New regular flights from Aberdeen and Edinburgh to Heathrow, starting on 26th March 2017, have been announced by Flybe. These will be Flybe’s first flights to Heathrow. There will be 4 flights from Edinburgh on weekdays, and 3 from Aberdeen, making a total of 40 weekly flights per week. They will be using slots made available to Flybe at the insistence of the European Commission, after the takeover of BMI. Airlines hope to get Scottish passengers to link into long haul flights from Heathrow, with all the usual claims about economic benefits etc. Simon Calder says Flybe will inherit the dormant Heathrow slots and will challenge British Airways on the Edinburgh and Aberdeen routes. The fares may fall due to the competition. But the BA flights will be faster. The air fares could be around £85 to £130 for a return ticket.
New regular flights from Aberdeen and Edinburgh to London Heathrow have been announced by Flybe.
The regional airline said it is the first time it will serve the largest London airport.
There will be four flights from Edinburgh on weekdays, and three from Aberdeen, starting on 26 March 2017.
The slots at Heathrow were made available to Flybe at the insistence of the European Commission, after the takeover of BMI.
Including weekend departures, there will be more than 40 scheduled flights from Edinburgh and Aberdeen to Heathrow each week.
Flybe Executive Chairman Simon Laffin said: “We are delighted to announce our first flights to London Heathrow, significantly enhancing our UK domestic route network and offering even better links between Scotland and London.
“The new routes to Heathrow complement the existing ones we operate to London City, and will benefit our business customers and customers in Scotland who want to connect with our long haul codeshare partners.”
Heathrow Chief Executive John Holland-Kaye added: “Improving the connections into Heathrow from all around the UK will be vital in helping to secure the economic future of communities in every corner of the nation.
“Today’s announcement shows that the measures we’re introducing, such as the £10 reduction on domestic passenger charges, are already working to secure vital links.”
He went on: “With Flybe based at Terminal 2, it also means new, unique direct access from Heathrow to markets such Colombia, Taipei and Auckland.”
From 26 March 2017, Flybe will inherit the dormant slots at Heathrow for flights to and from Aberdeen and Edinburgh. The Exeter-based airline will challenge British Airways on those routes, and some test bookings suggest that fares are already falling as a result. But BA will have a distinct edge over the newcomer in terms of speed.
On the Edinburgh-Heathrow route, the quickest British Airways flight is 85 minutes, with the average journey scheduled for one-and-a-half hours. But all three daily Flybe services will take two hours. The fastest train between the Scottish and English capitals takes only four hours.
The distance between Edinburgh and Heathrow airports is 333 miles. The schedules published by airlines are “block times”, from pushing back at one airport to reaching the stand at the destination.
The actual flying time for a British Airways Airbus jet is less than an hour if no holding is required before landing at Heathrow, but slack is built in for queuing on the ground and “stacking” over the Home Counties waiting for a landing slot.
The aircraft that Flybe will use for the link is believed to be the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400, a propellor plane with a maximum cruising speed of 414mph — which the maker calls a “jet-like” speed. The top cruising speed of BA’s Airbus A320 is 533mph, about 30 per cent higher. But on a relatively short hop, aircraft are in the cruise for a short spell.
On the 403-mile trip from Aberdeen to Heathrow, Flybe is allowing two hours and 15 minutes, compared with as little as 90 minutes on BA.
Analysis of fares suggests that travellers will benefit from the new competition. The Independent checked Sunday out/Monday back journeys from Aberdeen to Heathrow in March 2017. On the first three weekends, when British Airways has the route to itself, BA’s lowest return fare is £129. But on the final weekend, when Flybe starts up, the BA fare falls to £85 — just £1 more than Flybe.
The lobby group funded and staffed by Heathrow, “Back Heathrow”, has had the (ill judged) nerve to criticise councils for spending money to oppose their expansion plans. Back Heathrow has attacked Hillingdon Council for spending more than £800,000 between 2007 and August 2016 on fighting the 3rd runway, while cutting public services. Back Heathrow say Hillingdon is having to make cuts of £309,000 in early support service and children’s centres, with the threat of £100,000 more cuts next year. And they complain that Richmond has spent nearly £109,000 opposing Heathrow expansion between 2007 and 2014 – and so on with other councils. Heathrow is trying to give the impression that residents in these boroughs want the runway, and councils are wasting money. They ignore the inconvenient fact that there is huge opposition to the runway within these councils, and the councils can see not only the effect of noise, air pollution and congestion the runway would cause, but also the social and infrastructure stresses – for example, on housing demand. Heathrow’s plans are costing, and could continue to cost, these councils a great deal of money. Heathrow is responsible for a lot of public money that taxpayers would have to fork out, to deal with the impact of its expansion.
London boroughs slammed for ‘wasting money on Heathrow third runway opposition while cutting services’
NICHOLAS CECIL (Evening Standard)
A London town hall came under fire today for spending more than £800,000 on fighting a third runway at Heathrow while cutting public services.
Pro-expansion group Back Heathrow criticised Hillingdon for the expenditure between 2007 and August this year to try to stop the west London airport expanding.
The group claimed Hillingdon is implementing £309,000 of cuts in early support service and children’s centres, with the threat of £100,000 more next year.
It added that Richmond spent nearly £109,000 opposing Heathrow expansion between 2007 and 2014, and a further £9,100 on lobbying against another runway in the past year.
It also claimed the town hall was proposing to cut £60,000 from a fund used to help vulnerable local children in care who are trying to start careers, though this was disputed.
Windsor and Maidenhead, where Theresa May is the local MP, spent £30,000 of taxpayers’ money on polling on Heathrow between January 2015 and August this year. Back Heathrow said the council had come under fire for proposals to cut a free school travel scheme which it claimed could cost some families £750 a year.
Its campaign director Rob Gray said: “Many taxpayers will be furious that while vital local public services are being cut, their money is being wasted on expensive lawyers to challenge a government decision that will bring thousands of jobs and investment to west London.”
But the town halls rejected the criticism. Hillingdon council said: “Hillingdon residents have repeatedly voiced their opposition to any expansion at Heathrow, and our job is to represent their views and challenge this decision by the Government to back a third runway.”
It added that David Cameron’s “no ifs, no buts” promise of no third runway had been broken, and “we have been left with no choice but to fight this in the courts”.
Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth and Windsor and Maidenhead have launched legal proceedings against the Government which Back Heathrow said could cost £200,000.
Richmond council leader Lord True dismissed the group’s claims as “utter nonsense”, saying: “Richmond council has not cut funding for services enabling vulnerable children in care to get on the career ladder.”
