Airport expansions

[43066]

Personally, regarding Heathrow’s third runway, I say just get on with it and it really should have been done years ago. It's true that it isn’t in an ideal location, but we are where we are, but there’s no way of changing that realistically, without massive expense and distortion of the economy of that part of London. I don’t think we have the luxury of putting environmental concerns ahead of growth at this point.

Hmmm.... civil disobedience has a long and distinguished history in this country. See for example the Tolpuddle martyrs and Suffragettes for two, not to mention gay and anti-racism. Often their "extreme" positions become the orthodoxy within a relatively short time.

On the other hand I also fully agree with this.

 

[TravelDream]

I don’t think we have the luxury of putting environmental concerns ahead of growth at this point.

We really don't. Britain is the sick man of a fairly sick continent.

Cn you show polling that 99.9% would support the 3rd runway?

Obviously an over exaggeration.

Though polling can tell you want you want. Not to go all Yes, Minister, but the same question could get very different results.

1) Are you concerned about climate change?
2) With temperatures rising, more extreme weather and sea levels rising, are you worried about your children's and grandchildren's future?
3) Do you think harmful, polluting industries should be required to reduce emissions to protect the enviornment?
4) Do you agree with a third runway being built at Heathrow?

1) Are you worried about Britain's lack of growth in recent years?
2) Is Britain's decline in the share of global trade a cause for worry?
3) To boost growth, do you think the government should invest in and further promote infrastructure development and connectivity within the UK and with Britain's trading partners?
4) Do you agree with a third runway being built at Heathrow?Attach files

 

[GusB]

1) Are you worried about Britain's lack of growth in recent years?

No

2) Is Britain's decline in the share of global trade a cause for worry?

No

3) To boost growth, do you think the government should invest in and further promote infrastructure development and connectivity within the UK and with Britain's trading partners?

Yes, but

4) Do you agree with a third runway being built at Heathrow?

No

 

[AlastairFraser]

To boost growth, do you think the government should invest in and further promote infrastructure development and connectivity within the UK and with Britain's trading partners?

Most people would agree with this, but we may as well do it properly and do it at Foulness/Maplin Sands, if we're going to do it at all. Most of the necessary land is already in government ownership anyway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Most people would agree with this, but we may as well do it properly and do it at Foulness/Maplin Sands, if we're going to do it at all. Most of the necessary land is already in government ownership anyway.

Land for an airport there perhaps. But for the new motorways and railways that would be needed to connect it with the rest of the country - not so much.

 

[camflyer]

Most people would agree with this, but we may as well do it properly and do it at Foulness/Maplin Sands, if we're going to do it at all. Most of the necessary land is already in government ownership anyway.

The only way Maplin Sands would make sense is if you had a time machine and could go back to the 70s. Since then we've had 50 years worth economic development in London and the South East. A mega-airport in Kent would just make no sense now. You wouldn't just need an airport but a major new town around it to provide tens of thousands of workers and support services (and wouldn't those residents be affected by noise), but a huge amount of road and rail infrastructure linking it to the rest of the country on the other side of London. Plus there is the problem of fog/birds in the estuary and any airport there would be getting close to the airspaces of Brussels and Amsterdam

 

[TravelDream]

No

You miss the point, the first series of questions lead you to a 'no' answer and the second series of questions lead to a 'yes' answer.

And if you're not worried about Britain's lack of growth since 2007, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of economics and the house of sand the British state is built on.

Most people would agree with this, but we may as well do it properly and do it at Foulness/Maplin Sands, if we're going to do it at all. Most of the necessary land is already in government ownership anyway.

Many decades too late.

The M4 corridor and West London have developed so much because of Heathrow. Maplin Sands is hardly going to be good for a tech company in Reading reliant on a close link to Heathrow and San Francisco/ Austin.
Camflyer above points out issues too on where workers will live (Well over 100k jobs are based at Heathrow) and the cost and difficulty of installing infrastructure from across the UK there.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Land for an airport there perhaps. But for the new motorways and railways that would be needed to connect it with the rest of the country - not so much.

Well, you'd build a toll tunnel for the road connecting it with the northern M25, and a short extension of the LTS from Shoeburyness (massively upgrade the rest to provide a decent service frequency). You'd probably also need a reasonably high speed orbital railway with a LTS interchange along the M25 alignment. It's far from easy, but not impossible.

