| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:I'm all for Heathrow expansion (not). | |
| Posted by: | Tom Pike | |
| Date/Time: | 27/11/07 23:34:00 |
| I wouldn't be so quick to leave, especially if you're living in Grove Park. First of all, the 6dB reduction in noise of the 787s and 380s compared to the current 747s is rather substantial. They'll certainly not be anything coming along quite as noiseless as an electric plane, though. The ANASE report on attitudes to noise is pretty weak - they have some unique ways of defining noise averages, and they don't properly justify their choice of how to weight noise vs number of flights. I'm rather surprised it was published, at least based on the science, but there'd have been a lot more fuss if it were delayed any longer. However, even if the ANASE weightings are used, the resulting sound levels end up being reduced, though only slightly, below the official projected Leq values for Grove Park. That's because there are expected to be fewer flights landing on the north runway in the future compared to 2002 under nearly every expansion scenario. Even if all landings are on the north runway after 2020, the ANASE calculation still shows the noise lower than 2002. I agree, though, that the economic case for expansion is missing. In fact there is a much stronger case in terms of UK economic interests for an overall contraction of passenger numbers at Heathrow. Cut back on flights to tourist destinations and increase direct, frequent flights to more business centres. Fares would be increased and properly cover all the emissions costs. Staffing would be maintained and delays would be nonexistent. BA and BAA might not be too happy as it goes against their beloved hub model. They can put their model somewhere else. Heathrow expansion is not a very bright idea, but in any event I don't think we'll need to abandon Chiswick. |