Heathrow has been working on its PR by giving figures on how much parents spend on air travel and holidays (some exotic) for their children. They hope to give the impression to parents that they need to provide these luxuries to their children, as part of being good parents …. more consumerist pressure …. Heathrow says in 2016 an unbelievable 19% of children (presumably in the UK, or those passing through Heathrow?) took at least 7 trips trips per year; 5% go on more than 10 trips per year, taking into account family holidays, school trips and holidays with friends. And the “dream destinations” (ie. long haul ones that make more profit for airlines and Heathrow) for under 16 year olds were “Australia, Hawaii, Everest and Thailand”. (Really? Everest? Is this a joke?) Heathrow says the average cost per trip for a child (those under 16 pay no Air Passenger Duty) is about £616 – and on average parents will spend about £30,000 for the holidays of their children, up to the age of 16. Heathrow says “The current generation of kids are dreaming of Bondi Beach, kangaroos and the Outback, with nearly a quarter (23%) of children citing far-flung Australia as their dream destination for 2017.” And on it goes …. Heathrow’s future customers. “Get ’em young” … So THAT’s why we need another Heathrow runway, with all its public expense and negative impacts over vast areas within perhaps 20 miles of the airport.
Generation destination: Modern kids clock up air miles on foreign adventures
Average British parents spend £29,962 on holidays for little ones
29.12.2016 (e Turbo News – Global Travel Industry News)
2016 saw a fifth (19%) of children take at least seven trips away, compared to their parents who only took four breaks each year
Dream destinations for under 16 year olds include Australia, Hawaii, Everest and Thailand
Tiny travellers receive an average of £46.80 worth of pocket money per trip
Average getaway costs parents £616.47 – totalling over £29,962 during the course of a childhood (under 16)
Heathrow, the UK’s only hub airport, has revealed that today’s kids are a generation of tiny travellers, visiting more countries, clocking up more air miles and having more overseas experiences than ever before. New research reveals that in 2016, one in five (19%) kids went away seven or more times and one in 20 went on more than 10 breaks taking into account family holidays, school trips and vacations with friends.
The current generation of kids are dreaming of Bondi Beach, kangaroos and the Outback, with nearly a quarter (23%) of children citing far-flung Australia as their dream destination for 2017. Meanwhile, parents were dreaming of vacations closer to home, with the likes of Mallorca (17%), Tenerife (17%) and Blackpool (16%) topping their holiday wish lists.
The rising popularity of American television shows may be why many children also now want to take a trip across the pond – first place on the dream list for little ones was the Big Apple, one in three (31%) said New York is the place they would most like to visit this year. This was followed by Australia (23%), Hawaii (13%), Mount Everest (11%) and Thailand (10%).
To help parents make airport experiences as smooth as possible, Heathrow has revealed its top tips for airport travel – including free play areas, kids-eat-free meals and complimentary pampering with over 50 free beauty treatments – before its time to fly.
For many kids, the fun starts before reaching their destination – a fifth (21%) of parents say their child’s favourite part of a holiday is going through the airport or being on a plane.
Wanting to make sure their little ones can capture every moment, 15% of parents will buy them a new SLR camera, video camera or iPhone to give them the best possible technology for capturing their adventures abroad.
While swimming (46%) and camping (23%) was a favourite childhood holiday activity for today’s parents, this generation of mini adrenaline-junkies are increasingly excited by adventure activities such as scuba diving (18%), safaris (14%) and jet skiing (12%).
With getaways becoming increasingly action-packed, parents are now spending £2,333 on an average family holiday, around £616.47 per child. This totals £29,962 on holidays over the course of a childhood.
Parents also give their kids £46.80 pocket money, a 56% increase to what they used to get from their parents.
Notes to editors [Lots more PR stuff from Heathrow airport, which seems to be the source of the story, including:]
Children under the age of 15 travel free on Heathrow Express and adults can save a further £18 by booking a Heathrow Express Duo Saver ticket online which gives two adults a 25% discount when travelling together. Details of the Heathrow Express Duo Saver ticket can be found here. Details of available Kids Eat Free restaurants during half term are available here.
Residents affected by aircraft noise from George Best Belfast City Airport have welcomed confirmation by the Minister for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland, Chris Hazzard, that he has instructed officials to work towards full implementation of the recommendations of a crucial public inquiry report. The airport had been seeking significant changes to its planning agreement which would have greatly increased permissible noise levels, with a serious impact on up to 18,000 residents, while also removing an annual cap on the number of aircraft seats from the airport offered for sale. The report by the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) recommended that the so-called ‘seats for sale’ cap should be removed, but also recommended noise control measures which, if implemented, would mean permissible noise levels won’t be as high as they would have been under the airport’s proposal. Belfast City Airport Watch said they would have preferred no relaxation of noise controls but welcome the full implementation of the PAC’s recommendations. That means the 57dB noise contour would be reduced from 7.5 sq km to 5.2 sq km, but BACW argues for 4.2 sq km.
Belfast City residents welcome Minister’s action on City Airport inquiry’s noise recommendations
Minister’s letter endorses ‘in principle’ tougher noise control measures than those sought by airport
3rd January 2017
Residents affected by aircraft noise from George Best Belfast City Airport have welcomed confirmation by the Minister for Infrastructure, Chris Hazzard, that he has instructed officials to work towards full implementation of the recommendations of a crucial public inquiry report.
The airport had been seeking significant changes to its planning agreement which would have greatly increased permissible noise levels, with a serious impact on up to 18,000 residents, while also removing an annual cap on the number of aircraft seats from the airport offered for sale.
A report drawn up by the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC), which held a public inquiry into the proposals in 2015, recommended that the so-called ‘seats for sale’ cap should be removed, but also recommended noise control measures which, if implemented, would mean permissible noise levels won’t be as high as they would have been under the airport’s proposal.
The Minister’s view on the matter was expressed in a letter from the Minister to south Belfast MLA, Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, passed to the umbrella residents’ group, Belfast City Airport Watch (BCAW). The letter states:
I have considered the PAC [Planning Appeals Commission] report of the public inquiry and agreed “in principle”, to endorse their recommendations in full, subject to resolving the technical issues around the proposed noise management system. I have instructed my officials to liaise directly with GBBCA [Belfast City Airport] on the detail of a modified planning agreement based around these recommendations. My Department will continue to work with airport representatives to bring the process to a conclusion as quickly as possible.
Responding to the news, Dr Liz Fawcett, Chair of the BCAW Steering Group, said:
“While, obviously, we would have preferred that there was no relaxation of noise controls at Belfast City Airport, we welcome this declaration by the Minister that he supports full implementation of the PAC’s recommendations.
“The Commission clearly tried to strike a balance between the commercial interests of the airport, and the health and quality of life of the tens of thousands of local residents affected by this issue.
“Although permissible noise levels will rise, once the report’s recommendations are implemented, we can be confident that we won’t have to suffer the extreme levels of noise which could have occurred, had the airport been given everything which it was seeking.”
During the public inquiry, BCAW highlighted the findings of an independent survey of 423 residents who live close to the airport’s flight path, which the group commissioned. This revealed the extent to which aircraft noise was already disrupting their lives:
38% of respondents described the noise of planes, while they were at home, as “very high”, compared to just 4% who described traffic noise in similar terms
1 in 5 respondents said planes disrupted their sleep “very often” or “quite often”
1 in 4 respondents with young children said their children’s sleep was disrupted “very often” or “quite often”
A total of 1,308 objections were received by the Department of the Environment after the airport’s application was first made in 2012.
One of the worst affected residents is 75-year old Elizabeth Bennett whose home in Sydenham, east Belfast, is right under the flight path. She said she’s very relieved at the news:
“I find the constant noise of the planes really stressful – they wake me up really early most mornings and carry on until late in the evening.
“You can’t hear the TV, you can’t hear people on the phone, and you have to stop speaking when the planes go over.
“I’ve been really worried that the noise was going to get a great deal worse and I’m glad to hear that the Minister intends to do what the public inquiry recommended.”
