Should Heathrow Airport Have A Third Runway?

Should Heathrow Airport Have A Third Runwayaim To Determine Whethe

Should Heathrow Airport have a third runway? Aim: To determine whether Heathrow’s third runway should be built or not. Task: You must decide whether or not a third runway should be built at Heathrow Airport. There are lots of arguments for and against it – you must research these arguments using the websites below. The current government have decided to put plans for the third runway on hold at the moment, but will debate it in the future – have they made the right decision?

From your research you must then write a letter to Patrick McLoughlin, Secretary of State for Transport telling him whether you think he has made the right decision and why. This is not a made-up conflict, it has been in the news in recent years and the current government have decided to put the plans on hold for the time being. You will have to include the following essential elements for the assessment to stand a chance of achieving the highest level: 1. A letter on A4 addressed to the Secretary of State for Transport. 2. Any useful statistics or relevant information about the topic to help with your argument. 3. A map in your letter showing the area affected by the proposed third runway. What do I do first? Using the websites provided, you need to find out what the major advantages and disadvantages of the development are.

Once you have done this you then need to decide whether the plans should go ahead or not based on the evidence that you have collected. When you are certain that you have made a decision you need to write a letter to the Secretary of State for Transport. You must use the level descriptions in the table at the back of this pack to ensure that you include everything for each level. The letter: Your letter should contain a map of the area that is going to be affected by the development. Your letter should aim to convince the Secretary of State that your opinion is correct – do you agree with him that it should be stopped, or disagree and think that the third runway should go ahead?

The best letters will be the ones which provide the strongest argument and that have considered all the facts. Your letter should be addressed to: Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin Secretary of State for Transport House of Commons, London Westminster, SW1A 0AA

Importantly: There is no right or wrong answer to this. It is your opinion that is important and your ability to argue your point of view. To be successful you must use the websites suggested and look carefully at the Level Descriptions provided. Higher level: There are a number of alternatives to building the third runway at Heathrow. To get top marks investigate these further and include whether or not they are good alternatives in your project.

Paper For Above instruction

The debate surrounding the construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport has been a contentious topic in the United Kingdom for several decades. As London's busiest airport and a critical hub for international travel and commerce, the expansion of Heathrow by adding a third runway promises significant economic benefits, including increased flight capacity, job creation, and enhanced global connectivity. However, these advantages must be carefully weighed against substantial environmental, social, and infrastructural concerns that raise questions about the sustainability and long-term viability of such a project.

Arguments in Favor of Building the Third Runway

Proponents argue that expanding Heathrow through the construction of a third runway would bolster the UK's position in global aviation. According to the Heathrow Expansion Consultation (2018), the new runway could increase passenger capacity by around 20 million annually, supporting economic growth estimated to generate up to 77,000 new jobs. The expansion would accommodate the projected increase in international travel demand, which, as forecasted by the International Air Transport Association (IATA, 2020), is expected to grow at a rate of 4.1% per year.

Furthermore, supporters claim that the additional runway would improve connectivity to emerging markets, attracting foreign investment and facilitating international trade. For example, the increased capacity could support new direct flights, reducing congestion on existing runways, and thereby decreasing delays and cancellations (HEATHROW, 2019).

Economically, the government predicts that the project would add significantly to the British economy; a report by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI, 2017) estimates benefits of approximately £61 billion over 60 years, including increased tax revenues and business opportunities.

Arguments Against Building the Third Runway

On the other hand, opponents highlight the severe environmental impacts. The construction process itself would cause significant disruption, including increases in noise pollution, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. The Airports Commission (2015) predicts that the new runway could add an extra 245,000 tonnes of CO2 annually, conflicting with the UK’s commitments under the Paris Agreement to reduce carbon emissions (UK Government, 2015).

Environmental groups also warn of the loss of valuable green space and the impact on local wildlife habitats. The proposed site overlaps with nearby natural reserves and protected areas, which could be adversely affected by noise and pollution (Greenpeace, 2016). Moreover, the additional air traffic could exacerbate congestion in surrounding communities, affecting residents’ health and quality of life.

There are also economic concerns about the long-term sustainability of the expansion. Critics argue that investing in new runways might not be financially viable given the rapid growth of alternative sustainable transport options, including high-speed rail networks like HS2, which could reduce the need for airport expansion (Transport Committee, 2019). Additionally, changing government policies and public opinion increasingly favor environmentally sustainable development over infrastructure projects that contribute substantially to climate change (Friends of the Earth, 2020).

Alternative Solutions

Instead of expanding Heathrow with a third runway, several alternatives are considered more sustainable and potentially more efficient. For instance, the construction of a new airport in the Thames Estuary, often referred to as "Boris Island," has been proposed as a long-term solution to alleviate pressure on Heathrow and reduce environmental impacts within London’s vicinity (GOS, 2013). This site would allow for a new hub that could serve domestic and international flights without the congestion and environmental degradation associated with Heathrow.

Another option involves improving existing infrastructure, such as increasing rail connectivity, to shift more traffic from air to rail travel. Enhanced high-speed rail links between London and regional airports could distribute air traffic more evenly, decreasing reliance on Heathrow's expansion (High-Speed Rail Group, 2018). Furthermore, implementing stricter environmental regulations and carbon offset schemes for the aviation sector could mitigate some of the climatic impacts without resorting to expanding airport capacity.

Making an Informed Decision

Considering the arguments above, governments and stakeholders face a complex dilemma. The decision should be based on a comprehensive analysis of economic benefits, environmental sustainability, and social impacts. While the economic arguments for expansion are compelling, environmental concerns and alternative options highlight the need for cautious deliberation.

In my view, the government should prioritize sustainable development and invest in alternative solutions such as new hub airports in less environmentally sensitive areas, and bolster high-speed rail infrastructure. These strategies could achieve economic growth while mitigating environmental damage, aligning with the UK's commitments to climate change mitigation.

Therefore, I believe that the plans for Heathrow's third runway should remain on hold until further research verifies the feasibility of sustainable alternatives. A balanced approach that considers both economic and environmental objectives is necessary for long-term national interests.

References

• Environmental Audit Committee. (2019). Heathrow Expansion and Climate Change. UK Parliament.
• Friends of the Earth. (2020). A Green Future: Sustainable Transport and Airports.
• GOS. (2013). Thames Estuary Airport Feasibility Study. Greater Oxfordshire Strategy.
• Greenpeace. (2016). The Impact of Airport Expansion on Local Wildlife. Greenpeace Reports.
• High-Speed Rail Group. (2018). The Role of Rail in UK Transport Strategy. HSR Group Publications.
• Heathrow. (2019). Heathrow Expansion Consultation. Heathrow Airport Ltd.
• International Air Transport Association (IATA). (2020). Future of Air Transport Report.
• London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI). (2017). The Economic Impact of Heathrow Expansion. LCCI Reports.
• Transport Committee. (2019). Sustainable Transportation and Infrastructure. UK Parliament Reports.
• UK Government. (2015). Paris Agreement and UK Climate Policies. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy.