Fly Me To The Moon, But Not Via Heathrow Airport
This post was originally published at EcoWorldly on 24th March.
Today I have returned home having travelled via London’s infamous Heathrow Airport - known disaffectionately by many frequent flyers as Hellrow. I can fully appreciate this sentiment among travellers and can safely say that by just about any measure, Heathrow is the world’s worst airport. And it’s about to get a whole lot worse..
Having had a minor makeover in the form of a new terminal building which brings some aspects of travel via Heathrow into the 21st century, most travellers are still subjected to an experience which does more to discourage flying than any environmental campaign could ever hope to achieve.
However, the real controversy at Heathrow right now concerns the proposal to build a third runway in response to ever increasing demands for capacity. This proposal has a significant environmental footprint; carbon emissions from additional flights alone will be equal to the those of the entire nation of Kenya, up to 4,000 houses may be bulldozed, including the entire village of Sipson, a graveyard and several historically relevant buildings.
Unsurprisingly there has been some resistance, and not only from environmental groups. All four of London’s mayoral candidates, the UK Environment Agency and many members of Parliament, including all of the government’s opposition parties have voiced strong objections to the scheme. Indeed, it appears that the only proponents of the scheme are the owners of Heathrow Airport, the current British Government and British Airways.
The Alternatives
However, there are many citizens who are happy to sit on the fence on this issue, or who simply believe that there are no alternatives. With ever increasing pressure for more flights and more airport capacity, isn’t an additional runway inevitable? This is the central question to the issue - without a good set of answers it almost certainly is inevitable in the name of the holy grail of economic progress.
So, without having thought too hard about it, here are the initial answers which I rattled off over a bottle of wine and some dinner last night:
- Realistic Long Term Economics: Looking at the reverse side of the issue that started the whole discussion - what are the true and long term economics of the scheme, including all hidden costs? The third runway will cost approximately £12 billion ($24 billion), and have a payback period of around 50 years. During that time period it is highly likely that increasing fuel costs, and increasing political bravery on climate and environmental issues may dampen current demand - after all, if aviation continues to grow indefinitely at the current rate then we are looking at an entirely new and very serious set of problems. Maybe we should check the real figures once more?
- A Natural Cap - If the British Government really is serious about achieving its ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets, then surely limiting the expansion of aviation through natural infrastructure constraints provides a very easy method of capping emissions? In the long term it must be easier and less expensive to limit flights through available runways rather than through artificial measures such as carbon taxes?
- Substitutes and Alternatives - Many short haul flights from Heathrow could easily be substituted by rail. Experience in France and Germany has shown that high-speed rail can easily out-compete short haul air travel, with domestic flights in those countries being virtually non-existent. Details on the number of flights to popular nearby destinations such as Manchester, Paris and Edinburgh are hard to obtain, although freeing up these take-off and landing slots may go a long way towards alleviating current capacity problems.
- Regional Expansion – Many of the UK’s regional airports are under-developed and offer few destinations, whilst travellers drive hundreds of miles along some of the world’s most congested motorways to reach Heathrow at an estimated cost to travellers of £400 million per year. If the UK must have more air travel capacity must it be centralised in one of the most congested areas of the planet?
I would welcome an improvement in the travel experience at Heathrow airport as much as anyone - I use it frequently and I’ve no objection to economic progress. What I do object to is the lack of foresight in many planning decisions and the frequent selection of the easy option. Building an additional runway at Heathrow is a certain solution to a growing problem – but it is a solution, not the solution as many people think.
What do you think?
The Heathrow debate can simply be addressed by a simple statement of fact. Air travel uses a hub management system, with hub Airports acting as transfer points. Heathrow is a major European hub for International Travellers.
Heathrow can simply withdrawl itself from that group and take the loss associated.
The answer is simple, grow your airport to handle the capacity or simply have the capacity sent somewhere else and give up the economic input to the country.
I personally fly BA because I like to stop over in London for a pint and some fish and chips, but I can simply fly through Paris or Frankfurt in the future. The UK is seldom my final destination, but I overnight there often leaving a few hundred Pounds behind each time, but if you do not want my money or the millions of others like me that travel through each year, no problem.
I am also not transferring to a train to cross central Europe adding 12-20 hours to my travels after flying for 9 Hours to reah the UK.
Again people look at this the wrong way, it is not all the UK people travelling on short haul flights congesting the airport, it is mostly the International Hub Traffic.
Here is an Interesting Report from BMI to put that in perspective
20:20 BMI