UK wants to raze 783 London homes to expand Heathrow airport

[webfact]

UK wants to raze 783 London homes to expand Heathrow airport 
DANICA KIRKA, Associated Press

 

LONDON (AP) — Britain's government gave the go-ahead Tuesday to build a new runway at London's Heathrow airport despite concerns about air pollution, noise and the destruction of hundreds of homes in the capital's densely populated western neighborhoods.

 

The decision comes after years of discussion, study and outrage over the building of the first full runway in the southeast of the country since World War II. Theresa May's government, reeling from a vote to leave the European Union, was anxious to prove the country was "open for business."

 

Detractors described it as "catastrophic" for the environment, local community and the owners of 783 homes that are slated to be razed.

"The step that government is taking today is truly momentous," Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said. "After years of discussion and delay this government is taking decisive action to secure the U.K.'s place in the global aviation market."

 

The government rejected other options to expand airport capacity, including the extension of an existing runway at Heathrow or building a second runway at Gatwick Airport, south of London.

 

The decision is only the first step, though. The government's recommendation will be studied further and Parliament will vote in about a year. Even if approved, it will take years before construction begins, as residents have threatened to sue to block the project.

 

Entire communities will be leveled. Compensation and mitigation could cost 2.6 billion pounds ($3.2 billion). But the government said the wider good was at stake.

 

"This is an important issue for the whole country," Grayling said. "That is why the government's preferred scheme will be subject to full and fair public consultation."

 

London Mayor Sadiq Khan pledged to explore involvement in "any legal process," as he said Heathrow already exposes the city to more aircraft noise than Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Munich and Madrid combined. Air quality issues were among Greenpeace's concerns.

 

But it is the fury of residents that had stalled the project until now. Outraged homeowners argued they had been betrayed by politicians who pledged to block expansion before being put into office — only to change their minds later.

 

Anti-expansion groups gathered in the village of Harmondsworth, a quintessential English village which traces its history to the 6th century. The third runway is slated to traverse the village, leveling the ivy-covered brick walls of local landmarks like Harmondsworth Hall guest house as well as two thirds of its homes.

 

"Nowhere else in Europe do they build their runways directly in the heart of residential areas over their cities," said Neil Keveren, who has campaigned against Heathrow expansion for years. The runway grounds would be just across the road from his home, he said.

 

London and southeastern England need more airport capacity to meet the growing demands of business travelers and tourists, aviation officials said. Heathrow and rival Gatwick, 30 miles (50 kilometers) south of central London, had offered competing projects that will cost as much as 18.6 billion pounds ($29.1 billion). A furious public relations battle saw placards all over London extolling the virtues of one airport over another.

 

The issue was so toxic that politicians created an independent commission to weigh the options — and it recommended expanding Heathrow. The commission had already rejected other options, such as one backed by former London Mayor Boris Johnson to build a new airport in the Thames Estuary.

 

"A new runway at Heathrow is really fantastic news, especially as the country has waited nearly 50 years for this decision," said Paul Drechsler, the president of the Confederation of British Industry. "It will create the air links that will do so much to drive jobs and unlock growth across the U.K., allowing even more of our innovative, ambitious and internationally focused firms, from Bristol to Belfast, to take off and break into new markets."

 

But in Harmondsworth, the community gathered at the local Five Bells pub to watch the news in disbelief. Some were in tears.

"The fight is only just beginning," said Robert Barnstone, a Stop Heathrow Expansion campaigner. "We will see the government in court and see off this threat — this time for good."

___

Shawn Pogatchnik in London and Paul Traynor in London contributed to this story.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-10-26

[Laughing Gravy]

An interesting discussion on Sky News today on what the papers ay. One point that was raised is would the same worry and concern and seemingly resistance have happened if this was at Manchester Airport? With the proposed business that it would bring I personally can't se the problem. But as it was pointed out in the discussion that many people that live in that flight path are the MP's and journalists, so they possibly are against it for personal reasons.

 

Either way if true or not, I doubt there would be this much fuss if it was at Manchester or Liverpool airport and those that resisted would be considered left wing, swampy tree huggers.