Another badly affected resident is Barney Gadd (69) who lives in Stranmillis, south Belfast. He also welcomed the news:
“Aircraft noise stops me and many people I know from enjoying our gardens in the summertime.
“It’s hard to relax properly when planes are constantly flying over and you have to keep stopping your conversation.
“So I’m very pleased that the public inquiry recommendations are being implemented; it won’t make things better but I hope it will prevent the noise getting much worse.”
One of the key issues considered by the public inquiry was the size of a noise threshold, called a noise control contour, which determines the geographical area and number of people which can be subjected to relatively high levels of aircraft noise.
The PAC’s report recommended the imposition of a 5.2 sq km noise control contour which was smaller than the 7.5 sq km contour sought by the airport, but larger than the 4.2 sq km contour which BCAW had supported.
The airport’s current planning agreement stipulates an indicative noise contour of 4.2 sq km but the airport has refused to adhere to this.
The airport’s own figures showed that up to 18,000 people could be affected at or above a noise level which would cause serious annoyance, if its 7.5 sq km contour proposal was implemented. By contrast, a maximum of 5,000 people would be affected at that level if the 4.2 sq km contour was adhered to.
Belfast City Airport Watch comprises 13 residents’ and community groups across affected areas within east and south Belfast, and north Down, and one trade union branch. It also has 750 individual associate members. For more information on the campaign, visit: www.belfastcityairportwatch.co.uk
The airport’s proposals are contained in an application to amend the terms of its planning agreement with the Department for Infrastructure. The airport had been seeking to remove a clause which limits the annual number of seats offered for sale on flights to 2 million, and to replace the 4.2 sq km noise threshold (referred to as an ‘indicative noise contour’), which should pertain under the airport’s current planning agreement, with a larger 7.5 sq km noise control contour which would have a much greater noise impact and affect many more people.
The airport’s own noise projections showed that up to 18,000 people could be affected at or above a noise level (57 LAeq, averaged over 16 hours) considered by the UK government to cause serious community annoyance. This compares with an estimated maximum of 5,000 people affected at or above that level under a 4.2 sq km contour.
The PAC’s public inquiry report, which was published in February 2016, recommended the removal of the seats of the seats for sale cap and the imposition of a 5.2 sq km noise control contour. It also recommended the introduction of a quota count system which would help to determine whether or not the noise control contour was being adhered to. Both the airport’s application and the PAC’s report can be viewed here: http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/news/common-planning-bca-representations.htm
BCAW believes that up to 9,500 people could be affected at or above the 57 LAeq level under a 5.2 sq km contour.
The survey referred to in the press release was carried out by the market research company, Perceptive Insight, in 2012. It involved face-to-face interviews with a robust representative sample of 423 residents, aged 16 or over, living under or close to the approach flight path to George Best Belfast City Airport in east and south Belfast.
The 4th runway at Frankfurt was opened in October 2011. Due to re-alignment of flight paths, with thousands of people either newly overflown, or with more flights than before, there was uproar. The airport had not felt it necessary to warn people, or consult about the noise. Several thousand people started to congregate in the airport terminal every Monday evening, for a protest demo. (The airport buildings are public property, so the airport cannot prevent people gathering.). The 100th Monday demo was on 20th May 2014, when a group from the UK attended. Now the 200th Monday demo will take place on Monday 30th January, and a large crowd is expected. Politicians from the local area and from the region, as well as for Berlin, will be attending. The demands of the protesters are ultimately that the runway is closed down (though that is an ambitious, or unrealistic hope….) but they want no night flights from 10pm to 6am, no further airport expansion, and no 3rd terminal. Work to build the 3rd terminal started in October 2015, and the airport hopes it will open (first phase) in 2022. It is an astonishing achievement that Frankfurt residents have organised 200 Monday protests, all attended by many hundreds of people – sometimes several thousand. The demos are possible because people are so upset and angry about the noise burden that has been inflicted on them, reducing their quality of life.
The 200th Monday Demo will take place in Frankfurt Airport, Terminal 1 on 30th January 2017
5th January 2017
200.te Monday Demo: on 30 January 2017
The poster says “Together to Success!” and “Join in!”
[Approximate translation from the German].
The alliance of citizens’ initiatives (BBI) gets together with the Action against traffic noise, Pro Rhine Valley, the BUND Hessen, nature lovers Frankfurt, Robin Wood, Greenpeace , Attac Frankfurt and the GEW Hessen to the 200th Montagsdemo [ Monday Demonstration ].
The meeting point is at Terminal 1 of tFrankfurt Airport from 18:00.
Since 1998, the BBI has been active against airport expansion. For more than 5 years now, residents have been demonstrating on Monday evenings against the airport, which is not compatible with this area.
Despite the promises “never to build outside the fence” 10 years ago the airport again expanded into the forest, and the BBI and the nature conservation associations were active again. On 20 October 2011, the Chancellor opened the new northwest runway – the 4th at Frankfurt.
We have brought in people from neighbours affected by the noise and concerned about their sleep. Since then, the fight by citizens’ groups has intensified on all fronts against this inhuman policy.
At the 200th Monday demonstrations we are calling on the airport owner Fraport. We want:
No further expansion!
No 3rd terminal!
No night flights. No flights (take offs or landings) between 22.00 and 06.00!
Close the runway!
Also invited are all politicians from the local level, from the region, and from Berlin.
The main speaker is Uwe Hiksch from “Naturfreunden” in Berlin. He will travel by train, not by air.
The event is musically accompanied by the brass band “Rheingold” from Mainz. Following the “official” part of the demo, we invite people to stay a bit longer, for drinks and wine and Krebbel or pretzels (from Mainz), to discuss and to make future plans. The event does not end until 19:30-19:45.
Flyer (A5) and posters (A1 and A3) can be obtained on the next Mondaysdemos from 09.01.2017. Or Wed to Fri from 10 am to 7 pm, Sat from 10 am to 4 pm at antikum, Weber Str. 13 a in Mainz. 06131-23 87 15
In 2009, the German government decided to create third terminals for both Frankfurt Airport and Munich Airport, in order to handle expected passenger flows of 90 million in Frankfurt by 2020 and 50 million in Munich by 2017.
The new terminal is scheduled to be built by Fraport, south of the existing terminals on the grounds of the former Rhein-Main Air Base. The new Terminal 3 is to accommodate up to 25 million passengers and will feature 75 new aircraft positions when completely constructed. An extension of the SkyLine people mover system is planned to connect the new terminal to Terminals 1 and 2 and the airport train stations.
In August 2014, the city of Frankfurt granted building permission for the first phase of Terminal 3. The groundbreaking for the new Terminal took place on 5 October 2015. Its first phase, consisting of the main building and two of the planned four piers, is planned to open by 2022 and will be able to handle 15 million additional passengers per year. Total costs are estimated at €3 billion.
Residents around Frankfurt hold their 150th huge Monday evening protest against aircraft noise
September 29, 2015
On Monday 28th September, the 150th Monday evening protest against aircraft noise, due to the new runway, took place at Frankfurt airport. The new 4th runway was opened in October 2011, to the north west of the airport, and caused not only new flight paths but changes to existing flight paths. People had not been expecting the noise problem to be so bad. As soon as the runway opened, residents starting protesting against the noise – that was stopping them sleeping, reducing their quality of life, preventing them enjoying relaxing outside under flight paths, and reducing the prices of their homes. They started protests in the airport Terminal 1 (almost) every Monday evening. These are attended by between about 600 and 3,000 people. That is an astonishing achievement, and manifestation of real anger and determination by the thousands affected by plane noise. They are concerned now that the protests are seen to be becoming routine, and there is some appetite for more radical action, especially now that work is due to start very soon on a deeply opposed 3rd airport terminal. The style of protesting may perhaps now change. In German airport buildings are public property, so protesters are entitled to congregate in the terminal.
