Heathrow 3rd runway - what impact on ED noise pollution?

[Sunglasses]

Heathrow's 3rd runway has been given initial approval today. Clearly the noise pollution in ED will only get worse but by how much?

According to Heathrow's own website, ED is outside the area that will be impacted by the new flightpaths. But a map produced by Zac Goldsmith's team shows one of the new flightpaths goes diagonally across South ED. Which is correct?

[Penguin68]

As the new runway will not be operational (at a best estimate) before 2025-2030 (I suspect the later date) I wouldn't start getting worried too soon. And there are strong suggestions that the new generation of planes will be quieter and less polluting - so things may even get better then. And I wouldn't be putting too much faith in anti-Heathrow propaganda - or pro for that matter. If the noise pollution over ED does get worse because of any new runway - you have between 10 and 15 years or so before it happens. We could all be gone in a nuclear war started by either Putin or Trump long before that. Look on the bright side.

[Lowlander]

I wouldn't worry, they'll never get to build a third runway.

The government last approved a third runway in 2003 and this was quashed by various challenges.

All the local councils and MPs are against it, as is Sadiq Khan.

The lawyers will make a fortune out of it.

[stephent]

The whole airspace around London needs to be re-designed as part of this decision - I believe that will take about a year or so to prepare (there'll be a public consultation on it)...

[KirstyH]

For the facts (referenced), this is useful:

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/uk-airports/heathrow-airport/briefing-the-key-facts-figures-about-a-heathrow-3rd-runway/

Interested in above point on 'airspace redesign' stephent - I do want to know the noise implications and flight path consequences. There is little respite from plane noise at the moment, I've been told there are supposed to be weeks when a different LHR runway is used which alter the fly-overs of this area, but honestly I've not noticed it regularly. PS study on link between blood-pressure and road traffic noise reported on yesterday.

[uncleglen]

The Government (i.e the tax payer) subsidises aviation to the tune of ?10 billion a year because there is no tax on aviation fuel, and no VAT on tickets.

Ironically, most people who fly are the well-off who take frequent weekend breaks and holidays compared with your average traveller who flies once a year. Business flying has reduced in recent years.

What a stupid situation.

The reason they chose Heathrow is because the runway will take 10 years or so to build,and by then it will be necessary to build another- at Gatwick.

Since transport links to the North are being improved why don't they just build a new airport in the North- after all trains and roads run in both directions!

[Penguin68]

Since transport links to the North are being improved why don't they just build a new airport in the North- after all trains and roads run in both directions!

For a London airport to compete with e.g the Netherlands or France as hubs you need to be able to land, change planes and go somewhere else (at the moment people are going from London to Schiphol to transfer to travel further east). So you need to concentrate your runways, not spread them over the country. Land in London (or Leeds) and then transfer to Leeds (or London) is not a compelling sell to the international traveller (or freight handler). It is the hub traffic which is an important part of the justification for Heathrow (and which makes Gatwick less compelling). Two runways attract a third. To have two 2 runways airports close to London does not offer the hub opportunities that having a three runway airport does. Hubbing is particularly important for freight - where a plane bringing a load to London from somewhere can then split that load onto planes with other destinations, themselves being part-filled from other planes. This is the most economic (and also, because it cuts down on journeys, green) logistic solution.

[rendelharris]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ironically, most people who fly are the well-off

> who take frequent weekend breaks and holidays

> compared with your average traveller who flies

> once a year.

Yes, I assumed this was the case but was still very surprised to see a Green Party flier which says that 70% of the flights made by UK residents are taken by just 15% of the population, so it would appear that a majority of nonfrequent or non-fliers are being asked to put up with more pollution, noise and expense for the sake of a wealthy minority.

[*Bob*]

KirstyH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interested in above point on 'airspace redesign'

> stephent - I do want to know the noise

> implications and flight path consequences. There

> is little respite from plane noise at the moment,

> I've been told there are supposed to be weeks when

> a different LHR runway is used which alter the

> fly-overs of this area, but honestly I've not

> noticed it regularly.

'Respite' strategies are not designed to address noise issues as far out as us here in SE22.

The current north and south runways at Heathrow do alternate for take-off and landing and are about 1km apart - so that means 1km of difference (respite) if you're under the flight path - but 'only' if you're under the bit of the 'direct' flight path where the planes are on their final descent, lined-up with the required runway for landing.

