Forum Topic

Opposition to Heathrow expansion

The government are saying that expansion will be “delivered within existing climate change and air quality obligations”. However, in Feb 2018 the High Courts ruled that the government’s current policy on air pollution was ‘unlawful’ and ordered changes. The UK government were slammed by the courts for failing to produce an adequate plan to tackle the growing problem of air pollution in a landmark judgment that will force ministers back to the drawing board in their efforts to clean up dirty urban air.As a result of the judgment, clean air in the UK will now be overseen by the courts, rather than ministers, in a “wholly exceptional” ruling in which the government was roundly defeated.Until the final UK Clean Air Strategy and detailed National Air Pollution Control Programme which is due to be published by March 2019, we cannot know what future guidelines will have to be met.‘’The burden of air pollution on the health of those living and working in Hounslow is significant, being linked with over 100 deaths annually’’ - Hounslow’s Air Quality Action Plan 04/05/2017So it's about time LBH got off the fence and not only supported Ruth Cadbury our MP, but the Labour party, the Mayor of London, Greenpeace and other local authorities Hillingdon, Richmond-upon-Thames, Wandsworth and Hammersmith & Fulham, who collectively are making a stand and planning legal action against expansion. Stop thinking about votes LBH and think about the people who elected you, this is about lives not jobs!

Martin Case ● 2608d20 Comments

And to back up what Raymond and various other people have said:I just googled ‘central London to Heathrow’ and it said 1 hour 6 minutes by public transport.  For Gatwick it says 1 hour 4 minutes.  Stanstead is 1 hour 17 minutes, Luton 1 hour 23 minutes and City airport 38 minutes.If you’re going to Heathrow by car then it has the M4 and M25, but Gatwick has the M23 and M25, Luton has the M1 and Stanstead has the M11, so they’re all just as easy.  Car parking is also a lot cheaper at the other airports and it’s far quicker to get from car park to terminal.Overall, any discussion about Heathrow being London or the Countries’ most convenient and best connected airport location is clearly wrong.The landing paths for Heathrow run directly over Europe’s largest city, creating not only noise pollution for millions of people, but also showering us with a fine rain of particulates and nitrous oxides and, according to the CAA, an airliner on average once every 30 years that won’t make it as far as the runways but instead ‘land’ in a densely populated neighbourhood.  The last time I looked out of a window of a plane landing at Gatwick all I saw was fields full of cows and I’m pretty sure it’s the same for Stanstead and Luton.Air pollution in Hounslow and around Heathrow is almost continuously above the government and legal maximums.  I don’t know about other people, but I think a maximum legal level is not something you should go above, and certainly not be above it all the time!!  It is becoming very clear that particulates, nitrous oxides and air pollution in general is one of the biggest killers in our society.  On the jobs argument, then far more jobs would actually be created in Hounslow and West London if the three thousand acre Heathrow site was redeveloped into business, industrial and housing areas rather than its current use as concrete runways and car parks.  Less pollution as well as just the airliners taxiing around are pumping out as much pollution as half a dozen fossil fuel power stations.So why the vote for Heathrow?  Perhaps it’s something to do with the airport being owned by a Spanish company that doesn’t own any of the alternative London hubs.  They’re very keen on Heathrow expansion because it’s the only way they’ll make money.  MP's that don't live in West London don't give a hoot about us and are too ignorant and narrow minded to see beyond any lobbying they might have that says Heathrow expansion is for 'the benefit of many at the expense of a few' or similar rubbish they seem to lap up and then repeat.