Protesters set up camp in forest due to be cleared for Frankfurt airport 3rd terminal and access road
September 1, 2015
The operator of Frankfurt airport, Fraport, is planning a 3rd terminal, as it claims this is needed for it to remain competitive against other European hub airports. This new terminal would add enough capacity for 14 million more passengers a year when it opens in the first half of 2022. The airport can currently handle 64 million, but Fraport says there will be demand for 68 million to 73 million passengers by 2021. Over 4 days, airport protesters set up a camp in the nearby Treburger Oberwald forest, that is to be cleared in the course of the construction of a third terminal at Frankfurt airport. The peaceful event, “Forest instead of concrete,” organised by the group, Robin Wood, made the point that not only would be increased number of flights increase the carbon emissions of German aviation, but the loss of some 60 hectares of forest for the terminal and access road would also increase CO2. The protesters also hang up a banner in protest outside the concrete and gravel supplier Sehring, which profits from the environmentally damaging construction projects. Before the construction of the new north-west runway, the activists had occupied trees in Kelsterbach Forest for 9 months until their camp was cleared in February 2009 by the police.
Noise demonstration blasts 80 dB recorded plane noise outside home of Frankfurt airport CEO for 2 hours
March 1, 2015
As a protest against the level of aircraft noise that people living near Frankfurt airport are exposed to – especially since the opening of the 4th runway in October 2011 – people have bombarded the home of the airport Chief Executive, Stefan Schulte, with noise. Citizens in a convoy of about 40 cars parked outside his house, in a small town north of Frankfurt,. They set up loudspeakers and ghetto blasters in their cars, and rolled down the car windows in order to blast out noise, at about 80 decibels. That is loudest the police allowed them to use. The noise went on for two hours, with two breaks. The protest was by people living in areas across Rhein-Main who are badly affected by noise from flight paths. The noise they used was of planes, recorded at Niederrad Sachsenhausen, which is an area about 3 km to the north east of the airport. After some time of the noise bombardment, the CEO’s automatic garage door opened, and he set off in his car for work at the airport. One of the protesters commented that they did not understand how Herr Schulte is able to say society must just endure such levels of noise. Asked if the protest had been successful, one protester commented that it had been if the media and more members of the public are aware of the issue.
The 4th runway at Frankfurt airport was opened in October 2011. The flightpaths for this runway overfly thousands of residents in the Frankfurt, many of whom had not previously been overflown. They suddenly found the noise of aircraft overhead every few minutes, relentlessly (day after day, week after week) for most of the day intolerable. Other areas were also affected by changes to flight paths. Ever since the opening, the people of Frankfurt have absolutely refused to accept this, and have campaigned continuously and relentlessly. They hold unique and remarkable protests, almost every Monday night, in the airport terminal. These are attended by well over 1,000 people, every time. On 19th May, the 100th airport terminal protest was held, with around 4,000 (maybe more) protesters. Some campaigners from the Heathrow and Gatwick campaigns went out (by train) to show solidarity and share this remarkable achievement with their German friends. John Stewart, Chair of HACAN and of AirportWatch, addressed the protest, saying they were making aviation history, and the tenacity, persistence and determination of the opposition to Frankfurt flights is increasingly a matter of concern to the aviation industry.
What respectable residents get up to in Frankfurt every Monday evening in the airport terminal! The opponents of the hated 4th runway at Frankfurt continue to occupy the airport terminal almost every Monday evening. This is their 94th, on March 25th. This a great bit of video. They attack the runway mock-up, taking it in turns (to a background chorus of “Die Bahn Muss Weg) = the runway must go ) to don safety goggles and a hard hat, to shatter the runway into pieces with a sledge hammer. And a lot of passion. Hilarious. Spectacular and entertaining video
On Monday, opponents of the Frankfurt 4th runway celebrated the 2nd anniversary of their weekly protests
Date added: October 23, 2013
At Frankfurt, the Monday evening protests continue. They have just had, on Monday 21st, the second anniversary of the start of the protests. There have been so far a total of 75 Monday evening airport protests, and 19 vigils. Some of the terminal protests (German airport terminals are deemed to be public property, so people cannot legally be prevented from gathering there) had over 1,000 people. This week it was perhaps 250, but still noisy and determined. Residents now suffering aircraft noise, and an incomplete night fight ban say Fluglarm macht krank (aircraft noise makes you sick) and fear they are not only unproductive at work, and stressed, but also suffering health impacts from the noise and disturbed sleep. They are deeply opposed to the proposed plans to build a third airport terminal, which they say is not needed, and which would only contribute to pressure for yet more flights. Asian travellers passing through the airport are reported to be amazed and bemused, and take photos of the protests to send back home to their friends and family. Local politicians know the airport, and any expansion, is a toxic issue for voters.
The New Civil Engineer magazine is very much in favour of building infrastructure of all sorts (predictably) including a Heathrow runway. Some responses on the NCE website, from members, are interesting. These include: ….” the editor rightly says that the elephant in the room is climate change and that the £1bn annual cost of flooding is similar to the cost of not having another runway at Heathrow. However, the benefit of a 3rd runway is purely speculative, whereas the cost of flooding is almost bound to rise.” … “The editor is telling us ‘we must support Heathrow’ and those who do not believe in this third runway project are “cynics”. Well, my engineering background has taught me to question and be rational, considering all aspects of schemes including the environmental and human aspects.” …. “[we are asked to] “come together to support a shared set of goals” and “get behind Armitt and support his work.”” The writer mentions Heathrow noise, air pollution and traffic problems, and says: “The scheme is being pushed by big business, but opposed by most of the locally elected democratic representatives. On a practical operating point, how can this world class airport operate with night flying restrictions, or will those be overturned too?” He is not renewing his NCE membership, due to its position on Heathrow, Hinckley and HS2.
Your view | More Heathrow challenges
6 JANUARY, 2017 (New Civil Engineer)
Below are comments by NCE members on the Heathrow issue:
“In the December 2016 issue of New Civil Engineer, which highlighted our role in fighting floods, the editor rightly says that the elephant in the room is climate change and that the £1bn annual cost of flooding is similar to the cost of not having another runway at Heathrow.
However, the benefit of a third runway is purely speculative, whereas the cost of flooding is almost bound to rise.
Moreover, the roundtable on airports headed “Can we deliver sustainable airports?”, states that airlines intend to cut carbon by creating forests or funding carbon reductions elsewhere. How many trees have airlines planted to date? As global warming is causing forest fires as well as floods, increasing flights may have dire consequences – an ethical dilemma for engineers who will be glad of the work entailed in building a third runway.”
Richard Bloore (M) firstname.lastname@example.org
“I was perturbed to read both the Comment and Lighthouse in the December 2016 New Civil Engineer. The editor is telling us “we must support Heathrow” and those who do not believe in this third runway project are “cynics”. Well, my engineering background has taught me to question and be rational, considering all aspects of schemes including the environmental and human aspects.
In a similar vein, Lighthouse talks about Heathrow, Hinkley and High Speed 2, and tells us to “come together to support a shared set of goals” and “get behind Armitt and support his work”.
The Heathrow area is already overheated; the M25 has five often stationary lanes of traffic in each direction, other roads are frequently severely congested, the area is already over the air pollution thresholds, killing and adversely affecting the health of many, and noise pollution is adversely affecting thousands of residents.
The scheme is being pushed by big business, but opposed by most of the locally elected democratic representatives.On a practical operating point, how can this world class airport operate with night flying restrictions, or will those be overturned too?
Regarding Hinkley, do we want to tie in doubled electricity costs with foreign-owned companies, and also have design and financial control by a country which has been far from an ally? There was a chance to have an exemplar energy scheme with wind, solar and tidal power on the same site, at probably a fraction of the cost and with none of the controlling restraints.
I feel alienated by New Civil Engineer and the ICE’s positions on these subjects, and so will not be renewing my membership. My subscriptions may be better spent supporting more environmentally sound organisations.”
John Lee (M) email@example.com
“It is difficult to believe that our profession appears to be supporting the architectural fancy being promoted for Heathrow. It is a wart of an airport outside an airport.