[sandrabbit]

I don't understand the reasoning behind expanding Thieferow unless it's for local businesses exporting goods by air, i.e. cargo planes. My choice would be to expand Birmingham airport as it's relatively rural but still with good rail and road links as the M42 goes right past it. Also for passenger travel it would have a huge catchment area  and would reduce transport problems around Heathrow. And as mentioned above Manchester would be a good choice with again a huge catchment area.

Edited October 26, 2016 by sandrabbit
grammar - doh!

[TPI]

Raze 783 homes, the homes of the rich and famous, seems fare (fair) enough to me!!

[Jane Dough]

Birmingham, Manchester....people speak as though these places are important! 

[new2here]

For me, if the issue is true connectivity - in other words, focusing on LHR being a hub rather than more of a line/terminus station, then it makes sense to expand LHR as opposed to LGW, STN or other regional portals where I suspect connection traffic is lower than at LHR.




Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[FitnessHealthTravel]

49 minutes ago, TPI said:

Raze 783 homes, the homes of the rich and famous, seems fare (fair) enough to me!!

Oh...you on a pension mate...those bad, bad rich people!

[dunroaming]

5 minutes ago, new2here said:

For me, if the issue is true connectivity - in other words, focusing on LHR being a hub rather than more of a line/terminus station, then it makes sense to expand LHR as opposed to LGW, STN or other regional portals where I suspect connection traffic is lower than at LHR.




Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

And that is the point.  One third of the people flying into Heathrow are getting connecting flights to other destinations.  It is a major "hub" airport therefore regional airports are not viable.  Personally I think that the third runway at Heathrow is a mistake but I understand the arguments.  For me it would make more sense to stream cargo planes out of another dedicated airport such as the unused Greenham Common or expanding Northolt.  They could then also take private planes where the users don't use public transport for there onward journeys.  That could be developed with customs clearance and storage facilities.  You then identify the leisure only flights and make Gatwick or regional airports the main airports for them (that is already pretty much the case).

 

Finally, how much will flights be affected by Brexit?  It would certainly mean that short haul traffic would decrease so that should be taken into account in the planning.  I am not sure that the Heathrow expansion will go ahead at all given all the uncertainty about the effect of Brexit.

[dunroaming]

54 minutes ago, TPI said:

Raze 783 homes, the homes of the rich and famous, seems fare (fair) enough to me!!

 

I doubt the homes of the rich and famous will be affected at all.  Why would they?

[bangon04]

" after years (decades, I believe) of discussion, study and outrage over the building of the first full runway in the southeast of the country since World War II.  " Pathetic.......

 

As other posters have mentioned - a significant proportion of Heathrow congestion is CARGO traffic. There is an obvious argument to move the cargo operation to somewhere else - freeing up the slots for passenger "hub" use.

[Mises]

The airport was there before most of the houses around it. Modern aircraft are much quieter and less polluting than aircraft were when they built most of these houses.

[MJP]

Surely for the cost Birmingham, Luton and Gatwick could be expanded. Perhaps even Cardiff and/or Bristol and/or Exeter. 

 

Whatever happened to the "northern powerhouse"? Not heard much about HS2 lately either. Another white elephant.

[new2here]

On 10/26/2016 at 10:37 PM, bangon04 said:

" after years (decades, I believe) of discussion, study and outrage over the building of the first full runway in the southeast of the country since World War II.  " Pathetic.......
 
As other posters have mentioned - a significant proportion of Heathrow congestion is CARGO traffic. There is an obvious argument to move the cargo operation to somewhere else - freeing up the slots for passenger "hub" use.

 

The only part about the cargo movement argument is this.. in some, if not a large percentage of all-cargo movements, they tend to operate at "off peak hours" or those hours that are not historically peak passenger movement hours.

Again, I do think the idea is worth exploring, and agree that cargo movements do get added into the total usage picture, however, I do also think that from a 24hr clock perspective, a fair bit of freighter movements don't really impede or take away from, slots that would otherwise be given to passenger movements.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

[lungnorm]

Well they invented the Harrier Vertical Take and Landing Jets its time they invented the Vertical Take Off Airliners.

