Investigating The Impact of a Third Runway and Fifth Terminal at Heathrow Airport

Investigating The Impact of a Third Runway and Fifth Terminal at Heathrow Airport
In this project I will be discussing the good and bad impacts the advance of the fifth terminal and third runway at Heathrow airport will have on the environment, economy and transport. Heathrow airport is situated in South West Londonwhich is urban built and has the population of approximately 200,000 people. It was originally requisitioned in 1944 as a major transport base for the raf. London needed a large airport and the partly built site at Heathrow was ideal, one runway was ready for use in 1946 so a terminal was quickly put in place and the new airport was formed. Regarded as the hub of the aviation world, it is the world?s busiest international airport, it?s the UK?s largest airport and it boards approximately 64 million passengers a year. It currently has four terminals and two runways. Considerations of building a fifth terminal and third runway to increase Britain?s financial status are currently being made. Controversially divisive issues concerning environmental arguments against runway three and terminal five such as increased levels of air pollution, destruction of land and potential increase of congestion in the roads are topics I will be addressing. I shall also be looking at the economic benefits and the consequential impact they are likely to have on the country, should the advancements progress. Main body: evaluation and investigation Environment Environmental arguments are all against the progression of runway three and terminal five commencements. A public inquiry was held looking into the concerns for Terminal 5 in 1999; this was the longest ever public inquiry, which reflected the major public concerns over the issue. Thousands of local residents, numerous community groups and most of the local councils have clearly objected to the plans of a fifth Terminal. If given the go ahead, it will horribly spoil one of the best sites in London, destroying wildfowl, natural habitats and one of the rarest plant life in England. The major ecological effects it would render nationally are one dilemma, but through considering the consequential danger it would cause internationally, in reality, it isn?t worth going ahead with. The threat of more greenhouse gas emissions resulting in atmosphere change is a potent reason to restrict air travel, let alone runway three. Levels of noise pollution in terms of the number of people currently exposed to air traffic are already a predicament and this would be the worst place in the UKto place an additional runway. Heathrow already has a major impact on water pollution in the surrounding area as it is. The plan is for runway three to be built on Green Belt which is a vital part in defending us against loss of countryside and excessive urbanisation. The loss of Perry Oaks would be destructively ?damaging?, as it is home to many wildfowl and other biodiversity and translocation of water avens and other plants may well be unsuccessful, moreover the Re-location of sludge de-watering would cause ?significant ecological harm? at Iver South. A Middlesex Advertiser of the Gazette in 1947 pronounced that "An atomic bomb dropped at Heathrow could not spread devastation more widely than the disruption caused by the construction of an airport on this spot." As baa has admitted, terminal five will without doubt lead to terminal six. This shall impose great threat on Green Belt, Perry Oaks and other open land, as the pressure for road widening, housing, car parks etc would be additional needs that Heathrow will require for business to be successful. Historic land marks from the medieval ages such as, in Harmondsworth, one of the finest barns in Europe, an outstanding old church, a historic pub and intact villages and communities all face destruction. The economy baa and British Airways say that Terminal five and runway 3 are economic doorways for jobs, but I believe in actual fact they want them so competition with other European airports will increase. The MP for Putney, David Mellor states that "T5 is all about commercial prestige ? it is nothing about genuine economic benefit for the country?The idea that Heathrow is going to be capable of this boundless expansion is nonsense." Judging by this statement, most people seem to be against the runway and terminal, yes the industry does predict huge increases in demand to fly, but they create this demand. baa also claims that Heathrow will lose its high status, jobs will be insecure and they face losing business to other European airports if Terminal 5 isn?t built. I however find that very unlikely, no continental airports have anything like the capability Heathrow has and other governments which are developing their airports further are giving the same excuses, such as "Heathrow will take the business if they don?t." it seems as though as soon as one grows, the other has to catch up, they are challenging each other to see which airport is the biggest! They have also admitted that "The United Kingdom is at the forefront of the hugely successful international aviation industry. Terminal 5 will help ensure Heathrow?s contribution keeps the UKin the vanguard of this highly competitive industry." Another one of the main reasons, and argument raised by baa more than any other is the confirmation it will give Heathrow as a key feature to the local economy. baa state that "the airport presently employs around 68,000 people and T5 will protect or create 16,500 jobs as well as providing an additional 5,000 construction jobs at peak." Even so this is a minuscule size compared to the whole employment market of an estimated 3million in the catchments area at Heathrow; therefore Terminal 5 would have a very insignificant impact on the employment figures and would hardly benefit the public anyway. It will make better use of the airports existing facilities, baa say that "Heathrow is running out of facilities on the ground to accommodate everyone. T5 is Heathrow?s response to meeting some of that need." "Terminal 5 will provide the highest quality airport facilities and relieve the excessive overload of passengers at the existing four terminals as well as providing much needed additional aircraft stands to relieve congestion on the airfield and reduce delays." This evidently shows BAA?s anticipation to force runway three onto the British public, and as most people know if Terminal five is built, it will without a doubt need runway three to be more consistent in keeping up with production. It is believed that it will bring more tourist revenue into the country, baa state that "Tourism in the UK is worth £10 billion a year and depends on Heathrow as the country?s principal gateway. T5 is essential if the airport is to remain the cornerstone of tourism in the UK." This on the other hand I can say is another a good financial reason but with all the massive environmental strains it would cause, it is a significant yet minute reason for Terminal 5 and Runway 3. It is a fact that it would help expand Britain?s worldwide and European business links and is the only airport that can be developed in London and baa declare that they "have seen the problems caused by under investment in the rail industry. We do not want to see the same problems in aviation. baa stands ready to