The concept is impractical strategically, technically, operationally and financially. I do not need vast studies to support this position based on my experience of being charged with creating the concepts for Maplin, Terminal 4, North Terminal Gatwick, Stansted and Terminal 5. The perpetually overlooked answer has always been Stansted. I lay myself open to Parliamentary or any other challenge. Meanwhile the national interest is suffering and the planning blight is cruel because of the delay in finding a solution to the immediate and long term need.
H Pageot (F) Posted online on article headed “New Heathrow runway gets government approval” The suggestion that the major airports could be joined together by high speed rail connections was dismissed by the editor on the grounds that they are in different ownerships
This has no validity. Companies frequently act in concert if they find it to be of mutual benefit. Early in the third runway discussion, spokespersons were heard being almost contemptuous in their dismissal of building the new runway at Gatwick and linking it by high speed railway to Heathrow, to create a four runway hub. At High Speed 1 speeds, this would take about 17 minutes. The dismissals of this idea, previously dubbed Heathwick, were doubtless made for narrow commercial interests rather than the national interest.
A serious examination of what appears to be a good solution would be interesting.”
On 2nd December 2016 the Editor, Mark Hansford, wrote:
We must focus on technology
This autumn has been a fairly momentous one for the British construction industry.
Three major government announcements about major infrastructure projects had already been given a big boost and now the Autumn Statement has offered further encouragement.
The three big decisions of course concerned Hinkley Point C, Heathrow and now High Speed 2. Sceptics could argue that all three projects have hurdles to overcome before we see shovels in the ground. But all three projects are talking very assertively about cracking on. That’s great news for the industry.
So Heathrow is a go. Well, a go pending Parliamentary debate, National Policy Statement sign off, legal challenges, planning shenanigans, regulatory agreements and probably a few other hurdles too.
Cynics will say it will never happen. But the soundings from those in charge are resoundingly that it will. And that is a very strong start. Of course, the cynic would say, you’d expect that. But then that cynic would be pointed at the £11bn of investment Heathrow has already made over the last decade, in Terminal 5, Terminal 2 and various other projects besides. This is not an organisation that rests on its laurels. Given the chance to invest and to grow, it invests – and it grows.
So we could be cynical. Or we could also be positive. We could really get behind it and back it. And we must, because it’s going to need that support.
Because the government could easily lose interest in all this. With Brexit discussions looming, frankly it’s got bigger things to worry about. So we, as in industry, must support Heathrow and make sure government’s commitment does not wane. Don’t give it the excuse that the project is not ready to go; that we haven’t solved the conundrum of whether to put the M25 in tunnel or put the runway on a bridge; that we haven’t dealt with the air pollution issue (magnified this month by the High Court’s ruling that government’s plans nationally do not go far enough); that we haven’t dealt with the surface access issue (because there is no denying it, from anywhere other than central London, Heathrow is difficult to get to by public transport).
And let’s be clear: we do need to crack this. The government’s own figures show that the cost to the economy of doing nothing to boost runway capacity is in the region of £50bn to £65bn over the next 60 years. It’s a pressing investment case.
But let’s also be clear: there are many more things equally demanding of our time and energies. Because while Heathrow has dominated the news – and important though it is – it really isn’t our biggest infrastructure priority. That’s according to the National Needs Assessment, the ICE-led, 15-month study into the UK’s infrastructure needs between now and 2050.
A study done in Toronto, and published in the Lancet, has shown a slightly higher risk of dementia in people who live near major roads. This may be due to some effect of the traffic, but whether it is noise or air pollution is not clear. The study looked at 2 million people in Canada, over 11 years (2001 – 2012), and found those living within 50 metres of major roads were affected. Many questions remain unanswered, but UK dementia experts said though the findings needed probing, they were “plausible”. The risk of getting dementia was 7% higher for those living within 50 metres of a road, compared to those living over 300 metres away – with the extra risk reducing with distance. The study adjusted for poverty, obesity, education levels and smoking so these are unlikely to explain the link. Air pollution is already acknowledged to increase the risk of stroke, heart disease, lung cancer and respiratory diseases. It may also increase the risk of dementia. It is not known whether tiny particles in air pollution might be to blame. Research published in September 2016 found minute particles of magnetite in the brain. The risk of dementia is usually associated with genetics, age, poor diet, smoking, lack of activity etc. This research will cause yet more concern about the health impacts of raised air pollution associated with a Heathrow 3rd runway.
Dementia rates ‘higher near busy roads’
By James Gallagher (BBC) Health and science reporter
People who live near major roads have higher rates of dementia, research published in the Lancet suggests.
As many as 11% of dementia cases in people living within 50m of a major road could be down to traffic, the study suggests.
The researchers, who followed nearly 2m people in Canada over 11 years, say air pollution or noisy traffic could be contributing to the brain’s decline.
UK dementia experts said the findings needed probing but were “plausible”.
Nearly 50 million people around the world have dementia. However, the causes of the disease, that robs people of their memories and brain power, are not understood.
The study in the Lancet followed nearly two million people in the Canadian province of Ontario, between 2001 and 2012.
There were 243,611 cases of dementia diagnosed during that time, but the risk was greatest in those living closest to major roads.
Compared with those living 300m away from a major road the risk was:
7% higher within 50m
4% higher between 50-100m
2% higher between 101-200m
The analysis suggests 7-11% of dementia cases within 50m of a major road could be caused by traffic.
The researchers adjusted the data to account for other risk factors like poverty, obesity, education levels and smoking so these are unlikely to explain the link.
Dr Hong Chen, from Public Health Ontario and one of the report authors, said: “Increasing population growth and urbanisation have placed many people close to heavy traffic, and with widespread exposure to traffic and growing rates of dementia, even a modest effect from near-road exposure could pose a large public health burden.
“More research to understand this link is needed, particularly into the effects of different aspects of traffic, such as air pollutants and noise.”
Should I flee to the country?
There are already plenty of reasons to avoid the polluted air in our cities.
It increases the risk of stroke, heart disease, lung cancer and respiratory diseases.
However, it is not clear whether dementia should be added to the list.
This study “hints” there may be something going on, but does not definitively prove it.
So if you’ve not already been persuaded to up-sticks and move somewhere greener, then this study shouldn’t change your mind.
But for Prof Rob Howard from UCL: “This study presents one more important reason why we must clean up the air in our cities”.
The researchers suggest noise, ultrafine particles, nitrogen oxides and particles from tyre-wear may be involved.
However, the study looks only at where people diagnosed with dementia live. It cannot prove that the roads are causing the disease.
“This is an important paper,” says Prof Martin Rossor, the UK’s National Institute for Health Research director for dementia research.
He added: “The effects are small, but with a disorder with a high population prevalence, such effects can have important public health implications.”
Risk factors for dementia
Type 2 diabetes
Source: Alzheimer’s Society
Prof Tom Dening, the director of the Centre for Dementia at the University of Nottingham, said the findings were “interesting and provocative”.
He said: “It is certainly plausible that air pollution from motor exhaust fumes may contribute to brain pathology that over time may increase the risk of dementia, and this evidence will add to the unease of people who live in areas of high traffic concentration.
“Undoubtedly living in conditions of severe air pollution is extremely unpleasant and it is hard to suppose that it is good for anyone.”
The best advice to reduce the risk of dementia is to do the things that we know are healthy for the rest of the body – stop smoking, exercise and eat healthily.
Living near heavy traffic increases risk of dementia, say scientists
Study tracking 6.6 million people estimates one in 10 cases of Alzheimer’s among those living by busy roads could be linked to air and noise pollution
By Hannah Devlin, Guardian Science correspondent @hannahdev
Thursday 5 January 2017
People living near a busy road have an increased risk of dementia, according to research that adds to concerns about the impact of air pollution on human health.
Roughly one in 10 cases of Alzheimer’s in urban areas could be associated with living amid heavy traffic, the study estimated – although the research stopped short of showing that exposure to exhaust fumes causes neurodegeneration.
