Third Runway at Heathrow - the debate continues

[buns]

The debate continues with a promise that a decision will be announced 'soon'

buns

[Nottingham Nick]

I will chuck my hat into the ring for the 'No' brigade. Not just out of environmental concerns, but I think the extra traffic would be better at another airport.

As I understand it, the third runway will involve knocking down and awful lot of the hotels, and a fair few businesses, along the Bath Road.

So, where are all the extra pax going to stay / have meetings / park their cars? It seems to me, that it could be done a lot more cost effectively and with less harm to the environment elsewhere.

Does it have to be right in London? Could it be out of town, with a fabulous high speed rail link to the capital?

Nick

[Darren Wheeler]

Given the economic state at the moment, I can see it being NO too. Problem is, there is no cheap or easy answer. The only thing they can do wrong, is to do nothing.

[Pete]

I watched some of the debate on the Parliament Channel (I know, isn't my life exciting?) - the two best cases on the for and against sides were from the two MPs whose areas cover Heathrow - Hayes & Harlington to the North and Spelthorne to the South. Even though the Labour government are the ones pushing for the third runway, and the Tory shadow transport secretary was the one giving them a hard time, Hayes & Harlington is a Labour borough, and Spelthorne is Conservative. Kind of interesting to see those two most effected by this to be at odds with their own party lines.

The pro-argument, predictably, focused on losing business to Europe and Heathrow as Britain's trump card. David Wilshire, Spelthorne's MP, talked about local people wanting expansion at Heathrow, as that was the prime employer in the area. I tend to agree with this sentiment, as 20 years ago, I lived less than a mile away from the airport perimeter fence, and the economy of the area was certainly driven by Heathrow's continued success.

The Hayes & Harlington MP did make some passionate points about the destruction of whole villages and communities, but much of the against-debate got a bit stuck on two points, (1) any plans to expand Heathrow goes against the governments own environmental pledges, and that (2) when terminal 5 was push through, there were assurances that there would be no third runway. My own belief on this is that unless there is already a viable alternative that the public want to use, both points are kind of mute. One of the themes in the debate was that high-speed rail links should replace all the current UK domestic flights (ie, force people onto the trains, including inbound connecting traffic), which is all very well if we actually had a high-speed rail network, and the trains we had weren't overcrowded and overpriced. Forcing connecting traffic onto a train will simply push that market to the continent to get flight connections back into smaller UK airports. Let's face it, purchasing options today simply aren't set up to ticket a flight-rail pair, so if you're flying in from New York and want to go to Edinburgh, you'd probably go via Amsterdam if your only route via Heathrow was a train (and as of today, that's not exactly a straightforward or even vaguely direct route).

The flight connections are also a big factor in why adding capacity elsewhere to relieve Heathrow isn't as sensible as it may sound. Unless the alternative airport offers all the flight connections of Heathrow, then it's less appealing to fly through (and let's face it, even changing between Heathrow and Gatwick is a bit of a nightmare, and those two airports are relatively close!) And if another airport could be built up to offer the kind of connections that would make it a viable alternative, it would then be facing the same challenges that Heathrow has today, and more than likely the cost of making it happen would simply be uneconomic.

Let's face it. Heathrow is the busiest UK airport for a reason. It's got the best location, connections and travel options (even if some of those are a bit shoddy) of all the London airports , and trying to force an alternative would be like trying to push water uphill. If we stifle its growth, I believe one of two things will happen. Either we will lose traffic to continental competitors (and then connections, flights and followed by entire airlines), or the flight delays, overcrowding and general unpleasantness of flying through Heathrow will get exponentially worse.

Originally posted by Nottingham Nick
As I understand it, the third runway will involve knocking down and awful lot of the hotels, and a fair few businesses, along the Bath Road.

So, where are all the extra pax going to stay / have meetings / park their cars? It seems to me, that it could be done a lot more cost effectively and with less harm to the environment elsewhere.

Does it have to be right in London? Could it be out of town, with a fabulous high speed rail link to the capital?