Out here in SE22, most of the planes we hear are not lined-up with the runways as above.

Closer to the airport (closer than us) you know exactly where the planes will be, depending on which runway they're landing on. Further away, where we are, there is more fluidity; controllers can send aircraft this or that way before they line-up, depend on the amount of air traffic, which stacks they're coming from etc etc.

So if you get a busy spell you didn't notice last week, it's not a conspiracy or a 'change in flight paths' - it's just one of those things. One day - or hour - they're particularly loud, the next, they're a bit further away and you don't hear them so much.

[*Bob*]

I forgot to add

'... and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it'

[George Orwell]

Why, oh why won't the government listen to me . . . .?

Expand Gatwick to 2, later 3 or more runways. I know there is a restriction on a new runway until 2019/2020 - but it'll take at least that long to plan it. Then build a high speed elevated train track above the M23 and M25 linking LGW and LHR. The journey time could be as short as 20 / 30 minutes which is shorter than changing between gates at some airports already e.g. Dubai.

The high speed link would allow them to keep the "Hub" concept and have minimal planning delays for the link because it would be all on state owned land.

We need to think big and be ambitious.

Problem sorted.

[Jeremy]

If I was booking a flight and had the choice between transferring within the same airport, or getting on a train for half an hour to another airport, I know which one I'd choose! Even if check-in and baggage were somehow miraculously handled seamlessly (they wouldn't be), it introduces new possibilities for your trip to go disastrously wrong. I'm just not convinced anyone would find it an attractive option.

I totally get the arguments against... emissions, impact on local area (noise, homes, greenbelt), flight paths over London, etc. But from a perspective of capacity and economy, it seems to add up.

[TheCat]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> uncleglen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Ironically, most people who fly are the

> well-off

> > who take frequent weekend breaks and holidays

> > compared with your average traveller who flies

> > once a year.

>

> Yes, I assumed this was the case but was still

> very surprised to see a Green Party flier which

> says that 70% of the flights made by UK residents

> are taken by just 15% of the population, so it

> would appear that a majority of nonfrequent or

> non-fliers are being asked to put up with more

> pollution, noise and expense for the sake of a

> wealthy minority.

No matter your views on climate change or new runways, to me it just smacks of political cynicism (or savvy, depending on your viewpoint I suppose) to make it into a 'class warfare' argument....

[BrandNewGuy]

It's not really class warfare. The argument is that government subsidy of transport options that are skewed towards the better off are a regressive form of spending. You might argue that the 'business benefits' outweigh that, but the argument is still one that needs to be addressed.

[Earl Aelfheah]

By the time it's built, they'll already be calls for further expansion. This is going to be an ongoing problem. Fundamentally, Heathrow is the wrong location. Long term, it would be good to see a proper investment made in a new hub airport out to the East.

[rendelharris]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > uncleglen Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> >

> > > Ironically, most people who fly are the

> > well-off

> > > who take frequent weekend breaks and holidays

> > > compared with your average traveller who

> flies

> > > once a year.

> >

> > Yes, I assumed this was the case but was still

> > very surprised to see a Green Party flier which

> > says that 70% of the flights made by UK

> residents

> > are taken by just 15% of the population, so it

> > would appear that a majority of nonfrequent or

> > non-fliers are being asked to put up with more

> > pollution, noise and expense for the sake of a

> > wealthy minority.

>

>

> No matter your views on climate change or new

> runways, to me it just smacks of political

> cynicism (or savvy, depending on your viewpoint I

> suppose) to make it into a 'class warfare'

> argument....

I wasn't particularly thinking of class warfare, just more imbalance in spending in favour of the wealthy. Was there anything I said that isn't true? Huge sums are going to be spent on a highly polluting form of transport used primarily by the wealthy, whilst cleaner forms of transport of more benefit to the less well off - regional railway networks for example - get no investment.

[TheCat]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > rendelharris Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > uncleglen Wrote:

> > >

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > > -----

> > >

> > > > Ironically, most people who fly are the

> > > well-off

> > > > who take frequent weekend breaks and

> holidays

> > > > compared with your average traveller who

> > flies

> > > > once a year.

> > >

> > > Yes, I assumed this was the case but was

> still

> > > very surprised to see a Green Party flier

> which

> > > says that 70% of the flights made by UK

> > residents

> > > are taken by just 15% of the population, so

> it

> > > would appear that a majority of nonfrequent

> or

> > > non-fliers are being asked to put up with

> more

> > > pollution, noise and expense for the sake of

> a

> > > wealthy minority.

