La commissione parlamentare boccia piano Johnson, avanti con terza pista a Heathrow
- Autore Discussione speedbird437
- Data d'inizio
Leggevo in metro che comunque i comitati cittadini combatteranno contro ogni nuova pista o costruzione di LHR.
Heathrow unveils a new approach to third runway
Heathrow is today submitting to the Airports Commission three options for solving the lack of hub airport capacity in the UK. These see a third runway placed to the north, north west or south west of the existing airport.
All three options are quicker and cheaper than any rival hub option, delivering extra capacity by 2025-9 and for £14-18bn[SUP]1[/SUP]. All three put millions more people within easy reach of the UK’s hub airport than non-Heathrow options and all three protect the thriving businesses and plentiful jobs that surround Heathrow.
Each option has its particular benefits, but Heathrow believes the two westerly options offer clear advantages. They deliver a full-length third runway while minimising the impact on the local community from noise and compulsory house purchases.
The north west option performs better on noise* and residential property impact than the north option whilst costing slightly more and taking slightly longer to build. The south west option further improves the situation for local residents but increases the cost, timescale and construction complexity. The north option is the quickest and cheapest, but offers the least noise benefits and has the biggest residential property impact.
Over the last year, Heathrow has looked at many different ways to solve the UK’s lack of hub airport capacity. Those have been gradually whittled down to the three options we are proposing today.
Colin Matthews, Heathrow’s chief executive, said, “After half a century of vigorous debate but little action, it is clear the UK desperately needs a single hub airport with the capacity to provide the links to emerging economies which can boost UK jobs, GDP and trade. It is clear that the best solution for taxpayers, passengers and business is to build on the strength we already have at Heathrow. Today we are showing how that vision can be achieved whilst keeping the impact on local residents to an absolute minimum.”
The two westerly options are radically different from the old, short third runway proposed by BAA in the last decade and have been informed by the recent proposals by Tim Leunig[SUP]2[/SUP]. Whilst there is still more work to be done on the precise detail, we believe they show why Heathrow should be included in the Commission’s shortlist at the end of the year. Each option would raise the capacity at Heathrow to 740,000 flights a year (from the current limit of 480,000). That would cater for 130m passengers, allow the UK tocompete with our international rivals and provide capacity at the UK’s hub airport for the foreseeable future.
A third runway would provide benefits to the UK worth £100bn present value, well in excess of the benefits from Crossrail or HS2. Each of the options could be turned into a four runway solution should the demand increase in future. This is a more cost effective solution than building a new four runway airport from scratch when we may never need one.
A new Heathrow would benefit from already planned public transport improvements, such as Crossrail, Western Rail Access and High Speed 2 and the charges per passenger would be likely to be much lower than at a new hub airport. And despite the increase in capacity, the total number of people affected by noise from aircraft will fall. This is due in part to the westerly options being positioned further from London than the existing runways. Each mile the runway is moved to the west puts arriving aircraft approximately 300ft higher over London. Continued improvements in aircraft and air traffic technology will also result in fewer people being disturbed. As a result, even with a third runway there will be 10-20% fewer people within Heathrow’s noise footprint in 2030 than today.
Expansion at Heathrow can also be met within EU climate change targets. This is made possible by continued improvements to aircraft efficiency which mean that air traffic could double by 2050 without a substantial increase in emissions. If carbon trading is included, emissions would be reduced. Similarly Heathrow would improve local air quality in line with EU standards because of cleaner vehicles and the increased proportion of passengers using public transport.
As part of today’s submission, we are unveiling ten key commitments. If the government supports a third runway, Heathrow will:
Heathrow is today submitting to the Airports Commission three options for solving the lack of hub airport capacity in the UK. These see a third runway placed to the north, north west or south west of the existing airport.
All three options are quicker and cheaper than any rival hub option, delivering extra capacity by 2025-9 and for £14-18bn[SUP]1[/SUP]. All three put millions more people within easy reach of the UK’s hub airport than non-Heathrow options and all three protect the thriving businesses and plentiful jobs that surround Heathrow.
Each option has its particular benefits, but Heathrow believes the two westerly options offer clear advantages. They deliver a full-length third runway while minimising the impact on the local community from noise and compulsory house purchases.
The north west option performs better on noise* and residential property impact than the north option whilst costing slightly more and taking slightly longer to build. The south west option further improves the situation for local residents but increases the cost, timescale and construction complexity. The north option is the quickest and cheapest, but offers the least noise benefits and has the biggest residential property impact.
