Latest news with #AirportCommission
Yahoo
08-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
New council member means new assignments
At the start of each year, the Hutchinson City Council has a laundry list of business that is taken care of at an annual organizational meeting. A big part of that is ratifying appointments of council members to various commissions, boards and committees. The 2013 organizational meeting Wednesday morning included the swearing in of new Council Member Gary Forcier, which also prompted some shifts in appointments. Forcier replaces Eric Yost in Seat 3. Yost, because of his job in the Twin Cities, had just one appointment this past year – the Airport Commission. Council Member Bill Arndt was once again elected the council's vice president. Following are the assignments each council member has for 2013: Mayor Steve Cook: Airport Commission, Tree Board, Fire Relief Association (with City Administrator Jeremy Carter and Fire Chief Brad Emans), resource allocation committee, city-school district joint planning committee and Radio Board. Council Member Bill Arndt: Joint Planning Board, Mid-Minnesota Commission, Planning Commission and solid waste committee Council Member Chad Czmowski: Economic Development Authority, Hutchinson Downtown Association, city-school district joint planning committee and wage committee Council Member Gary Forcier: Creekside Advisory Board, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and wage committee Council Member Mary Christensen: Economic Development Authority; Library Board; Parks, Recreation and Community Education Board; Public Arts Commission; and resource allocation committee In other business, the council: < Appointed Jeremy Carter as city administrator, < Designated the Hutchinson Leader as the city's official newspaper for publication of legal notices, < Approved the 2013 calendar of city meetings, < Appointed Carter to the solid waste committee and Betsy Czmowski to the Parks, Recreation and Community Education Board through August 2015 (with Chad Czmowski abstaining), < Designated banks as official depositories of city funds, < Approved a water tower easement with Ridgewater College for the city's south tower off of Century Avenue Southeast, < and set a workshop for 3 p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 9, to discuss the 'Bicycle Friendly Community' program and designation.
The Guardian
29-01-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
What would Heathrow third runway mean for pollution, emissions and noise?
More climate-heating carbon emissions, more people enduring noisy aircraft over their homes and, most likely, more air pollution – these would be the environmental impacts of building a third runway at Heathrow airport, a plan that has been backed by the chancellor, Rachel Reeves. Despite many years of lobbying for a third runway, there is no current proposal that can be analysed for its environmental impacts. However, the last proposal was extensively assessed by the Airport Commission (AC) in 2017 and remains relevant. The most profound impact would be the rise in CO2 emissions driving the climate crisis, which is already supercharging extreme weather disasters around the world. The AC estimated an additional 4.4m tonnes of CO2 a year from a third runway. The only significant development since then has been the nascent development of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF). However, the government is only planning for 10% of jet fuel to be sustainable by 2030, which its official advisers, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), says is already 'ambitious'. The CCC says overall UK emissions must fall by 63% by 2035, compared with 2019. But there is agreement among analysts that building an SAF supply chain to displace much of the existing demand for jet fuel, let alone that from a big expansion in flights, will be slow and difficult. SAF created by using renewable electricity is expensive and there is a limited supply of the waste fat that is used to make SAF. The government's own forecast is that SAF will only cut emissions by 6.3m tonnes by 2040. Small electric planes exist for very short journeys but it will be many years, if ever, before large long-haul planes can be powered by batteries. Aircraft are becoming more fuel efficient but the rate of improvement is marginal compared to the increase in flights a third runway would bring. Most importantly, the CCC has been clear on whether airport expansion is compatible with the UK's legally binding targets: 'No airport expansions should proceed' until a UK-wide management system is in place to ensure extra flights are balanced by cuts in aviation emissions overall. No such system exists. A new study by the New Economics Foundation also suggests that all the reductions delivered by Labour's plan to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030 would be wiped out in five years if the third runway goes ahead, along with smaller expansions at Gatwick and Luton. Noise pollution is already a serious issue, with Heathrow being the UK's busiest airport. The AC said a third runway would expose 12,000 to 28,000 more people to noise impacts exceeding 70 decibels. The Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) said a third runway would lead to 300,000 people experiencing being flown over by aircraft for the first time. The number of flights is capped at 480,000 a year, but could go up to 720,000 with a third runway, according to Heathrow, an average of almost 2,000 flights a day. Newer aircraft are quieter, but the huge increase in flights and people affected would drown out this improvement. A third runway would also have a substantial impact on the local environment, demolishing 800 homes, diverting five rivers and building a tunnel under the M25, according to the AEF. Air pollution has long dogged Heathrow, partly from the aircraft and airport operations themselves, but also because it sits in a corner between the busy M25 and M4 motorways. Heathrow has been in London's ultra low emissions zone since August 2023. This means heavily polluting vehicles have to pay to enter the airport, which will be reducing air pollution. But expanding the number of travellers a year from 80 million to 140 million, as Heathrow has suggested with a third runway, is likely to increase air pollution. What happens will depend on how many passengers can be persuaded to take the train or tube to the airport. However, the AC was less concerned about air pollution, placing 'limited weight on suggestions that air quality represents a significant obstacle to the delivery of expansion at Heathrow'. It said measures such as providing electrical power to aircraft in stands could mitigate the problem. Nonetheless, a recent study found Heathrow was among the worst in Europe for people's exposure to ultra-fine pollution particles. Tim Johnson, the director of the AEF, said: 'Heathrow's third runway would be one of the most destructive infrastructure projects this country has ever considered. Heathrow is already the UK's biggest carbon emitter so adding a third runway, and green lighting other airport projects, will leave our climate targets out of reach. 'The chancellor said things have changed since 2018, but the reality is that we have made little progress on reducing noise, while plans for cleaner tech and fuels are costly and not proven at scale.' Shaun Spiers, the executive director at Green Alliance, said: 'It's crystal clear that pushing ahead with bigger airports and new roads will fly in the face of the UK's climate targets.'