Nick

As someone who once worked for one of those businesses on the Bath Road I can tell you they are all eager for runway 3 (as am I) - their land valuations have been inflated because of it for years, as soon as they can be 'forced' to sell they'll be delighted, believe me, ecstatic! Hotels will be rebuilt nearby and I believe they are provided for in the master plan.

Nick - the problem I see is this, for me and so many of my colleagues Heathrow is becoming limited in its options for travel to where we do business. Look at how LH, with capacity at FRA, has expanded across India (to almost become India's no. 1 international airline), look too at other airlines across Asia and South America where economies have been growing faster than ours for years. Because costs are high and capacity is limited at LHR, airlines that operate there understandly go only for the highest yielding routes, limiting options and making people like me consider travelling to European airports or Dubai to get where I want to be.

Secondly, LHR is just overcrowded - it needs a third runway. It's logical, sensible and as someone who's lived under the flightpath for many years (in SW15) I get fed up with all local hypocrisy of anti LHR campaigners who just as quickly and quietly rush off to LHR when it suits them (because oh LGW is so much further and full of chavs [}:)] and 'one just doesn't do Stanstead'!).

Shifting to or building another airport just moves polution doesn't it? Then adds a giant heap more because new roads, new rail lines, new everything needs to be built (e.g. concrete production produces 6x as much greenhouse gas as air travel per annum).

I'm firmly a yes person and I think in the current economic climate it is more likely, not less, given the jobs boost it will bring.

PS I had to correct the hamster plan to the master plan!

Originally posted by slinky09
I'm firmly a yes person and I think in the current economic climate it is more likely, not less, given the jobs boost it will bring.

I agree with your comments here.

Certainly I believe that there's a good dose of vocal nimbyism going on regarding LHR. I am sure that a lot of people choose to live around LHR because it's there either directly or indirectly. And it's not as if one chooses to live there without the knowledge that there'll be aircraft noise to some degree. And a/c noise emmissions are dramatically less than they were years ago, and getting better.

Economy-wise, I don't see that we have a choice unless we wish to see London losing its position. If we don't keep at the head of the game in Europe the knock on effect will be disasterous. Whether should be LHR or not is another question. For the short and medium term, absolutely it has to be Heathrow, as there is no short to medium term alternative (without exactly the same nimbyism). For the longer term, I believe that's a whole different debate, and yes, I believe that should be a different airport, with an ethos of the likes of HKG.

I am not sure that I buy the eco debate. If it's not LHR, FRA and/or other airports will merely leave LHR behind. Plus there's the minor consideration of the amount of fuel and time that we all know and love that's wasted sitting on the tarmac at LHR or in a stack awaiting a landing slot. And when we choose to go via FRA rather than direct, you can ask the eco warriors what is environmentally friendly about that.

Just my 2p. YMMV.

H

As a pax who transits through FRA or MUC fairly often I have never sat on the tarmac for more than 5 minutes awaiting a departure, compared to my last flight out of LHR where we queued for 25 minutes.

LHR needs a 3rd runway otherwise carriers will just go elsewhere.

Dubai Central in Jebel Ali is a monster, but no ECO warriors there.

Todays unemployment figures are rising and the economy is in the middle of a hiding. Why not invest in our own country for a change rather than putting all the bloody money in Iceland or some other place.

Good debate by the way[y]

Iain

For rather selfish reasons, I hope the new airport gets built in the thames. Osaka, HK, etc, all have great airports not restrained by geology / geography. A nice fast train line from london, as well as ferrys from south end / harwich, and road from the A2 should be good (unless operation stack is in effect, then, well, who knows)

As for the bath road. Stayed at the Sheraton last week. Whilst they'd put some lipstick on it, it was still a pig. Best thing that could happen would be to put a new runway over the top. The BT compound round the back though would probably take a little more effort

Originally posted by woggledog
road from the A2 should be good (unless operation stack is in effect, then, well, who knows)

A road from the A2, are you serious? Just how long would that take to get into London after landing on a busy day! Oh yes, and with our arcane planning laws we'd build an airport then twenty years later get a rail link in place.

