| Topic: | Re:I'm all for Heathrow expansion (not) | |
| Posted by: | Richard Greenhough | |
| Date/Time: | 26/11/07 16:41:00 |
| Heathrow was built in the wrong place; no proper consideration was given to the location when it was first allowed to replace Croydon as London's main airport and what was the wrong location in the 1940s remains just as wrong today; it is only the lobbying power of vested interests that prevents this being widely recognised. The prevailing westerly winds require aircraft to land from the east and hence reduce height over heavily populated areas with all the associated noise pollution and air pollution. One day we will either have an aircraft coming down in a heavily populated area or the air quality levels will be so poor that West London residents will launch a successful class action against BAA and/or the government. A reduction in noise and air pollution from each individual aircraft will be more than made up by the increased number of movements if the expansion goes ahead. The inappropriateness of Heathrow's location was recognised by the proposals in the 1970s to build a new airport at Foulness/Maplin, where take-offs and landings would have been made over water. This was actually given the go-ahead by Ted Heath's government (one of their better decisions) but reversed in favour of expansion at Stansted by Harold Wilson. (Residents near Stansted, having watched the construction of the M11 despite the apparent abandonment of plans to expand Stansted, had a somewhat cynical view of the decision-making process). Vested interests killed off the Maplin proposals, so that while other countries such as France and Hong Kong developed new international airports in more appropriate locations, Britain was left with the fudging that has shilly-shallied over expanding Stansted and Gatwick and is now edging towards making even more of a mess of the area round Heathrow. There is only one real argument in favour of expanding Heathrow, and that is inertia - it is already there, so let's expand it further. The economic well-being of West London would adapt to a phased run-down of Heathrow, as areas currently blighted under the flight-paths became more desirable locations for both businesses and residents. A Thames Estuary airport, planned from the start with high-speed rail links, would be much the better option in the medium to long term. Now which bit of that doesn't work for you, Gary ? |