Yahoo
29-01-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
How ‘mixed mode' could solve Heathrow's capacity crunch long before a third runway
'If you think a third runway is unpopular, try mentioning 'mixed mode' in polite Home Counties company.' That was the private response of one of the 16 transport secretaries this century when I asked whether they had considered allowing both runways at London Heathrow airport to be used for arrivals and departures at the same time. The shorthand for this technique is 'mixed mode'. For a government obsessively focused on growth, it could unlock extra capacity at the UK's biggest hub for very little additional financial cost – but, as the erstwhile minister indicated, huge political cost. At present, Heathrow dedicates one strip of asphalt to landings and the other to take-offs. The only regular use of mixed mode is between 6am and 7am daily, the busiest hour for arrivals into the airport. Planes are allowed to land on both runways. Intuitively, you might imagine that the most efficient way to operate a two-runway airport like Heathrow is to separate arrivals and departures. In fact, the opposite is true: you can extract more capacity if there is a plane coming into land a few seconds after an aircraft ahead has taken off. Heathrow at its peak has a landing every 80 seconds and a take-off every 80 seconds. But across at Gatwick, air-traffic controllers can manage an arrival and a departure in as little as 65 seconds. Mixed mode adds capacity without the need for another runway. When Sir Howard Davies's Airport Commission looked into mixed mode, they concluded: 'The increased operational flexibility could be used to enhance the resilience of the airport's operations.' Monday was messy this week at Heathrow: 36 flights were cancelled, affecting 5,000 passengers and one Qatar Airways A380 'SuperJumbo' diverted to Amsterdam after a missed approach because there was not room in the system to accommodate another go. Such disruption could become much more rare if Heathrow was open to receiving more flights. Of more interest to the airlines – and, by extension, passengers keen on more choice and lower fares – is that the technique could allow up to 60,000 more flights each year. One senior travel industry figure strongly advocates using mixed mode to increase capacity immediately. Paul Charles, chief executive of travel consultancy The PC Agency, flies through Heathrow at least twice a month. He told me: 'It's embarrassing to see Heathrow held back by the lack of expansion. Airports in most other major cities are growing substantially as their governments focus on growth. The demand to fly from consumers is certainly there. 'I suggest the government apply a two-phase expansion to Heathrow in particular. It could start immediately by allowing greater use of mixed-mode, with aircraft taking off and landing on the same runways, so unlocking greater capacity and flight volumes. 'Then it could agree to a third runway, say from 2035, subject to certain environmental criteria being met. The government would have encouraged growth straight away and Heathrow would have won its long-running request for expansion.' Many interested parties will insist it can't happen. Purely pragmatically, just because Heathrow could physically land 15 per cent more planes, doesn't mean there is the terminal and gate space to handle them. Next, the concept of respite is extremely important to many of the people living on the flight paths. On Tuesday morning, for example, a procession of planes started landing on Heathrow's northern runway from 4.30am. The first four aircraft, all coming in from Africa, flew diagonally across south London as far as Woolwich, where they turned sharp left to line up for the final approach to Heathrow. Deptford, Camberwell, Battersea, Fulham … the noise increased as the aircraft descended. Next in line, Brentford and Isleworth – which just happens to be the constituency for Transport Select Committee chair Ruth Cadbury, who is not a fan of Heathrow expansion. The MP and her constituents at least know that at 3pm the noise will cease, as landings are shifted to the southern runway. The most dramatic reduction in aircraft noise at Heathrow happened overnight in October 2003: Concorde stopped flying. The windows of west London stopped rattling at teatime and shortly after 10pm each night. Since 2006, Heathrow says, the area most impacted by aircraft noise has reduced by 41 per cent. The Davies Commission stopped well short of recommending mixed mode. But the airport assessors did say: 'Should the delivery timescale for new runway capacity be towards the longer end of the anticipated spectrum, then the case for enabling mixed mode operations at Heathrow may be stronger ... It is conceivable that this issue may become material as part of a transition strategy to the preferred longer-term option.' Residents beneath the flight path don't want mixed mode. Heathrow does not advocate the practice. But who knows what the pro-growth chancellor, Rachel Reeves, may recommend as a stepping stone to a third runway?
