Stuart Nathan
Features editor
The issue of airport expansion is not a simple one, despite what some non-engineering observers seem to think
Observant readers may have noticed that my name has been absent from these pages recently. I’ve had to take an enforced six-week layoff after breaking a collarbone in a bizarre camping accident (don’t let anybody tell you that music festivals aren’t hazardous). Having discovered that, after a while, waiting for bone to heal is an equivalent to watching paint dry or grass grow and that, contrary to expectations, it is possible to watch too many episodes of Star Trek: the Next Generation on Netflix, I am now back in harness and observing the world of engineering once again.
Some things, it seems, haven’t changed in my absence. We are still no closer to leaving the European Union, for a start, and it appears that most of the fears of the engineering sector have yet to be allayed. Some political observers (including David Allen Green, the barrister and legal blogger who writes for the Financial Times) have suggested that the reason the government is refusing scrutiny of its Brexit negotiating strategy is that it doesn’t have one; an explanation that seems very likely to me.
But as luck would have it, a real live engineering issue has cropped up just as my turn arrived to write my returning comment. I refer, of course, to the long delayed but hardly unexpected decision to build a new runway at Heathrow Airport. Surely the only thing less surprising than this was Boris Johnson’s seeming amnesia over his promise to lie down in front of a bulldozer to stop the project going ahead (mind you, there’s still time; but I expect that Johnson’s protest would be about as successful as Arthur Dent’s attempt to stop the demolition of his house before the Vogons destroyed the Earth to make way for a hyperspace bypass).
Many people seem determined to portray the issue of airport expansion as a simple one. On one hand, the UK simply needs much more airport capacity so the decision to expand our busiest airport is a no-brainer; on the other, aircraft are major contributors to carbon dioxide emissions and therefore any airport expansion can only be a bad thing. Both of these views are of course simplistic and wrong. As engineers (or in my case, as someone who has written about engineering for 25 years) we know that decisions like this are never simple, rely a great deal on unpredictable human factors, and that, being by necessity pragmatists, we have to view the situation as it is and not how we wish it should be.
We see many comments when we raise this subject (and in fact did see them most recently on our last poll on airport expansion) wondering why politicians seem obsessed with airports in the south-east of the country rather than those in the Midlands and North. It’s a valid point, but the answer is simple: London and the south-east is where most people want to go. It’s true that the UK is perhaps unbalanced in its concentration of political, commercial and financial decision-making in London and the south-east and that London has a disproportionate cultural pull, but it’s a relatively small country, this imbalance dates back centuries, and even with some efforts to decentralise (such as the BBC moving much of its television news broadcasting to Manchester) it would take a great deal of social engineering to change the situation.
Heathrow and Gatwick are operating at capacity. That’s why there are such horrendous delays when anything goes wrong; there is no way for planes to take off or land more frequently than they already do. If air traffic is going to increase – as all projections say it will – London simply needs a new runway. Truth be told, it has done for years.
We also see comments wondering why people don’t just use teleconferencing and stay where they are rather than getting on a plane. Again, this seems like an example of wishful thinking. In many cases, teleconferencing is simply a much poorer substitute for being there in person.
Another inconvenient truth is that people just want to fly more. And not just people in Britain. Any visit to a civil aerospace conference will reveal that the growth in aerospace is being driven by economic development in Asia and to a lesser extent in South America. Standards of living are rising, lower-cost airlines are thriving and people who never got the opportunity to fly before can now access air travel. To respond to this, the aerospace industry has been putting great effort for many years into developing aircraft that use less fuel, produce lower emissions, and are much quieter. Any readers who have visited an airshow and witnessed the Airbus A380 doing a low-speed, low-altitude fly past will be able to attest that you don’t even need to raise your voice to carry on a conversation as it passes, even though the engines are in their least efficient operating condition.
So of course aircraft produce noise and pollution. But each subsequent generation produces less of both, and the drive for airlines to keep their fuel costs down means that they will tend to use up-to-date technology.