Lorne Gifford ● 2606d

No-one, especially the Airport operators or their supporters ever mention any thing about what all these jobs created are going to be.That's because the bulk of full career well paid jobs at Heathrow ebbed away long ago.The bulk of these new jobs will be low paid low skill and mundane jobs and the enthusiasm for such by the potential employers is the availability of low skilled workers and those who will work for lower rates of pay.One time quality employers including a certain national airline now have staff on truly awful contracts, are manipulated sorts of barely legal ways and subsequently they now employ a lot of quite young people but the turnover is now very high ( which suits employers as they avoid reduntancy payouts and their conditions do not compare with their older counterparts.Skilled jobs and highly skilled jobs have been transferred way to other parts of the UK but again with lower terms and conditions that were had when these careers were located in and around Heathrow.We are looking at mainly service and freight handling jobs and with those kinds of businesses, large amounts of vehicular movements are core to operations.The only way any sort of environmental criteria will be met is to impose punitive sanctions on residents over a wide circumference of LHR and focused on the denser parts of the areas .It's all folly with meagre benefits but a huge price to pay for residents over a very wide area.London will be one of the last cities in the world to still have an international airport which will have approaches over millions of inhabitants.Ealing Hounslow and Slough/Spelthorne have the highest rates of diagnosed dementia in the UK other hotspots are near...major airports.  No research has been carried out to see if there is a link. Rather surprising that as the claims of deaths from road pollution by the GLA and TfL are also from US statistics modelled on 9 US cities.Neither have been fully and independently research in this country.Why is it we fall for such propaganda?This is why we never get the right solutions.It's always money first.

Raymond Havelock ● 2606d

Fair point but :1) I'm pretty confident that most of the traffic congestion on the roads within Greater London isn't a result of people like yourself commuting 30 miles out of town.2) You choose to live and work where you do, so you have to deal with the consequences of that.  And in so many roles these days flexible working practices just aren't encouraged/supported enough by employers, I mean my last employer insisted on providing me with a company car despite their offices being in the city and my work usage of that car typically amounting to 2 trips a month - I now work in the same sector for precisely the same clients, I've got sites from Yarmouth to Weymouth, yet I don't have a car, I don't have to go to an office etc.As I've said before there's always a justification why people living in London need a car, but in the majority of cases it's purely personal choice, which as I always say is fair enough, but with personal choice comes consequences, yet many drivers seem to think that they shouldn't have to deal with the consequences of congestion or that they're not the primary cause of it.

Adam Beamish ● 2606d

You are right Alex but you miss some points that even make things worse. The cost of public transport for you for example. 30 miles, well that would be expensive. Remember we have dearest train fares in Europe if not the world. Xmas day no trains, not sure about rural buses. Sunday services pityful. My wife could not get to the cargo village at Heathrow on a Sunday. She had to get off of the bus in Stanwell and cross the TWO RIVERS by a footbridge about half a metre wide in one case. Imagine that in the winter when its dark. People can now be made to work on Sundays another factor. Your journey of thirty miles would be an expensive trip in terrible conditions. In one newspaper they published a list of conditions you could come up against on SWR truley frightening.

Nicholas Beard ● 2606d

"... the fact that 36% of NO2 in Greater London comes from cars speaks volumes to me,"I new you would pick on this Adam. That's why in my original post I noted that there is no breakdown into private/company cars nor breakdown into single/multiple occupancy."The only person I know who is adamant he needs a car is my father, who lives 175 miles away in a village with no services and a bus service comprising 1 bus once a week."I've already wrote here that I work 30 miles out of London. It takes me 40-50 minutes by car and around 2 hours by public transport. There are a few thousand people here and my case is true for a big percentage of them

Alex Shpinkov ● 2606d

Interesting Alex, although the fact that 36% of NO2 in Greater London comes from cars speaks volumes to me, it's absurd that the % is so high when there's so little need for a car day-in day-out.I've not been back long from the city for lunch with ex-colleagues, I got the train to Waterloo then walked all the way to Bank and back because of the glorious weather.  But there were cars everywhere, which shows the congestion charge isn't a sufficient deterrent.When I got off the train at Kew Bridge coming home, there's a huge queue of cars tailing back along Kew Bridge Road and, as is always the case, a good 80% of those cars only had the driver in them.The only person I know who is adamant he needs a car is my father, who lives 175 miles away in a village with no services and a bus service comprising 1 bus once a week.  Even I'll agree with him in his circumstances ;-)

Adam Beamish ● 2607d

Expansion at Heathrow has far reaching consequences which to my knowledge have not been factored into this project. Heathrow cannot be taken in isolation, it has to work with the surrounding or newly created infrastructure and how that manifests itself not only on the environment but on communities. The whole concept is antiquated thinking which is being driven by Heathrow and their balance sheet. Guy your observation is bang on, no joined up thinking!