The only way Maplin Sands would make sense is if you had a time machine and could go back to the 70s. Since then we've had 50 years worth economic development in London and the South East. A mega-airport in Kent would just make no sense now. You wouldn't just need an airport but a major new town around it to provide tens of thousands of workers and support services (and wouldn't those residents be affected by noise), but a huge amount of road and rail infrastructure linking it to the rest of the country on the other side of London. Plus there is the problem of fog/birds in the estuary and any airport there would be getting close to the airspaces of Brussels and Amsterdam

A major new town is doable on the southern end of Foulness Island. Road and rail infrastructure is not an insurmountable barrier. The presence of rare birds may be the only sizeable issue that cannot be easily mitigated, even the cost of the airport could be significantly reduced by the sale of the former Heathrow site for several large housing developments.

Many decades too late.

The M4 corridor and West London have developed so much because of Heathrow. Maplin Sands is hardly going to be good for a tech company in Reading reliant on a close link to Heathrow and San Francisco/ Austin.
Camflyer above points out issues too on where workers will live (Well over 100k jobs are based at Heathrow) and the cost and difficulty of installing infrastructure from across the UK there.

In all honesty, the central Thames Valley economy is massively overheated, and businesses can relocate easily (especially in the modern era of videoconferencing and many tech companies operating with a strongly pro-working from home ethos). With decent rail links, Heathrow can be replaced.

My overall point is that the Heathrow 3rd runway really isn't worth the upheaval. If we really need that much more capacity, then it would be better served by a brand new future-proofed site somewhere else (instead of bolting on extensions onto a broken site that has been swallowed by the urban area of the city it serves).

 

[GusB]

You miss the point, the first series of questions lead you to a 'no' answer and the second series of questions lead to a 'yes' answer.

I didn't miss the point.

Your reference to "Yes, Prime Minister" didn't escape my attention, either.

Things can be twisted either way to suit a particular narrative

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The only way Maplin Sands would make sense is if you had a time machine and could go back to the 70s. Since then we've had 50 years worth economic development in London and the South East. A mega-airport in Kent would just make no sense now. You wouldn't just need an airport but a major new town around it to provide tens of thousands of workers and support services (and wouldn't those residents be affected by noise), but a huge amount of road and rail infrastructure linking it to the rest of the country on the other side of London. Plus there is the problem of fog/birds in the estuary and any airport there would be getting close to the airspaces of Brussels and Amsterdam

Maplin Sands is in Essex. 'Ted Heath International' as it was mockingly known, would have had four runways, a major seaport and connected to London by a 'M13' motorway and a 'tracked hovercraft' fast link to a terminus near King's Cross. The orientation of the runways on a NE - SW axis would have been ideal. Some of the cost would have been defrayed by the redevelopment of Heathrow. Ah well ...

 

[Joe Paxton]

Maplin Sands is in Essex. 'Ted Heath International' as it was mockingly known, would have had four runways, a major seaport and connected to London by a 'M13' motorway and a 'tracked hovercraft' fast link to a terminus near King's Cross. The orientation of the runways on a NE - SW axis would have been ideal. Some of the cost would have been defrayed by the redevelopment of Heathrow. Ah well ...

It's an idea that wouldn't been without its significant issues, but I certainly reckon it's pretty tempting to think that 'if only they had been courageous in the 70's'... though of course there were other significant issues throughout the decade (e.g. inflation, industrial unrest, the three day week, debates on the UK's EEC membership including a referendum, and of course the 1973 'oil shock etc), so one could well question whether, if such a project had been started, it would actually have been finished... bearing in mind the cancellation in 1975 of the Channel Tunnel project that had been agreed with the French government in 1973. Then of course there's the gradual pullback, by both the GLC and central government, away from the (somewhat bonkers) major roads projects in and around London known collectively the 'Ringways', parts of which would have in theory served the western end of the projected new M13 motorway to Maplin Sands.

The development of Heathrow itself was based on a con, pushed through in 1944 by some elements in government (notably Harold Balfour, a minister in the Air Ministry) as a supposedly crucial emergency wartime measure, but in reality with eyes on it becoming a major civilian airfield post-war.