[Darren Wheeler]

Shutting down a BT exchange would take about 3 months from the time the first cable was patched. In this case, maybe even less as the end points would cease to exist.

Probably take longer to shut McD's down.

Although we moan about it, LHR is a victim of its own success. Almost perfect placement so close to London with reasonable links to the city and beyond thanks to LU and HEX. Biggest problem was down to some architect without much forethought. They predicted that only the rich would fly and their chauffeur would drop them off, so no proper road access as planned in. Throw in the M4, M25, A4 and A30 and you are really hemmed in.

I have never worked out why there has never been a direct rail lin between LHR and LGW. Got to be easier than the nightmare bus journey around the M25, especially when you have a tight connection.

I was thinking about this topic again last night whilst enjoying a small Highland Park malt and Darren really has hit the nail on the head. LHR is hemmed in.
I was thinking about MUC,FRA,VIE,SVO,DME & AMS and whilst flying into these airports you never ever see the built up conurbation that surrounds LHR. Being that close to the city is LHR's downfall in this day and age.

Iain

It's also hemmed in by the huge reservoirs which are dotted around the heathrow landscape. Would it take much to shove some concrete over the top of them like they've done with the M60 at audenshaw? Victim of it's own success is spot on...

They could move it to croydon (it's original home). If croydon was bulldozed, would anyone care? [:p]

Originally posted by woggledog
It's also hemmed in by the huge reservoirs which are dotted around the heathrow landscape. Would it take much to shove some concrete over the top of them like they've done with the M60 at audenshaw? Victim of it's own success is spot on...

They could move it to croydon (it's original home). If croydon was bulldozed, would anyone care? [:p]

I thought the reservoirs were a safety feature if a plane has to make an emergency landing. [:?]

I have to say that the argument of Heathrow Expansion has perplexed me for years.

I grew up in Hounslow and my youth was spent listening to the crackle of Trident 3s and Tristars but enjoying the majestic grace of Concorde also. Both my parents worked at the airport, my father with BA security and my mother with Pan Am, who I also worked with briefly after leaving school. Heathrow genuinely was my playground and I would spend many a childhood day with friends at the airport watching aircraft from the Queens Building or from the tops of car parks - we used to swipe sugar-cubes from the restaurants and drop them from the car parks onto unsuspecting passengers [:#] - often we would walk back to the Bath road through what was then the pedestrian side tunnel.

I have always supported expansion - the tube link happened before I cared and the cut and cover sites along the Bath and Great SW Roads were additional play-grounds for a couple of years. T4 was well supported and again with T5. All the while planes were becoming quieter so the net affect was positive anyway.

I don't live there now but travel out of it frequently so one could argue that my incentive to support the third runway should be even greater - but on this issue I have to say I come out reasonably firmly on the No side and here's why.

Destruction in the name of progress is not always right just because someone decides its right and its progress. The destruction of two villages, including a cementery would in my mind be a travesty and almost as bad as the fraudelent requisitioning of Heath Row (under War powers) that created Heathrow in the first place. Forget the hotels, they'll rebuild, we are talking about people who have lived somewhere their entire lives being forcibly evicted so that people can fly with better connections.
In addition the regular agruments come trotting out about NIMBYs and the airport being there before the residents etc. (thanks Howard [:)]). The point with the 3rd runway is that the noise footprint is expanded so this is affecting people that have never had appreciable aircraft noise. The interesting thing about anti-NIMBYs is how fast they switch allegiences when their own backyards are threatened - being a NIMBY is not automatically a bad thing.
Biggest is not always best - Growing up I was certainly proud to be living on the doorstep of the Worlds Busiest international airport but now I find myself asking why is this so important. Why is it so important to have a single massive airport rather than London's set-up which together still provide greater movements than other European cities. The answer is normally to provide transfer possibility which leads me to...
As reported in Newsweek the actual percentage of Heathrow Passengers that are transferring is relatively small (less than 10%) and their input to the econmy is pretty small too. Do we really want to add polution and misery to our countrymen just so that businessmen have additional options to fly between Phoenix and Frankfurt? I transferred in Paris a few years ago and my sum investment in France was a cup of coffee and a baguette - OK so there were potential subsidiary jobs in handling the air-traffic but relatively minor.