Hong Chen, the scientist who led the work at Public Health Ontario, said: “Increasing population growth and urbanisation has placed many people close to heavy traffic, and with widespread exposure to traffic and growing rates of dementia, even a modest effect from near-road exposure could pose a large public health burden.”
Previously, scientists have linked air pollution and traffic noise to reduced density of white matter (the brain’s connective tissue) and lower cognition. A recent study suggested that magnetic nano-particles from air pollution can make their way into brain tissue.
The latest study, published in The Lancet, found that those who live closest to major traffic arteries were up to 12% more likely to be diagnosed with dementia – a small but significant increase in risk.
The study, which tracked roughly 6.6 million people for more than a decade, could not determine whether pollution is directly harmful to the brain. The increased dementia risk could also be a knock-on effect of respiratory and cardiac problems caused by traffic fumes or due to other unhealthy life-style factors associated with living in built-up urban environments.
Rob Howard, a professor of old age psychiatry at University College London, who was not involved in the study, said: “We know that major road air pollution is bad for general health and this latest study doesn’t tell us whether the small increase in dementia risk is driven by indirect effects or whether proximity to traffic directly influences dementia pathology. Regardless of the route of causation, this study presents one more important reason why we must clean up the air in our cities.”
However, others cautioned that those living close to main roads should not be unduly alarmed by the findings.
Prof John Hardy, a neuroscientist at University College London said: “The analyses are exceedingly complex … and this always leads to concerns that the analytic complexity is hiding confounding factors in the analytic pipeline. There are several reasons why one might not want to live near a major road, but this study is not an additional one.”
The study tracked all adults aged between 20 and 85 living in Ontario, Canada from 2001 to 2012, using postcodes to determine a person’s proximity to major roads. The cohort’s medical records were examined to see who went on to develop dementia, Parkinson’s disease or multiple sclerosis.
Over the study period, more than 243,000 people developed dementia, 31,500 people developed Parkinson’s disease and 9,250 people developed multiple sclerosis.
The scientists found no link between living near a road and Parkinson’s disease or multiple sclerosis, but dementia was slightly more common in people living close to busy roads and the risk dropped off gradually in less built-up areas. Those living within 50 metres of a busy road had a 7% higher risk in developing dementia, the risk was 4% higher risk at 50-100 metres, 2% higher risk at 101-200 metres and there was no increase in risk in those living more than 200 metres away.
Those who lived in a major city, within 50 metres of a major road and who did not move house for the duration of the study had the highest risk at 12%.
The scientists took into account wealth, education, and various other measures of health and social status in their calculations, although they acknowledged that it was impossible to eliminate the potential for other confounding factors playing a role.
Ray Copes, chief of environmental and occupational health at Public Health Ontario, and a co-author of the Lancet paper, said that those living in cities should consider walking along side streets, jogging in parks and planning cycle routes along quieter roads where possible. “The real implications are not for individual choice, but at the societal and policy level,” he said, adding that air pollution should be factored into urban planning and building design to reduce exposure.
Recent research by Lancaster University indicates that as well as heart and lung effects of air pollution, tiny particles of pollution appear to get inside brain tissue. Called “nanospheres”, the particles are less than 200 nanometres in diameter – by comparison, a human hair is at least 50,000 nanometres thick. They are made of magnetite, which is a compound of iron and appear to come from car engines or braking systems. These magnetite particles may be small enough to pass from the nose into the olfactory bulb and then via the nervous system into the frontal cortex of the brain. Iron is a very reactive metal, so it is likely they will cause oxidative damage in brain tissue. It is already known that oxidative damage contributes to brain damage in Alzheimer’s patients. It is not known whether these particles could contribute to dementia, but there might be plausible mechanisms for a link. The research, published in the PNAS, analysed samples of brain tissue from 37 people – 29 who had lived and died in Mexico City, a notorious pollution hotspot, and who were aged from 3 to 85. The other 8 came from Manchester, were aged 62-92 and some had died with varying severities of neurodegenerative disease. The particles issue is yet another reason not to permit vehicle pollution levels to rise, for public health.
Penn Medicine researchers show how lost sleep might lead to lost brain neurons
March 24, 2014
Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine have found evidence that not getting enough sleep does actual harm to the brain. Instead of the usual solution of inadequate sleep, of trying to catch up on the hours when time permits, the Penn Medicine research indicates that chronic sleep loss may be more serious than previously thought and may even lead to irreversible physical damage to and loss of brain cells. It seems extended wakefulness is linked to injury to, and loss of, neurons that are essential for alertness and optimal cognition, the locus coeruleus (LC) neurons. There is a change in a protein linked to mitochondrial energy production in the cells. The research is published in the prestigious Journal of Neuroscience. The research so far is in mice, and involved normal rest, short wakefulness, or extended wakefulness. In humans there is some earlier evidence that attention span and several other aspects of cognition may not normalize even with 3 days of recovery sleep, after sleep deprivation, raising the question of lasting injury in the brain. Researchers say more work needs to be done to establish whether a similar phenomenon occurs in humans and to determine what durations of wakefulness place individuals at risk of neural injury.
The “astroturf” group (not actually a real community group) Back Heathrow gets its funding from Heathrow. It refuses to say how much money it gets from the airport. John Holland-Kaye has in the past also refused to say how much it contributes. Back Heathrow is complaining that Hillingdon borough has spent a lot of money on its campaigns against the 3rd runway. This is money that the borough is being forced to spend, because of the activities of Heathrow, against which it has to defend its residents. The account for Back Heathrow show it has around £154,000 in the bank; it has assets of around £653,000; it gives its net worth as about £482,000; its current liabilities are shown as – £171,000; and it only has one employee, Rob Gray. No activity is reported, and no turnover is reported. Back in December 2014 the Sunday Times revealed that Back Heathrow had had at least £100,000 from the airport, but no details are ever given. Back Heathrow says, rather bizarrely, that ‘It would not be fair to publish the amounts given’. Their next accounts will be published on 31st March 2017. Being private companies, the sums cannot be extracted through FoI. Hillingdon Council makes its figures public, and has defended its campaigning, saying it is representing the views of residents.
Next accounts made up to 30 June 2016 due by 31 March 2017
Last accounts made up to 30 June 2015 (Total Exemption Small)
These show its cash in the bank is £154,960
All its company assets (not specified) are £653,230
No activity is reported. No turnover is reported.
Its net worth is stated as £481,960.
All those figures are very high for an alleged “community group” – with no recorded work and one employee – Rob Gray.
Current Liabilities (short term debts within one year of the accounts being submitted)
£-171.27k (compared to +£116k (209.9%) vs previous year
Pro-expansion group “Back Heathrow” refuses to reveal funding from Heathrow Airport after outing Hillingdon Council’s campaign spend
Back Heathrow has declined to release details of its funding after it revealed details of Hillingdon Council’s anti-third runway campaign spending
BY ALEXANDER BALLINGER (Get West London)
The pro-third runway campaign group Back Heathrow has refused to reveal how much money it receives from Heathrow Airport after it published figures showing Hillingdon Council had spent £150,000 on its campaign since 2015.
Back Heathrow released figures in December which revealed Hillingdon Council had spent £154,219 on campaigning against the airport’s expansion between January 2015 and August 2016.
The money spent by the council included £50,000 to fund anti-expansion group HACAN (Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) and £45,800 for Stop Heathrow Expansion.
Back Heathrow slammed the council for using taxpayers’ money but has now declined to reveal how much money it received from the airport.
‘It would not be fair to publish the amounts given’
A spokesman for Back Heathrow said: “We are very grateful for the support we have received from Heathrow and also from individual residents and local businesses.
“It would not be fair to publish the amounts given by those who have chosen to help our campaign since our launch in 2013.”
The Hillingdon Council figures, obtained by Back Heathrow using a Freedom of Information request, also showed that the council spent £602,860 on lobbying against Heathrow expansion between January 2007 and December 2014.