[Beachcomber]

One of the original proposals put forward by Boris Johnson some time ago was to have a new airport on a man made island built in the Thames estuary.

 

Obviously the initial cost would be very high but if they started right now all the money saved on review panels land purchase and house owners compensation claims would go a long way to reducing the construction costs. 

 

The Arabs have built islands out at sea at Dubai so we obviously have the technology to undertake such a project.

 

It would also be great tourist attraction, one of a kind in the world. 

 

Just my humble thoughts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Estuary_Airport

 

[bangon04]

5 minutes ago, Beachcomber said:

One of the original proposals put forward by Boris Johnson some time ago was to have a new airport on a man made island built in the Thames estuary.

 

Obviously the initial cost would be very high but if they started right now all the money saved on review panels land purchase and house owners compensation claims would go a long way to reducing the construction costs. 

 

The Arabs have built islands out at sea at Dubai so we obviously have the technology to undertake such a project.

 

It would also be great tourist attraction, one of a kind in the world. 

 

Just my humble thoughts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Estuary_Airport

 

Kansai (Osaka) , Hong Kong, Narita (Tokyo) are all built on reclaimed land at sea. They function well because they have good fast transport links to the airport.

[bangon04]

11 hours ago, new2here said:

 

The only part about the cargo movement argument is this.. in some, if not a large percentage of all-cargo movements, they tend to operate at "off peak hours" or those hours that are not historically peak passenger movement hours.

Again, I do think the idea is worth exploring, and agree that cargo movements do get added into the total usage picture, however, I do also think that from a 24hr clock perspective, a fair bit of freighter movements don't really impede or take away from, slots that would otherwise be given to passenger movements.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

Agreed - since a lot of the complaining from residents who bought houses on the flightpath is about nighttime traffic and noise, moving the cargo operations to a remote airport would address some of their concerns.

[new2here]

I think any airport of size is always going to be fighting several opposing issues ...

Namely the general consensus that it (the new airport) be "close" and not to far away...

.. But...

Then you get the NIMBY, or Not In My Back Yard cries... once a "possible close" location is identified.

So, yes I want it.. and I want it close ... but not close to MY residence..

I do think as the newer power plants (engines) come online, and combined with the reality that older jets will be replaced due their simple lack of economic viability, that the noise footprint will only go down-- but living near an airport is really never going to be a "quite" thing..


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Beachcomber]

Kansai (Osaka) , Hong Kong, Narita (Tokyo) are all built on reclaimed land at sea. They function well because they have good fast transport links to the airport.

 

You'r right Bangon04. That line was more for dramatic effect than accuracy,

 

As for transport, I'm not up to date with the details of all the latest happenings but I believe there is already a high speed train link to Dover (Channel Tunnel) and the new Crosslink  tube will run from Reading out past Woolwich. This line goes right through the center of the London and connects with all stations on the underground system. I doubt it would be much of a job to extend the Woolwich end to connect to a new airport.

 

[Grouse]

If they build another terminal like Terminal 2 ("The Queen's Terminal") it will discourage passengers from using LHR. Awful place....

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎26‎.‎10‎.‎2016 at 4:16 PM, TPI said:

Raze 783 homes, the homes of the rich and famous, seems fare (fair) enough to me!!

Pity the plans don't call for the runway to go through Eton.

 

This has only come about because the "authorities" that came up with the "plan" are a bunch of bumbling oafs.

Given the air and noise pollution caused in residential areas by the monstrosity it is AT PRESENT, it will only get worse. For that reason alone, Heathrow should be relegated to a day time cargo hub only and two new airports should be built. One like Boris wants in the Thames estuary ( even better off the S E coast ), and another on the south west coast. The benefits of reduced fuel consumption would be immense. High speed trains ( maglev ) would connect them to a passenger check in facility in London.

If passenger travel ceased at Heathrow, the surplus land could be sold off and that would probably pay for the new ones.

