Heathrow battle masks other options

Debate over a third runway at Heathrow is heating up ahead of the UK government’s decision whether to approve the project. Aviation journalist Mark Broadbent questions whether a third runway is still relevant.

Battle lines have been drawn for months, but the intensity of the conflict has just stepped up a gear. Speaking in a House of Commons debate on 11 November about Heathrow Airport’s expansion plans, the opposition party’s (Conservative) Theresa Villiers claimed the government’s three-month consultation process was “a complete sham”.

Litany of lies and deceit

She said the government’s “mind had been made up for a long time” about the third runway plans, claiming that ministers had been “deaf” to the objections raised by environmental groups and local residents. Over 150 members of parliament have signed a motion calling on the government to reconsider the plans, with Labour MP John McDonnell (whose constituency lies within the proposed third runway site) accusing the government of a “litany of lies and deceit”.

Such headline-grabbing barbs are not new. Brutal exchanges between the project’s supporters and opponents began as soon as the plans were announced a year ago, and intensified during a three-month consultation that concluded in February, but this week’s debate encapsulated how high feelings are running.

Arguments are being traded back and forth. BAA, airlines and the business communities say expansion is vital because a global hub generates traffic for domestic and short-haul routes, thereby benefiting the overall economy. Environmental groups pour scorn on the government’s emissions projections, saying they are based on false assumptions. The “for” camp hits back by saying new aircraft are greener and the additional capacity will reduce the need for aircraft to wait to land in holding patterns above London. Local residents interject on the quality of life issue. Supporters say more people will want to fly over the long term. Anti-expansion groups say the recession proves this isn’t the case.

Healthy competition

This verbal jousting will continue, but amid this there is one issue that appears to have been forgotten – the Competition Commission’s finding that BAA (which also operates six other UK airports) should be split up.

Opening the market to competition could lead to new investment, infrastructure and facilities at Gatwick (which has already been put up for sale by BAA). Together with other proposals to expand Stansted, this could provide a more radical ‘third way’ solution to southeast England’s airport capacity issue. Developing Gatwick and Stansted could act as a release valve for the pressure on Heathrow. At the same time, the Crossrail project, which will create new rail connections across London, could be expanded to connect the existing airport express lines, thereby directly connecting the three airports for the first time, and creating a truly integrated airport system for the capital.

This approach necessitates a re-imagining of the concept that underpins London’s airports. Heathrow has always been regarded as London’s primary gateway, with Gatwick and Stansted second-rate partners beneath the West London behemoth. Gatwick and Stansted have growth potential, and together with a newly streamlined Heathrow – brought about by expansion at the other two, and improvements by BAA at Heathrow – perhaps a more efficient, more integrated, more environmentally and socially acceptable option may exist.

There are currently no comments.