Hillingdon Council has launched action to begin the judicial review procedure in an attempt to overturn the government’s backing of the Heathrow expansion, which was revealed in October 2016.
Back Heathrow has once again criticised Hillingdon Council for its use of the public’s money, and says it has not spent taxpayers’ money itself.
A spokesman from the group said: “Unlike Hillingdon Council and its unnecessary legal challenge against Heathrow, we have not spent a single penny of taxpayers’ money and our funding has only come from people and organisations that share our aims.
“Thousands of local residents have had no choice but to finance the council’s absurdly expensive anti-expansion campaign, even if they disagree with it.”
Heathrow Airport has declined to reveal how much money it contributes to Back Heathrow.
Back Heathrow was initially launched through funding from the airport but says it now has more than 100,000 supporters.
Campaign group Stop Heathrow Expansion has now criticised Back Heathrow for failing to make its funding public.
Coordinator for Stop Heathrow Expansion, Robert Barnstone said: “Back Heathrow is an astroturf organisation – pretending to be a grassroots campaign group when in fact it is bankrolled by Heathrow Airport’s coffers.
“Given Heathrow Airport are embarking on a PR charm offensive with local communities and politicians alike, why wouldn’t they want to be as open an honest as possible with the amount of money they’re spending?
“What have they got to hide?”
Hillingdon Council has defended its campaigning, saying it is representing the views of residents.
A statement from the council said: “Hillingdon residents have repeatedly voiced their opposition to any expansion at Heathrow, and our job is to represent their views and challenge this decision by the government to back a third runway.
“Residents are already breathing illegal levels of air pollution, and further expansion would exacerbate this along with worsening aircraft noise, pressure on public transport and a myriad of other problems it would bring.
“The government has gone back on its promise that Heathrow would not be expanded, no ifs no buts, and we have been left with no choice but to fight this in the courts.”
“Back Heathrow” tries to blame councils for having to spend money, defending themselves against its runway plans
December 17, 2016
The lobby group funded and staffed by Heathrow, “Back Heathrow”, has had the (ill judged) nerve to criticise councils for spending money to oppose their expansion plans. Back Heathrow has attacked Hillingdon Council for spending more than £800,000 between 2007 and August 2016 on fighting the 3rd runway, while cutting public services. Back Heathrow say Hillingdon is having to make cuts of £309,000 in early support service and children’s centres, with the threat of £100,000 more cuts next year. And they complain that Richmond has spent nearly £109,000 opposing Heathrow expansion between 2007 and 2014 – and so on with other councils. Heathrow is trying to give the impression that residents in these boroughs want the runway, and councils are wasting money. They ignore the inconvenient fact that there is huge opposition to the runway within these councils, and the councils can see not only the effect of noise, air pollution and congestion the runway would cause, but also the social and infrastructure stresses – for example, on housing demand. Heathrow’s plans are costing, and could continue to cost, these councils a great deal of money. Heathrow is responsible for a lot of public money that taxpayers would have to fork out, to deal with the impact of its expansion.
Extent to which “Back Heathrow” is funded by Heathrow, and is not a true community campaign, revealed
December 1, 2014
“Back Heathrow” is an industry funded pressure group, the aim of which is to drum up support for a 3rd Heathrow runway. It was set up with at least £100,000 from Heathrow airport – maybe more. Its website just says that it had money from Heathrow to set up. Matt Gorman from Heathrow admitted at a public meeting in Putney on 27th November than Heathrow continues to fund it, but nobody will give any figures. “Back Heathrow” is a classic astroturfing campaign (ie. making out that it is community led, when it is not). Its co-ordinator is Rob Gray, was previously a director of the Aviation Foundation, another lobbying group established by the industry. Other staff working for Back Heathrow are current or former Heathrow employees. They have recently distributed hundreds of thousands of glossy newspapers to households across west London, with no mention anywhere on these that they are paid for (at least in part) by Heathrow. They try to give the impression of being independent information. Back Heathrow claim to have 50,000 people signed up, but this is largely due to scare tactics, implying Heathrow workers will lose their jobs without a 3rd runway. This has now been revealed by the Sunday Times.
China launched its first freight train to London on Sunday, according to the China Railway Corporation.
The train will travel from Yiwu West Railway Station in Zhejiang Province, Eastern China to Barking, London, taking 18 days to travel over 7,400 miles.
The route runs through Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, Poland, Germany, Belgium and France, before arriving in London. The UK is the eighth country to be added to the China-Europe service, and London is the 15th city.
The railway is a major strategic development to assist Xi Jinping’s multi-billion dollar ‘One Belt, One Road’ strategy, according to the China-Europe Freight Rail Development Plan released in October.
The strategy was launched in 2013 and is an infrastructure and trade network connecting Asia with Africa and Europe along old Silk Road trading routes.
There are currently 39 routes linking 16 Chinese cities to 12 European cities.
Until June 2016, 1881 services had run from China to Europe and 502 had returned.
The returning journeys transported items such as German meat products, Russian woods and French wines.
The China Railway Corporation said the train to London will strengthen the connection between China and Western Europe and improve China-Britain trade ties.
China’s exports totalled $2.27 trillion in 2015, slowing down from $2.34 trillion in 2014.
Its economic growth slipped to 6.9 percent in 2015 from 7.3 percent in 2014, marking the slowest growth in 25 years.
The ‘One Belt, One Road’ strategy is part of an effort to boost trade and economic growth.
China has launched a direct rail freight service to London, as part of its drive to develop trade and investment ties with Europe.
China Railway already runs services between China and other European cities, including Madrid and Hamburg.
The train will take about two weeks to cover the 12,000 mile journey and is carrying a cargo of clothes, bags and other household items. [Not the same times or distances as quoted by the Telegraph ….. actual distance is not as much as 12,000 miles …. error? AW note]
It has the advantage of being cheaper than air freight and faster than sea.
The proliferation of routes linking China and Europe is part of a strategy launched in 2013 aimed at boosting infrastructure links with Europe along the former Silk Road trading routes.
London will become the 15th European city to join what the Chinese government calls the New Silk Route.
The service will pass through Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, Poland, Germany Belgium and France before arriving at Barking Rail Freight Terminal in East London, which is directly connected to the High Speed 1 rail line to the European mainland.
Because of the different railway gauges involved, a single train cannot travel the whole route and the containers need to be reloaded at various points.
The Chinese government is keen to boost its economy in the face of slowing export and economic growth.
A freight train bound for Hamburg, Germany departed the Xi’an International Trade and Logistics Park on Oct 1.
It is the second time the train has departed for the German city since the route launched on Sept 2. Another route bound for Warsaw, Poland was launched from the park in August.
The train’s 45 containers were loaded with consumer goods, furniture, clothes, lamps and electronics, and will arrive in Hamburg in 13 days. The products will then be transported to various European cities for sale.
The two Central European routes have proved to be efficient and economical since launching in the summer and have attracted attention from numerous companies hoping to transport their goods at an affordable rate. The frequent freight trains supplying the routes are expected to foster international trade and become a key intercontinental transport mode.
To complement the operation of the Xi’an-Hamburg freight train route, the logistics park will open offices in Frankfurt and Amsterdam. It is hoped the initiative will increase Xi’an’s global influence and support the common development of countries along the Silk Road.
HACAN has produced a short paper looking at just how much the London boroughs, to the east of Heathrow, are affected by its noise. Using figures from Heathrow’s own data, it can be worked out how many planes (take offs and landings) fly over each area in a year. The study did not look at areas west of Heathrow, like Windsor, which are also very badly affected – largely by take offs. The wind blows approximately 70% of the time from the west, so that is when Heathrow is on “westerly operations”. HACAN’s research shows – predictably – that Hounslow is the most overflown. It gets the noise from all arrivals from the east, on both runways. It also gets all departures towards the east. That is around 240,000 per year – ie. half of all flights using Heathrow. Richmond is close behind in second place, with nearly as many (slightly fewer take offs). The boroughs of Lambeth, Southwark are close behind. A map of the London boroughs shows why this is. Other boroughs in London get not only the noise of Heathrow arrivals, but planes using London City airport too. These boroughs – especially Waltham Forest, and Southwark – suffer from both, and are therefore high on the list of the areas suffering the most planes overhead per year.
