations that have a regular direct train service from central London at least every 2 hours and taking less than 5 hours. If this was implemented, Brussels, Edinburgh, Glasgow (Abbotsinch), Manchester, Newcastle and Paris (Charles de Gaulle/Orly) would no longer be served, freeing up a significant number of slots for longer distance flights.
That proposal would just end up with Edinburgh, Glasgow and Manchester passengers connecting at Schiphol or Dublin instead
 

Dstock7080

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2010
Messages
3,076
Location
West London
Heathrow Airport press release regarding terminal expansion:
Full details of the investment programme, phasing, and the pathway to a third runway will be part of Heathrow’s initial proposals submitted to Government this summer, but plans confirmed today will include new investment in: 

  • Terminal infrastructure: Heathrow will work with airlines and the regulator to finalise plans to invest in the capacity of Terminal 2 and make changes to optimise and increase passenger capacity in Terminal 5.  
  • Improving customer experience and punctuality: Reconfigure and improve the layout of the airfield, increasing the number of aircraft stands, to improve resilience and punctuality.  
  • Local transport connections and sustainable travel: The investment programme includes plans to further improve bus and coach connections to encourage sustainable and active travel options and benefit our local communities.
 

Top