Four Conservative-run local authorities have appointed a legal team, (Harrison Grant Solicitors) warning that if the Government did not rule out a 3rd Heathrow runway, then legal action will be launched. The four are the London Boroughs of Hillingdon, Richmond-upon-Thames, Wandsworth and the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead. All are long-standing opponents of a 3rd runway. The solicitors have written to the Prime Minister on their behalf explaining how “insurmountable environmental problems” would make government backing for a new runway “irrational or otherwise unlawful”. Local campaign group in the Heathrow Villages, “Stop Heathrow Expansion” representing residents in the south of Hillingdon whose lives would be directly impacted by the runway, welcomed the letter. Christine Taylor, Harlington resident and Stop Heathrow Expansion supporter, said: “Residents of the Heathrow Villages have had enough – we’ve been fighting this for over 30 years. We want to draw an end to the repeated threat of Heathrow expansion on our communities.”
Rob Gray, the voice of the “Back Heathrow” group, complains residents will be furious that councils are spending money. He ignores the fact that residents could be equally furious that Heathrow has, yet again, put the councils in the position where they have little choice other than to defend themselves from the airport’s plans.
Councils and campaigners take first step towards legal challenge against government support for Heathrow runway
November 18, 2016
Solicitors Harrison Grant acting on behalf of Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth and Windsor and Maidenhead Councils, together with Greenpeace and a Hillingdon resident have (17th November) sent a letter, under the Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol, to the Secretary of State for Transport. The letter gives the Government a period of 14 days in which to withdraw its decision, issued on the 25 October to support a 3rd runway at Heathrow. If it fails to do so, judicial review proceedings will be commenced in the High Court, without further notice to the Government, on the basis that the Government’s approach to air quality and noise is unlawful and also that it has failed to carry out a fair and lawful consultation exercise prior to issuing its decision. The 33 page pre-action letter sets out comprehensive grounds for legal challenge, drawing on a broad range of statute and legal precedent, as well as highlighting the many promises and statements made by senior politicians confirming that the third runway would not be built. The move comes shortly after the Government’s air quality plans were overturned in the High Court, putting ministers under greater pressure to reduce illegal levels of air pollution in places like Heathrow. The latest court ruling rejected the current government plans to tackle emissions as inadequate and based on over optimistic assumptions.
Greenpeace to join with 4 councils in legal challenge against Heathrow 3rd runway
October 17, 2016
Greenpeace UK has joined forces with Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth and Windsor and Maidenhead councils to prepare grounds for a joint legal challenge against Heathrow expansion. More claimants could join the alliance in the coming days as media reports have suggested a final decision has now been delayed until 25th October. Greenpeace and the four local authorities say both Heathrow expansion schemes would be unlawful due to their unrivalled environmental impacts, which include exacerbating illegal levels of air pollution, increasing Europe’s worst aircraft noise footprint and stretching the local transport network beyond breaking point. The councils jointly instructed Harrison Grant Solicitors to prepare their legal strategy last year and Greenpeace will now share costs and bring new environmental expertise to the partnership. The campaigners also worked together back in 2010 to successfully overturn the Brown Government’s backing for a 3rd runway in the High Court. Later that year the scheme was emphatically ruled out by the incoming Cameron Government. Heathrow current expansion scheme is even bigger and has more severe environmental impacts than the 2010 proposal, and will fail the same legal tests. New evidence on the severe health impacts of air and noise pollution make the new scheme far less likely to pass judicial review.
In the Draft Scottish Budget announced by Derek Mackay, he confirmed that the Scottish government now has the power to legislate for a tax which will replace Air Passenger Duty (APD) in Scotland. ” …we will introduce a Bill in the first year of the current Parliament to establish the tax which will replace APD in Scotland from 1 April 2018. We remain committed to delivering a 50% reduction in the overall tax burden of APD by the end of this Parliament.” He hopes this will “deliver sustainable growth for the Scottish economy by helping to generate new direct air routes, sustain existing routes and increase inbound tourism.” There is, naturally, no mention of the money lost to Scotland by more outbound tourism. The Scottish Government expects APD will raise £326 million in 2018-19 for them, and £342 million in 2019-20. Edinburgh Airport Watch commented that Mr Mackay did not mention how he will plug the resulting £150 million hole in Scotland’s public finances, or the generous tax incentives already enjoyed by aviation – no duty or VAT payable on aviation fuel, no VAT on purchases of aircraft, or on servicing of aircraft. Airports enjoy a huge tax break in the form of Duty Free Shopping – an enormous cash earner for Airport owners. APD is a fair and progressive tax on an exceptionally lightly taxed industry.
This is what the Draft Scottish Budget, 2017 -18 says on APD:
AIR PASSENGER DUTY
Following the commencement of section 17 of the Scotland Act 2016 on 23 May 2016, the Scottish Parliament now has the power to legislate for a tax which will replace Air Passenger Duty (APD) in Scotland. As set out in the Programme for Government 2016-17, we will introduce a Bill in the first year of the current Parliament to establish the tax which will replace APD in Scotland from 1 April 2018. We remain committed to delivering a 50 per cent reduction in the overall tax burden of APD by the end of this Parliament. This will deliver sustainable growth for the Scottish economy by helping to generate new direct air routes, sustain existing routes and increase inbound tourism.
In the Table 1.01 on Page 3 they anticipate that APD will raise £326 million in 2018-19 and £342 million in 2019 – 20. Air Passenger Duty revenues are based on OBR forecasts of Scottish revenues in 2018-19 and 2019-20
Scottish Government announcement of Air Departure Tax Cut
In his Holyrood budget statement today, Derek Mackay was keen to announce a 50% reduction in the Air Departure Tax – the new name for Air Passenger Duty.
He did not mention how he will plug the resulting £150 million hole in our public finances.
He did not mention the generous tax incentives already enjoyed by aviation – no duty or VAT payable on aviation fuel, no VAT on purchases of aircraft, no VAT on the servicing of aircraft.
Airports enjoy a huge tax break in the form of Duty Free Shopping – an enormous cash earner for Airport owners.
Air Passenger Duty is a fair and progressive tax on an exceptionally lightly taxed industry. The majority of responders to the SG consultation on APD earlier this year agreed, and told the Government that this tax should not be reduced.
Mr Mackay’s announcement cuts across the Scottish Government aspirations for equality – 70% of flights are taken by the wealthiest 15%.
Designed to “improve Scotland’s connectivity”, the proposed 50% tax cut on a short haul flight (up to 2,000 miles – so all of the UK and most of Europe) will be an almost invisible £6.50, so won’t really make a lot of difference to whether people choose to fly or not.
On longer haul flights the tax cut is less than £40, again, a relatively tiny amount within the overall cost of the trip and one that will make little difference to most passengers.
This is a windfall for the wealthy in a time of austerity – and we urge our Government to think again.
A Worsening Tourism Deficit
Scottish Government figures show that our Overseas Tourism Deficit (ie the difference between the amount of revenue foreign visitors bring to Scotland vs the amount that departing Scots take out of our economy) is £1.6 billion.
On average a Scottish Resident spends £600 when they go abroad. This adds up to £1.6 billion, or the cash equivalent of losing over 50,000 jobs in Scotland.
Much needed cash that is being sucked out of our economy. Reducing aviation tax to encourage more flying will simply make the problem worse.
