Afternoon:
14°c
Comment: more trains, less Heathrow strain
Evening Standard02.04.08
The Conservatives' announcement today that they oppose a third runway at Heathrow will put new pressure on ministers to reconsider their preferred expansion option. Aside from the growing anger over the noise and pollution involved, the Tories have concluded that the Department of Transport has failed to make the economic case for a new runway, although they do not rule out expansion permanently.
Conservative mayoral candidate Boris Johnson, along with his Labour and Liberal Democrat rivals, has already come out against a third runway, along with many councils and MPs. Few voters in marginal west London seats much care for the baggage-handling jobs expansion would create. Many fear new flight paths and more traffic congestion will cast a blight over their lives.
It is true that London needs good aviation links to service its economy, and that Heathrow badly lets the city down. Certainly the two existing runways are full to bursting. But the evidence that this must entail building a third runway at Heathrow is unravelling. Plenty of capacity could be freed up by reducing services to destinations such as Paris and Brussels which, thanks to the successful new Channel Tunnel rail link and St Pancras Terminal, are better served by high-speed rail than ever.
As the Tories point out, developing better highspeed and conventional rail links to UK destinations would reduce the strain on Heathrow too. That does not suit British Airways' desire to use Heathrow rather than London's four other airports as a single hub. But the quality of life in much of the capital is at stake here, much more than one company's preferences. Instead of rendering her own consultation exercise a sham by clinging to the biased evidence provided by airport operator BAA and BA, Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly should show she is listening to what concerns London's voters.
