Morning:
8°c
A bigger Heathrow can still be greener
Jo Valentine, Evening Standard26 Feb 2008
For many months, my conversations with those at the top of London's leading businesses have been dominated by Heathrow. At first it was hassle. Directors of international companies compare notes about how to get to the US or Mumbai without going through Heathrow because of the notorious unreliability of departure and arrival times, the long queues through security and immigration and a generally unfriendly attitude. Thanks to pressure on the Government, some sensible steps by the airport's owner and, soon, the opening of Terminal Five, I hope we won't always be damned to a third-class passenger experience.
But the conversation has moved on. The dilemma now facing business leaders about Heathrow is one shared by many Londoners, particularly those who live in west London. With the Government consulting on plans for a third runway, a sixth terminal and more flights, how do we reconcile more noise, more air pollution and more carbon dioxide emissions with the acute awareness that business success and tens of thousands of London jobs rely on a successful Heathrow?
We must be clear: Heathrow matters now in the way the docks did a century ago. We have to be able to reach our customers and suppliers easily, reliably, comfortably - or we lose business. So our airports need to cope with growing international business travel if we are to maintain the UK's global competitiveness and support London as a leading world city.
Environmental campaigners recently won endorsements from the three principal Mayoral candidates for a dogmatic "no growth, not now, not ever" approach to Heathrow. Would they have signed up to the almost inevitable consequences: a fading London, a world backwater, yesterday's global capital? Less investment, fewer jobs, an exodus of talent?
The choice is not between a bigger Heathrow or a greener Heathrow: we must back both. Heathrow doesn't have to be the biggest airport in the world but it should aim to be the best - in international connectivity, in passenger service and, yes, in environmental performance.
Because we can't ignore the environmental consequences of air travel. We need to confront the global and local impact of flying. Emissions from air travel make up just seven per cent of the UK's CO2 emissions but are predicted to double in the next 30 years. Noise and local air pollution, particularly NOx (nitrous oxide), can blight the lives of those living even several miles away from the airport.
If Heathrow is to be world class, it needs a passenger-centred service, high-quality transport access and decongested airspace. We need a regulatory regime that encourages investment in infrastructure and the capacity to respond to growing demand. But being world class also means regulation to account for the cost of carbon and the social impact of aircraft noise.
The poor passenger experience at London's airports threatens our competitiveness. Compare Heathrow with Hong Kong, Dubai or even Frankfurt and it is clear our largest airport is not the international offering that a world city deserves. We risk London's future if we do not restore Heathrow's world-class status.
Capacity and passenger experience are far from unrelated. Heathrow currently operates at more than 98 per cent capacity, its international rivals rarely above 80 per cent, often much less. That means that an hour of fog, a baggage conveyor fault or another incident, however minor, takes the rest of the day and sometimes longer to recover. Many thousands of passengers have their journeys disrupted; from passport control to toilet cleaning, customs to burger bars, the service hasn't the flexibility to respond adequately. Rival cities (Paris, Amsterdam, Dubai, Hong Kong) have invested in terminals and runways to match their ambition and maintain a buffer of spare capacity to cope with the unexpected.
Both supply and quality are constrained by capacity, the subject of the Government's 2003 White Paper and of the present consultation. Ministers have concluded that a third runway and a sixth terminal are permissible if they can meet three local conditions, relating to reducing noise and local air pollution and improving public transport access. These are a start but they are not enough.
In addition, a green Heathrow might, for example, feature all-electric ground vehicles, high-efficiency heating and cooling of terminal buildings and excellent access by public transport. It should deploy road pricing to discourage unnecessary car use within and around the perimeter. Its landingcharge tariffs might favour quieter and less polluting aircraft. And the airspace centred on the airport should be managed to reduce stacking and route takeoff-and landing flight paths as high and as far away from densely populated areas as is feasible. Air Passenger Duty might be ring-fenced for environmental measures in and around airports or for other initiatives that genuinely offset the impact of flying.
Meanwhile, despite international agreements on the carbon emissions for some industries, the UK's aircraft emissions don't face any reduction targets, nationally or internationally. Between 1990 and 2004, emissions from manufacturing dropped a quarter and emissions from electricity, gas and water supply fell 15 per cent. Carbon emissions from aviation grew by 90 per cent. If air travel emissions grow at only half the recent rate, they may eat up nearly half of the UK's entire carbon budget by 2050.
For a greener Heathrow, we need an additional condition: the price of air travel should include the full cost of its global environmental impact. This could be achieved by carbon trading, but only if such a scheme is credible and effective. Without this commitment - and the measures to deliver it - the Government's case for Heathrow's development will be open to criticism.
Air accessibility remains key to London's competitiveness and without additional Heathrow capacity international access will be constrained and increasingly unattractive to business. But Londoners don't have to choose whether to follow their environmental conscience or their economic interests: we can have both. Back an expanded Heathrow - but only if it is top of its environmental class, a good neighbour and a proper servant to our world city.
• Baroness Valentine is chief executive of business organisation London First.
Reader views (2)
The docks dried up years ago because they had to, bigger boats went elsewhere. So must the planes go elsewhere. And now look what has taken their place Ms Valentine, massive development for the rich, some affordable housing in the boon docks, and a vast upgrading, so by your reckoning, and introducing this silly red herring, if Heathrow dies, then the rich will prosper because they can have endless lookalike glass and steel flats ribboning out along the west London corridor. You can't keep dying Docks, same with airports, Heathrow is a sham.
- Pam, twickenham, 29/02/2008 11:32
Report abuse
The Baroness omits to state that her own organisation believes that if T6 and runway 3 were built the M25 and M4 would become completely gridlocked (Paddick at last night's rally in Westminster attended by 3000).
She blurs London capacity with other European capitals Paris has two airports we have 5! And Frankfurt Schipol and Charles de Gualle were all relocated to reduce impacts on people, she does not even bother to comment on recent health impacts - noise builds stress levels which lead to heart attacks, She swallows wholesale the myth of Heathrow as the engine for UK growth when growth has occurred in current environment with more damage to competition due to non-dom tax than aviation route levels. She fails to point out that the noise environment is built from 2002 projections (utilising the monster noise of concorde) not more recent figures, she does not look at the economic costs to UK plc from wrecked sleep or the ruin of 250,000 school kids education in a stop go clasevery 90 seconds. It makes no reference to accident or terrorist threats (20 near misses a year already over London each year) yet the government insists our liberties must be curtailed to fight this 'real and present danger'. She does not ask if it's safe to allow BAA to monitor its own pollution - it claims tiny levels of noise complaints (2005 latest public data as BAA segments noise into many categories to fake the result.
- Christian, London, UK, 26/02/2008 11:58
Report abuse
