Morning:
8°c
Business blasts plan to scrap third runway
Nicholas Cecil, Chief Political Correspondent29 Sep 2008
The Tories sparked a furious backlash from business chiefs today after vowing to scrap a third runway at Heathrow if they win power.
Shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers hailed her party for making a momentous decision to oppose expansion at the west London airport and instead back a high-speed rail link from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.
She delighted environment and residents' campaign groups but business leaders gave warning that blocking the runway could damage the City. Baroness Valentine, chief executive of London First, which represents 250 firms in the capital, said: "London could lose its crown to New York or to increasingly influential Dubai or Shanghai.
"Ruling out making it [Heathrow] bigger is a bad decision for a global city and the UK economy."
CBI director general Richard Lambert-added: "A high-speed rail link would have a lot going for it, but don't think for a minute that it will solve the capacity problems at Heathrow."
Opposing a third runway will boost dramatically David Cameron's green credentials, but the move was denounced by British Airways.
A spokesman said: "It is disappointing if the Conservatives are now saying they would turn their back on jobs and wealth creation, and put the UK's air links in a straitjacket."
BAA, the airport operator running Heathrow, also accused the Conservatives of overestimating fivefold the short-haul f lights that could be replaced by a TGV-style rail service. A spokesman said: "To prioritise one over the other is a false choice and will put Britain's future competitiveness at risk."
Unveiling plans for 190mph trains, Ms Villiers said her party had made a "seriously green decision" to "say No to a third runway". She urged businesses to think "very carefully" before getting involved in expanding Heathrow as a Tory administration would not be bound to honour the Government's undertakings.
She poured cold water on London Mayor Boris Johnson's plans for an island airport in the Thames Estuary.
The London Mayor told the Daily Politics Conference Special: "David Cameron this day in my view read the funeral rites over a third runway at Heathrow because we all know that the grim reality of politics is that there isn't going to be a Labour government in two years' time."
Under the first phase of the Tory plans, high-velocity trains would offer services from London St Pancras to Birmingham, taking 45 minutes, to Manchester (80), and to Leeds (97), plus a spur link to Heathrow.
The £20 billion project would open in 2027, possibly earlier for some stretches, and would need £15.7 billion of taxpayers' money, with the rest coming from the train operator.
John Stewart, chairman of Hacan campaign group, which opposes a third runway, added: "This announcement is a bold plan fitting for the 21st century." But Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly called axing the runway plan "politically opportunistic, economically illiterate and hugely damaging to Britain's national interests".
Reader views (25)
Good! The best idea yet! They will get my vote.
- Vince London, West London, 30/09/2008 01:36
Report abuse
"Business blasts plan to scrap third runway" - as if PR people at London First, the CBI and BAA (now effectively a Spanish company) are somehow more intelligent than the rest of us and don't have their own vested interests at heart.
- Austen, London, 29/09/2008 20:26
Report abuse
I've had an even better idea - Zeppelin travel. Instead of having to expand Heathrow, they can land in and take off from London parks. Best of all, there is an abundant supply of renewable energy to power them. It's called Tory hot-air.
- Richard, Madrid, Spain, 29/09/2008 19:06
Report abuse
I'm not it the pay of anybody and have not been classified as a lunatic, not even by my parents as a baby.
If we cannot have both high speed rail AND a third runway, my vote will be for air travel, more of it!
A choice made in full sanity.
Try to live up to your christian name, Christian.
- Frank H., London., 29/09/2008 18:23
Report abuse
Some readers have praised the Conservatives for at last some "joined-up" thinking. But the UK transport system -like so many things in our chaotically run country - is DISjointed. What a cock-up the "privatisation" of our railways and Tube systems has proved! Who can afford to get on a train without setting his alarm clock for 4 am? And so it goes on until we are all GREEN in the face!
- Sylvia Smith, London, UK, 29/09/2008 17:44
Report abuse
More dreamworld stuff. Does anyone honestly believe the Tory voters in Hertfordshire will want years of lorries and noise not to mention a railway running yards from their homes.