 

[weeklycommuter]

From the following news report the Government is sending mixed messages on whether they would support a third runway at Heathrow Airport. The Government would have to comply with the law on limits for UK net emissions of greenhouse gases. Heathrow Airport has not so far applied for a Development Consent Order for a third runway.

Heathrow expansion 'won't go ahead' if it doesn't meet climate targets, Ed Miliband says

The energy secretary's commitment to climate targets puts him at odds with Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who has indicated that economic growth is more important.

news.sky.com

Heathrow expansion 'won't go ahead' if it doesn't meet climate targets, Ed Miliband says
The energy secretary's commitment to climate targets puts him at odds with Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who has indicated that economic growth is more important.
Ed Miliband has said the expansion of Heathrow and other airports "won't go ahead" if they don't meet the UK's emissions targets - putting him on a potential collision course with Rachel Reeves.
The chancellor has not commented directly on whether she would support a third runway at Heathrow, but she has indicated she would be prepared to overrule environmental objections to allow the project to go ahead.
Ms Reeves has been emphasising that growth is the UK's number one priority and is expected to use a speech on Wednesday to support the expansion, as well as similar plans for Gatwick and Luton.
But appearing in front of the Commons Environmental Audit Committee, Mr Miliband - the cabinet minister responsible for pushing forward the government's net zero agenda - struck a different tone to the chancellor.
He told MPs that any aviation expansion must take place within the UK's carbon budgets, including the 2050 target to reduce emissions by 100% compared with 1990 levels.
Independent advisers on the government's Climate Change Committee (CC) have called for no net airport expansion without a proper national plan to curb emissions from the aviation sector and manage passenger capacity.
The CCC is publishing its next carbon budget - the legal limit for UK net emissions of greenhouse gases from 2038 to 2042 - on 26 February.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well, you'd build a toll tunnel for the road connecting it with the northern M25, and a short extension of the LTS from Shoeburyness (massively upgrade the rest to provide a decent service frequency). You'd probably also need a reasonably high speed orbital railway with a LTS interchange along the M25 alignment. It's far from easy, but not impossible.

Youd need a lot more than that. At least two new rail links to central London*, and another round to (say) Cambridge and then onto EWR. And at least two Motorways.

*The LTS does not have capacity for the passenegrs this airport would generate.

 

[Magdalia]

Maplin Sands is in Essex. 'Ted Heath International' as it was mockingly known, would have had four runways, a major seaport and connected to London by a 'M13' motorway and a 'tracked hovercraft' fast link to a terminus near King's Cross. The orientation of the runways on a NE - SW axis would have been ideal. Some of the cost would have been defrayed by the redevelopment of Heathrow. Ah well ...

It's an idea that wouldn't been without its significant issues, but I certainly reckon it's pretty tempting to think that 'if only they had been courageous in the 70's'..

At university I studied London airport expansion policy in the 1960s/1970s, especially the Roskill Commission.

Heath opting for Maplin Sands was cowardly not courageous. It was the most expensive option, and therefore very vulnerable when the economic situation worsened.

The courageous decision would have been to accept the Roskill Commission recommendation to site the new airport at Cublington. If that had happened we would now have a big airport:

• near to HS2
• near to East West Rail
• near to the West Coast Main Line
• near to the M1
• near to the freight distribution golden triangle
• accessible from both London and Birmingham

 

[camflyer]

Well, you'd build a toll tunnel for the road connecting it with the northern M25, and a short extension of the LTS from Shoeburyness (massively upgrade the rest to provide a decent service frequency). You'd probably also need a reasonably high speed orbital railway with a LTS interchange along the M25 alignment. It's far from easy, but not impossible.

A major new town is doable on the southern end of Foulness Island. Road and rail infrastructure is not an insurmountable barrier. The presence of rare birds may be the only sizeable issue that cannot be easily mitigated, even the cost of the airport could be significantly reduced by the sale of the former Heathrow site for several large housing developments.

In all honesty, the central Thames Valley economy is massively overheated, and businesses can relocate easily (especially in the modern era of videoconferencing and many tech companies operating with a strongly pro-working from home ethos). With decent rail links, Heathrow can be replaced.