Over the last year, Heathrow has looked at many different ways to solve the UK’s lack of hub airport capacity. Those have been gradually whittled down to the three options we are proposing today.
Colin Matthews, Heathrow’s chief executive, said, “After half a century of vigorous debate but little action, it is clear the UK desperately needs a single hub airport with the capacity to provide the links to emerging economies which can boost UK jobs, GDP and trade. It is clear that the best solution for taxpayers, passengers and business is to build on the strength we already have at Heathrow. Today we are showing how that vision can be achieved whilst keeping the impact on local residents to an absolute minimum.”
The two westerly options are radically different from the old, short third runway proposed by BAA in the last decade and have been informed by the recent proposals by Tim Leunig[SUP]2[/SUP]. Whilst there is still more work to be done on the precise detail, we believe they show why Heathrow should be included in the Commission’s shortlist at the end of the year. Each option would raise the capacity at Heathrow to 740,000 flights a year (from the current limit of 480,000). That would cater for 130m passengers, allow the UK tocompete with our international rivals and provide capacity at the UK’s hub airport for the foreseeable future.
A third runway would provide benefits to the UK worth £100bn present value, well in excess of the benefits from Crossrail or HS2. Each of the options could be turned into a four runway solution should the demand increase in future. This is a more cost effective solution than building a new four runway airport from scratch when we may never need one.
A new Heathrow would benefit from already planned public transport improvements, such as Crossrail, Western Rail Access and High Speed 2 and the charges per passenger would be likely to be much lower than at a new hub airport. And despite the increase in capacity, the total number of people affected by noise from aircraft will fall. This is due in part to the westerly options being positioned further from London than the existing runways. Each mile the runway is moved to the west puts arriving aircraft approximately 300ft higher over London. Continued improvements in aircraft and air traffic technology will also result in fewer people being disturbed. As a result, even with a third runway there will be 10-20% fewer people within Heathrow’s noise footprint in 2030 than today.
Expansion at Heathrow can also be met within EU climate change targets. This is made possible by continued improvements to aircraft efficiency which mean that air traffic could double by 2050 without a substantial increase in emissions. If carbon trading is included, emissions would be reduced. Similarly Heathrow would improve local air quality in line with EU standards because of cleaner vehicles and the increased proportion of passengers using public transport.
As part of today’s submission, we are unveiling ten key commitments. If the government supports a third runway, Heathrow will:
- Connect Britain to economic growth - by enabling airlines to add new flights to fast-growing markets
- Connect UK nations and regions to global markets - by working with airlines and government to deliver better air and rail links between UK regions and Heathrow
- Protect 114,000 existing local jobs and create tens of thousands of new jobs nationwide - by developing our local employment, apprenticeships and skills programmes and supporting a supply chain throughout the UK
- Build more quickly and at lower cost to taxpayers than building a new airport - by building on the strength the UK already has at Heathrow
- Reduce aircraft noise - by encouraging the world’s quietest aircraft to use Heathrow and routing aircraft higher over London so that fewer people are affected by noise than today
- Lessen noise impacts for people under flight-paths - by delivering periods of noise respite with no aircraft overhead and providing noise insulation for people in high-noise areas
- Treat those most affected by a third runway fairly - by ensuring compensation greater than market value is offered to anyone whose home needs to be purchased
- Keep CO2 emissions within UK climate change targets and play our part in meeting local air quality limits - by incentivising cleaner aircraft, supporting global carbon trading and increasing public transport use
- Increase the proportion of passengers using public transport to access Heathrow to more than 50% - by supporting new rail, bus and coach schemes to improve public transport to Heathrow
- Reduce delays and disruption - by further improving Heathrow’s resilience to severe weather and unforeseen events
per chi ha tempo e voglia di leggere: http://www.heathrowairport.com/abou...information/airports-commission?cmp=LHRDCHERO
ed ecco il documento proposto da Heathrow Airport - molto interessante da leggere: http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/Heathrow/Downloads/PDF/a-new-approach_LHR.pdf
ed ecco il documento proposto da Heathrow Airport - molto interessante da leggere: http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/Heathrow/Downloads/PDF/a-new-approach_LHR.pdf
Molto interessante, grazie. Ho notato che in tutti i disegni del documento, il Terminal 3 sparisce.
Ieri leggevo che è stato proposto di estendere Stansted e di costruirci 4 piste, non ho trovato l'articolo un evening stardard.
