The Expansion of Heathrow

The question 'to build, or not to build' the third runway at Heathrow remains emotive. At a time when global warming is at the forefront of governments' agendas - not least for our own government which have set ambitious targets of reducing carbon emissions by 80% in a mere few decades - instinctive resistance to the plans is understandable: can the UK's commitment to tackling the environmental challenge be taken seriously? Unfortunately, most of the coverage has focused too heavily on the perceived environmental disadvantage of the third runway, overlooking valid practical, economic and environmental reasons for expanding Heathrow.

We need to focus more closely at positive efforts rather than just banning activities. Irrefutably, air travel will continue to be popular and commercially necessary. Therefore, claims that cancelling plans for a third runway will lead to a reduction of 60,000 flights a year is questionable and there is no guarantee that passengers will use rail links instead. Many would simply route from regional airports and use European airports (who would expand at our expense) - therefore the carbon emissions are simply transferred from one country to another. The long-term approach should be to invest in technological advances in aviation in terms of both emissions quality and noise reduction. In other words, we should not curb air activity but smarten it up. We need to increase scientific research to develop environmentally sound aero-engines but this would require considerable investment.

Which brings me to an important economic point: as much as I am in favour of government investment in rail, public sector spending constraints and inevitable planning objections to new railway lines would hold up these projects for many years. Crucially, the level of public sector indebtedness makes it implausible that any new government will deploy taxpayers' funds for the £16bn estimated cost of new rail links in the foreseeable future. By contrast, the third runway would be privately financed. Moreover, maintaining the status quo would result in job and airline losses and dwindling employment opportunities in Surrey.

For both good and ill, Heathrow will continue to be the major British airport. Presently Heathrow's runways are full and the consequences of this include delays, failed connections and missing bags. Furthermore if ground capacity for landing and take-off is not improved, the nuisance from over-flying because of 'stacking' will get worse (and stacked aircraft are certainly not environmentally friendly). One issue which requires further investigation is how to improve surface access to Heathrow by road and rail. The bus links from Reading and Woking are important but more strategic planning is needed.

Meeting the environmental challenge requires sensible strategies as opposed to transient tactics. Decisions should be guided, but not blinded, by environmental conscience.

 

November 2009