Rivelato il nuovo piano per la pista di LHR


kenyaprince

Amministratore AC
Staff Forum
20 Giugno 2008
29,897
497
131
VCE-TSF
EXCLUSIVE: New Heathrow runway plan is revealed





6heathrow20606.jpg




06 June 2013


Heathrow is planning a new runway south-west of the airport, the Standard reveals today.

The development in the Stanwell Moor area is one of two or three options to be submitted to the Davies Commission into airport expansion, according to well-placed sources.
Bosses at Heathrow have torn up the blueprint for a third runway to the north of the existing two runways, which was backed by the previous Labour government but ran into strong opposition from Londoners and environmentalists.
The Standard has been told the favoured new option is to build on land stretching from the existing airport towards Stanwell Moor village and north of local reservoirs. This could mean few properties being demolished.
Alternatively, the village could be significantly pulled down, say aviation experts, with generous compensation for locals. Heathrow chiefs are understood to have come up with the plan after examining at least 50 options for expansion.
It is expected to include a series of measures to mitigate additional noise from tens of thousands of extra flights. The bosses have already rejected most proposals, including one for a new four-runway “superhub” airport close to Slough or 15 minutes from Oxford.
A plan from a group led by Concorde’s longest-serving pilot, Captain Jock Lowe — which would see the two existing runways extended to create four — has also been dismissed by Heathrow.
Aviation experts say the Stanwell Moor proposal shows that Heathrow is seeking to minimise the noise impact of a bigger airport, seen as the main obstacle to its expansion.
It would also be in Spelthorne, a borough housing many Heathrow staff and whose Conservative MP Kwasi Kwarteng has led calls for a third or even a fourth runway. The development would not be expected to in- crease disturbance significantly for most residents living under the flightpaths of the current two runways.
But there could be more noise over Feltham, Twickenham, Ham, Richmond Park and Wimbledon Common, which is likely to spark a major campaign — including by Stanwell Moor residents — against the scheme.
John Stewart, the chairman of anti-Heathrow expansion group HACAN, said: “This is an attempt to reduce the impact for residents but our concern remains over the huge overall increase in numbers of planes over London a third runway would bring.” The proposal effectively meant the plan for a northern third runway had “no chance of seeing the light of day,” he added.
Daniel Moylan, the Mayor’s chief aviation adviser, said: “Even to discuss this is to add a new blight to the lives of thousands of Londoners. It is further proof Heathrow expansion is environmentally and politically impossible.”
Heathrow has not yet made a decision on whether to put forward one scheme as its “favoured” option when it makes its submission to the Airports Commission, headed by Sir Howard Davies.
Spelthorne councillor Marian Rough, of the Heathrow Airport consultative committee, said there would be local opposition to a runway affecting Stanwell Moor but added: “We can’t afford not to consider all alternatives.”
Heathrow Airport declined to comment, saying it will give full details of its submission in mid-July.
‘If it got any worse, I could not live here. It is dreadful’

RESIDENTS of a village next to Terminal 5 today said a third runway would destroy their community.
People in Stanwell Moor said that when there are no planes flying over, the village of 1,300 residents — which has a hall, two pubs, a few shops, nearby stables and the River Coln running through it — is a pleasant place to live.
But they warned that it would be ruined forever if the third runway plan was given the go-ahead. They feared the village would become “blighted” like nearby Sipson, where many residents have moved out because of Heathrow noise.
However, some admitted that the noise — which in some houses reaches up to 100 decibels during landings and take-offs — and pollution levels are already so bad that they would happily take compulsory purchase orders. Kathleen Croft, 69, whose house is less than half a mile away from Terminal 5, said: “Normally, living here is like living in Iraq. You cannot talk to somebody standing next to you in my garden.”
Mrs Croft, chairwoman of Stanwell Moor Residents Association, said at peak periods there is one flight every 45 seconds. She added: “If it got any worse than this I could not live in it, I just couldn’t, it really is dreadful.”
John Leer, 79, said of the proposal: “In one way, I’m against it but in another way I am all for it because this village has gone down so much because of the airport.”
However, mother of five Amy Pearce, 37, who has lived in the village for 17 years, said: “The only time it bothers me is when we’re in the garden entertaining with friends and you’re talking and you have to say, ‘Wait a minute’ when the plane goes over.”
Miranda Bryant





 
Cosi' i tempi di taxi dal gate, che gia' oggi di norma superano i 15-20 minuti, raggiungeranno i 40 minuti e piu'.
Ora ci manca solo che propongano di costruirla sulla M25 sta benedetta terza pista! :D
 
Una cosa che mi sono sempre chiesto per LIN, ma vale anche per LHR: e' proprio necessario che la nuova pista sia collegata via taxyway al resto dell'aeroporto?

Mi spiego, se fai una pista e un terminal remoti, di fatto un altro apt indipendente, collegati al terminal principale solo con percorsi viabilistici protetti (recintati), BHS e people mover air side, puoi far funzionare quelli che in un certo senso sono due aeroporti separati come se fossero uno solo.

