| View Blog
|
|
| Heathrow: do we need a third runway?
|
|
|
The plane that missed the runway at Heathrow today got me thinking. Thank God no one was seriously hurt and all the emergency measures seem to have worked as they are supposed to. I understand that the aim is for the airport to be operating as near normally as possible tomorrow, i.e. just one day later, which is pretty impressive.
However, one public figure (I think it was the local MP) immediately said that this accident showed that there should not be a third runway at Heathrow. I'm not completely convinced that one necessarily demonstrates the other.
I'm not exactly in favour of a third runway. Why? Well, a lot of it comes down to whether we should be increasing aviation capacity in general, so environmental reasons. I should probably say up front that I'm no big fan of air transport overall - I sort of understand the science of propulsion but I still find it a bit unnatural to be in the air with no visible means of support (not a problem I had parasailing, oddly). I find it a necessary evil to get to places I want to go to (I'd never have got to Mauritius to do the parasailing otherwise).
The thing that worries me most though is the expansion of low cost air transport in recent years. Bit of a misnomer actually as some flights on these airlines can be more expensive than on regular airlines! Anyway, I gather from the press that the general UK perception on this is that "everyone" needs to cut back on flights, pay more for them to reflect the environmental cost, but that most people think that "everyone" does not mean them personally because they are just one person/ couple/ family/ group of friends/ it's necessary for work. And actually I wouldn't want it to be the case that only the rich can afford to fly. As someone in favour of the EU on grounds that working together helps peace and prosperity I'm all in favour of the idea that as many people as possible should travel to as many places as possible to see that "they" are really just like "us". In any case a weekend in Prague sounds much more exotic and romantic than one in Norfolk (it might not be - bits of Norfolk are beautiful, but you get my point).
But are we expanding air transport at the expense of high speed train links? I've read that there are about 100 000 flights a year from Heathrow to places to which there are already feasible rail links (Edinburgh, Leeds, Glasgow, Newcastle, Manchester, Brussels, Paris, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Durham Tees Valley) some of which are high speed. I don't really understand why I can fly to Edinburgh more cheaply and significantly more quickly than I can get there by train. Are airlines really reflecting the full costs of this method of travel? How is it possible to charge £1 for a seat? Do airlines really pay the same to fly a half-empty plane as a full one? How come there's no VAT on aviation fuel? A brave aviation tax might go some way to helping address this.
Other than the Branson biofuels initiative I see little evidence of airlines leading the way in cutting their contribution to carbon emissions. But biofuels themselves are perhaps not as sustainable as was initally thought - land that could be used for food crops in the developing world being given over to biofuel crop production is not exactly what I thought was intended...
I know that aviation is about 2% of carbon emissions, but expanding capacity will mean that increases (and logically if other sectors decrease their emissions the percentage responsibility of aviation will rise even more quickly!). Who's putting the pressure for lower emission planes? Would there be any financial advantage to be the first airline to procure them?
The local environment at Heathrow would be affected by building a third runway - we live on a flight path and happily the noise is only bad one week in four on average. I'ts worse for my in-laws who are that much closer to the airport. But expanded capacity at the airport would mean more flights which means more noise and in all probability more flights at night (and don't even talk to me about hushkits - it's the difference between very loud and excruiciatingly loud but it's still loud). I've already seen night flights become a big election issue when I lived in Belgium, and believe me depriving people of sleep with more flights would be a big issue for those near airports.
In addition to the noise impact, Heathrow is terribly close to roads and houses. To expand for a third runway a school would be demolished and several villages affected, there may even be specific habitats or flowers/ animals that would be affected. But are these local issues specific to Heathrow? Well not really - expanding any of the UK's airports would impact on the area around it, and the environment in general. As would building a new airport from scratch.
It seems to me that there's also a safety element to be taken into account. The business model at Heathrow required a flight to take off and land around ever 30 seconds (I think, it's certainly something extremely tight) so the risk is high and to work in air traffic control must require an incredible ability to deal with pressure. Increased capacity via Terminal 5 for taking passengers and flights doesn't equal increased capacity in the runways unless the gap between flights is squeezed even more. How could that be safe? And look at the problems caused by today's crash - a qick look at the BBC website reveals at least 221 flights affected so far in the nine hours since the accident.
Most major European airports have more than two runways. London Heathrow has traditionally been THE transport hub (call it a legacy of empire), the busiest airport in the world and that's been good for British business.
But the higher security baggage handling requirements have meant big queues (we were worried we'd miss our honeymoon flight being stuck in a queue when these rules were tightened in 2006) have made the flight experience at Heathrow less pleasant and other cities like Frankfurt are equally valid alternatives for transiting. Expanding Heathrow makes sense in terms of decent transport links and proximity to London, particularly the City once Crossrail's in place. It's not an argument against expanding other airports (though the environmental arguments against Heathrow apply to other airports too of course). But having good airport access is important to the UK economy.
Would building a new airport somewhere else help? If access to London is key, it's worth noting that the south east of England is really very crowded already. Expanding other existing airports might help a bit (Gatwick also offers good access to London, as does London City but there's not much space for expansion in docklands!) but the environment arguments would kick in just about anywhere. The transport links to other airports such as Stansted from central London are not fabulous, so it seems to me that if another airport was to be a better alternative, proper thought needs to be given to the rest of the transport network for onward journeys.
So do we need a third runway at Heathrow? There's lots of reasons both for and against, and overall I'm not convinced that expanding Heathrow is really the best . I just feel that using today's accident to say that it's obvious that a third runway should not be built is a bit opportunistic.
|
|
Posted by rose22 on 2008-01-17 17:15:06 | Rating: | Views: 167
|
|
| |
|
|
Email This to a Friend 