Edinburgh Airport’s planned expansion of routes for 2016/17 is dominated by tourist destinations such as Heraklion, Almeria, Paphos, Kefalonia and Ibiza. The planes will not be full of high spending visitors to Scotland – they will be taking Scots abroad to spend their cash elsewhere, and boosting overseas economies at the expense of our own. A plane to Ibiza with 200 Scots each spending £600 takes £120,000 out of Scotland and creates 6 jobs in Ibiza and loses 6 jobs in Scotland.
80% of all Scotland’s visitors arrive from other parts of the UK and only 9% of them by air – a more sustainable solution for Scotland’s tourism industry would be to encourage better and more affordable surface transport to and from other parts of the UK.
The real winner here will be the shareholders in the aviation industry, much of which is owned offshore.
What cost the failure to meet our legally binding CO2 Emissions targets?
In Scotland, our legally binding carbon emissions targets also include aviation emissions; these targets will soar ever further out of reach if we allow aviation to expand inexorably.
Aviation expansion can only mean more unwanted disturbance for some 300,000 local people and their families – most of whom do not fly regularly.
It will add to the burden on our already stretched surface transport infrastructure, making our air pollution and congestion problems even worse.
What cost the health of people who find themselves living in the increasing noise and pollution shadows of Scotland’s airports?
In our view, this scheme heralds unsubstantiated and unsustainable aspiration where the only true beneficiaries will be those with a vested and/or shareholding interest in the aviation industry.
Edinburgh Airport Watch said: “We do not support this cut in tax for a vastly polluting form of transport – it simply makes no sense for Scotland on fiscal, economic or environmental grounds.
“While the aviation industry will be delighted at the potential increase in their shareholder incomes, those Scots who suffer the consequences of airport operations on a daily basis will greet this news with great dismay and will not continue to vote for politicians who blindly support a self-promoting industry perpetuating economic myths.
“Our experience of the aviation industry has taught us to treat any promises of job creation with great scepticism.
“The cost of unfettered aviation expansion is poorer air quality, traffic chaos on the roads around airports, more noise misery for neighbours – some of them many miles from the runway – and a worsening of Scotland’s already enormous tourism deficit.
“We urge the Scottish Government to do the right thing for Scotland and rethink this tax cut for the sake of our environment, our health and our economy.
“Choices need to be made – is Scotland to be a low carbon economy that leads the world in tackling climate change, or are we prepared to tolerate unfettered expansion of a vastly polluting industry at enormous cost to Scotland’s health, environment and economy?”
An influential Tory MP has questioned the evidence behind Heathrow expansion, suggesting the Government may have gone to exceptional lengths to find a methodology that made the case. In a letter to chancellor Philip Hammond and transport secretary Chris Grayling, the chair of the Treasury Select Committee, Andrew Tyrie, said the Treasury has specifically requested the rarely used ‘net public value’ investment measure be included in its assessment. Mr Tyrie pointed out that of the 4 investment measures used to evaluate the 3 runway proposals, only this seldom-used “net public value” measure presents a clear case for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. He asked the ministers where this measure has been used before on major infrastructure. Mr Tyrie also said that the DfT document published on 25th October acknowledged that ‘the Net Present Values (NPVs) for some of the options could potentially be negative under some demand scenarios… ” but the DfT is only considering one scenario. And he asks that figures are produced for all the scenarios [but does not say if he wants carbon capped as well as carbon traded], not just one. He also says assessing demand growth for a period of over 20 years, or even 30 years, is ‘not in line with the guidance issued by the Department for Transport’. He asks that figures with demand capped at 20 and 30 years should be produced.
Senior Tory questions Government over Heathrow assessment
By Chris Ames (Transport Network)
13th December 2016
An influential Tory MP has questioned the evidence behind Heathrow expansion, suggesting the Government may have gone to exceptional lengths to find a methodology that made the case.
In a letter to chancellor Philip Hammond and transport secretary Chris Grayling, the chair of the Treasury Select Committee, Andrew Tyrie, said the Treasury has specifically requested the rarely used ‘net public value’ investment measure be included in its assessment.
Of the four investment measures used to evaluate the proposals, only this seldom-used net public value measure presents a clear case for a third runway at Heathrow, Mr Tyrie said.
He asked the ministers: ‘Can you provide any examples where net public value has previously been used as a measure to assess the cost-benefit case for major infrastructure projects?’
Mr Tyrie also pointed out in his letter that although the Government document acknowledged that ‘the Net Present Values (NPVs) for some of the options could potentially be negative under some demand scenarios… in its reassessment of the commission’s economic case… the Government has only considered one scenario’.
Mr Tyrie argued that the way the Airports Commission had assessed demand growth was ‘not in line with the guidance issued by the Department for Transport’ in that it did not cap projections of demand growth after 20 years.
He asked Mr Hammond to produce new calculations and provide ‘an assessment of the likely effect on the overall economic case’ of doing so.
Mr Tyrie also noted that the Government had made changes to the cost-benefit analysis to make the Airports Commission’s assessment of costs and wider economic impacts more consistent with its WebTAG appraisal guidance.
He pointed out: ‘This has had the effect of reducing the difference in NPV between the three shortlisted schemes that the Airports Commission argued clearly favoured the economic case for expansion of a third runway at Heathrow.’
Thank you for your letter of 12 October regarding the economic case for airport expansion. Twelve months ago I tabled questions in Parliament, asking for information crucial to an assessment of the relative merits of each proposal in the Davies report to be re-produced. Some of these questions have been addressed in a document intended to inform the announcement of the Government’s decision to endorse expansion of Heathrow – published on 25 October. 1 [1 The background and rationale for the Government’s support of Heathrow’s north-west runway as the preferred option for south-east airport expansion can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/heathrow-airport-expansion. ‘Further Review and Sensitivities Report: Airport Capacity in the South East’ addresses some of the points previously raised by the Committee. ] These include an assessment of the extent to which the cost of each scheme would be passed to passengers in higher fares, and the percentage changes required for the net present values of each of the three shortlisted schemes to equal zero. This is not before time.
The Government’s decision to endorse Heathrow initiates consultation, prior to a vote to approve it by Parliament. It is crucial that this process is transparent and accountable. The cost benefit analysis presented in the Davies Report has been restructured by the Government in several ways. This leaves some of the questions in my letter to you unanswered. It also raises a new one. Accordingly, the Committee would welcome your response to the following:
The economic case under ‘different scenarios’
In a document intended to inform. the announcement of the Government’s decision to endorse expansion of Heathrow – ‘Further Review and Sensitivities Report’ – it is stated that ‘the direct passenger benefits are particularly sensitive to the different global demand scenarios’, and that ‘the Net Present Values (NPVs) for some of the options could potentially be negative under some demand scenarios’.2 [2 ‘Further Review and Sensitivities Report: Airport Capacity in the South East’, Department for Transport, p.41 ]However, in its reassessment of the commission’s economic case, summarised in Table ES.2 of this document, the Government has only considered one scenario: ‘assessment of need, carbon traded’.