It’s also true that there are other sites that could be used for airports in the south-east; Marston in Kent is often mentioned. But the cost of building not only an entirely new airport, with all of its terminal building facilities, tarmac and runways; but also all the transport infrastructure needed to serve it must surely outweigh by several times even the high cost and complexity of building a new runway at an existing airport. To return (reluctantly) to Boris Johnson, he failed to convince anyone that building a new airport in the Thames estuary was a good idea despite strenuous efforts.
So that leaves us, in the real world, having to admit that air traffic is going to rise, that it’s London and the south-east that is most in need of new capacity, and that the issues of pollution are perhaps not the definite stop-sign that environmentalists think they are. It can’t be denied the infrastructure sector is badly in need of a boost, and the new runway project will bring very welcome investment and employment to the sector. This might be a reluctant decision; in an ideal world, there might be no need for airport expansion. But on a personal note, in an ideal world I wouldn’t have tripped over a guy rope and broken my collarbone.
But why Heathrow .It will cost more than alternatives . It will destroy villages and a cemetery in which my parents are buried together with thousands of others and it is still in use
“London and the south-east is where most people want to go.”
No, most people are coerced into flying from southern airports to avoid the hefty supplements tour operators apply to anyone choosing to fly from a regional airport.
A lot of this countrys’ problems relate to an ignorance of what lies outside of the M25.
Would another runway be required if Heathrow gave up its desire to remain a major hub airport? I can’t find the exact figures, but I suspect a large percentage of passengers are just transferring between flights to and from outside of the UK. If this hub traffic was taken by other more suitable airports within Europe with more runways and capacity, then surely Heathrow could concentrate on the domestic traffic only? I imagine this would result in a significant loss to Heathrow in terms of landing fees etc, but if this was measured against the costs of a third runway and the immense local disruption building it will cause? or am I missing something?
Further to my previous comment, I find on the Heathrow web site that 32% were transfer passengers in 2015.
Seriously, do most people only want to go to/ fly out of the South East? Are we not burdening our other creaking transport systems too much by forcing anyone who wants to travel to go to a South-East which cannot cope with the transport requirements it already has? Is there data that shows the proportions of incoming visitors that need only to stay in the south east as opposed to those who have to get to the apparently unknown wastelands outside the M25? If there are, they’ve hardly been well publicised during the piece of comedy that’s been the years of so-called indecision over a choice we all knew would go this way, because for decades Governments have focussed all attention on the South East, visible from the London-not UK- olympics, and active Government opposition to the previous bid from Manchester, to a Governor of the Bank of England stating publicly that increased unemployment in the North was a price worth paying for house price stability in London, to HS2 sold as a better way of getting from London to…, rather than a National benefit. It looks rather more as if the most expensive option possible has been chosen to maximise spend in the South East once again. That said, it makes the rest of the country a much nicer, less congested place to live if you are working.
I agree with Richard, the regions are crying out for more connectivity – we could expand airports in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh – the list goes on and on. Encourage more enterprise in the regions, Spread and share the wealth around the place. And as far as the tourists go, there’s plenty to see outside London. Most of the interesting stuff in London is concentrated in a half mile wide strip along the side of the Thames. After you’ve done The PoW, BP, ToL, BM, TSq et,al. the rest appears ordinary, even a bit dreary. No, the government should continue what it set out to do over a decade ago and move the centre of gravity away from London –
I agree, technology developments do mean that GHG emissions from avaitions can be expected to reduce per passenger-km, but without context, that is a pretty useless statement. If unit emissions reduce by 1% per year but passenger-kms per year grow by 4% (as predicted) , then aviation’s impact on climate change will inexorably grow. It is entirely unreasonable for anyone, Engineer or not, to argue that one sector of the economy, ie aviation, should be allowed to increase its emissions at a time when every other sector is expected to reduce both its carbon intensity and its total emissions.
Unless the aviation industry accepts it must REDUCE flying, it has no chance of ensure its emissions in 2050 are the same as in 2005. It cannot be given special treatment, it must do its bit
Yes, you can reasonably argue that more airport capacity is need around London. But Heathrow is just in the wrong place – which explains the rather high cost of £18 billion – which still doesn’t compensate the people of London.
