Locals and conservationists don’t want it, business and air travellers need it – the Government’s plan to build a third runway at Heathrow is seriously contentious, says Jody Clarke
Why all the fuss about Heathrow?
The Government has agreed in principle to the construction of a third runway at Heathrow, the world’s busiest airport. At 2,220 metres long, the move would enable Heathrow to accommodate an extra 200,000 flights a year by 2020, a 40% increase on the current number.
A sixth terminal will probably have to be built to cater for the extra flights. Unfortunately for the 700 or so families living in the village of Sipson, their homes will need to be levelled in order to make way for it.
Is it worth constructing a third runway?
Referring to a report from Oxford Economic Consulting (OEF), the Government claims that a third runway would bring in an extra £5bn a year to the economy. However, this is disputed by several groups, including local councils, environmentalists, the National Trust and anti-air expansion groups such as HACAN.
However, the Government says that expansion is necessary to cater for the extra flights that will come about from the European Union’s Open Skies agreement, which comes into force later this month, allowing European-based airline to fly from within the EU to the US, and vice versa. According to timetable expert OAG, in the first month alone, 524 more US-bound flights will depart from Heathrow than in April 2007.
Why the opposition to the building plans?
Apart from Sipson’s residents and the uproar from the roughly one million people who live directly under the airport’s flight-paths, groups such as The Campaign for Better Transport claim 45% of air journeys are less than 500km long, about the distance between London and the Scottish borders. Indeed, 14 new domestic air routes are planned for this summer, one of which, Newquay to Southampton, is just 150 miles long. These journeys could easily be taken by rail or bus, which are around ten times less polluting than planes.
Steve Norris, former Conservative transport minister and candidate for London mayor also takes issue with the Government’s figures on costs. “How can we compare the cost of valid alternatives, such as high-speed rail, if we are overestimating the value of more runways?” He was referring to a report from Dutch consultancy CE Delft, who cast doubt on OEF’s forecasts, which don’t account for the amount of money the Treasury loses every year from tax-free fuel and the exemption from paying VAT – an essential subsidy to the airline industry.
But Lord Clive Soley, group campaign director of Future Heathrow, says the terminal is crucial to the UK economy. “It is ridiculous to pretend Heathrow isn’t important to business. Businesses themselves say Heathrow’s expansion is vital to their future, and every other piece of research supports the view that international air links are crucial.”
What about using another airport?
Boris Johnson, the Conservative candidate for London mayor, has called Heathrow a “planning error”. Located just 15 miles from the west of London, planes are forced to fly over the city because they must land into the wind, and prevailing winds blow from west to east. But the Government and BBA have little incentive to take the trouble and expense of relocating flights. BAA has an effective monopoly on airports in the South-East and no incentive to make London’s three main hubs (Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow) compete.
And pressure group Plane Stupid argues that one reason behind the Government’s enthusiasm for expansion is its close ties with the British Airport Authority, which runs the three main hubs. They may have a point. Tom Kelly, Alastair Campbell’s successor as official spokesman for Tony Blair, landed himself a job as group director of corporate affairs at BAA last year, soon after Blair’s departure.
What about building a new airport?
The Conservative government first floated this idea in 1971, when they proposed building a new airport in the Thames estuary, just off the South Essex coast. However, plans were scrapped three years later because of a shortage of funds and opposition from conservationists. The idea was again dismissed in 2005 on grounds of cost and fears over the possibility of bird strikes, which can be disastrous for aeroplanes. However, the idea has regained momentum after Johnson ressurected it. “If you located an airport properly in the Thames estuary, virtually all the flight movements would be over the North Sea,” said Sir Peter Hall, president of the Town and Country Planning Association, in The Sunday Times. “There would be no constraints on development at all.”
The cost also seems favourable. Thames Reach would cost £11bn to build, while a third runway will cost about £13bn. Hong Kong relocated its airport in 1998 to an artificial island, while in the 1960s major cities – including Paris – moved their airports to the north and south in order to avoid having planes fly over heavily-populated areas. One thing’s for sure, something has to be done – or even more of us will be opting for the ferry (see below).
Why Heathrow’s woes are good for boats
If the number of people travelling by ferry is anything to go by, it seems more of us are growing tired of the unending string of delays and hassle associated with airports. Nearly 43 million passenger ferry journeys were taken last year between Britain and its islands, not to mention Ireland and continental Europe. That was a rise of 419,000 on 2006, with both passenger and car traffic up. It seems more of us are happier to contend with a long sea voyage and storms in the English Channel than to vie for bags at the lost luggage carousel at Heathrow.