My overall point is that the Heathrow 3rd runway really isn't worth the upheaval. If we really need that much more capacity, then it would be better served by a brand new future-proofed site somewhere else (instead of bolting on extensions onto a broken site that has been swallowed by the urban area of the city it serves).

So you want to forcibly cool/devastate the economy of west London and the Thames Valley by moving hundreds of thousands people and jobs to.a new town in Essex/Kent and yet think a third runway would be an "upheaval". If firms can "easily relocate" then the could just as easily move to Dublin or Amsterdam

If you convert LHR into a huge housing estate then where will everyone who lives there work since all of the jobs have moved away? Sounds like a massive sink estate in the making.

 

[Cross City]

You've got to think a bit deeper than just 'it's bad for climate change'.

A third runway will drive growth, which in turn can allow us to have the funds to tackle climate change even further. Also, aviation has got massively more sustainable over the last decade or two, and we have to compete with other nations whether we like it or not. Aviation investment in particular is such a fundamental driver of growth we really don't have much choice IMO.

Reeves needs to be brave and get on with it.

It's short-sighted of the climate change lobby to say this is bad news and shouldn't go ahead. Invest in the capacity, and then use the growth to solve other issues.

 

[Magdalia]

A third runway will drive growth

But will a third runway at Heathrow drive growth?

And will it drive growth more effectively than other projects?

And could Heathrow make its contribution to driving growth by making better use of existing capacity?

The proponents of a third runway need to think more deeply too.

 

[Rail_Midlands]

Actually the third runway will help in reducing the carbon emission. The amount of waiting times and wasted energy both in air and ground for the want of a run way is very high in Heathrow compared to any other airport in world. Its madness. Compared to other countries working on reducing the wait times and improve efficiency of the airports, we're backward.

 

[renegademaster]

And will it drive growth more effectively than other projects?

As kneecapping HS2 hasn't got everyone's pet branch line restored, blocking Heathrow from expanding isn't going to get your pet infrastructure projects built

 

[camflyer]

Actually the third runway will help in reducing the carbon emission. The amount of waiting times and wasted energy both in air and ground for the want of a run way is very high in Heathrow compared to any other airport in world. Its madness. Compared to other countries working on reducing the wait times and improve efficiency of the airports, we're backward.

Plus a lot more could be done to lower the environmental effects of ground transport at the airport. Discourage car usage and get more people using trains or (clean) bus transfers. Crazy to have so much acreage devoted to parked cars. Trouble is now that unless you are going to/from central London, LHR is a pain to get to by train which is why so many people drive there. Unless there is a proper alternative then banning short haul flights would just increase the amount of cars using the airport.

But will a third runway at Heathrow drive growth?

And will it drive growth more effectively than other projects?

And could Heathrow make its contribution to driving growth by making better use of existing capacity?

The proponents of a third runway need to think more deeply too.

It's not matter of Heathrow or other projects when we need infrastructure improvements across the country.

Those against a third runaway also need to think more deeply about what doing nothing would mean.

 

[Magdalia]

It's not matter of Heathrow or other projects when we need infrastructure improvements across the country.

Actually it is. We have a limited construction industry capacity with significant skills shortages.

Building a third runway at Heathrow does mean that other things won't get built.

Those against a third runaway also need to think more deeply about what doing nothing would mean.

Doing nothing on Heathrow would mean those construction industry resources being used on other projects that will deliver more economic growth. Like 1.5 million homes for example.

 

[43066]

Doing nothing on Heathrow would mean those construction industry resources being used on other projects that will deliver more economic growth. Like 1.5 million homes for example.

If there are long term lucrative projects on offer surely you’d expect construction firms to respond by investing in upskilling existing workers, incentivising new joiners, sponsoring visas for those from abroad etc.?

 

[Magdalia]

you’d expect construction firms to respond by investing in upskilling existing workers, incentivising new joiners,

That all takes time, time we haven't got.

sponsoring visas for those from abroad etc.

That will be very popular with those who worry about migration, and doesn't help UK growth much if those from abroad repatriate their earnings.

 

[camflyer]

Doing nothing on Heathrow would mean those construction industry resources being used on other projects that will deliver more economic growth. Like 1.5 million homes for example.