Martin Case ● 2607d

"There’s currently no clear strategy to deal with ever increasing volume of traffic and other similar issues, unless route owners TfL/HE, GLA, DVLA and the Government act in a strategic and cohesive manner – I can’t see that happening anytime soon."The DfE study for doubling the M4 from Brentford out towards and back from Junction 3 is a prime illustration. 4 lanes of eastbound traffic would come up in Carville Hall Park North to be greeted by a single lane ramp up to a (presumably) 2 lane elevated M4. But their study wasn't interested in this as the problem from Junction 2 in is for another authority (TfL) to worry about.

Guy Lambert ● 2607d

The new ULEZ will end on the inner side of the North/South Circular road, this will displace more traffic into using the circular roads to avoid paying emissions charges. Traffic is already highly congested along the A4 running through the residential section in Brentford and even more so at the Chiswick roundabout where the local road network is already at saturation at peak times and where there’s frequent grid-lock at the roundabout.The government’s decision to support a third runway at Heathrow will clearly lead to further increases in road traffic to serve increased freight and passenger movements at the airport.In addition the cumulative impact of proposed development in the Brentford East SPD area will give rise to severe congestion which will significantly increase air pollution in the vicinity of the Chiswick Roundabout, North Circular, and the A4/M4 corridor.There are no official readings for the immediate vicinity under the M4 flyover where the A4 traffic reaches its heaviest at the Chiswick Roundabout junction and where pollution is less easily dispersed.However, In respect to pollutant concentration levels on or near the Chiswick Roundabout, the Council has a diffusion tube (ID: HS33), located at Surrey Crescent, which shows NO2 annual mean concentrations between years of 2016 and 2018 in the range of 62ug/m3 – 66ug/m3. Current UK legal limits for NO2 is 40 ug/m3 annual mean concentrations, so we’re currently already exceeding UK, EU and WHO guidelines.There’s currently no clear strategy to deal with ever increasing volume of traffic and other similar issues, unless route owners TfL/HE, GLA, DVLA and the Government act in a strategic and cohesive manner – I can’t see that happening anytime soon.

Martin Case ● 2607d

It only takes 15 minute longer to get to Gatwick.

Christopher Gillie ● 2607d

"... biggest cause of poor air quality in London is over-reliance on the private car, particularly by single occupancy cars."Unfortunately I couldn't find any latest analyzable data on the sources of air emissions... Same as with other important data in analyzable format it is not easy to find.It is especially hard to find data on the share in air emissions of the "private car, particularly by single occupancy cars."This is what I was able to find:https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Policy%20themes/Environment/Demystifying%20air%20pollution%20in%20London%20FINAL%20FULL%20REPORT_IM_0.pdfPage 7 contains an interesting pie chart. Unfortunately it does not include anything particularly related to Heathrow. Or London City airport. But it does include cars... although without breakdown into private and company or into single occupancy and multiple occupancy.

Alex Shpinkov ● 2607d

I dont have faith in the government to do this no.

Nicholas Beard ● 2607d

Nicholas, do you really have faith in Heathrow and the government to create and deliver the infrastructure to cope with another 54 million extra passengers, and an extra 3 million tonnes of freight a year given the current climate of investment? I think the jury’s out until we see some realistic costings, if you’ll excuse the pun currently it’s all pie in the sky stuff and wishful thinking.

