The Case Against Heathrow Expansion

According to Friends of The Earth’s Nic Ferriday

With the Government’s decision on Heathrow expansion imminent, Nic Ferriday states the case against the proposals on behalf of Friends of The Earth.

Below is a summary, the full length version can be read here.

1 Introduction. The government proposes to expand Heathrow by means of a third runway, together with a 6th terminal and associated roads. The government estimates that this could increase the capacity from 480,000 flights pa to about 720,000.

In the interim, the government proposes to introduce ‘Mixed Mode’. This is a method of operation whereby planes can land on both runways at the same time or take off on both at the same time. This could increase capacity from 480,000 to 540,000.

2 Air pollution. Areas in and around Heathrow already breach UK and EU air pollution standards, set to protect human health. The government colluded with BAA to rig the air pollution estimates. Experts and commentators have no confidence that the pollution could be kept within limits. It is estimated by the GLA that 1000 Londoners a year die from air pollution.

3 Noise. Government has consistently misled over the numbers of people affected by noise. It continued, in the face of new evidence to mislead the public in the Heathrow consultation by using a ‘57dB Leq noise contour’ in order to demonstrate the noise impacts. Its claimed ‘strict environmental condition’ - 57dB area should not be greater than 127 square km – appears to have been invented, knowing it could be met.

4 Climate change. Aviation is the UK’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, leading to climate change. If aviation grows unchecked, in accordance with present government policy, aviation will represent about 55% of UK’s CO2 emissions by 2050 and up to 80% of its greenhouse gas emissions, assuming that the CO2 target in the Climate Bill for 2050 is met. It would be virtually impossible for other sectors to make even bigger cuts to offset aviation’s increase, so the UK would fail to meet its emissions targets. Aircraft from Heathrow account for about half the UK’s aviation emissions, so Heathrow expansion by itself would severely jeopardise the UK’s climate targets.

5 Loss of homes. A third runway would lead to the loss of hundreds of homes, including the entire community of Sipson and it would destroy the social structure of several other communities. It is hard to see how this is consistent with the government’s ‘stronger communities’ or quality of life agenda. There are no plans for re-housing the displaced people.

6 Traffic. A third runway would lead to hundreds of millions of extra car km, increasing congestion, air pollution, noise, danger and greenhouse gas emissions and leading to more pressure for road-building and widening.

7 Open space, wildlife and habitats. A third runway and associated terminals, roads, etc would lead to the loss of 230 hectares of Green Belt land, with associated rights of way and areas of public open space. It would disturb birdlife and/or increase air pollution at 6 internationally important wildlife sites.

8 Danger. Heathrow is already by far the most dangerous airport in the country in terms of risk to people on the ground (ie ‘third parties’). This is due to the large number of heavy planes flying over a large population. Additional flights arising from a third runway would increase risk by at least 50%.

9 Landscape and heritage. A third runway would have major landscape and visual impacts. It would destroy or severely affect ten historic buildings (e.g. Manor Farm Great Tithe Barn at Harmondsworth) and an Archaeological Priority Area.

10 Equalities. The ‘equalities’ assessment was very misleading because the options consulted on were different from the White Paper and because large numbers of people in deprived groups were left out of the analysis. The fact that virtually all the claimed economic benefits, go the better off was not mentioned.

11 Economic case. The economic case for Heathrow is deeply flawed because the government has systematically over-estimated the benefits while ignoring many of the costs. Many of the claimed benefits are not quantified or for come from studies sponsored by the aviation industry. Constraints due to not expanding Heathrow will be mainly leisure traffic which takes far more money out of the country than it brings in. There would be little impact on business travel, which represents well under half of Heathrow’s traffic. The government’s own calculations, using the economic concept of ‘consumer surplus’ assume benefits up to 60 years ahead; ignore ‘peak oil’; include economic benefits to foreigners; ignore the economic costs of noise, air pollution and sterilisation of land; ignore the £9 billion pa tax exemptions given to the aviation industry. If these factors are allowed for, the economic benefits become negative by a large margin.

12 Further expansion. Using the government’s current forecasts, runway 3 would be full well before 2030. The government would, presuming continuation of its present ‘predict and provide’ policy, then want a 4th runway and 7th terminal and might wish to make a decision as soon as 2012. By 2050 the government might well argue that a fifth runway and 8th terminal should be in place.

Nic Ferriday - Friends of The Earth

January 13, 2009