Un po di sano lobbying da parte anche di Sir Mike Rake:
CBI head backs third runway for Heathrow
Sir Mike Rake, the new president of the CBI, has said that building a third runway at Heathrow is a “no-brainer” and that the Government should get on with increasing aviation capacity immediately.
In a wide ranging interview, Sir Mike said politicians had spent too long talking about new runways but had failed to take any decisions.
“I’m not sure how much longer we can delay aviation capacity decisions, because we could have built a third runway the amount of time we’ve spent discussing it,” Sir Mike said. “It’s been going on, what, five, six years? But from my personal perspective, it’s a no-brainer
“Despite the fact I live near there, I think we should have started a third runway several years ago and I think other projects should follow from that.”
Sir Mike admitted that Heathrow is not the only option and also called for a second runway to be built at Gatwick.“We need to decide quickly and get on with it,” he said.
Sir Mike’s comments come three days after Heathrow outlined plans for a super-airport with a total of four runways.
However, his personal views appear to be slightly at odds with the CBI itself.
Last Thursday, the CBI released its response to the Howard Davies-led review into airport capacity, stressing that it was open to whatever solution could gain cross-party support and lead to speedy growth. The CBI remains the only business group that does not unequivocally back an enlarged Heathrow as the way to deliver such growth.
Sir Mike also warned of the dangers to the UK economy of the increasingly negative rhetoric on immigration.
In his first interview since taking the helm of Britain’s biggest business organisation last month , Sir Mike said that economic migration had provided real benefits to the UK, but that the “language used in some quarters” was detracting from Britain’s attractiveness to overseas students and workers.
The CBI president, who is also chairman of BT (LSE: BT-A.L - news) and deputy chairman of Barclays (LSE: BARC.L - news) , said that business has a clear role to play in ensuring the right image is projected of the UK’s willingness to welcome skilled migrants on the world stage, in part to help fill the increasing skills gap.
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/cbi-head-backs-third-runway-210937016.html
CBI head backs third runway for Heathrow
Sir Mike Rake, the new president of the CBI, has said that building a third runway at Heathrow is a “no-brainer” and that the Government should get on with increasing aviation capacity immediately.
In a wide ranging interview, Sir Mike said politicians had spent too long talking about new runways but had failed to take any decisions.
“I’m not sure how much longer we can delay aviation capacity decisions, because we could have built a third runway the amount of time we’ve spent discussing it,” Sir Mike said. “It’s been going on, what, five, six years? But from my personal perspective, it’s a no-brainer
“Despite the fact I live near there, I think we should have started a third runway several years ago and I think other projects should follow from that.”
Sir Mike admitted that Heathrow is not the only option and also called for a second runway to be built at Gatwick.“We need to decide quickly and get on with it,” he said.
Sir Mike’s comments come three days after Heathrow outlined plans for a super-airport with a total of four runways.
However, his personal views appear to be slightly at odds with the CBI itself.
Last Thursday, the CBI released its response to the Howard Davies-led review into airport capacity, stressing that it was open to whatever solution could gain cross-party support and lead to speedy growth. The CBI remains the only business group that does not unequivocally back an enlarged Heathrow as the way to deliver such growth.
Sir Mike also warned of the dangers to the UK economy of the increasingly negative rhetoric on immigration.
In his first interview since taking the helm of Britain’s biggest business organisation last month , Sir Mike said that economic migration had provided real benefits to the UK, but that the “language used in some quarters” was detracting from Britain’s attractiveness to overseas students and workers.
The CBI president, who is also chairman of BT (LSE: BT-A.L - news) and deputy chairman of Barclays (LSE: BARC.L - news) , said that business has a clear role to play in ensuring the right image is projected of the UK’s willingness to welcome skilled migrants on the world stage, in part to help fill the increasing skills gap.
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/cbi-head-backs-third-runway-210937016.html
Secondo me il progetto di Johnson non è senza logica. Ha però anche qualche difetto, la distanza dal centro in primis.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/new-hub-airport-isle-of-grain-mayor-of-london.pdf
Praticamente proprio sull'estuario del Tamigi.
Per quanto riguarda Stansted invece
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/new-hub-airport-stansted-mayor-of-london.pdf
Notato niente di strano? Eh sì, progetti molto simili
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/new-hub-airport-isle-of-grain-mayor-of-london.pdf
Praticamente proprio sull'estuario del Tamigi.