Martin Case ● 2607d

You're right Nicholas in that we want cars, 'needing' cars is another matter altogether, many residents of London could easily cope without a car but choose not to.And there's lots of things I'd like to do but rules and regulations prevent me from doing so, or I have to tolerate what other rules and regulations force upon me, so there's no reason why it should be any different for the use of cars.The vast majority of Londoners are physically able to not rely on a car, don't need a car to commute to/from their workplace or attend work-related meetings, and when they do need a car could easily utilise Zipcar and such like.I'm in my early 40's, I travel for work regularly all over the UK, I frequently go on holiday lugging both suitcases and a double ski bag, and I've not had a car of my own/company car for a year now.Do I sometimes miss the convenience ? - yes, but you adjust, and as many of my acquaintances say they don't actually use their cars that much (indeed my last company car was pointless as I perhaps used it for work twice a month on average).  And I've saved a small fortune in the last year from not having a car.Whilst I'm not the biggest fan of buses (and have largely 'given up' on using the 65 service to travel to/from Kingston as the journey is so slow and uncomfortable most of the time, and whenever we go shopping in Kingston now we go by train) on the whole public transport is not fully appreciated in London and people always try to come up with excuses why they need their cars.And whilst in some circumstances they do, the vast majority of people don't, but simply chose to do so.  Which as such is 'fine', but in my view they then basically forfeit the right to complain about congestion, poor air quality etc. - cake and eat it and all that.

Adam Beamish ● 2607d

The point is  we need cars and want cars. I have never been to an airport without cars around. Car hire etc. Electric cars will not solve this. To get to Gatwick or Heathrow by bus for people who work there is almost impossible so perhaps 40000 car parking spaces should be 60000. If you read about the GOLDEN MILE in the sixties it was hard to recruit workers at one time as they were all leaving for the then London Airport. Employment is very important for some people. We should of course be building another runway at Gatwick in order to relieve the pressure for the 4th runway at Heathrow. Remember Schipol has six.

Nicholas Beard ● 2607d

"the biggest cause of poor air quality in London is over-reliance on the private car, particularly by single occupancy cars."Whether you think this is a good reason not to be bothered about LHR expansion depends whether you believe that the DfT proposals to make the M4 elevated section 4 lanes westbound from Junction 2 to 3 and run a tunnel eastbound for 4 lanes to come up in Carville Hall Park North was just an airy fairy exercise that would never be built, or the actual plan. Personally I wonder why they wasted the effort working it up if they don't think it's likely to be needed. Bear in mind also that there will be ~50% more flights, that all flights take  cargo, and the cargo has to get to and from the airport somehow.They are also talking about 40,000 new parking spaces.

Guy Lambert ● 2607d

Agree with Gatwick, the express from Victoria runs, mostly, fine and is fast.

Neil Chippendale ● 2607d

I never understand the opposition to Heathrow expansion on air quality grounds when the biggest cause of poor air quality in London is over-reliance on the private car, particularly by single occupancy cars.Personally I'm all for Heathrow expansion.  But getting to Gatwick isn't that bad, I've done it many times with both luggage and a double ski bag and it's not that much harder than Heathrow, and air-side I often find Gatwick a quiet and more pleasant airport.London City is a pig to get to, whilst both Luton and Stansted airports are basically chav and stag/hen party meeting points, full of people flying to Benidorm and Ibiza.

Adam Beamish ● 2608d

Gatwick is a long trek LHR is easier with metro or mainline from Paddington. So most people want the 3rd runway.

Nicholas Beard ● 2608d

Not all jobs need to be created at Heathrow, they can be created in Gatwick/Stanstea/Luton/Regional airports.Most anti Heathrow people are not trying to shut down more/all air travel, they are saying more UK air travel does not need to be even more concentrated in a single urban airport, it should be moved outside of a residential area, just as they did with Paris Charles de Gaulle airport in the 70's, which now has loads of runways.The comment about jobs misses the point really. Its more jobs elsewhere.

Christopher Gillie ● 2608d

Its not much of a life without a job.

Nicholas Beard ● 2608d