I would be grateful if you could reproduce Table ES.2 of the ‘Further Review and Sensitivities Report’ under the four alternative growth scenarios determined by the Airports Commission: (a) global growth, b) relative decline of Europe, c) low-cost is king and d) global fragmentation.
The Government’s guidance on demand and revenue forecasting states:
When forecasting demand, it is important that, to ensure consistency between appraisals, a demand cap is used. In the majority of cases, demand growth should be capped after a 20 year period from the year the appraisal is undertaken ( e.g. an appraisal carried out in 2013/14 would be on the basis of demand capped in 2033/34). Sensitivities of 10 and 30 years of growth should be presented. Under exceptional circumstances, such as with long-term infrastructure projects, it may be appropriate to use a different demand cap. In these cases advice should be sought from DfT. (TAG Unit A5.3) 3 [3 TAG UNIT A5.3 .3 Rail Appraisal, Department for Transport, December 2015, p.2 ]
The Airports Commission has not capped demand growth after 20 years, instead allowing it to continue but at a slower rate other than in a single sensitivity test. This is not in line with the guidance issued by the Department for Transport. I would be grateful if you could:
• reproduce ES.2 of the ‘Further Review and Sensitivities Report’, capping demand after a period of a) 10 b) 20 and c) 30 years; and
• reproduce ES.2 of the ‘Further Review and Sensitivities Report’ using an appraisal period of a) 10 b) 20 and c) 30 years.
I would also be grateful for an assessment of the likely effect on the overall economic case of the changes made above.
I would be grateful if you could make an assessment of the effect on the conclusions of the Airports Commission’s Final Report of the Commission’s decision not to take account of high value-added international sectors in measuring the agglomeration benefits of the three shortlisted projects.
Choice of investment measure
The Government has made a number of changes to the cost-benefit analysis to make the Airports Commission’s assessment of costs and wider economic impacts more consistent with its appraisal guidance for transport projects, WebTAG. This has had the effect of reducing the difference in NPV between the three shortlisted schemes that the Airports Commission argued clearly favoured the economic case for expansion of a third runway at Heathrow.
The results illustrate the difficulty of reaching a clear decision on the basis of the economic case alone. As the ‘Further Review and Sensitivities Report’ states, ‘there is little difference in the NPV s of the schemes when considered over a 60 year appraisal period’ and ‘the net differences are small, with LGW Second Runway delivering the highest NPV at the lower end of the range, and LHR Northwest Runway delivering the highest NPV at the upper end of the range in the central case’.4 [4 ‘Further Review and Sensitivities Report: Airport Capacity in the South East’, Department for Transport, p.40 ]
I would be grateful for your response to the following questions:
• When considering the economic case, what interpretation and weight is put on each of the investment measures – net present value, net public value, net social benefit and total benefits – presented in Table ES.2 of the ‘Further Review and Sensitivities Report’ in informing your decision about the value for money represented by each proposal?
• The report indicates that the net public value investment measure was included as a result of a request from the Treasury. Why did the Treasury propose net public value as a measure for consideration in this review? Can you provide any examples where net public value has previously been used as a measure to assess the cost-benefit case for major infrastructure projects?
I will be putting this letter, and your response, in the public domain.
Treasury Select Committee Chairman writes to Chris Grayling and Philip Hammond to question economic benefits of runway
September 18, 2016
Andrew Tyrie, Chairman of the Treasury Committee, wrote to Chris Grayling, Secretary of State for Transport, on 14th September, questioning the economic case for HS2 and airport expansion. Andrew Tyrie says in his letter: “The economic case to support the conclusions of the Davies report lacks crucial information.” On 27th November 2015, he tabled 15 parliamentary questions on details of the economic justification [all copied below]. These have yet to be answered 10 months later (they just had a standard holding reply from Robert Goodwill). Andrew Tyrie says: “For the fifth time I am attaching these questions. Failure to answer them will lead people either to conclude that this work has not been done – in which case it would be unacceptable for a decision to be made without the evidence to support it – or that it has been done, and gives answers that do not necessarily support the conclusions of the Davies report. I do not suggest that either of these are the case. The best way to answer these concerns is to public the information immediately. As we discussed, I have written in similar terms to the Chancellor.” “Without this information, the evidence in support of any decision that the Government takes on airport capacity will be incomplete.” His Parliamentary Questions focus, in particular, on Table 7.1 in the Airport Commission’s Final Report, of July 2015. (Table copied below). Mr Tyrie spoke to Chris Grayling on 15 August 2016.
Andrew Tyrie says economic case for a new runway unclear and based on “opaque” information
February 2, 2016
Andrew Tyrie is the chairman of the influential Commons Treasury Select Committee. He has now said parliament and the public had been left partly in the dark on the case for a new runway, because the Airports Commission’s analysis is not good enough. He said the decision on airport expansion is being taken on the basis of information that was “opaque in a number of important respects.” Mr Tyrie said the robustness of the Airports commission’s conclusions could not be determined from the information in its report. “Parliament has demanded more transparency over the environmental case. At least as important is the economic case.” Mr Tyrie said it was impossible to tell if the potential economic benefits for the UK of the proposals by Heathrow or Gatwick differed significantly from one another, or even if the benefits of building either are significantly different from not building any new runways. “A decision as controversial as this — one that has bedevilled past governments for decades — requires as much transparency as reasonably possible.” Andrew Tyrie has written to George Osborne calling for more details of the calculations that led to the Commission recommending a Heathrow runway. He also called for the process to be moved from the DfT to the Treasury.
In a fascinating article in “The Conversation” a Psychology lecturer from the University of Brighton puts forward the concept of “hyper-normalisation” as an explanation for decisions made by society and government. Instead of government accepting the reality, and dangers, of our global climate change predicament, it carries on apparently oblivious of the dangers with policies that can only worsen the problems. The decision to build a Heathrow runway is only “truly momentous”, as Chris Grayling described it, because it shows just how far government etc “are willing to go in denying that climate change and related ecological crises require us to significantly change the way we live.” Those in power seem to be “increasingly incapable of dealing with a sequence of global issues with any meaningful plan. They are devoid of any vision beyond the maintenance of the status quo.” Hyper-normalisation as a way of dealing with the issues facing humanity provided a “simplified, reassuring and fake version of the world in the face of unprecedented global challenges”. We know that practices and pastimes such as frequent and long-haul flying, are unsustainable. But the new hyper-normalisation view of the world may allow societies to re-interpret reality, to avoid uncomfortable and inconvenient actions. Read the blog.
#Hypernormalisation – and why Heathrow plan is proof we exist in a catastrophic fantasyland
By Matthew Adams (Principal Lecturer in Psychology, University of Brighton)
Disclosure statement: Matthew Adams does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.
The transport secretary, Chris Grayling, referred to the decision as “truly momentous” while for the prime minister, Theresa May, the planned expansion is “vital for the economic future of the whole of the UK”.