> >

> >

> > No matter your views on climate change or new

> > runways, to me it just smacks of political

> > cynicism (or savvy, depending on your viewpoint

> I

> > suppose) to make it into a 'class warfare'

> > argument....

>

> I wasn't particularly thinking of class warfare,

> just more imbalance in spending in favour of the

> wealthy. Was there anything I said that isn't

> true? Huge sums are going to be spent on a highly

> polluting form of transport used primarily by the

> wealthy, whilst cleaner forms of transport of more

> benefit to the less well off - regional railway

> networks for example - get no investment.

...or....airport fees come down for budget airlines, who are now able to fly out of heathrow and keep fares reasonable, thus making budget travel through a hub much more accessible to London's poor....

not strictly my position at all...but just using it as an example of the fcat that I belive arguments can be made that there could be benefits for not just the wealthy...

[rendelharris]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...or....airport fees come down for budget

> airlines, who are now able to fly out of heathrow

> and keep fares reasonable, thus making budget

> travel through a hub much more accessible to

> London's poor....

>

> not strictly my position at all...but just using

> it as an example of the fcat that I belive

> arguments can be made that there could be benefits

> for not just the wealthy...

I don't know if it's planned to reduce landing fees, seems unlikely - and of course there's a case to be made that more budget air travel, or indeed more of any sort, is not exactly a desirable thing.

[uncleglen]

It is not a class warfare issue- it is one of common sense. Why should flying be subsidised to such an extent? It is ridiculous given that oil is a finite resource and a massive pollutant and very inefficient as a fuel. What is so special about the aviation industry? It is irrational imo

[stephent]

> Closer to the airport (closer than us) you know

> exactly where the planes will be, depending on

> which runway they're landing on. Further away,

> where we are, there is more fluidity; controllers

> can send aircraft this or that way before they

> line-up, depend on the amount of air traffic,

> which stacks they're coming from etc etc.

>

> So if you get a busy spell you didn't notice last

> week, it's not a conspiracy or a 'change in flight

> paths' - it's just one of those things. One day -

> or hour - they're particularly loud, the next,

> they're a bit further away and you don't hear them

> so much.

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure the landing stacks are pretty well defined based on planes in the sky, runway in use, etc, and from there planes are precision guided into the runway. As such there's really not much scope for planes/ATCs to choose some different path. Indeed people are worried that the new precision guidance tech in planes will mean flight paths (and noise) get even more concentrated as every plane will follow the exact same path.

[pop9770]

I've lived in East Dulwich for over 40 years for me the noise levels increased around 10 or so years ago when the landing path / stack changed and aircraft all joined at blackheath where before then they joined above Vauxhall.

On some days and in certain conditions they revert back to the Vauxhall joining point but most days we are blighted with noise along with Brockley and everyone else in a line from Blackheath to Heathrow.

Heathrow say nothing has changed but I believe it has there's no historic radar data that is publicly available from my searches.

Flightradar24.com is good to show what's going on above us.

Heathrow is in the wrong place and I agree with others it's madness to build any increase in capacity there.

[*Bob*]

Hi Fazer (*waves*) great to have you back. Be good.

There's no Heathrow cover-up, the change in landing path you mention is fairly common knowledge. You're mistaken on the dates though - the change happened 25 years ago, sometime in the 1990s, not ten years ago.

stephent - The stacks and approaches are well defined, but (depending on traffic) there is controller discretion which means concentration of flights on a particular route at a local level can vary from hour to hour. So - e.g. personally, I can get an almost continuous stream of aircraft looping over Peckham Rye and then directly over my house for a spell of time and then.. none.

[Fjgb]

I always am surprised about how few planes there are in other parts of the country. When I was visiting my niece recently she got really excited when she saw a plane and my daughter was like yes we see them all the time at home. And we do! It is non stop really here and I can't imagine how loud it is closer to heathrow

[James Barber]

Stansted is running at 50% capacity.

Expanding Heathrow or Gatwick makes it just about impossible for the U.K.to meet its CO2 reduction obligations. All so the few can travel more often.

Clearly shows the government lacks any sense of strategic leadership or care for the future of our country.

[James Barber]

Latest Heathrow Action Campaign Against Noise out today...see attached.

Do join.