invest billions of pounds of private sector funds in our national transport infrastructure, without a penny from Government." and "Without extra terminal capacity Heathrow?s position as the number one European international gateway would be jeopardised." Transport The other serious threats that residents face are increased congestion in the roads and increased safety hazards, regarding the increase in air traffic. Heathrow is extremely dangerous when it comes to jeopardizing people?s safety on the ground and Runway three obviously, with its numerous additional departures, will raise the risk drastically. Considering the wellbeing of people and their safety on land, Heathrow is the worst possible situation for the new runway. Apart from immense motorway construction, BAA?s plans for Terminal 5 too consist of an enormous "21,500 increase in car parking spaces to 46,000. Why? Because baa estimates at least 49,000 extra car journeys each day to and from Heathrow and only a marginal increase in the proportion of public transport usage by passengers and Heathrow employees." "Any widening of the M25 will inevitably increase pressure to widen the M4, M40 and M3 motorways. There are also plans to build a spur road from the M25 direct to T5 and to widen the M4." John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister and secretary of state for the Environment and Transport and the Regions, in February 1993, wrote that "There will ultimately be more flights over the most congested airway in Europe, at great cost to the environment and to congestion around the airport." For what is declared to be the world?s biggest international airport, the insufficient, useless excuses made about public transport and the public transport plans that baa propose to carry out are a disgrace. The intended raise in highway traffic and the consequential increase in accidents, congestion, noise and pollution prove that concepts of incorporated transport and sustainability are a load of rubbish. For these reasons and no other, Terminal 5 ought to be discarded and forgotten about. Conclusion There are certainly a few benefits that Terminal 5 and Runway three could bring, but the environmental and safety hazards it would impose outweigh these positives and highlight the additional negatives it will enforce on the country. Heathrow has been summoned as one of the countries greatest achievements and is certainly a key element and advantage to the country, and yet it seems as though all the significant, real cost to this so called ?success? are swept under the rug. It makes you wonder whether we will be benefiting from Runway 3 and Terminal 5 or slowly losing out and killing ourselves, all for the uncontrollable greed of wealth. On the whole I have found one thing is definite, if reckless and irresponsible constant development of destructive creation conflicts with our quality of life as human beings, we should seriously consider whether losing out financially is more important than our existence, and we all know which comes first, as responsible individuals we need to protect our environment and value other peoples health, if not our own. We need to find more sustainable ways of surviving on this planet and making money without killing ourselves off first. From reviewing the evidence I have found both in favour and against expansion of Terminal 5 and Runway 3 I have arrived at my verdict. I am without uncertainty and doubt, completely in opposition to any construction formed to jeopardise and endanger future existence let alone the well being of mankind and the environment. I believe that people will dramatically lose out and the voracious corporations funding this project will only be satisfying themselves and filling their pockets, not the peoples, therefore I am 100% against the development of Terminal 5 and runway three. Pictures of areas Terminal 5 and Runway three will affect [image] [image] The map shows in red, the areas that would breach the standards with the existing two runways. The pink areas are the extra areas where standards would be breached with the third runway. [image] Proposed location for runway three is in green. [image] [image] Map of airports around the UK [image] Expectation of what Terminal 5 will look like [image] Research and Investigation The evidence and quotations I have used in my assignment are not biased, I have included equal numbers of quotations for and against and have thoroughly reviewed both grounds on the matter. The quotations I have used in my text can be found at www.baa.com, and http://www.wlfoet5.demon.co.uk/airtransport/runway3threat.htm Contents 1.) Introduction Main Body and Investigation 2.) Environment 3.) The economy 4.) Transport 5.) Conclusion 6.) Pictures of areas Terminal 5 and Runway 3 will affect 7.) Total population by runway vs. distance to centre of airport graph 8.) Population graph 9.) Map of airports around the UK 10.) Picture of what Terminal 5 should look like 11.) Extract of press release over M25 widening 12.) Research and investigation BLAIR?S blatant bias over M25 widening IS A ?stain ON democracy? Britain?s longest ever Public Inquiry into a fifth terminal at Heathrow (T5) went into special session on 26/8/98to hear a statement about blatant Government bias and interference. Friends of the Earth were given special leave to make a statement about the Government?s broken commitment to scrap M25 widening and the way that decision has undermined the inquiry and exposed the lack of neutrality by Ministers. 1 Friends of the Earth called the M25 U-turn a ?stain on democracy? and branded the T5 public inquiry "a charade, not because of its duration, but because of blatant Government bias and interference". The statement follows the announcement at the end of July, without public consultation, that the M25 will be widened between Junctions 12 and 15, the stretch nearest Heathrow. 2 Nic Ferriday, Friends of the Earth?s T5 campaigner at the Inquiry said: ?There is only one reason for M25 widening ? to pave the way for Terminal 5. But the decision on T5 has not yet been taken. It was the subject of a thorough public inquiry and a decision is not expected until late 1999. The fact that M25 widening was announced in the middle of the inquiry shows, as if further proof were needed, that the Government has already made up its mind to allow T5 without bothering to consider the evidence collected by the Inquiry Inspector" ?The public inquiry is important for democracy and for scrutinising projects large and small. It obliges developers to show the environmental impact of their schemes and allows ordinary people to express their views. By prejudging the T5 inquiry and allowing the M25 widening, Mr Blair and his Ministers have undermined the inquiry and left a stain on democracy. They prefer pandering to their friends at baa and BA than having schemes scrutinised in full. Why bother with a public inquiry when the Prime Minister can give his friends the decision they want? We understand that John Prescott wanted to do the sensible thing and wait until a decision had been made on T5 before deciding on the M25 widening. But he was over-ruled by Tony Blair, who is very close to Bob Ayling, chief of British Airways and the rest of the air travel industry."

Investigating The Impact of a Third Runway and Fifth Terminal at Heathrow Airport 9.5 of 10 on the basis of 1334 Review.