New runways at Gatwick and Luton would be much easier, cheaper, and more useful. (Luton did not apply to the Davies commission, hence was not considered. But it’s location, with a new terminal on the Midland Mainline, is ideal).
Nice to see you back Stuart, been there and done it with collar bone!
However, as many of writers above comment London is not the centre of the universe or even of the UK; unfortunately, it is the home of UK decision makers. It is beyond any credibility that Heathrow expansion is lower land cost than “up north” or can be operated at lower labour cost than the cheap labour outside of London. Let’s have some criticism of foolish policies please.
Not sure that I completely buy that it has to be LHR, the road network cannot cope now.
Why not develop Luton, or Stansted? It is 60km from Narita to Tokyo and 100km to Yokohama and that works fine. Why are we always the poor relations?
Has anybody noticed that the HS2 main tunnel entrance, a major HS2 bridge, and the 3rd runway are only a few of miles from each other . All this in the busiest corner of England traffic wise.
I suspect gridlock could become a well used term.
All this money to primarily benefit the South-East again! Even though it is the logical place the fact that we will all pay towards its construction does rankle somewhat. The wider transport infrastucture needs as much attention building the runways themselves. 50% more traffic and users at Heathrow than at present!
A new South British airport on Severnside, including a railway station in the terminal building would give rail connection times to London similar to those from Heathrow today (plane to Paddington) including a stop at Reading to serve London’s Western corridor. Connection times to Birmingham, Manchester, Yorkshire and beyond would be much better than today’s. No new high speed railway line would be required. Brunel’s GWR could do the job, new lines would be for slower trains. There would be a huge boost to the economy of South Wales, the West Midlands and the South West. International businesses already located in the Thames Valley would have similar access to airport capacity as they do now. Development of the Heathrow site for other purposes would pay for most of the transfer as building costs on a greenfield site away from London would be substantially lower, particularly if regional development savings (ie no longer required) were taken into account. Gatwick could have become the London regional airport as intercontinental flights were transferred to Severnside. This proposal was called the Western Gateway and even the preposterous Boris island (isolated to the East of London away from most users) had more serious discussion – because it was London centred? A huge rebalancing opportunity has been lost out of blind prejudice.
What London and South East needs is a new ‘Heathrow’ possibly located North to North West of London. The current site is way past its sell by date. We need to plan for where we are going to be in 50 years, with outline planning for 6 to 8 runways and loose the ‘tomorrow mentality’ that they are working to now.
Also If HS2 was done properly we could dispense with most domestic flight as it would be quicker as you waste at least 90 minutes getting on and off , checking in and collecting baggage.
The Sad truth is if we want more capacity it has to go somewhere and human nature makes all of us ‘Nimby’s’. I would feel the same (p.s. I live 5 mile from where Boris Island would be if it were ever built)
Thought! -Unless of course we start building flying boats again, how much of a flight of fancy that would be!
Ref Philip Owen 26th October 2016 at 4:00 pm , 20 years ago houses and agricultural land was being bought up south west of Caldicot and to the west of Llanwern Steelworks for a new international airport. As Philip states, this would rejuvenate South Wales and as the South Wales/Paddington railway line passes along the boundary and a link to the M4 easy, it would be an ideal place to build a ‘large as you like’ airport, as aircraft would arrive and depart over the Bristol Channel, with minimum of build disruption and aircraft noise, somewhat akin to the south-east proposal for ‘Boris Island’. It is a pity, for whatever reasons, that this was not proceeded with.
If it has to be Heathrow then the most OBVIOUS, PRAGMATIC, COMMON SENSE and COST EFFECTIVE solution that no one seems to mention is to commercialise RAF Northolt.
It is only 5 miles North or Heathrow. It can accommodate large aircraft without knocking down any more houses. It was temporarily used whilst Heathrow was originally been built.
A mass transit solution underground like the one servicing Terminal 5 could be quickly built to get people there within 5 or 10 minutes.
Let’s get building HEATHROW NORTHOLT TERMINAL 6 ASAP.