The Most Overflown Boroughs in London 2015/16
An analysis by HACAN of Heathrow arrivals (on westerly operations) and departures (on easterly operations)
In 2009 HACAN produced an analysis of the most overflown boroughs in London. We have updated it based on 2015 and, where available, 2016 statistics.
Hounslow, Richmond and Waltham Forest retain the top three positions. In 2009, Waltham Forest’s third place surprised most people, though possibly not the residents of Waltham Forest!
The other surprise may be that only three of the top twelve are West London boroughs. This reflects the fact that a lot of West London benefits from runway alternation (when planes switch runways at 3pm to give residents a half day’s break from the noise), together with the fact that West London is not overflown by London City aircraft.
The top 12 of the areas overflown by Heathrow arrivals from the east (on westerlies) and Heathrow departures towards the east
[Windsor is also very heavily overflown, but is not a London borough]
How the analysis was carried out
•The figures are indicative. Precise figures would require a much more in-depth study which took detailed account of all the variables. But we believe the figures are broadly accurate. They are all taken from official sources. However, they are intended to provide a broad snapshot rather than a detailed analysis.
•We only factored in the planes which used London City and Heathrow Airports. We ignored planes using Northolt. We also ignored those which use other UK airports (over London they tend to be at a height where they don’t cause noise problems).
•We didn’t take into consideration the heights of the planes.
It is also worth stressing that, while it is clear Heathrow, in particular, impacts a large swathe of London, there are parts of most boroughs which are relatively unaffected by aircraft noise.
It is not surprising that Hounslow and Richmond top the list. They are the London boroughs closest to Heathrow. (Hillingdon, the borough in which Heathrow is situation, is parallel to the airport so it is overflown much less). They are overflown when planes are landing from the east – 70% of the time in a typical year – and when planes take off from the west – 30% of the time. It is worth saying, though, that there are few, if any, areas in either borough which are flown over all day long every day of the year.
Waltham Forest remains so high in the list because it is overflown by Heathrow aircraft when there is both an east and west wind blowing and has a lot of City aircraft.
The fact that Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham are high on the list is a reflection of two things. The majority of aircraft landing at Heathrow when a west wind is blowing (70% of the year) overfly these boroughs. And when an east wind is blowing parts of each borough are overflown by London City aircraft.
Boroughs such as Ealing don’t feature in the top 12 or even top 15 simply because the days of the year they get aircraft noise are limited (only when an east wind is blowing). But on the days when they do get noise, it can be very bad indeed.
Newham retains a high position because it is overflown by Heathrow aircraft but principally because it contains London City Airport and all planes using City fly over it (but only for a short part of their journey).
Change from 2009
The most significant change is the fall in the number of flights over Islington, Camden and Hackney. When aircraft are landing from the north, it appears more of them are crossing the Thames further to the east than before. It means that more are crossing into Southwark, Lambeth and, even Lewisham, in a way they were not seven years ago.
Below are links to maps, taken from Heathrow’s website, which show all the arrivals and departures. The maps show the numbers of planes per year on each route.
In another seven years in will be beginning of 2024. If a third runway at Heathrow has overcome all the many hurdles in its way, it will be close to completion. Flight paths will be about to change.
But, even if the third runway doesn’t happen, flight paths will change because Heathrow, like all airports, will be required to bring in what is known as Precision Navigation. This is where, using new computer technology, aircraft landing and departing will be guided much more precisely.
Used well, this precision technology can have benefits for residents. It allows air traffic controllers to use multiple routes when guiding the planes. It would also allow for some dispersion where multiple routes were not practicable.
Heathrow has commissioned a wide-ranging study to look at how all this can be done most effectively. It is expected to be published in spring 2017.
London City Airport introduced Precision Navigation in 2016. However, it simply concentrated its routes, thus depriving people of the respite multiple routes would provide. There are hopes that it will review this decision in 2017.
If both Heathrow and London City introduce multiple routes and some dispersal – and coordinate their activities – a 2024/5 HACAN analysis could show an overall increase in the number of planes over each borough but a decrease in the number of planes over the majority of communities in most of the boroughs.
The exception would be the West London boroughs where it is difficult to see how, even with an element of respite, people would not get more planes if a third runway was built than they have today.
This map (AirportWatch) indicates how much worse the noise would be with a Heathrow 3rd runway. Green lines are arrivals flight paths. ALL would create intense noise for Hounslow, which would be – by an even more significant percentage – the borough worst affected by plane noise.
A complaint was made (it is not clear by whom) against an advert by London City Airport in June 2016. The advert stated that “Business or pleasure, time is on your side when you fly from London City Airport … Fly with British Airways or Flybe from Edinburgh, or from Glasgow with British Airways, to the only airport actually located in the city of London….” etc. The complaint was its claim that London City is the only airport in the city of London. It is, of course, not in the square mile of the City of London. The ASA accepted that “the city of London” was intended to refer to inner London, as opposed to the “square mile” City of London. City airport has an E16 postcode, which Heathrow has a TW6 postcode. The ASA said the primary message of the ad was the time that could be saved by flying from or to London City Airport, which they accepted. They therefore said the ad would not mislead, dismissed the complaint, and it was not in breach of advertising codes. Many airports call themselves “London” airports, regardless of the length of journey to get to them from central London.
Advertising Standards Agency confirms that Heathrow and Gatwick aren’t actually in London
By Oliver Smith, digital travel editor (Telegraph)
4 JANUARY 2017
London City Airport has been cleared over claims made in a radio advert that it is the only airport “actually in London”.
The commercial, which aired last summer, was called misleading in a complaint to the Advertising Standards Agency. But City Airport successfully defended it, saying that the claim was based on the fact that it lies within the London postal district (its post code is E16 2PX). Heathrow, on the other hand, while part of Greater London, uses a Twickenham postcode (TW6 2GW).
Gatwick, Stansted, and Luton, the three other large airports that serve the capital, lie in West Sussex, Essex and Bedfordshire, respectively (though are still permitted to use “London” in the their names).
Which airport is really in London? | Distance by car from Charing Cross to…
London City – 8.5 miles / 33 mins London Heathrow – 19.9 miles / 46 mins London Gatwick – 27.8 miles / 1 hr 24 mins London Luton – 34 miles / 1 hr 6 mins London Stansted – 40.7 miles / 1 hr 5 mins London Southend – 41.7 miles / 1 hr 14 mins London Oxford – 61.8 miles / 1 hr 31 mins
A spokeswoman for Heathrow told Campaign, the advertising industry magazine, that it would not challenge the ASA’s ruling but maintained that it was the airport best connected with the capital.
Heathrow Express services from Paddington take 15 minutes to reach Heathrow terminals 2 and 3.
“Business or pleasure, time is on your side when you fly from London City Airport… the only airport actually located in the city of London,” read the original radio ad. “Get closer to the heart of London. From landing to the City or the West End in under 40 minutes. London City Airport. Fast, punctual and actually in London.”
Stansted and Luton are sometimes criticised by travellers for carrying “London” in their titles, leading some overseas visitors to believe they are closer to the city centre than they really are.
Stansted is, by car, 40.7 miles from Charing Cross, a journey that takes around an hour and five minutes, according to Google Maps. Luton is a shade closer, at 34 miles.
Even further from the city centre is London Southend Airport, at 41.7 miles by car – a journey that takes around 1 hour 14 minutes. But most misleading of all is surely Kidlington Airport, which bills itself as “London Oxford” despite being 61.8 miles from Charing Cross.
There are more inconvenient airports beyond our shores. Frankfurt Hahn Airport is 78.3 miles from the finance capital, Oslo-Torp Airport (favoured by Ryanair) is 73.3 miles from Oslo, while the fastest journey by car from Paris Vatry Airport to the city centre is a 131.7-mile schelp.
