select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
before the headlines
Fiona fox's blog
The Government has announced its decision to go ahead with the expansion of Heathrow airport, to include a third runway and a new terminal. The announcement was accompanied by a range of new transport measures inckuding a new rail link.
Tom Foulkes, Director General of the Institution of Civil Engineers, said:
“Despite the obvious boom for the engineering professions, we simply cannot support the Heathrow expansion plans in their current form.
“The government seems to have got itself into a political mess over this project – largely because it lacks a coherent national transport policy that demonstrates how it intends to balance the UK’s transport needs to meet growing demand with the need to reduce carbon emissions. We need to take a longer term view to ensure a properly integrated transport system, not just focus on quick fixes to alleviate the current pressure.
“Talking tough on reducing emissions is not enough, and going ahead with expansion as currently proposed is certain to have a negative impact on the environment and make reaching our ambitious environmental targets very hard indeed.”
Stewart John, a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said:
“I totally support the third runway at Heathrow on environmental grounds. Most people have missed the fact that, because there are only two runways, aircraft are forever circling over London and Essex in holding patterns waiting for a landing slot – a third runway will reduce stacking dramatically, cutting particularly emissions at altitude. Pollution at ground level is also a huge concern – if we could knock ten minutes off aircraft taxiing time that would make a big contribution.
“I’m concerned as much as anyone about the environment but the aviation industry has dramatically reduced emissions – nitrogen oxides have been reduced by 80 per cent. Having said that, I do support better rail links for the UK – improvements have already been made but more are needed to help us reduce the number of domestic flights.”
Jeff Jupp, a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said:
“Major improvements have already been made to new aircraft in terms of pollution and noise reduction and we are on track to meet the targets set by ACARE (Advisory Council for Aeronautical Research in Europe) to halve both fuel burn (and hence CO2 emissions) and airport noise per passenger mile and reduce NOx by 80% for new aircraft in 2020 relative to 2000 levels. The A380 airliner now coming into service already shows a noise footprint nearly half of that of a Boeing 747. The Boeing 787 should show fuel burn reductions of order 20% when it enters service, as will the Airbus A350, through the extensive use of lightweight Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastics (CFRP) rather than Aluminium in the airframe and higher bypass ratios and improved technologies in the engines.
“Current research work continues on lightweight composite materials, advanced aerodynamics and new engine technologies and also on operational improvements such as the “continuous descent approach” so that aircraft do not track in at low level over populated areas such as West London but descend continuously from a high altitude.
“More long term technologies include looking again at open rotor (propeller) powerplants (up to 20% further CO2 reduction), “Laminar flow” aerodynamics (15% reduction) and totally new aircraft configurations such as the “blended wing body” (20% reduction and good noise shielding by the airframe).”
John Ling, Head of Transport at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, said:
“The concept of building additional runways appears to be at odds with the Government’s commitment to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. However, with Heathrow operating at 99% capacity and with aircraft stacking up waiting for landing slots we believe that a third runway is necessary to get them out of the sky and allow flight optimisation and hence reduce emissions.
“We recognise that increased runway capacity will provide an opportunity to increase the number of flights and we urge that any increase should be restricted to international flights which should be offset by a corresponding decrease in the number of short haul flights which cause more emissions. Government should provide an integrated plan for infrastructure investment with clear links to emissions reduction and with timely delivery to ensure that competitive alternatives to short haul flights such as high speed rail are available.”
Professor Bill Banks FREng FRSE, President of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, said:
“Aircraft designers and manufacturers are currently looking at many different ways of significantly reducing fuel consumption. One of these is to use lighter materials in the form for example of carbon fibre reinforced plastic and to implement higher power to weight ratios in engine technology. The parallel reduction in emissions that this will give from aircraft will undoubtedly result in them being more environmentally friendly, reducing carbon footprints and enhancing their overall appeal in spite of the apparent increased problem that they will present.
“There is of course a fundamental necessity of balancing our books so far as overall emissions are concerned and there can be little doubt that the aircraft industry and engineers will play their part in taking this on board.”
Professor Bill McGuire, Director of Aon Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre, said:
“This decision makes a joke of this government’s supposed commitment to tackle climate change. A third runway at Heathrow, and the massive expansion of aviation that this will bring, is totally incompatible with the national target of an 80 percent emissions cut by mid-century.”
Lord Chris Smith, Chairman at the Environment Agency, said:
“We remain deeply concerned about the construction of a third runway at Heathrow as air quality in the area is already at breaking point.
“However, this decision does put strict legal limits on air pollution. Under the new powers given to the Environment Agency as the independent regulator, we will make sure these limits are strongly and rigorously enforced.
“The CO2 and global warming impacts from increased aviation must be taken into account. Serious questions must be asked about how the aim of reaching an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 can still be achieved in light of this decision.”
Nick Reeves, Executive Director of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, said:
“Lest we forget, promises to curtail the impact of expansion at Heathrow airport have been broken before: in the 1960s, in 1978 after the building of T4, and at the time of T5 when Ministers said that a third runway would be inappropriate. With governments there are no copper-bottomed guarantees. So the Transport Secretary’s announcement of the go-ahead for a third runway is further proof that the government cannot be trusted on the environment.
“Even with a package of “sweeteners” that have bought off some dissenting Ministers and backbench MPs. and that heralds a so-called “green Heathrow”, the decision is reckless and undermines the government’s own climate change legislation. A third runway may create jobs but it will blight local communities and increase carbon emissions to a level that will risk the lives of millions of people wherever in Britain they live and work. And, as usual, it will be the poorest and most vulnerable who will suffer most.”
Paul Horton, Director of International Development at the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, said:
“My frustration is that if the Government had spent half the effort, energy and money on plans to develop high speed rail systems across the UK, we wouldn’t be in this situation. Europe has put a huge amount of money into such networks and they are already reaping the benefits. Why does somebody in Wales, or Birmingham, or Glasgow find it easier to get a on a plane to Europe? Surely the first option should be train every time, yet the Government consistently fails to properly support the rail industry and is more than happy to allow airport expansion, whilst saying it is serious about tackling climate change!
“The whole idea of a green Heathrow is a misnomer, and if they really were serious about tackling climate change, they would ensure that the price of flights reflected the full environmental cost of such travel. Sadly ministers are more interested is saying that they are helping to revive the economy – an economy that they helped to crash by supporting an unsustainable expansion of credit. Now they want us to support an unsustainable expansion of green house gas emissions and mortgage our futures. It is time to say no!”