The decision to approve airport expansion is indeed “truly momentous” – because it shows just how far governments, but also trade unions, businesses and many individuals, are willing to go in denying that climate change and related ecological crises require us to significantly change the way we live. In fact, as a policy move, it arguably epitomises the phenomena of “hyper-normalisation”, as described in Adam Curtis’s new documentary of the same name.
HyperNormalisation was commissioned by the BBC and released as an iplayer exclusive on October 16 2016 – you can watch it here. Curtis is a fascinating filmmaker. He weaves archive footage of events over the past half-century into provocative historical narratives. His commentary is informed by sociological theory, political economy and much more besides.
Are we living in the real world?
HyperNormalisation is no exception. It clocks in at just under three hours and takes in numerous people, places and events.
Curtis’s overarching claim is that those in power have been increasingly incapable of dealing with a sequence of global issues with any meaningful plan. They are devoid of any vision beyond the maintenance of the status quo. He uses the term hyper-normalisation to explain the prevailing response of politicians to this state of affairs, and the effect it has on the wider population.
This manically heightened state of fake normality – and collective investment in it – is “hyper-normalisation”.Curtis uses the term more loosely. He argues that it can be used to make sense of the maintenance of a simplified, reassuring and fake version of the world in the face of unprecedented global challenges that incumbent governments and power alliances do not have the competence or inclination to address.
Climate change and environmental disasters do not loom large in the HyperNormalisation film, but they are, for me, an extension of the phenomenon – precisely the kind of challenge we might expect to be “hyper-normalised”.
The decision to approve Heathrow’s third runway is a government policy manifestation of hyper-normalisation. Those in power simply do not have the capacity or willingness for leadership on climate change as an issue that demands societal transformation.
The alternative, if we apply Curtis’s logic, is to strive to maintain a narrative in which these issues do not appear to really matter. Everything, we are told instead, is going to be fine.
Instead of dealing with the real issues at hand, we will instead be admitted to the fantasy land of accelerated mobility and consumption. In this alternate reality, the “environmental future” must not impinge on May’s “economic future”.
The dangers beyond the fantasy
But of course events are unfolding in the world outside the hyper-normal narrative of business as usual: the well-documented forces unleashed by the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, the ongoing extinction and displacement of countless species, warming and acidifying oceans, deforestation and arctic melting.
These forces are the product of industrial society and capitalism, now exacerbated by the demands of a globalised consumerism. We know that the practices and pastimes that make up these societies, including frequent and long-haul flying, are unsustainable.
Every government leader in the world knows this. But the psychological and social processes we engage in to avoid confronting the implications of climate change are now well documented in the social sciences – as individual and collective forms of denial.
These dynamics of denial and displacement are precisely those that reflect and maintain a state of hyper-normalisation. So airport expansion can be heralded unequivocally as “momentous”, “correct” and “bold” in the same week that global concentrations of CO2 pass 400 parts per million. It is a policy move which simply does not make sense … unless we are operating in an atmosphere of hyper-normalisation.
Defending it on behalf of our “economic future” is a grotesquely comic perpetuation of that fakery. If it goes ahead, it is likely that history will judge the expansion of Heathrow as an act of collusive madness, a desperate attempt to add another coat to the painted theatre set of the hypernormal.
The Conversation UK receives funding from Hefce, Hefcw, SAGE, SFC, RCUK, The Nuffield Foundation, The Ogden Trust, The Royal Society, The Wellcome Trust, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and The Alliance for Useful Evidence, as well as sixty five university members.
Airbus is producing plans for additions such as gyms, coffee bars, children’s play areas and a spa on its planes, instead of more seats. Their new concept that Airbus calls ‘Transpose’ would allow airlines to customise cabins for each flight using modular technology. Airlines could chop-and-change the interior setup in a matter of minutes in the project developed by an Airbus off-shoot called A³. The plan is to …”enable entirely new categories of passenger experiences, making your time spent in the sky more interesting, personalized, and enjoyable.” There could be a gym, with exercise bikes. “A major coffee chain could run a co-working cafe, providing artisanal beverages and a space for collaboration. An airline could design a kid-safe play zone … where families can spend quality time together” … and so on. Also there are new opportunities for advertising to get extra revenue. Now that ICAO has come up with the least ambitious scheme it could achieve for limiting the growth in global aviation CO2, airlines can have lower load factors and more space on planes that is not used to carry more passengers. If the industry was serious about lower CO2 (rather than just cost) per passenger, they would get planes to carry more people – not coffee bars and gyms. Is this Airbus etc effectively thumbing their nose at serious attempts to cut aviation CO2?
Airbus cabin of the future with gyms, a spa and children’s play areas
The new concept Transpose would allow airlines to customise cabins for each flight using modular technology
13.12.2016 (Daily Post)
By OWEN HUGHES
Air travel may be set for a radical change after Airbus revealed a vision of the future where seats could be replaced by gyms, coffee bars, children’s play areas and a spa.
A new concept from the aviation manufacturer called ‘Transpose’ would allow airlines to customise cabins for each flight using modular technology.
Airlines could chop-and-change the interior setup in a matter of minutes in the project developed by an Airbus off-shoot called A³.
“Well, first and foremost, we believe that this project will enable entirely new categories of passenger experiences, making your time spent in the sky more interesting, personalized, and enjoyable.
“A gym could fill a module with exercise bikes, and give folks the opportunity to stay active.
“A major coffee chain could run a co-working cafe, providing artisanal beverages and a space for collaboration.
“An airline could design a kid-safe play zone (lined with sound absorbing materials) where families can spend quality time together.
“A seat manufacturer could test out a new sleeper seat before widely rolling out the product.
“You’re probably thinking, Sounds nice, but expensive. We’re convinced that this won’t be the case. Besides providing an unprecedented amount of choice and flexibility for passengers, our modeling and research shows that many experiences can be provided with little to no increase in the amount passengers currently pay for comparable experiences on the ground.
“Additionally, we’ve identified significant opportunities for advertisers and businesses to provide new revenue to airlines, potentially sidestepping the need to pass on some costs to passengers.”
“Currently, work on cabin interiors can’t begin until the final weeks of the manufacturing process, but modular cabin interiors could be developed on a parallel timetable with the core fabrication of the aircraft itself.”
They say they could have the Transpose enabled aircraft flying within a few years.
Mr Chua said: “Is that ambitious? Absolutely. But if we keep up our current pace, I think it’s completely achievable. For the past year, our lean A³ team has recruited a great group of engineers, designers, and researchers from across the globe. We are also working closely with Airbus Group’s renowned experts in cabin and airframe engineering, as well as with Airbus industrial design.
“Together, we’ve kicked off manufacturing work around an initial module, and a full-sized aircraft mockup.”