 

I have heard on the news that it will take something like 15 or more years before the first plane uses the new runway. The bureaucrat morons that think that is OK are obviously too stupid to realize that technology will probably make air travel as we know it now extinct. Even now, large airships are being developed, and they won't need runways at all.

 

Edited October 27, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Grouse said:

If they build another terminal like Terminal 2 ("The Queen's Terminal") it will discourage passengers from using LHR. Awful place....

Has to be the worst airport I ever used in a European country, except Athens ( though I think that has been replaced ). Even Swampy is superior in every way, and I hate Swampy.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Beachcomber said:

Kansai (Osaka) , Hong Kong, Narita (Tokyo) are all built on reclaimed land at sea. They function well because they have good fast transport links to the airport.

 

You'r right Bangon04. That line was more for dramatic effect than accuracy,

 

As for transport, I'm not up to date with the details of all the latest happenings but I believe there is already a high speed train link to Dover (Channel Tunnel) and the new Crosslink  tube will run from Reading out past Woolwich. This line goes right through the center of the London and connects with all stations on the underground system. I doubt it would be much of a job to extend the Woolwich end to connect to a new airport.

 

The future of long distance travel is in rail, not air. High speed trains will, in the future, get us where we want to go just as fast and in far, far superior comfort. Plus they will use renewable energy sources and be quiet.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, new2here said:

I think any airport of size is always going to be fighting several opposing issues ...

Namely the general consensus that it (the new airport) be "close" and not to far away...

.. But...

Then you get the NIMBY, or Not In My Back Yard cries... once a "possible close" location is identified.

So, yes I want it.. and I want it close ... but not close to MY residence..

I do think as the newer power plants (engines) come online, and combined with the reality that older jets will be replaced due their simple lack of economic viability, that the noise footprint will only go down-- but living near an airport is really never going to be a "quite" thing..


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Perhaps you never heard of maglev. No one needs to live near an airport whatever the noise level, and as long as fossil fuel is used air pollution will happen.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Mises said:

The airport was there before most of the houses around it. Modern aircraft are much quieter and less polluting than aircraft were when they built most of these houses.

The airport was there before most of the houses around it

 

True, and the incompetent oafs that gave planning permission for the houses should be held accountable for their stupidity.

[7by7]

The problem with 'Boris Island' is the SS Richard Montgomery.' 1,400 tonnes, at least, of unexploded WWII high explosive. near an airport is not something to ignore!

 

For various reasons, all those concerned want expansion in the South East. Brits going on holiday are happy to use a regional airport; but others want London. Sorry guys, but that's the way it is.

 

So that leaves Heathrow or Gatwick.

 

Wherever the new runway is built, people are going to lose their homes.

 

But at Heathrow the new runway is also going to cross the M25!

 

Those, who like me, use it and anyone who listens to traffic reports know that everyday during the peak, especially evening peak, this section of the M25 slows to a crawl; often a complete stop. Even worse if there is a minor shunt which closes a lane.It is the busiest section and, possibly apart from the Dartford crossing, it is the section most prone to lengthy delays.

 

Building a tunnel for the motorway to pass under the runway, or the alternative suggestion of a bridge and ramp for the runway to pass over the motorway  will be extremely expensive and cause major disruption to what is already the busiest section of motorway in the country.

 

This part of West London already suffers from major air pollution problems. Those in favour of expanding Heathrow say that the extra pollution from increased air traffic will be offset as road traffic becomes less polluting, keeping the pollution level roughly the same as now. Surely the aim should be to improve air quality rather than simply replace one source of pollution with another! 

 

I'm not saying that Gatwick doesn't also have it's problems; but when one looks at all the pros and cons of each, it seems to me that Gatwick is a far more logical choice than Heathrow.

[MJP]

22 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

The problem with 'Boris Island' is the SS Richard Montgomery.' 1,400 tonnes, at least, of unexploded WWII high explosive. near an airport is not something to ignore!

 

For various reasons, all those concerned want expansion in the South East. Brits going on holiday are happy to use a regional airport; but others want London. Sorry guys, but that's the way it is.