Well that’s quite a large area if you include Greenwich in the East and Windsor in the West, and it’s a bit more than half a mile. You could make a similarly cynical comment about Edinburgh, or just about anywhere else. The fact remains, London attracts 17-18m international tourists a year. Sorry, but Manchester, Birmingham etc don’t even come close, and never will, and that’s coming from a Northerner.
Tax aviation fuel that same as other fuel, make the aviation industry pay for airports rather than the taxpayer and see how much more capacity is needed once aviation loses its massive effective subsidies.
Why not build an extra runway at Heathrow AND Gatwick. Stops all the argument, future-proofs the South East / London, and allows the rest of the country to focus on their own development plans without the background noise.
Steve, that’s if the South East pays for them both, and funds are left for the rest of the UK, which is even less likely than a decision having been made other than to extend Heathrow.
Why shouldn’t the Airport owners pay for it, or at least contribute? And I guess the South East has a higher population density than most of the UK so between them they should fund this.
I’m sorry, I disagree with most of the premise set out in this article. As others have commented, most people do want to go to London to fly they have to go to London. Most people voluntarily go to London for the concentration of political, financial and commercial interests because I would contend there has been precisely that ‘social engineering’ over the decades to concentrate the power there at the expense of the rest of the country. As for all the tourists that go there, big deal – they go home after their visit. We all have to carry on leading our lives here putting up with the ridiculous congestion, pollution and constant expansion of the London conurbation. Other methods of transport and locations have to be considered – this country needs to move away form the “From London, by London, for London” ethos. Or are we seriously saying everyone in the whole country north of Watford only exists to subordinate their interests and quality of life to London because of the concentration of interests and power elites? Careful where you go with being blatant on that one…..!? Yes we can afford to spread things out – WE (UK taxpayers, not just Londoners) spread £1.4 TRILLION to bail out those London based banks back in 2008, and (as predicted) there are already signs that it did no good but kick the structural defects in the financial system (notwithstanding massive un-accounted for negligence or at worse criminality) further down the road. Total waste of money and abrogation of accountability & responsibility by the Casino bankers and their political lickspittles. Oh, and as for Luton, forget it – the holding patterns and flight paths have recently been moved away from over Bedfordshire (as published in local news-papers) thus reducing the noise, pollution and inconvenience of those denizens, to over Hertfordshire…. oh, thanks for that, but I rather think you can keep all that to yourself Beds!?!If I’d wanted to live under your noise and emissions I’d have bought a cheaper house in Luton in the first place!
Has everyone forgotten the WWII major Bomber base called LASHAM. Many a wounded bomber came back to this aerodrome and many landed safely. It has an E/W 5,000+ foot runway and two others around N/S 3,000+ NE/SW 4,000 feet. Lasham lies right between Basingstoke and Alton just off the A 339 and direct connection to the M3 and A31. Plenty of open land around and is higher up then LHR [GPS headings are 51°11’10.7″N 1°02’00.1″W] Good access directly from LHR via train and put an elevated Mono Rail from Basingstoke and Alton stations-they both run towards LHR.
There is space for expanding the runway system easily and can be used in weather conditions that cause delays into both LHR and LGW. Yes is a fully functional airport and can take such aircraft as the 747 and A380 with no problems [some taxiways may need reinforcing due to there weights. Also by the time it is rebuilt and operating maybe the Hyperloop is up and running and could be used from up north and into London?
LHR and LGW cannot be expanded due to too many homes and businesses so closed to the Airports now, plus why displace people and businesses when it is not required. Lasham makes a lot of sense and is in open countryside with many amenities and opportunities of reducing over crowding when flying into London [remember Beijing airport is over 120+ Km outside the city and a 320 Kph Maglev train takes you into the center of Beijing and same for Tokyo’s Norita airport around 70 Kms.] Is also on major flight/glide paths already on the maps and there are several local aerodromes available in an emergency- Odiham, Dunsfold, where TopGear has its studio and 747 do land there.
So let the Walleys in Parliament and the Whitehall wizards look at LASHAM and give it a real chance!