- Colin, Barking Essex, 29/09/2008 17:36
Report abuse
Those in the pay of the aviation lobby who responded above of course ignore the costs in terms of safety for Londoners or the impact on asthma rates their selfish proposals actually make - Boris and a new airport and electrification as proposed by the Conservatives today is the right choice - Heathrow can not expand as some of the lunatics above have suggested to be in a [place to really compete - lets invest in a true 21st century solution and make choices that are free from vested interests of BA, BAA or Labour Trade Unions. We are competing with Dubai - Heathrow can never expand enough to truelly compete with that 6 runway NEW airport - only a new airport with room to grow can do that. I will Vote Conservative for this policy alone - as it shows clear sighted long term solutions not the grubby little short term rubbish that Labour package up as strategic thinking.
- Christian Ball, London, UK, 29/09/2008 15:13
Report abuse
This is a brave and significant policy announcement by the Conservatives: brave because it takes on vested interests in the aviation business, significant because it marks a real change towards future economic development based on lower carbon technology.
The comments made by the earlier poster, Bc, about synthetic fuels or hydrogen replacing fossil fuel by 2050 are fanciful: the airport infrastructure and aero engines designed now and which will be in service in 2050 are based on current, fossil fuel technology. Synthetic or hydrogen fuels also need a clean primary energy source to avoid emissions. The aviation industry knows this and so bases its environmental mitigation on offsetting strategies: buying up hard won carbon credits from other industries. There is not room in the carbon economy to give them this credit: the scientists say we need all the reduction we can get.
The last thing the UK needs for the middle of the 21st century is to have Europe's 'leading airport' and wind up with an economy and jobs based on high carbon industries and fossil fuels. We can and should aim for better than that.
- Adam, Sevenoaks, UK, 29/09/2008 15:08
Report abuse
Heathrow is used mainly to fly to other countries not for internal flights. Commuters are hardly going to use a TGV to travel from the north to London, the cost would be prohibitive. It's all a typical Conservative sound bite with no substance.
- Robert Thornton, malaga spain, 29/09/2008 15:01
Report abuse
This is brilliant, high speed trains will enable people to live in the north and work in London and at a stroke the north/south divide will disappear and the quality of life of people in both the north and the south will improve through more lebensraum.
Those wanting another Heathrow or Stansted runway show a complete lack of regard for the quality of life of people living near those runways. What should we destroy ancient settlements and beautiful areas just so Heathrow - owned by a foreign business - can have more people circling around our skies on route to some foreign destination - which a vast majority of them are? Are English people and their quality of life worth nothing?
- Jane, London, England, 29/09/2008 13:19
Report abuse
I suggest we need both and more beside. I dont believe filling the capacity will be an issue, the more we have the better. Its time we stepped forward rather than just trying to make do with poor facilities. We should focus on research and development in this country to solve any environmental issues as part of the project and look to resolve the problem fully for the next 100 years not for a short time. Anyone who belives emissions cannot be resolved is a fool, we just need to ensure the research and implementation cost is provided for the common good and not on a money only basis. Remember when the M25 was built, capacity was identified way under the requirement, the same will be the case here. We have an airport, we need an airport, people want to fly, they will fly, probably on a synthetic fuel or hydrogen based energy source, that will come. Its safer to have three runways than two as the time between flights will be greater. Remember the issue of planes taking off to quickly after each other in disturbed air caused a crash with fatalities. For me better to have one large facility that is correctly specified for usage and with the required growth capability. I would argue four runways are required if London is to remain as the business centre for Europe possibly five, so we should work that from 2050 we have five runways, high speed rail connections and hopefully emission free travel.
- Bc, uk, 29/09/2008 13:10
Report abuse
Catherine Lombard; I'm amazed your comments were printed - do you actually live in the real World? The UK needs Heathrow to be expanded and also it needs high speed rail and have you used a train in the last 5 years, "comfortable and reliable way to travel", God help us.......
- Alan, London, 29/09/2008 13:06
Report abuse
This is really great news. If we can get a high speed network of trains linking Britain to major European cities the idea of flying on either domestic or short haul routes will not be attractive. By combining a high speed national rail network with a new airport in the Thames Estuary will achieve a first class travel infrastructure.
- Bethany Williams, London, 29/09/2008 12:27
Report abuse
This is so difficult! I have never voted Tory, but this proposition is quite simply the sensibly way forward in transportation.