A reformed and full scope EU ETS would deliver substantially more savings than ICAO’s measure over the period 2021-2035, and that’s especially the case for flights within Europe. When aviation was included in the ETS in 2012, it covered all flights within, into and out of Europe. Due to huge opposition from countries such as the USA, the ETS was altered in 2013 to include only flights within Europe. ICAO finally came up with a very weak and incomplete global deal in October. New analysis for T&E shows that with the original full ETS in place, and with a cap on carbon emissions, the reduction in emissions from flights into, out of and within Europe would be four times as great than with the weak new ICAO scheme, during the period 2021 – 2035. The study comes as MEPs this week vote on proposals to reform the EU ETS. The proposals include a progressive decrease of both the cap on aircraft emissions and of free allowances available to airlines, thus bringing aviation into line with obligations on other industries. Just considering the CO2 from flights inside Europe, the full ETS would mitigate about 950 Mt of CO2 while ICAO’s scheme, (on the same flights) would mitigate a maximum of about 270 Mt (2021 – 2035). If a scheme as strong as the ETS scheme was introduced globally, it would be hugely more effective than the ICAO plan, which may only mitigate a maximum of about 2,700 Mt by 2035.
A reformed EU ETS will cut almost four times more aircraft CO2 in Europe than ICAO’s global scheme – report
From T&E (Transport & Environment)
Strengthening the ETS as proposed by MEPs will cut almost four times more emissions from flights within Europe than the UN’s new offsetting scheme for aviation CO2, a new independent study [by CE Delft] has revealed.
Europe has faced sustained pressure from industry and other states to remove aviation from its ETS and leave climate action to UN aviation body ICAO.
But the study, commissioned by Transport & Environment, also finds that the ICAO global scheme will deliver less for the climate than the original aviation ETS, which only covers flights in, from and to Europe.
The study comes as MEPs this week vote on proposals to reform the EU ETS. The proposals include a progressive decrease of both the cap on aircraft emissions and of free allowances available to airlines, thus bringing aviation into line with obligations on other industries.
Reforming the aviation ETS in this way and still only covering flights within Europe will mitigate 956Mt of CO2 while ICAO’s scheme, applied to those same intra-EU flights only, would mitigate a maximum of just 271 Mt over its 2021-2035 lifetime, consultant CE Delft found. 
Even when applied to flights “globally”, the ICAO scheme will only mitigate a maximum of 2,711 Mt – less than what the original full-scope aviation ETS would have delivered and much less if the cap was decreased annually from 2021 in line with other sectors.
Andrew Murphy, aviation policy officer at T&E, said: “We now know why industry wants the ICAO deal and not the ETS. A reformed ETS is much more effective than the cheap offsets that the ICAO deal will rely on.”
The CE Delft report also finds that ICAO’s scheme will offset only a maximum of about one-fifth (22%) of emissions over the 2021-2035 period because it just addresses emissions growth above 2020 levels and then only some 80% of that target due to countries not participating.
The ETS cap is much stricter. The climate effectiveness of ICAO’s scheme also depends heavily on the application of strict rules governing the quality and type of offsets which will be permitted.
Without strong political will, it’s possible that airlines will be able to purchase cheap offsets which in fact deliver no real-world emission reductions. The agreement adopted by ICAO as yet contains no such rules.
Andrew Murphy concluded: “This report shows that good regional action delivers more than weak global action. Cutting the cap in the ETS, as Parliament will be voting on, is the way to go. An ICAO-only approach, which has been the mantra of some in Europe for too long, won’t do the job. ICAO is only the bare minimum and Europe needs to build on it.”
Europe launched its ETS in 2005 and included emissions from all flights within, to and from Europe from 2012. This step was taken after ICAO repeatedly failed to act, but faced immediate resistance from industry and other states who claimed a global approach was better for such an intense and rapidly growing driver of climate change. Under this pressure, the EU relented and agreed to suspend flights to and from Europe from its ETS, leaving only flights within Europe (intra-EU) in the system.
Aviation‘s CO2 and non-CO2 make it responsible for an estimated 5% of global warming.
Without a change in the current projections, emissions will increase by more than four times, potentially to account for 22% of global emissions in 2050. Aviation CO2 has grown from 1.4% to 4.5% of Europe’s emissions between 1990 and 2014, due largely to Europe’s indifference to the sector’s climate impact.
Note to editors:
 The study based a reformed ETS on a linear reduction factor, by which the cap on the total number of ETS allowances is reduced, of 2.2% each year from 2021. This is widely expected once the current reform process is finalised by lawmakers.
ICAO’s aviation offsetting deal is a weak start – now countries must go further to cut CO2
October 7, 2016
A deal was finally agreed by ICAO on 6th October. It was progress, in that there had never been any sort of agreement on global aviation CO2 emissions before. But it was not a great deal – and far too weak to provide the necessary restriction on the growth of global aviation CO2. It came in the same week that the Paris Agreement crossed its crucial threshold to enter into force, but the ICAO deleted key provisions for the deal to align its ambitions with the Paris aim of limiting global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees with best efforts to not exceed 1.5 degrees C. Tim Johnson, Director of AEF and the lead representative of The International Coalition for Sustainable Aviation (ICSA) – the official environmental civil society observer at the global negotiations, said in relation to the UK: “But while today’s deal is applauded, this international effort falls well short of the effort required to bring UK aviation emissions in line with the Climate Change Act. With a decision on a new runway expected later this month, the UK’s ambition for aviation emissions must match the ambition of the Climate Change Act, and not simply the ICAO global lowest common denominator of carbon neutral growth from 2020. The ICAO scheme could make a contribution towards the ambition of the Climate Change Act, but it does not solve the whole problem.”
Report shows EU’s ‘imperfect’ ETS still outperforms draft UN aviation deal on aviation CO2
September 26, 2016
When in April 2014 the EU agreed, reluctantly, to “stop the clock” on its inclusion of aviation in the ETS (Emissions Trading System) it was on the condition that this limiting of the scheme would be re-assessed in 2017, depending if ICAO had come up with an effective scheme to restrict aviation CO2 by then. Currently the EU ETS only includes carbon from flights within, (not to and from) the EU. But the deal that ICAO is likely to sign up to next month looks as if it will fail, by being too small in its scope, voluntary not obligatory, and depending on unknown biofuels and technologies in future, no environmental safeguards, as well as unreliable carbon offsets which may not in practice cut CO2 emissions. It will not meet ICAO’s stated goal of “carbon neutral growth” from 2020. Therefore, as the ICAO scheme does not meet the requirements of the EU, in order to suspend its ETS, the EU may find it necessary to revert to its full ETS system, to include flights out of (maybe also into) the EU as well as flights within the EU. The EU needs to ensure it gets agreement through ICAO that it can continue to include aviation in its ETS. The ETS scheme had its faults, but used emissions allowances instead of dubious offsets, was binding instead of voluntary, and include all CO2 emissions. To be fully effective, the cap on aviation carbon in the EU scheme needs to reduce each year. A new report “Aviation ETS – gaining altitude” sets out the details of how the ETS could work in future.