So Cranford, Harlington, Sipson, Harmondsworth, Poyle, Colnbrook do not have to be plowed under as that is what is being talked about being done (Harmondsworth has some historical significance along with several other local townships) and where do the displace homeowners and business go to? Is a no-brainer when you look at it from a no destruction aspect and easily accessed.
Why is it that there is never any mention at all of the most important topic to do with the operation of aircraft: SAFETY
The airspace over London is used by several major airports, and this airspace is the most complicated and the most densely used in the world. It is absolute folly to add even more air traffic into this dangerous zone.
I suppose that safety over London is never mentioned because it might cause alarm. Or maybe because it is impossible to reconcile or mention Heathrow and Safety in the same breath. But rest assured that a disaster will happen. It is virtually inevitable. Imagine two large aircraft colliding over central London. Or take the example of the B777 in January 2008 that lost both engines on the approach to Heathrow due to fuel icing. That icing could just as well have occurred at 2000 ft, rather than at 700 ft, and then an approach to LHR on a westerly heading would have dumped that aircraft into a densely populated area. These types of incidents are not uncommon in the world of aviation. For example the Heathrow A319 engine fire in May 2013 could easily have had catastrophic results. In summary, to retain one of the world’s busiest airports, where flight paths are obliged to fly over one of the world’s largest conurbations, is simply crazy. To plan to add even more traffic into that mess is simply beyond belief.
Yes, we need air travel. The policy that is required is a long-term one, that should have the objective of closing Heathrow, probably over a period of some decades (and think of the valuable real estate that would be released), and immediately getting started on constructing new air travel infrastructure, which includes airports (plural), and modern road and rail links to serve ALL the country, including London. The blogs above have referred to a good number of sites that are probably ideal.
Just like government failure, spanning decades, to get a grip of energy production in the UK, we have the same failure to understand and plan for air traffic.
I suggest that the short-term solution should be to do nothing at all with any of the London airports, and to make an immediate start of one or more airports and associated infrastructure in SAFE areas that can serve London and the rest of the UK. That would lead to the progressive reduction in air traffic over London and the south east, a progressive reduction in the risk of disaster, plus all the obvious benefits to the unfortunate folk who have to live in London. This is nothing more than joined up thinking.
It is really sad to think that the only way this will happen is if, sometime in the next year while talks waffle on over the third LHR runway, two large passenger aircraft collide over central London, killing 500 on board, and 10,000 on the ground. Except even then the Inquiry would take 10 years to report.
Alick, your comment is very apt in the area of Safety. Especially if an A380 fully loaded was to crash upon its approach over the city side of London towards Kingston, Hampton Court and Cranford into the LHR Runway right. It would at its landing speed of 150 knots plus careen a plowed swath approximately 5 miles long with debris/fuel and buildings up to 300 feet wide – would/could result in thousands of people killed and injured.
Thus trying to consider expanding LHR is not on.
The choice I gave of using LASHAM is a much safer option, as long as all approach corridors [min 20 miles long] are not built on. These corridors- can never be done around LHR. Boris and his Walleys need to think and not be lead down a path because of special interests and lobbyists, want to destroy the local, LHR surroundings. They can still do this in and around LASHAM – would generate new jobs and move in local support industries and not keep the London area so crowded, again a no brainer.
Good comment by the way on SAFETY.
Someone mentioned last night that a significant proportion of the air traffic (and therefore also the road traffic) into and out of LHR is Air Freight – If all this was removed and re-distributed around a number of expanded regional airports, it would pretty much match the new capacity being sought for passenger flights in the London area – Sounds good to me –
There are also a number of ex USAF air bases, mostly in the eastern side of the country. For instance Alconbury near Huntingdon, right next to the East coast line and the A1. There is a claim that in the near future the train times to Kings cross will be considerably shorter, even as little as 1/2 an hour from Huntingdon. Other ex air bases are Greenham Common, and several others in the south midlands all with runways capable of taking the heaviest bombers.
On top of that, the M25 is incapable of coping now with existing traffic. Has this not been considered Or will there have to be even more concrete poured and countryside despoiled in order to please politicians, planners, money men and other obsessives. There is more to life than simply making money.
