Zac Goldsmith: Victory is in the air for the anti-Heathrow expansion campaign

Zac Goldsmith believes Heathrow is not going to get a new runway. The arguments against Heathrow have been won – and Zac sets these out clearly. They include ….it is already Europe’s biggest noise polluter, with the largest number of people affected by noise of any airport. A 3rd runway would increase flights from 480,000 to 740,000 each year. No matter how Heathrow talks about “quieter” planes (ie. fractionally less noisy) or “respite”, slightly reducing night flights or paying for more noise insulation, an extra runway would massively increase noise. Heathrow admit a 3rd runway would lead to a 4th, as that’s what they want. Just a 3rd runway would lead to 25 million extra road-passenger journeys each year. Heathrow (and the Airports Commission) has barely begun to assess the costs involved in adapting the road and rail system to cope. Transport for London told Zac the cost has been underestimated by a staggering £15 billion, to be paid by the taxpayer.  London is already very well connected. We have 6 airports and 7 runways. — more than any of our European rivals. More passengers fly in and out of London than any other city in the world. A 3rd runway would only be at the expense of surrounding airports, just centralising existing activity and facilitating a monopoly. And more ….
.

 

 

Zac Goldsmith: Victory is in the air for the anti-Heathrow expansion campaign

By ZAC GOLDSMITH

12 May 2015 (Evening Standard)

With the election over, Heathrow’s owners know they are reaching the end of the road in their campaign to expand. This is because, first and foremost, the argument against them has been won.

Heathrow is already Europe’s biggest noise polluter, and a third runway (its bosses admit a third would lead to a fourth) would increase flights from 480,000 to 740,000 a year. No matter how Heathrow cuts it, an extra runway would massively increase noise.

Just one extra runway would lead to 25 million extra road-passenger journeys each year, and Heathrow (and the Airports Commission) has barely begun to assess the costs involved in adapting the road and rail system to cope. Transport for London tells me the cost has been underestimated by a staggering £15 billion — which of course would be picked up by the public.

London will struggle to stay within its air quality targets even without Heathrow expansion. With air pollution costing 29,000 lives each year in the UK, the issue is moving fast up the political agenda.

Advocates of expansion might dismiss all these as NIMBY concerns, as if the millions affected simply do not count. But even if the only concern were the economy, the case is still wafer-thin.

We’re told we face an imminent capacity problem but London is already well connected. We have six airports and seven runways — more than any of our European rivals. More passengers fly in and out of London than any other city in the world.

However, even if we do need added capacity, Heathrow expansion would not provide it. Figures produced by the Airports Commission show that any additional activity at an expanded Heathrow would be at the expense of surrounding airports. In other words, a third runway would simply centralise existing activity and facilitate a monopoly, the only beneficiaries of which would be its owners.

Heathrow counters that we need to centralise activity and attract transfer passengers to maintain key routes. But nearly 30 per cent of passengers to New York, one of Heathrow’s most popular routes, are transfer passengers: no one pretends such routes would disappear without them.

The alternative is to invest in better surface links and facilitate a super-competitive network. Competition is a good thing. Who would pretend that Gatwick hasn’t significantly improved since the Competition Commission liberated it from the old monopoly?

As the deadline approaches, we can expect to see a flurry of activity. But Heathrow’s owners know, as the Airports Commission surely knows, that expanding it would be a step backwards. I suspect that is why — at the eleventh hour — the commission has launched a consultation on air quality, in the full knowledge that expansion cannot be reconciled with any prospect of clean air in London.

We have won the arguments but I’m not so naïve as to imagine rational arguments always hold sway. And so the second reason why Heathrow expansion will never happen is simply the politics. The Cabinet for this new and fragile Government includes heavyweights such as Philip Hammond, Boris Johnson and, we’re told, Justine Greening, all committed opponents of expansion.

Only days ago, Boris vowed to stand in front of the bulldozers if need be. He will not need to. We are on the cusp of winning this battle once and for all.

Zac Goldsmith is Conservative MP for Richmond Park

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/zac-goldsmith-victory-is-in-the-air-for-the-antiheathrow-expansion-campaign-10244413.html

.


.

Heathrow expansion ‘not likely’

12.5.2015 (Press Association)

Boris Johnson said he believed the chances of the new Conservative government backing the expansion of Heathrow was “virtually nil” as he vowed to continue his fight against a new runway in Parliament.

The appointment of the newly-elected MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip – who also remains London mayor for the next year – to David Cameron’s political cabinet was seen by some campaigners as an indication the new administration was leaning towards rival Gatwick for much-needed expansion.

A recommendation as to whether a new runway is built at Gatwick or one of two short-listed runway-expansion plans at Heathrow should go ahead is due in a few weeks’ time in a report by the Whitehall-appointed Airports Commission, led by Sir Howard Davies.

The Conservative manifesto committed only to “respond to” its recommendations and Mr Johnson said that if it came out in favour of Heathrow it should be “filed vertically” like others that came to similar conclusions over recent decades.

Asked what was the point of having the commission at all, Mr Johnson told LBC radio: “You may well ask.”

“The prospect of expanding Heathrow and putting in a third runway – and then a fourth runway because (they) are very clear that that’s what they want – are virtually nil,” he said.

“It’s not thought through, it’s not likely to happen.”

He said the capital would “almost certainly have to set up a congestion charge to cope with the extra cars coming in”.

Urging ministers to swing behind opposition to Heathrow expansion, he said: “It is for others to man up, to get some cojones and actually to say what they think should happen.

“The truth is that Heathrow is just undeliverable and the sooner we face that the sooner our salvation will come.”

Asked if, like fellow Tory MP Zac Goldsmith, he would quit the Commons if the party backed more runways at Heathrow, he said: “I think would be better off staying in Parliament to fight the case.

“I would certainly oppose the expansion of Heathrow, as would every other MP in West London.”

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/heathrow-expansion-not-likely-093800032.html#IgsvzyM

.

.

.

.