E' gravemente inefficiente dal punto di vista della capacita' di pista, intendiamoci. Ovviamente non puoi piu' specializzarne alcune per i decolli o gli atterraggi, perche' i voli che arrivano nell'aeroporto "dependance" necessariamente devono ridecollare da li. Gli aerei possono spostarsi all'altro aeroporto "dependance" solo volando. Pero' la distanza tra le piste in questo modo potrebbe aumentare immensamente, non si dovrebbero arare immense aree densamente urbanizzate per tenere tutto connesso, limitando molto i vincoli nel trovare nuovi spazi.

Nella fantasia su Linate una nuova pista da 3500m avrebbe potuto essere fatta, che so, tra Melzo e Pantigliate, magari con terminal sulla ferrovia MI-BS, per avere il collegamento diretto su ferro, e people mover (che poi potrebbe essere un percorso tranviario recintato in parte in trincea in parte in rilevato) che passi a nord o a sud dell'idroscalo.

Ok, per Linate e' fantasia pura, e poi e' molto peggio da tutti i punti di vista di altre soluzioni piu' lineari come chiuderlo o ridurlo.

Ma per LHR, con i vincoli che ci sono, gli investimenti che si potrebbero fare considerata l'immensa attrattivita'..... non e' proprio possibile fare una nuova pista remota scollegata via taxiway ma con terminal e collegamenti airside integrati? Esiste un aeroporto al mondo con questa soluzione?
 
Ma per LHR, con i vincoli che ci sono, gli investimenti che si potrebbero fare considerata l'immensa attrattivita'..... non e' proprio possibile fare una nuova pista remota scollegata via taxiway ma con terminal e collegamenti airside integrati? Esiste un aeroporto al mondo con questa soluzione?

Se ricordo bene, vi e' un accordo con i vari Boroughs attraversati dalle direttrici di avvicinamento, per cui vige la regola dell'alternanza per le piste utilizzate per decolli e atterraggi.
 
Una cosa che mi sono sempre chiesto per LIN, ma vale anche per LHR: e' proprio necessario che la nuova pista sia collegata via taxyway al resto dell'aeroporto?

Mi spiego, se fai una pista e un terminal remoti, di fatto un altro apt indipendente, collegati al terminal principale solo con percorsi viabilistici protetti (recintati), BHS e people mover air side, puoi far funzionare quelli che in un certo senso sono due aeroporti separati come se fossero uno solo.

E' gravemente inefficiente dal punto di vista della capacita' di pista, intendiamoci. Ovviamente non puoi piu' specializzarne alcune per i decolli o gli atterraggi, perche' i voli che arrivano nell'aeroporto "dependance" necessariamente devono ridecollare da li. Gli aerei possono spostarsi all'altro aeroporto "dependance" solo volando. Pero' la distanza tra le piste in questo modo potrebbe aumentare immensamente, non si dovrebbero arare immense aree densamente urbanizzate per tenere tutto connesso, limitando molto i vincoli nel trovare nuovi spazi.

Nella fantasia su Linate una nuova pista da 3500m avrebbe potuto essere fatta, che so, tra Melzo e Pantigliate, magari con terminal sulla ferrovia MI-BS, per avere il collegamento diretto su ferro, e people mover (che poi potrebbe essere un percorso tranviario recintato in parte in trincea in parte in rilevato) che passi a nord o a sud dell'idroscalo.

Ok, per Linate e' fantasia pura, e poi e' molto peggio da tutti i punti di vista di altre soluzioni piu' lineari come chiuderlo o ridurlo.

Ma per LHR, con i vincoli che ci sono, gli investimenti che si potrebbero fare considerata l'immensa attrattivita'..... non e' proprio possibile fare una nuova pista remota scollegata via taxiway ma con terminal e collegamenti airside integrati? Esiste un aeroporto al mondo con questa soluzione?

Mi associo alla (interessante) domanda dal punto di vista della fattibilità tecnica. Certo che una volta che si mettono in campo ingenti risorse per fare una nuova pista logica vorrebbe che fosse collegata anche via taxiway al resto dell'apt, comunque dal punto di vista teorico la questione interessa anche me.

Per quanto riguarda LIN credo sia più probabile veder realizzata la tua soluzione che non la chiusura.
 
Sempre a riguardo dell'infinita questione dell'impatto ambientale sulle eventuali nuove piste a LHR e LGW. Curioso di leggere il report delle Nazioni Unite sulle emissioni dovute all'aviazione.

The airports debate
Airports issues are currently very much part of public policy and media debate, and the Government has set up an independent commission to consider whether we should be building new runways. The commission’s final report will not be published until after the next election, potentially allowing a shift in political party positions without breaching the Coalition Agreement, which was to oppose expansion at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted during this Parliament.
A decision to expand could impact the UK, in terms of noise, health, and our ability to achieve legally binding carbon budgets, for decades to come. Internationally, meanwhile, the UN is due to be delivering this year a global solution on how to deal with aviation’s rising emissions, though it seems likely that discussions will continue for several years to come. In this context, we feel the need to increase our research and communications capacity and have therefore secured funding for a one-year paid internship post, to be based at our office in the City of London (EC4).

http://www.environmentjob.co.uk/job/45158-internship-research-communications