Sponsored Post: The plan for a quieter Heathrow expansion

Heathrow drives the economic competitiveness of London and the South East. Its uniquely attractive catchment area, in turn a result of Heathrow’s connectivity, results in Heathrow’s airlines flying more premium seats per aircraft than any other major hub. The Thames Valley is home to the European headquarters of ten of the top 30 global brands: an economic powerhouse dependent on access to global markets.

We at Heathrow Hub believe that our scheme has significant advantages over every other proposal under consideration.

embed-image-2Heathrow Hub is an integrated air and rail facility which would double the number of Heathrow’s available aircraft slots, allowing more flights while also reducing delays and improving the airport’s resilience and efficiency. The extra capacity could reduce noise impacts by reducing the airport’s opening hours, allowing early morning arrivals to land two miles further west (reducing noise over much of London). It also creates opportunities for noise mitigation, by allowing some slots to be used to facilitate runway alternation, and would be compatible with innovative noise reduction techniques like quieter approaches and steeper climb-outs. Crucially, few (if any) new areas will be brought into the airport’s noise footprint. The scheme would also be cost effective: the cost and the airport user charges would be much lower than that of any other new airport. It would also be entirely privately funded.

embed-image-1The scheme involves extending both of the existing runways up to a total length of about 7,000 metres and dividing them so that they each provides two, full-length, runways, allowing simultaneous take-offs and landings. It also includes a new passenger interchange immediately north of Terminal 5, directly connecting the airport with the M25 motorway, Crossrail, the Great Western Main Line and, as an option, an alternative HS2 route via the airport.

Read more by .
This entry was posted in Sponsored Post.
Advert

10 Comments

  • Peter Andrews 12th Nov '13 - 4:38pm

    What are the current lengths of the runways and what is the risk of planes overrunning from the first runway into the second runway?

  • “Heathrow drives the economic competitiveness of London and the South East.”

    No it does not. It is one factor among many. That’s like saying the only reason Paris is the economic hub of France is because of Charles de Gaulle Airport or that Frankfurt exists because of its airport. Not true.

    “The extra capacity could reduce noise impacts by reducing the airport’s opening hours”

    Note the word “could”, to which I would add “but probably won’t”. As if the airlines are going to accept the operational problems of further opening hours restrictions. It’s just not going to happen.

    Expanding Heathrow is simply compounding existing problems and digging us even deeper into the pit we currently find ourselves in. It’s just a very bad idea which could spread blight and pollution across vast swathes of West London.

  • jenny barnes 12th Nov '13 - 9:04pm

    This seems similar, but probably not as good, as the Centre Forum idea of 4 runways to the west of the existing ones. Combined with a switch to exclude noisier aircraft, and a steeper glide path for narrow body jets, the net noise foot print remained about the same. http://www.centreforum.org/index.php/mainpublications/462-bigger-and-quieter
    The report analyses the other options in some detail. Well worth a read, rather a knee jerk rejection.

  • Peter:
    – A 747 needs 3000m to take off, fully laden. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_747#Specifications)
    You can land on a shorter runway – 2100m-ish as per New York Newark Liberty International. (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080326081716AA1uXcN)

  • Peter:
    Heathrow’s current runways are 3902m and 3658m (http://www.ukaccs.info/profiles.htm )

    It would seem that Heathrow Hub would extend these to an overall length of 7000m before division. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Heathrow_Airport#Future_expansion )

  • peter tyzack 13th Nov '13 - 9:20am

    ..747..Tim? But the A380 carries more passengers, with less fuel, is quieter and needs a shorter runway. The new generation of Airbus planes will reduce the need for any further expansion, together with shifting the tax on flights from ‘per-plane’ to ‘per-passenger’ to ensure flight slots are efficiently used.

  • Toby Fenwick 13th Nov '13 - 11:20am

    Would this be the same Heathrow Hub promoters who have reportedly bought options over the land on which it would be built? See today’s Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/12/heathrow-hub-quieter-four-runway-airport

  • “Heathrow Hub is an integrated air and rail facility”

    Does that mean rail links westwards are planned, to replace the current hour long bus link to Reading train station ?

  • Michael Parsons 14th Nov '13 - 9:55am

    Where London ends, England begins. With the end of Empire we have inherited a capital city far too large for us, where most of us are priced out, and where the economics are those of a (nice) foreigners’ way-station: the national social need is to cut it down to size.., rather than try to rotate round a single hub in a sort of monocycle economy.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • Alex Macfie
    Justin: You are seriously mistaken if you ascribe any honour to the process by which Brexit was reached just because it involved a referendum. The Brexit refere...
  • Keith Legg
    The reason Blair and Paddy didn't go for a full-on pact in 1997 is exactly the same reason why Ed and Starmer won't this time round - neither of the party's mem...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Joe, Meant to add this this link. There are lots of similar studies which are easily found if you Google the key words. https://startsat60.com/media/li...
  • Peter Martin
    @ Joe, “We might all of us be willing to contribute to the relief of poverty, provided everyone else did.” Or we might not....
  • Alex Macfie
    @Peter: The electoral politics was a lot more complex than that, as I think you know perfectly well. There was no great collective decision by the "electorate" ...