Eight new Factsheets from the Richmond Heathrow Campaign on a 3rd Heathrow runway
The RHC has published eight Heathrow Factsheets, which have been sent to every MP. There is also a summary of all eight are at rhcfacts.org. They are on: (1). The UK Economy: the Commission’s own figures show that Heathrow expansion would not add significantly to the UK economy or add further connectivity to the UK as a whole. (2). Deliverability: Heathrow expansion may require £54 billion or more of funding. State aid would be difficult to justify given the spare capacity at other airports and the prevalence at Heathrow of transfers and leisure passengers. (3). Carbon: It is very likely that Heathrow’s growth would be constrained by the impact of carbon emissions, rendering a 3rd runway uneconomic. (4) Air Quality: It seems unlikely that a third runway could be built while remaining within legal limits. (5) Noise: Heathrow expansion is likely to expose several hundred thousand Londoners to aircraft noise for the first time. (6) Local Economy: The local economy will grow with or without a runway, and providing enough housing is a problem. (7). Surface Access: Transport for London (TfL) has calculated that an investment of up to £20 billion would be needed to support. (8). Safety: Proposals for steeper flight paths on landing and for curved approaches raise concerns, as does the Heathrow Hub extended runway model.
.
Tweet
Richmond Heathrow Campaign – Heathrow Factsheets
23.6.2015
The Airports Commission led by Sir Howard Davies is due to submit its final report shortly. Last Wednesday, the Richmond Heathrow Campaign launched a set of factsheets about Heathrow expansion. In summarising facts and evidence they expose several myths that have not been questioned before.
There are eight factsheets. There is also a summary of all eight that can be found on the homepage of a new website, rhcfacts.org. We have sent this to every MP, and also distributed it to journalists at the launch of Zac Goldsmith MP’s New Heathrow Flight Path Campaign (see below for more details of this).
In short, the facts are:
(1). The UK Economy: the Commission’s own figures show that Heathrow expansion would not add significantly to the UK economy or add further connectivity to the UK as a whole. Instead it would artificially stoke overheating of the South-East at the expense of the rest of the UK.
(2) Deliverability: Heathrow expansion may require £54 billion or more of funding. State aid would be difficult to justify given the spare capacity at other airports and the prevalence at Heathrow of transfers and leisure passengers from the UK, which provide little benefit to the UK economy.
(3) Carbon: It is very likely that Heathrow airport’s growth will be constrained even more than currently predicted in the Airports Commission’s modelling by the impact of carbon emissions, rendering a third runway uneconomic.
(4) Air Quality: Given that existing airport operations already result in a breach of legal air pollution limits, it seems unlikely that a third runway could be built while remaining within the law.
(5) Noise: Heathrow expansion is likely to expose several hundred thousand Londoners to aircraft noise for the first time and the uncertainty of flight paths may blight parts of London for several years.
(6) Local Economy: The local economy will grow whether or not Heathrow expands. Moreover, it has not yet been shown how sufficient housing could be provided to support Heathrow expansion.
(7) Surface Access: Transport for London (TfL) has calculated that an investment of up to £20 billion will be needed to support a third runway at Heathrow. The consequences of inadequate investment would be poor travelling experience on public transport and increased resort to road transport, generating more air pollution and traffic congestion.
(8) Safety: Proposals for steeper flight paths on landing and for curved approaches to reduce noise raise new safety concerns. The multi-use of a single extended runway for take-off and landing has not been tested at any airport in the world, let alone one as busy as Heathrow.
Over the coming weeks we will be socialising these messages with journalists and decision-makers. If you are able to help in the process, please contact us.
New Heathrow Flight Path Campaign
Last Wednesday, 17th June, Zac Goldsmith MP launched a campaign to highlight the impact of new flightpaths that would result from a new runway at Heathrow. While no firm plans have been published, there is a high degree of certainty that are several areas of London would suffer aircraft noise for the first time.
If you have friends in Hammersmith, Chiswick and Brentford, please alert them to Zac’s campaign and direct them to its web page at heathrowflightpaths.co.uk. Why? Because with an additional runway at Heathrow, they would experience noise levels equivalent to those in Barnes, Mortlake, Richmond and Kew, including night flights from 4:30am onwards.
What Next?
The Airports Commission’s final report marks the end of technical analysis but only the start of the political process.
In 1971 the Roskill Commission recommended development of a site at Cublington in Buckinghamshire. The political process then overruled this in favour of building an airport at Maplin Sands in Essex. Ultimately no new airport was ever built, and instead Stansted was developed.
So whichever way Davies reports, it won’t necessarily be final, and our campaign continues.
http://www.richmondheathrowcampaign.org/
.
.