Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Transcript of EPQ Presentation
- 69 million passengers annually
- 481,000 aircraft movements per year
- Heathrow contributes an estimated 2.7% to London's total GVA (Gross Value Added).
- November 2007 - consultation process began for the building a third runway and new terminal
- Approved on 15 January 2009
- Project cancelled on 12 May 2010
Proposals are still on the table and are still a major option for the expansion of British Aviation. The Proposal - New Runway with an operational length of 2,200 metres.
- A mix of short and long haul operations
- A new terminal would have a capacity for around 35 million passengers a year Brand New Thames Hub Airport Various plans since the mid 1940’s.
- A four runway airport, built on a platform straddling the land and sea off the Isle of Grain on the Hoo Peninsula
- Handling 150 million passengers per year
The site was selected for its proximity to London
The only way in which the Thames Hub can be an economically viable option is if Heathrow were to be closed. London cannot operate with two hub airports. The Proposal
A Thames Estuary Airport, capable of handling 150 million passengers per year.
Central Terminal Area
4 parallel runways
Train station and road networks Compared with other major European airports, London is ill-equipped to deal with the projected growth Introduction to British
Aviation and its need for Growth: London is the worlds aviation capital - more
passengers from the 5 airports combined than any
other city in the world - 127 million ppa (20 million
more then New York at 107 million ppa) Unconstrained demand will rise to 300 million ppa in
the London area by 2030 - 60% of total
national growth The UK requires a hub airport with space to grow, develop and attract new customers and business Estimated loss of £1bn a year through lost trade London is a popular destination, worth investing money in Heathrow Thames Hub Thames Hub - 150 million
- 1,000,000 movements per year - South East England has some of the most congested airspace in the world - Prefer to fly from Heathrow Airport Capacity Airport of Choice Airspace Capacity - £30 billion to the UK economy Economic
Benefits Economic Cost Environment and Emissions Noise Air Pollution Community
Destruction Support - Thames Hub - £50 billion - The main argument from environmentalists - 6% of UK emissions
-50% of which from Heathrow Heathrow Mixed Mode - 76.5 million
- 515,000 movements per year - 'worst possible spot'
- 'Serious challenges' - Heathrow expansion will use current flight paths - 'Blue chip' firms - Best connections and number of direct flights - Lengthy and costly to change attitudes - New personalised facilities for airlines - why move? - 60,000 initial jobs and 8,000 long term jobs by 2030 - North Kent and Essex - unemployment - Business parks - Thames Hub only viable with Heathrow closure - Heathrow Third Runway - £5 billion - Billions already spent at Heathrow to improve facilities - Use of Taxpayers money... - Wasting of billions of pounds NATS -
'The single biggest thing we could do to reduce CO2 in the UK is to build a third runway at Heathrow' - Rise to 29%
- 'Carbon cost' of £13.3 billion by 2030 - Aircraft Stacks - Local residents worried over noise more than anything - 57 decibels - Figure lowered to 258,000 by 2002 - Thames Hub has a smaller noise impact - New areas will be affected - Increase in pollution related deaths from 50 to 150 per year - Thames Hub - rise in pollution levels in an area with previously very low levels and clean air - Significant rise compared Heathrow Heathrow Third Runway - 122 million
- 702,000 movements per year Heathrow Expansion:
-8 Grade II listed buildings and a church
-Harmondsworth high street split
-Graveyard bulldozed Full compensation from BAA Thames Hub built on new land Indirect 'destruction' of communities 68% support a third runway at Heathrow £5 billion put forward No support for Thames Hub Makes the North less connected to a global hub Purpose built facilities at Heathrow My Conclusions Where should new runway capacity be located to sustainably meet the economic, environmental and social needs of the country? Where and why is there
demand for new runway capacity? What are the viable options? What are the implications of each option on the human and physical enviroment? What are the economic views
of government and business of each main option? What are the costs of each
main option to the UK economy? From the available options, how
can we sustainably meet the demand? Demand greatest in South East England, 60% of national traffic Demand set to increase to 500 mppa
- 300 mppa (60%) of which in SE England Without increased capacity, the UK will fall badly behind Currently only two viable options that can provide sufficient capacity increase to sustainably satisfy the needs of the country - Increase in traffic within British airspace - Heathrow expansion subjects more people to high levels of noise than Thames Hub proposal - Air Quality is difficult to guage as aviation 'cleanliness' increases but traffic also increases - Thames Hub requires thousands of acres of nature reserve to be developed - Location of Thames Hub puts aircraft and passengers in danger - Thousands of previously unaffected people subjected to high levels of noise Overall Heathrow has less of a detrimental effect on the physical and human environment - Businesses require an immediate solution to capacity constraints - Heathrow provides this - Government are undecided, must make a U-turn if Heathrow is recommeded - Heathrow will 'kickstart' the economy faster and is more reliable - Heathrow expansion at 10% of the cost - Privately funded, Thames Hub leaves the cost with the taxpayer - Billions already spent on Heathrow, is another multibillion pound project economically
wise? A Third Runway at Heathrow best satisfies the immediate and sustainable needs of businesses and the economy without causing the long term damage to the environment that the Thames Hub would inevitably create Two Phase Development Plan: 1. Immediate introduction of mixed mode operations at Heathrow Airport
- Movements to 515,000 pa and passengers to 89 million pa
- Satisfies the immediate needs of business passengers and of the UK economy 2. Building of a thrid runway on the proposed site.
- Two phased capacity increase:
1. Movements restricted to 625,000 pa (approx. 107 million pax) for 5 years to ensure greenhouse emission targets can be met.
2. After the 5 year cap expires or targets are met (whichever is later), movements can increase up to the capacity 702,000 pa "This nation was built by men who took risks - pioneers who were not afraid of the wilderness, business men who were not afraid of failure, scientists who were not afraid of the truth, thinkers who were not afraid of progress, dreamers who were not afraid of action"
~ Brooks Atkinson - Less time over densely populated areas Pollution levels as of 06/12/12 Pose no threat to peoples' health
"Enjoy your usual outdoor activities" - Airlines find it more profitable to fly from Heathrow - Rise in Greenhouse Emissions - Nature Reserve
- Vulnerable species
- Danger to aircraft -52% of movements at LHR were Long Haul in 2011 - Larger proportion of continental flights are European 'shuttle routes' with just 35% long haul "There is a clear message that the third runway makes sense and we should just get on with it" - Dominic Schofield (Korn/Ferry)