The rush to propose a third London runway anywhere seems to have been precipitated as a result of the inadequate preparations put in place for the outcome of the referendum.
The estimated costs and the location for the options seem to be similarly affected.
If the runway is elevated by 8m (to cross the M25), how much will this effect he spread of noise and pollution? Will this also make the downhill landing more precarious?
If there are more link flights to internal (UK) destinations, what will be the time penalty to allow for interconnecting destination delays, (including security delays)? Apart from economics, this will affect the choice of passengers in selecting an option for internal flights to/from a regional airport. This may also better identify the practical location(s) of possible regional new long-haul airports with more favourable credentials.
Leave Heathrow as it is to serve those people wanting to go to London . Londoners and the rest of the South East can use Gatport Airwick . The potential for an air disaster over the city of London will be maintained at current level and not increased. Expand , Birmingham, Manchester or East Midlands. ( HS2 rail link to London solves the onward travel if anybody actually wants to travel to London). The payback for Heathrow option (for London but paid for by the country) is calculated for 2086, most of us will be dead by then. PS I live under the flightpath into Birmingham.
@chris
suspect a large percentage of passengers are just transferring between flights to and from outside of the UK. If this hub traffic was taken by other more suitable airports within Europe with more runways and capacity, then surely Heathrow could concentrate on the domestic traffic only? I imagine this would result in a significant loss to Heathrow in terms of landing fees etc, but if this was measured against the costs of a third runway and the immense local disruption building it will cause? or am I missing something?
apart from the advantage to those not addicted to London’s noise, congestion, pollution of keeping the planes down there –
BORIS JOHNSON’s plan is not too bad! But built further out as a hub and as a sea barrier/BARRAGE. Use link road/rail at 80 metres, as foundations to wind-power that will eventually be required to empty semi-saline lagoon.
First-hand experience says: education needed. Education as to advantages beyond London – sell Britain, even Black Country/Midlands. That is also Closer (to everywhere else, a balanced view of UK ), cheaper to live, etc.
– in addition to East -of -Thames hub, reducing Congestion , a sea barrier/barrage (comment above) why not public education for Aussies coming to “see England” and ending up with their bunch at Earls Court. that’s not seeing much
Do we really want to extend Heathrow the grubbiest airport in the world. Perhaps if we started with a relatively green site i.e. Alconbury say we could build an airport of which the country could be proud rather than try and get passengers out of the place fast enough to miss the tatty state of the place.
Living in the north the preferred route is via Schipol which is a well designed and clean airport. The only drawback of this route is the Robber Barons who run the local airport.
“London and the south-east is where most people want to go.”
Why should I go to London if I can fly from elsewhere. Luckily Manchester and Birmingham have flights to Dubai and China. From Humberside you can go to Amsterdam and from Doncaster to Berlin.
Humberside Airport still has more helicopter flights than air planes. Doncaster is very leisurely, too.
Birmingham International and Manchester are easily reached by train.
It’s 1:20 h by train from Birmingham International to London Euston.
And it can take 1:20 to clear customs and traverse Heathrow to your boarding gate. Thats assuming you have successfully motored 100 miles down the M40 , been trapped on the M25 and paid exorbitant parking fees at Heathrow. for the country’s sake spread the air travel load to the rest of the country, estimated compensation costs for the Heathrow proposal £2.6 bn!
There are times when HMG decisions look highly suspicious, and the plan to expand Heathrow is one of them. The sole beneficiary will be the Heathrow airport operators, everyone else will be paying very heavily! Extra runways at Heathrow are pointless without a corresponding expansion to the handling capacity (passenger and freight), transport links, etc.
The idea that its “London and the south-east that is most in need of new capacity” is only true if you don’t remove the unnecessary flights away from London. ANYWHERE can act as a transit hub, and there are lots of good alternatives for freight, as has been pointed out above.
This has got to be one of the most dubious decisions taken in recent years, to the point where one starts looking for brown bags full of cash changing hands.
Welcome to the land of the cynical realists; we will triumph…..eventually!