London City Airport
City Aviation House
4 January 2017
Internet (on own site)
Holidays and travel
Number of complaints:
Bygraves Bushell Valladares & Sheldon Ltd
An ad for London City Airport, played on 7 June 2016 on the online stream of a London radio station stated, “Business or pleasure, time is on your side when you fly from London City Airport … Fly with British Airways or Flybe from Edinburgh, or from Glasgow with British Airways, to the only airport actually located in the city of London. Get closer to the heart of London. From landing to the City or the West End in under 40 minutes. London City Airport. Fast, punctual and actually in London …”.
The complainant challenged whether the claims relating to the location of London City Airport were misleading.
London City Airport Ltd said the reference in the ad to “the city of London” was intended to refer to inner London, as opposed to the “square mile” City of London (which listeners would know to be a very small and highly developed area where it would be virtually impossible for an airport to exist) or to Greater London, and they believed that was how it would be understood by listeners. The claim therefore excluded those airports within Greater London and the Home Counties which also served London. They pointed out that Heathrow Airport’s postcode (TW6) was not considered to be within the inner London postal area whereas their postcode (E16) was within the London postal area. They said London City Airport was the only airport with an inner London postcode.
The ASA noted that the ad referred to London City Airport as “the only airport actually located in the city of London” and “actually in London”. However, the primary message of the ad was the time that could be saved by flying from or to London City Airport. We acknowledged that the most time efficient way to travel would be highly dependent on an individual’s starting or arrival location within London, and the transport links available to them to access different airports. However, we considered consumers would understand from the ad that it may be advantageous for them to fly from or to London City Airport, due to its central London location.
While we understood that no airports were in the central London local authority district of the City of London, and that London City Airport was not the only airport within Greater London (Heathrow being the other), we noted that it was the most central airport servicing London, and the only one that might reasonably be described as being within ’inner’ London. For that reason, we concluded that the ad was unlikely to mislead.
We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), but did not find it in breach.
The Government has been criticised for the DfT spending an average of £10,000 per day on consultants and law firms to decide if a 3rd runway should be built at Heathrow. The DfT is reported to have spent more than £3.8million on external firms since the Airport Commission published a report in July 2015, saying Heathrow was the best location for a new runway. A FoI request by the Press Association showed that the lion’s share of the money has gone to financial advisers N M Rothschild & Sons, who filed 4 invoices totalling £1.46 million, which were paid between July last year and October 2016. Law firm DLA Piper UK was also paid £1.09 million between August 2015 and October 2016, while Allen & Overy received £152,955.60 between January and September this year. Professional services firm Ernst & Young filed 2 invoices worth £138,765 for consultancy work, paid between March and August 2016. New MP for Richmond Park, Sarah Olney, said: “These are eye-watering sums, over £10,000 a day, to pay consultants for an airport people don’t want.” For this runway “the people lose out and the only gainers are highly paid consultants.” Taxpayers’ money has been wasted by the DfT despite deciding “long before it was going to be Heathrow whatever the evidence”. Far, far more public money will also be spent, if the runway went ahead.
Heathrow expansion: Government spent ‘eye-watering’ £10k a day on consultants over third runway
2.1.2017 (Evening Standard)
The Government has been slammed for spending an average of £10,000 per day on consultants and law firms to decide if a third runway should be built at Heathrow.
The Department for Transport, headed up by under fire minister Chris Grayling, has shelled out more than £3.8million on external firms since the Airport Commission published a report in July 2015, naming Heathrow Airport as the best location for a new runway.
A Freedom of Information request by the Press Association has revealed that the lion’s share of the money has gone to financial advisers N M Rothschild & Sons, who filed four invoices totalling £1.46million, which were paid between July last year and October 2016.
Law firm DLA Piper UK was also paid £1.09 million between August 2015 and October 2016, while Allen & Overy received £152,955.60 between January and September this year.
Professional services firm Ernst & Young filed two invoices worth £138,765 for consultancy work, which the Government made good between March and August 2016.
Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Olney, who stunned the Tories by overturning billionaire Zac Goldsmith’s 23,000 majority in the Richmond Park by-election, described the sums as “eye-watering”.
She said: “These are eye-watering sums, over £10,000 a day, to pay consultants for an airport people don’t want.
“I won a by-election in Richmond Park and North Kingston on a platform opposing Heathrow expansion. Local people have spoken but Theresa May is ignoring democracy. The people lose out and the only gainers are highly paid consultants.”
Ms Olney added that it is “patently clear” that the Conservative Government had frittered away taxpayer’s money despite deciding “long before it was going to be Heathrow whatever the evidence”.
A third runway at Heathrow Airport was given the go-ahead by the Government in October after proposals to expand its existing runway, or build a second runway at Gatwick, were rejected.
The new runway could be in operation by 2025, but is expected to face fierce opposition from MPs.
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson previously described the project as “undeliverable” and claimed it was likely to be stopped, while Education Secretary Justine Greening said she was “extremely disappointed”.
A public consultation will be held on the impact of the third runway before the final decision is put to MPs for a vote in the winter of 2017/18.
It was revealed last month that parliamentary support for a third runway at Heathrow has grown, according to research commissioned by the airport.
Almost three quarters (74 per cent) of the 130 MPs polled between October and November say they would back the third runway project.
A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: “The Government’s decision to back expansion at Heathrow Airport was one of the biggest boosts to the UK’s transport infrastructure in a generation, estimated to bring economic benefits to passengers and the wider economy worth up to £61 billion.
“Given the scale and complexity of airport expansion schemes, as well as the various statutory requirements, including those under the Planning Act 2008, it is only right that we should seek expert advice to make sure the Government’s analysis is of the highest quality and fully considers all options and any constraints.
“This is to ensure we get the right solution to the UK’s airport capacity needs and maximise the benefit to the whole country.”
A drop in the ocean compared to what taxpayers will have to find to allow this foreign-owned quasi-monopoly to be entrenched.
Government slammed for spending £3.8million on consultants and lawyers over new Heathrow runway
The Department for Transport spent an average of £10,000 per day last year while deciding where to place a new runway in the South East
BY NATASHA CLARK (The Sun)
2nd January 2017
MINISTERS have been slammed for splashing out more than £3.8 million on law firms and consultants when deciding which London airport to expand.
The Department for Transport, headed up by Chris Grayling, shelled out an average of £10,000 per day on external firms since July 2015.
Heathrow was recommended as the airport to expand in a new report in the summer after the General Election. But ministers spent millions in the months afterwards to financial advisers, N M Rothschild & Sons, law firm DLA Piper, and professional services firm Ernst & Young, figures from the Press Association showed.
MPs have rounded on the Government for the decision to splash taxpayers’ cash.
New Lib Dem MP Sarah Olney, who snatched the Tory seat of Richmond Park from Zac Goldsmith last year, said the figures were “eye-watering”.
Ms Olney added that it is “patently clear” that the Conservative Government had frittered away taxpayer’s money despite deciding “long before it was going to be Heathrow whatever the evidence”.
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson had previously condemned the expansion and claimed it was “undeliverable”.
Justine Greening, the Home Secretary, said she was “extremely disappointed” with the decision.
Heathrow is currently preparing its formal application for planning permission for the new runway, which is expected to create thousands of jobs, and bring benefits to the economy.
But residents will be invited to join the consultation and councils in the area are likely to object unless they win major concessions. Thousands will voice concerns about increased traffic congestion, and noise and air pollution.
Residents are concerned at the impact of the new runway on traffic and air pollution. A spokesman for the Department for Transport defended the decision to spend the money on consultants:
“The Government’s decision to back expansion at Heathrow Airport was one of the biggest boosts to the UK’s transport infrastructure in a generation, estimated to bring economic benefits to passengers and the wider economy worth up to £61 billion.
“Given the scale and complexity of airport expansion schemes, as well as the various statutory requirements, including those under the Planning Act 2008, it is only right that we should seek expert advice to make sure the Government’s analysis is of the highest quality and fully considers all options and any constraints.