Doing nothing would also mean that one of the world's major airports continues to burst at the seams with increasing delays, worsening passenger experience and damaging the local a national economies.

How are those 1.5m homes going to be built if the construction industry spends the next 20 years working on a new airport in the middle of nowhere?

 

[Magdalia]

How are those 1.5m homes going to be built if the construction industry spends the next 20 years working on a new airport in the middle of nowhere?

I am not advocating building a new airport in the middle of nowhere, merely pointing out that it was a missed opportunity 50 years ago.

Doing nothing would also mean that one of the world's major airports continues to burst at the seams with increasing delays, worsening passenger experience

I have yet to see a convincing case that those issues cannot be addressed by making better use of existing capacity, without needing to build a new runway.

Neither have I seen a convincing case that resolving those airport capacity issues is more important and beneficial than building 1.5 million homes.

 

[renegademaster]

Actually it is. We have a limited construction industry capacity with significant skills shortages.

Building a third runway at Heathrow does mean that other things won't get built.


Doing nothing on Heathrow would mean those construction industry resources being used on other projects that will deliver more economic growth. Like 1.5 million homes for example.

How many less homes will be built if the third runway did go ahead. Anyone blocking development based on vauge externalities like that should face the burden of proof on how much an impact it will actually cause. We are not supposed to have a fully state owned construction sector.

 

[Magdalia]

How many less homes will be built if the third runway did go ahead. Anyone blocking development based on vauge externalities like that should face the burden of proof on how much an impact it will actually cause. We are not supposed to have a fully state owned construction sector.

No we don't have a state owned construction sector. But the state is a significant customer of the construction industry in its own right (for example Network Rail and NHS trusts), the government has political objectives that need to be delivered by private sector customers of the construction industry (for example housebuilders and property developers building commercial space), and the state sets the planning framework that determines whether things get built or not.

In a situation where construction capacity is limited, government policy choices will determine what gets built and what doesn't. I don't know how many of the government's 1.5 million houses won't get built if Heathrow third runway goes ahead, but I'd hope that the economists in the Treasury and in the Office for Budget Responsibility would be thinking about it. That's their job not mine!

 

[Snow1964]

How are those 1.5m homes going to be built if the construction industry spends the next 20 years working on a new airport in the middle of nowhere?

There used to be lot of self build, and people building own extensions. We are rather doing our best to discourage extra homes this way. In theory Councils are supposed to maintain lists of available sites that you can buy to build, but in practice likely to just added to a multi-year waiting list.

Yes there are construction skills shortages, but not actually doing much to get more building done. Or encouraging use of homes partly fabricated in kits in factories to overcome shortage of work.

 

[43066]

That all takes time, time we haven't got.

I’d imagine lower skilled “labourer” type roles could be recruited for and trained up relatively quickly? A little like how HGV wages rose rapidly and there has been a rapid influx of staff into the industry from other sectors.

It’s hard to imagine a runway - a two mile long slab of tarmac - is much harder to design and build than a motorway. The issue has always been getting the relevant planning permissions, overcoming objections etc.

That will be very popular with those who worry about migration, and doesn't help UK growth much if those from abroad repatriate their earnings.

If people are earning money in the UK they should be paying UK tax on their earnings, and realistically it’ll be a combination of both.

In a situation where construction capacity is limited, government policy choices will determine what gets built and what doesn't. I don't know how many of the government's 1.5 million houses won't get built if Heathrow third runway goes ahead, but I'd hope that the economists in the Treasury and in the Office for Budget Responsibility would be thinking about it. That's their job not mine!

Well yes, and I don’t pretend to be an expert, I just find it hard to buy the argument that the government should not be embarking on major long term projects because the construction industry is a few thousand workers short. The market should correct for that if the right incentives are put in place. We could arguably do with more construction sites paying decent wages and fewer call centres/warehouses!

 

[renegademaster]

hard to buy the argument that the government should not be embarking on major long term projects because the construction industry is a few thousand workers short.

And it's not the government building it either. If the shortage is truly insurmountable, cost would likely kill the private sector from attempting to build it, if it's surmountable, then builders get a wage rise and few immigrants get sponsored in. I highly doubt a new runway is enough to make a meaningful impact on headline statistics