Per quanto riguarda Stansted invece
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/new-hub-airport-stansted-mayor-of-london.pdf
Notato niente di strano? Eh sì, progetti molto simili
Ultima modifica:
Secondo me il progetto di Johnson non è senza logica, ha però anche qualche difetto, la distanza dal centro in primis.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/new-hub-airport-isle-of-grain-mayor-of-london.pdf
Praticamente proprio sull'estuario del Tamigi.
Per quanto riguarda Stansted invece
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/new-hub-airport-stansted-mayor-of-london.pdf
Notato niente di strano? Eh sì, progetti molto simili
Eh si praticamente identici.
Mi è piaciuta la parte nel progetto Johnson in cui vengono comparati i principali aeroporti europei, ovviamente FCO e MXP la fanno da padrone...:wall:
Prima di aprire i PDF credevo si trattasse di studi architettonici statici riutilizzati (come quelli del T5 di LHR che sono stati usati per il t4 di MAD), ma qui il progetto è esattamente lo stesso, con minimi aggiustamentiSecondo me il progetto di Johnson non è senza logica, ha però anche qualche difetto, la distanza dal centro in primis.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/new-hub-airport-isle-of-grain-mayor-of-london.pdf
Praticamente proprio sull'estuario del Tamigi.
Per quanto riguarda Stansted invece
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/new-hub-airport-stansted-mayor-of-london.pdf
Notato niente di strano? Eh sì, progetti molto simili
sarà, am a me quello che fa davvero impressione è la capacità di pianificare attività da qui al 2050, prendere coscienza (ora) del fatto che, se si vuole rimanere competivivi, bisogna darsi da fare da subito per arrivare pronti...questa è la key phrase del programma "London and the UK’s status as a leading world aviation hub must be safeguarded. The global economy is growing fast. Heathrow is not able to service our long term needs. London’s connectivity to key markets should not merely keep pace, but should lead and innovate"
Avessimo in Italia la metà della radice quadrata della visione che hanno a Londra...altro che FCO e MAXP...
Avessimo in Italia la metà della radice quadrata della visione che hanno a Londra...altro che FCO e MAXP...
In realtà il progetto di costruire l'aeroporto sull'estuario del Tamigi è in voga da oltre 40 anni.
Il governo già all'epoca (anni '70) aveva commissionato idee e proposte per il mega aeroporto del sud est Inghilterra.
Vi metto il link da wiki ma ci sono anche vari documenti risalenti all'epoca: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Estuary_Airport
Secondo me il progetto di Johnson non è senza logica, ha però anche qualche difetto, la distanza dal centro in primis.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/new-hub-airport-isle-of-grain-mayor-of-london.pdf
Praticamente proprio sull'estuario del Tamigi.
Per quanto riguarda Stansted invece
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/new-hub-airport-stansted-mayor-of-london.pdf
Notato niente di strano? Eh sì, progetti molto simili
Grazie per i links. Molto interessanti. Per me la soluzione migliore e' quella dell'estuario. I tempi per raggiungere Londra sono accettabili e si disturberebbero meno persone possibile (cosa molto importante di questi tempi).
Il problema della Boris Island e' che se dovesse chiudere LHR, l'intera zona ad alta concentrazione di imprese (e molte sono multinazionali) tra Slough e Reading che vive in simbiosi con Heathrow si trasferirebbe altrove all'indomani dell'annuncio, creando una enorme sacca di disoccupazione che si aggiungerebbe a quella creata dalla perdita di tutto l'indotto di LHR (non solo l'aeroporto, basta farsi una conta degli alberghi, dei car rentals, ecc... e sommare tutti i fornitori). E oggi nessuno mi sembra voglia assumersene la responsabilita'.
Agreed, ma non vedo come possano potenziare Heathrow a livelli di Boris Island. Il danno per il traffico perso sarebbe enorme. Le aziende si trasferirebbero e i dipendenti dovranno adeguarsi.
Però la figure 2.5 e 3.8 sembrano parlino chiaro. Il saldo dei posti di lavoro dovrebbe essere attivo. Sempre che non siano sopra stimati.
Bisogna imparare a ricollocarsi in un mondo che è in continua evoluzione. Qualcuno però deve prendersi, come giustamente dici, la responsabilità di spiegarlo ai cittadini.
Nella stessa Heathrow si creerebbero posti di lavoro per la dismissione e per l'edilizia abitativa.