The Independent
28-01-2025
- Business
- The Independent
How ‘mixed mode' could solve Heathrow's capacity crunch long before a third runway
'If you think a third runway is unpopular, try mentioning 'mixed mode' in polite Home Counties company.' That was the private response of one of the 16 transport secretaries this century when I asked whether they had considered allowing both runways at London Heathrow airport to be used for arrivals and departures at the same time. The shorthand for this technique is 'mixed mode'. For a government obsessively focused on growth, it could unlock extra capacity at the UK's biggest hub for very little additional financial cost – but, as the erstwhile minister indicated, huge political cost. At present, Heathrow dedicates one strip of asphalt to landings and the other to take-offs. The only regular use of mixed mode is between 6am and 7am daily, the busiest hour for arrivals into the airport. Planes are allowed to land on both runways. Intuitively, you might imagine that the most efficient way to operate a two-runway airport like Heathrow is to separate arrivals and departures. In fact, the opposite is true: you can extract more capacity if there is a plane coming into land a few seconds after an aircraft ahead has taken off. Heathrow at its peak has a landing every 80 seconds and a take-off every 80 seconds. But across at Gatwick, air-traffic controllers can manage an arrival and a departure in as little as 65 seconds. Mixed mode adds capacity without the need for another runway. When Sir Howard Davies's Airport Commission looked into mixed mode, they concluded: 'The increased operational flexibility could be used to enhance the resilience of the airport's operations.' Monday was messy this week at Heathrow: 36 flights were cancelled, affecting 5,000 passengers and one Qatar Airways A380 'SuperJumbo' diverted to Amsterdam after a missed approach because there was not room in the system to accommodate another go. Such disruption could become much more rare if Heathrow was open to receiving more flights. Of more interest to the airlines – and, by extension, passengers keen on more choice and lower fares – is that the technique could allow up to 60,000 more flights each year. One senior travel industry figure strongly advocates using mixed mode to increase capacity immediately. Paul Charles, chief executive of travel consultancy The PC Agency, flies through Heathrow at least twice a month. He told me: 'It's embarrassing to see Heathrow held back by the lack of expansion. Airports in most other major cities are growing substantially as their governments focus on growth. The demand to fly from consumers is certainly there. 'I suggest the government apply a two-phase expansion to Heathrow in particular. It could start immediately by allowing greater use of mixed-mode, with aircraft taking off and landing on the same runways, so unlocking greater capacity and flight volumes. 'Then it could agree to a third runway, say from 2035, subject to certain environmental criteria being met. The government would have encouraged growth straight away and Heathrow would have won its long-running request for expansion.' Many interested parties will insist it can't happen. Purely pragmatically, just because Heathrow could physically land 15 per cent more planes, doesn't mean there is the terminal and gate space to handle them. Next, the concept of respite is extremely important to many of the people living on the flight paths. On Tuesday morning, for example, a procession of planes started landing on Heathrow's northern runway from 4.30am. The first four aircraft, all coming in from Africa, flew diagonally across south London as far as Woolwich, where they turned sharp left to line up for the final approach to Heathrow. Deptford, Camberwell, Battersea, Fulham … the noise increased as the aircraft descended. Next in line, Brentford and Isleworth – which just happens to be the constituency for Transport Select Committee chair Ruth Cadbury, who is not a fan of Heathrow expansion. The MP and her constituents at least know that at 3pm the noise will cease, as landings are shifted to the southern runway. The most dramatic reduction in aircraft noise at Heathrow happened overnight in October 2003: Concorde stopped flying. The windows of west London stopped rattling at teatime and shortly after 10pm each night. Since 2006, Heathrow says, the area most impacted by aircraft noise has reduced by 41 per cent. The Davies Commission stopped well short of recommending mixed mode. But the airport assessors did say: 'Should the delivery timescale for new runway capacity be towards the longer end of the anticipated spectrum, then the case for enabling mixed mode operations at Heathrow may be stronger ... It is conceivable that this issue may become material as part of a transition strategy to the preferred longer-term option.' Residents beneath the flight path don't want mixed mode. Heathrow does not advocate the practice. But who knows what the pro-growth chancellor, Rachel Reeves, may recommend as a stepping stone to a third runway?