- Chris, London, 29/09/2008 12:24
Report abuse
Everyone is missing the point here. High speed rail is great but we do need extra airport capacity anyway. Heathrow is in the most stupid location and someone is going to have to bite the bullet. Asia is proof that the future lies in huge offshore airports. Hong Kong has one, as do Japan (Kansai) and effectively Seoul. The sooner any of our stupid politicians (Boris excepted) realise this, the better. Boris is probably the one only who has looked carefully at the Asian example and seen the light. The land at Heathrow must be worth an absolute fortune anyway which must surely go a long way to establishing a mega-airport. Once completed, such an airport will in any event need high speed connections all over the country.
- Alex Balfour, Hong Kong, 29/09/2008 12:05
Report abuse
At last some common sense about HeathSLOW.
Now Mr Cameron hurry up and get into No.10
- Mr S.Port, London, 29/09/2008 11:50
Report abuse
Like Eurostar the London to Birmingham would be a flagship route to benefit a few. Many people would like to get into London from many areas of the south-east reliably, quickly and with a seat. Sorting commuter routes, and the under-grim(!) would be of greater benefit than shaving an hour off the time to Leeds!
- Michael, London, 29/09/2008 11:50
Report abuse
Heathrow needs both a third runway (perhaps a fourth or fifth as well) AND a high-speed rail network linking the rest of the UK and Europe. Look at CDG and AMS? They have at least four runways at their airports AND have high-speed rail networks linking them (and a rail network that is not plagued by delays / over-run engineering works). We need to stop doing things half-heartedly and actually make difficult decisions. So yes to the 3rd runway and yes to high-speed rail.
- David, London, 29/09/2008 11:30
Report abuse
Hmmmmmmm and where does Dave live? what a NIMBY he and his moneyed old Etonian crowd are.
- Duncan Bailey, Kent, 29/09/2008 11:30
Report abuse
Whilst we cannot continue to expand our airports indefinitely, the plan proposed by the Tories is equally impractical and unworkable.
To undertake a project to build a railway over a period of 20 years is pointless. By the time it is complete the transport needs for the region will have changed more than once and it will no longer be a 'current solution'.
An alternative would to build special motorways for use by high speed coaches. No cars or any other transport would be permitted on these routes. The infrastructure cost would be lower and it would allow for more frequent services. We could even find a use for an updated version of the bendy bus. It would also be cheaper to extend this network as demand from other cities grew.
It may even be possible to power the buses using inductive coupling under the roadway hence overcoming the environmental problem of diesel vehicles.
- Adam, Harrow, UK, 29/09/2008 11:30
Report abuse
I am pleased to see the Tories looking at this in a joined up way - local pollution benefits for those near the airport; climate benefits for all including our children and those in poor countries; transport, social and economic benefits for north and south of the country through expanded and faster rail. Meanwhile, despite the banking debacle, the Labour Government clearly still has not learned that kow-towing to a particular big business lobby purely interested in its own profits leads to huge harm to the rest of us. They are also either trying to mislead us, or are too dim to understand that a new fast-rail link would replace thousands of short-haul flights from within the UK, freeing up slots at Heathrow so business flights could be expanded (if desired) without a new runway being needed at all.
- Martin Powell, Bath, UK, 29/09/2008 10:44
Report abuse
About time someone bit the bullet and said "NO" to the airplane lobby.
I might even vote Tory for the first time in my life. (Although it will be against all my other principles. Might need a stiff drink before entering the Polling Booth!)
Now they need to get the existing rail system electrified.
- Alex Mckenna, Manchester, 29/09/2008 10:30
Report abuse
At last, some commonsense. Labour had better not be so irresponsible as to start bulldozing homes near Heathrow when it knows that it will soon be out of power, and the Heathrow third runway won't be going ahead. All funds for Labour's mega-projects, such as Heathrow expansion and ID cards, should be frozen until the outcome of the next election. To proceed on with massive spending on these white elephants, which the Tories will shelve, would be the height of irresponsibility.
- Phil Jones, London UK, 29/09/2008 10:15
Report abuse
Surely it's not a case of "either, or"?
BOTH are needed: we should have started on high-speed rail forty years ago, as Japan did; also, another runway is needed at Heathrow for safety reasons if nothing else.
- Brian Clacey, Croydon, 29/09/2008 09:33
Report abuse
This is a sensible and welcome idea. Number of Heathrow flights should be cut anyway because of noise and other nuisance to people over a wide-ranging area. Rail should be encouraged as a more comfortable and reliable way to travel.
- Catherine Lombard, London, UK, 29/09/2008 09:02
Report abuse