 

So that leaves Heathrow or Gatwick.

 

Wherever the new runway is built, people are going to lose their homes.

 

But at Heathrow the new runway is also going to cross the M25!

 

Those, who like me, use it and anyone who listens to traffic reports know that everyday during the peak, especially evening peak, this section of the M25 slows to a crawl; often a complete stop. Even worse if there is a minor shunt which closes a lane.It is the busiest section and, possibly apart from the Dartford crossing, it is the section most prone to lengthy delays.

 

Building a tunnel for the motorway to pass under the runway, or the alternative suggestion of a bridge and ramp for the runway to pass over the motorway  will be extremely expensive and cause major disruption to what is already the busiest section of motorway in the country.

 

This part of West London already suffers from major air pollution problems. Those in favour of expanding Heathrow say that the extra pollution from increased air traffic will be offset as road traffic becomes less polluting, keeping the pollution level roughly the same as now. Surely the aim should be to improve air quality rather than simply replace one source of pollution with another! 

 

I'm not saying that Gatwick doesn't also have it's problems; but when one looks at all the pros and cons of each, it seems to me that Gatwick is a far more logical choice than Heathrow.

 

The tunnel only needs to be a tent like structure, like that Dome thing.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

^^ #26

They're going to look really stupid if they build that thing only to find that airships replace airplanes, as indeed they probably will.

They'd be far better off spending a fraction of the cost of a new runway on new technology to replace airplanes.

I wonder how long it will be before people wake up and stop the insanity of private cars as a primary mode of commuting. Cars are destroying every city. Hopefully, implementation of anti GW policies will see private cars banned in cities. Can't happen soon enough.

[7by7]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

^^ #26

They're going to look really stupid if they build that thing only to find that airships replace airplanes, as indeed they probably will.

They'd be far better off spending a fraction of the cost of a new runway on new technology to replace airplanes.

Airships replace airplanes?

 

Surely the main reason why people travel by air is speed.

From Guinness

Quote

The highest speed officially measured for an airship, according to the Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI), is 112 km/h (69.6 mph), by Steve Fossett (USA) flying a Zeppelin Luftshifftechnik LZ N07-100 airship on 27 October 2004 over Friedrichshafen, Germany. The large rigid airships built by the USA and Germany in the 1920s and 30s could reach higher speeds (up to 140 km/h or 87 mph according to some sources), but these were never officially measured to FAI standards.

 

Airliners generally travel at around 500 to 600 mph.

 

London to Bangkok at 87 mph or 500mph; I know which I would choose!

 

I am only a layman, so perhaps you could give us an estimate of when airships will routinely be capable of these sorts of speeds

 

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I wonder how long it will be before people wake up and stop the insanity of private cars as a primary mode of commuting. Cars are destroying every city. Hopefully, implementation of anti GW policies will see private cars banned in cities. Can't happen soon enough.

 

I must admit that I don't know what 'anti GW policies' are; but I assume you mean policies to reduce car use.

 

Many people still use their car to commute into London; despite the congestion charge. There are many reasons for this, the main one being an overcrowded, underfunded public transport system. That needs to be addressed before more people will be tempted out of their cars and onto trains.

 

People have talked about double decker trains; but no one has yet found a solution to the problem that these trains wont fit under bridges and through tunnels, many built over 150 years ago.  Billions will have to be spent upgrading what is essentially a Victorian rail system.

 

Even if that money is spent and more people commute by train, there is still the problem of getting them to their final destination once they have arrived in London. Both the Tube and the buses are already operating at over capacity during the peak hours; legal capacity in the case of many buses!

 

I am not saying these problems are insurmountable. But solving them will be expensive and take many years.

 

Would you ban cars and force people onto a public transport system which is already at breaking point while the work is carried out; or would you do the work first?

 

 

 

[3NUMBAS]

The homes raised will be in Hounslow and bedfont inhabited by Indians .and migrants

 

The infrastructure is overloaded .the tube to HR is overloaded and roads in the area are already blocked