Personally I expect that the expansion will go ahead anyway. The proposals affect too few people negatively compared with the number of businesses that will blindly support it as something that they percieve will help their bottom line. The mantra of 'the needs of the few outweigh the wants of the many' has never been more appropriate.

FM

P.S. Corrected for spelling

Originally posted by FamilyMan
we used to swipe sugar-cubes from the restaurants and drop them from the car parks onto unsespecting passengers [:#]

Now I know who it was!

In addition the regular agruments come trotting out about NIMBYs and the airport being there before the residents etc. (thanks Howard [:)]).

My pleasure!

The point with the 3rd runway is that the noise footprint is expanded so this is affecting people that have never had appreciable aircraft noise. The interesting thing about anti-NIMBYs is how fast they switch allegiences when their own backyards are threatened - being a NIMBY is not automatically a bad thing.

Excellent point. But, if we are to hypothetically accept that expansion is necessary somewhere around London, where wouldn't have a nimby effect in the short/medium term?

As reported in Newsweek the actual percentage of Heathrow Passengers that are transferring is relatively small (less than 10%)

It's quoted as 34% in hansard. You're right that the incidental expenditure of transferring passengers is probably negligible, but they've more likely chosen to use a UK airline for their journey because of the substantial number of connections available. A rapid rail link LHR-LGW would make a great deal of sense here rather than the circa four hour recommended transfer time recommended (shocking or what??!!). However the way BA are selling off the family silver to the likes of Cheesyjet and FlyBE one wonders how long any of these routes will last!

Many excellent points, and very well raised if I may say so.

Cheers, Howard

I suspect that in the long term we shall see additional runways being built at LHR LGW and STN plus Boris Island too. It's just a matter of the order.

What a surprise, HMG have delayed the decision until the new year!

Link

[buns]

Now it has just got too unrealistic

Looks like the Government might be wavering here[:w][:w]

buns

[Pete]

Quite how Conservative transport spokeswoman Theresa Villiers figured out a rail link would cut flights by 66,000 is a mystery to me.

Does this figure also take into account the expected growth at Heathrow? Assuming it's even true (which I doubt), it only accounts to a 1/3rd of the capacity of the third runway, so would only be a short term solution, and a third runway would still be needed (even before the completion of any work to build a rail terminal).

Methinks the Conservatives are simply being crowd pleasing, electioneering about this and might well take a different point of view if elected. Having a rail link for fast lines to the regions is a good idea, but if I ran MAN or GLA I might not agree ... it may however simply represent pragmatics.

[Darren Wheeler]

Yet another little twist.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/ ... 825169.stm

The cynic in me wonders what the real motivation is for the purchase. If/When the expansion plan is agreed, the required land will be subject to a Compulsory Purchase Order os owning any land will in no way delay the project any more.

quote:Originally posted by Darren Wheeler
Yet another little twist.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/ ... 825169.stm

The cynic in me wonders what the real motivation is for the purchase. If/When the expansion plan is agreed, the required land will be subject to a Compulsory Purchase Order os owning any land will in no way delay the project any more.




I do find it ironic that Emma Thompson has got involved considering she must do a lot of travelling for her profession. She was in LA at the weekend presenting a Golden Globe to Danny Boyle.

[Decker]

I believe the theory is they will sell small packets of land thus requiring thousands of orders to be drawn up thereby delaying the process.

[RichardMannion]

They can build rail links all they want - unlikely that I'll use them given the obscene fares to use any form of public transport in the UK. 80p from Changi to Singapore centre, and how much is the Heathrow Express? Rob dogs.

As for the third runway - I'm not sure. In some ways I'd like to see it away from BAA's reach, and the money spent on an airport to rival the likes of KLIA, HKG or Changi.

LHR 3rd runway now has the go-ahead:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7829676.stm

Cheers
Michael