China, US and EU reported to have pledged to join the weak, voluntary, initial stages of ICAO scheme for CO2
September 5, 2016
It is reported that China, Europe and the US have pledged to join the initial voluntary phases of ICAO’s carbon-offsetting scheme designed to give international aviation a chance of achieving it goal of “carbon-neutral growth” after 2020. On 3rd September, the 44 member states of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) committed to being part of ICAO’s global market-based measure (MBM) scheme “from the start”. On the same day the US and China said they “expect to be early participants” in the global MBM, also called the Carbon Offset and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, or CORSIA. On 2nd September ICAO released a revised text that will be presented for adoption by the ICAO Assembly in early October. This makes participation voluntary in the pilot and first phases of the scheme, covering 2021-26. The MBM will become mandatory only in the 2nd phase, covering 2027-35, with exemptions for countries with only a small share of international aviation activity in 2018. India and Russia are opposed to joining the global MBM. Under the CORSIA scheme, airlines would “offset” additional CO2 growth beyond 2019-20 levels by buying credits from designated environmental projects.There are concerns about REDD forestry credits being used. ICAO estimates the cost to airlines would only be at most 1.4% of total revenues, by 2035. Far less till then.
MEPs shocked by ‘secretive’ and unacceptably unambitious ICAO plan to cut aviation CO2 emissions
September 1, 2016
A meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment has been told of the way a possible agreement by ICAO next month – on global aviation carbon emissions – has been watered down. MEPs were informed of the likely 6-year delay, with the scheme for a global market based mechanism (GMBM) not taking effect properly until 2027, rather than in 2021 that had been foreseen. Opt-in to the GMBM scheme before 2027 would be voluntary, but mandatory from 2027 through to 2035. There will be exemptions for poor nations, and even after 2027 the participation of the least developed countries and small island states would remain voluntary only. EU deputies said they were “shocked” to learn how many concessions the EU was prepared to make at the Montreal meeting, which took place in May behind closed doors. Then, to make matters yet worse, “a special review in 2032 will determine whether the mechanism will be continued,” taking into account progress made as part of a related “basket of measures” which includes “CO2 standards for aircraft”, technological improvements, air traffic management and alternative fuels. In a rare show of unity, Parliament representatives from across the political spectrum urged the EU to be more aggressive in the negotiation. Bas Eckhout, a Dutch MEP, said what is on offer now is not acceptable.
Heathrow has said this month that it WILL, after all, extend its limited compensation offer to small businesses. Small businesses within the compulsory acquisition zone with a rateable value less than £34,800, would be eligible for the same terms as the property offer set out to homeowners, which is full value + 25%. For larger businesses with a rateable value greater than £34,800, compensation will be provided in accordance with statutory requirements. That means some local businesses could still be excluded, as the offer has not been extended to the same zone as the householder scheme. Also, only those directly facing demolition or compulsory acquisition by the airport will be eligible. With the Colnbrook By-pass itself set to be closed and rerouted, that could mean some businesses forced to close with no compensation at all. Heathrow said: “We do not currently intend to start purchasing properties until development consent has been received from the Government. Our current expectation is this will be sometime in 2020.” It will be contacting each business affected over the coming months to hold individual meetings. It also says it is looking at measures that it might be able to put in place to assist with business relocation. People can only apply for compensation once the construction of the runway starts, and until only one year after the runway is operational.
Heathrow extends compensation offer to small businesses
Heathrow has said this month that it WILL, after all, extend its limited compensation offer to small businesses.
Small businesses on the Colnbrook By-pass from the Riverside Cafe to the bridge over the M25, along with those at Colnbrook Lakeside under the £34,800 cap, will be eligible for compensation.
Heathrow airport has broken its silence over compensation for local businesses forced to relocate or close by its expansion plans.
Small businesses – that is, those with a rateable value of £34,800 or less – will now be eligible for the 25% of market value compensation. The decision will be a welcome Christmas present to those who have been living with the uncertainty for nearly three years.
Heathrow’s latest offer: I am a small business owner. What compensation am I entitled to? Small businesses within the compulsory acquisition zone with a rateable value less than £34,800, would be eligible for the same terms as the property offer set out to homeowners. For larger businesses with a rateable value greater than £34,800, compensation will be provided in accordance with statutory requirements.
But some local businesses could still be left high and dry by the latest Heathrow scheme.
The offer has not been extended to the same zone as the householder scheme, and only those directly facing demolition or compulsory acquisition by the airport will be eligible.
With the Colnbrook By-pass itself set to be closed and rerouted, that could mean some businesses forced to close with no compensation at all.
We do not currently intend to start purchasing properties until development consent has been received from the Government. Our current expectation is this will be sometime in 2020.
The issue has been a source of concern for businesses in the path of the third runway since Sir Howard Davies’ Airports Commission shortlisted two Colnbrook runways in December 2013.
Heathrow says it will be contacting each business affected over the coming months to hold individual meetings. It also says it is looking at measures that it might be able to put in place to assist with business relocation.
The airport says it would expect to start purchasing homes in the compulsory purchase zone when it receives development consent – which it believes will be in 2020. The wider property offer scheme would open after once construction begins but would remain open until only a year after the new runway has begun operating. The scheme would then be closed and no further purchases considered under it.
Compensation and mitigation proposals will be consulted on in detail as part of the planning process over the next few years. Residents will be able to put forward views as part of this and the airport says it will take all feedback into account.
The first phase of public consultation will be held in Summer 2017.
Hundreds of local residents attended 2 public meetings held by John McDonnell (MP forHayes and Harlington) on 8th and 9th December, about the proposed 3rd runway at Heathrow. At the meeting at Harlington Baptist Church Hall local people spoke about the threat to Harlington that a new runway would bring – such as being situated at the end of the runway, bringing unbearable new noise levels to the village. At the meeting at Yiewsley & West Drayton Community Centre, residents were particularly concerned about increased traffic congestion and air pollution, from the airport boundary being much closer to them. It would be just 200 metres from some West Drayton residents. John McDonnell said: “The message from these public meetings couldn’t be clearer: local residents are going to fight this runway all the way. A third runway at Heathrow is undeliverable and I believe we will stop it from ever being built. … The decision by this Government to build a third runway was shameful and remains a huge threat to local residents who face losing their homes, schools, community centre and village life. And when you add in the air pollution, noise and climate change concerns then it becomes even more obvious that this runway makes no sense.” More public meetings are expected in Hayes in January.
Hundreds attend public meetings on Heathrow expansion
12 December 2016
From SHE (Stop Heathrow Expansion)
Residents flocked in their hundreds to two public meetings held by local MP John McDonnell last week to voice their concerns about the proposed third runway at Heathrow.
At a meeting held at Harlington Baptist Church Hall on Thursday 8 December, around a hundred locals spoke about the threat to Harlington that a new runway would bring, such as being situated at the end of the runway, bringing unbearable new noise levels to the village.
Around 200 West Drayton residents packed the main hall at Yiewsley & West Drayton Community Centre on Friday 9 December. At this meeting the message from local residents concerned increased traffic congestion and the toxic pollution levels that would result from the area being brought closer to the border of the expanded airport, with the new boundary just 200 metres from some West Drayton residents.
John McDonnell, Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, said:
“The message from these public meetings couldn’t be clearer: local residents are going to fight this runway all the way. A third runway at Heathrow is undeliverable and I believe we will stop it from ever being built.
“I’m also fairly certain that the legal action from a coalition of local authorities will be successful. The decision by this Government to build a third runway was shameful and remains a huge threat to local residents who face losing their homes, schools, community centre and village life. And when you add in the air pollution, noise and climate change concerns then it becomes even more obvious that this runway makes no sense.”
Jackie Clark-Basten, Chair of Stop Heathrow Expansion, who spoke at the meeting, said: “Heathrow expansion would not just have a devastating effect on Harmondsworth, Longford and Sipson. As we heard at the two public meetings, the impact is far greater, bringing new noise misery for residents of Harlington as well as toxic air pollution levels for West Drayton residents and a traffic nightmare for all local areas. I am confident that this runway will never be cleared for take-off.”
More public meetings are expected in Hayes in January.
Speaking at the London Assembly Committee on Transport, Val Shawcross CBE (Deputy Mayor of London for Transport) said Heathrow expansion risked ‘log-jamming’ west London transport links. She warned that adding a 3rd Heathrow runway could cause travel chaos in west London. Val said proposed Crossrail links and a planned upgrade to the Piccadilly line would not be enough to ensure a smooth flow of traffic to an expanded Heathrow. Both Crossrail one and the Piccadilly line upgrade, which are going ahead, were just planned for the existing growth in demand, from population growth. Their expansion is not sufficient to deal with the extra demand from a 50% larger Heathrow. Val raised concerns that “we are in danger of completely log-jamming the public and road transport networks around west London if we do not do the additional high capacity infrastructure.” Also building Southern Rail access to Heathrow risked inconveniencing existing train passengers; they and the existing population should be properly taken into account. With the 3rd runway, the number of passenger’s using Heathrow could rise from around 200,000 per day to 300,000. Of those, about 75,000 passengers currently use public transport while 125,000 travel by car. That means a massive increase in numbers of passengers, and also larger numbers of staff in and around the airport, all also using public transport
Heathrow expansion ‘will cause travel chaos’ in west London, Deputy Mayor for Transport warns
By SAPHORA SMITH (Evening Standard)
Val Shawcross CBE (Deputy Mayor of London for Transport.said Heathrow expansion risked ‘log-jamming’ west London transport links
She warned that Heathrow airport expansion could cause travel chaos in west London
Speaking at the London Assembly Committee on Transport this week, Val Shawcross said proposed Crossrail links and a planned upgrade to the Piccadilly line would not be enough to ensure a smooth flow of traffic to an expanded Heathrow airport.
She said: “One thing to bear in mind is Crossrail one and the Piccadilly line upgrade, which are going ahead, they were all predicated on existing economic growth and existing population growth, so none of that is the additionality you would expect from a Heathrow expansion.
“So they are going ahead but even so, what I’m reading tells me we are in danger of completely log-jamming the public and road transport networks around west London if we do not do the additional high capacity infrastructure.”
Ms Shawcross also warned building Southern Rail access to Heathrow risked inconveniencing existing train passengers.
She said planners must think about “the impact on existing passengers and existing population”.
Ms Shawcross added: “If you’re using existing track there are existing passengers and you need to look at where those winners and losers potentially are.”
After decades of wrangling the Government approved the expansion of Heathrow in October, paving the way for a third runway and increasing the number of passenger’s using the transport hub from 200,000 a day to 300,000.
Some 75,000 passengers currently travel to Heathrow airport on public transport while 125,000 travel by car but with its expansion public transport networks will be expected to cope with over 300,000 travellers a day.
Alex Williams, managing director of planning at Transport for London (TFL), said: “The airport is keen to make sure that there is no increase in high way trips so that 125,000 the aim is to keep that capped at that level.
“So the growth and the strain will be taken on at a public transport network.
“That 75,000 with a full operating expanded airport needs to go to over 300,000.
“So there is a massive increase on the public transport network with full utilisation of the airport.”
Difficult to see how Heathrow could prevent rise in staff road trips to/from airport with 3rd runway
October 28, 2016
Heathrow has told the DfT that there would be no higher a number of car trips to and from the airport with a 3rd runway than now. But is that actually credible? Neither the DfT nor Heathrow produce easy-to-find figures, but they be located with a bit of digging. There are probably about 76,000 staff at the airport at present. The October 2014 Jacobs report done for the Airports Commission said: “Headline employee commuting mode share was assumed to be 43% public transport and 47% private vehicles (ie. about 35,700 came by car, and Jacobs states: “with the vast majority of those undertaken as single occupancy car trips.”) …” and of the 43% using public transport, about 35% used bus and 12% used rail. There are various estimates of how many on-airport staff there might be with a new runway. The Commission’s Carbon Traded Assessment of Need scenario anticipated the number of staff to be around 90,000, and their highest growth scenario anticipated about 115,000 staff. Heathrow said by 2030 trips by both staff and passengers to the airport will be 53% by public transport, and still 47% by car. Nowhere is there anything to indicate that below 47% of airport employees would get to and from work by car. With 90,000 staff at Heathrow, if 47% travelled by car that would be 42,300 people, (or if 43% came by car it would be 38,700). If there were 100,000 on-airport staff, and 47% came by car, that would be 47,000 people (and if 43% came by car, 43,000). Those numbers are higher than today. This is not including people travelling to newly increased numbers of jobs in the area.
Even with 55% of Heathrow passengers using public transport there could be 15 million more passenger trips per year by car by 2040 than now
November 6, 2016
The government claims Heathrow can meet air quality standards in future, even with a new runway and 50% more passengers, because it will (among other changes) ensure that there are no more road vehicles than now – and by around 2031 about 55% of passengers would use public transport. So is that likely? Looking at passengers only, not freight, and the work done by Jacobs for the Airports Commission, it seems that (2012 data) there were about 70 million passengers, about 20 million of whom were transfers (ie. they did not leave the airport). That meant slightly below 50 million passengers travelled to and from the airport, using surface transport. In 2012 about 59% of these travelled by car (ie. about 29.5 million), 41% came by public transport (28% by rail and 13% by bus or coach). But by 2030 with a new runway, there might be around 110 million passengers, and around 33% would be international transfers. That leaves around 74 million passengers, and if 55% of them use public transport, that means about 34 million using cars. By 2040, the number using cars might be about 45 million (ie. about 15 million more per year than now). And about 9 million using bus/coach – which is of course also on the roads. There would have to be dramatic increases in electric vehicles and improved engine technology to ensure no higher emissions in the Heathrow area. And that is not counting freight vehicles. Or staff. Or other increased vehicle traffic associated with the 3rd runway.