UK needs fast trains not a third Heathrow runway
By Theresa Villiers
Published: October 29 2008 19:51 | Last updated: October 29 2008 19:51
The Conservative party’s decision to come out against a third runway at Heathrow was always going to be controversial. For David Cameron to be the man to put the brakes on Heathrow’s relentless expansion marks a remarkable change, both in the political climate and in the Conservative party.
The extra 222,000 flights a year that would come with a third runway – a 46 per cent increase on current levels – would make it much more difficult to meet the demanding targets our nation has set itself for reducing carbon emissions; but the environmental concerns are not confined to climate change. The lives of thousands of people would be blighted by increased aircraft noise and pollution. The Environment Agency has warned of the risk of “increased morbidity and mortality” if a third runway goes ahead.
So we have repeatedly argued that instead of pushing blindly ahead with a third runway, the government should consider alternative ways to deal with the capacity constraints at Heathrow.
I believe that in proposing a new high-speed rail line connecting Heathrow terminals directly with Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and the Channel tunnel, we have found the solution. Our plan would relieve overcrowding problems and make Heathrow a much better airport, but without the negative consequences for the environment and for quality of life that would inevitably come with a third runway.
Not only would our proposal dramatically improve public transport access to Heathrow, but evidence from Europe shows high-speed rail provides an attractive alternative to competing flights. For example, Air France has abandoned flying between Paris and Brussels, preferring to charter carriages on Thalys high-speed trains instead. Figures published by BAA confirm there were about 63,200 flights between Heathrow and Manchester, Leeds, Brussels, Paris, Amsterdam and Rotterdam in 2007, all destinations where it is realistic for high-speed rail to replace flying. BAA’s own figures are thus consistent with our claim that high-speed rail has the potential to free landing slots equivalent to about a third of the 222,000-flight capacity of a third runway. This proportion is likely to rise significantly with improvements and additions to the high-speed network in the UK and the rest of Europe.
Furthermore, there is an increasingly widespread acknowledgement that the flight growth forecasts in the government’s 2003 aviation white paper should be revisited. The white paper is no longer fit for purpose, drafted as it was in different economic circumstances and before the urgent need to tackle environmental concerns had forced its way up the political agenda.
Eurostar tells us its high-speed trains emit just a tenth of the carbon of competing aviation. Even with a higher-carbon electricity generation mix than Eurostar uses, high-speed trains are far greener than aircraft. And the government’s decision this week to include emissions from aviation in its carbon reduction targets, a decision we support, makes the green case against the third runway even stronger.
Our high-speed link would also boost jobs in the Midlands and the north and help to remedy long-standing imbalances in our economy that have seen more and more pressure piled on the south-east, with the north left at an economic disadvantage and starved of the transport improvements it needs.
Our proposals would take some years to deliver – but so would a third runway. Quite apart from the huge controversy that the planning process would attract, a legal challenge under European Union air quality rules could tie the project up for years. Moreover, the government acknowledges that the usage of a third runway would have to be capped until 2030 anyway; even with its optimistic assumptions, it admits there is no prospect, before then, that technology will deliver the much cleaner, quieter aircraft needed to reconcile an increase to 702,000 flights with the promises Labour has made on pollution and noise around the airport.
The business case for the new rail link we propose is strong. There is an industry consensus that the west coast main line will be full to bursting within a decade, necessitating construction of a new line anyway. It would be a huge lost opportunity not to seize this moment to address three problems – the north/south divide, chronic rail overcrowding and Heathrow – with a single scheme: a scheme, moreover, that we hope will be the foundation of a countrywide high-speed rail network that would transform the UK’s transport infrastructure and radically improve our economic competitiveness.
The writer is shadow transport secretary
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
By Theresa Villiers
Published: October 29 2008 19:51 | Last updated: October 29 2008 19:51
The Conservative party’s decision to come out against a third runway at Heathrow was always going to be controversial. For David Cameron to be the man to put the brakes on Heathrow’s relentless expansion marks a remarkable change, both in the political climate and in the Conservative party.
The extra 222,000 flights a year that would come with a third runway – a 46 per cent increase on current levels – would make it much more difficult to meet the demanding targets our nation has set itself for reducing carbon emissions; but the environmental concerns are not confined to climate change. The lives of thousands of people would be blighted by increased aircraft noise and pollution. The Environment Agency has warned of the risk of “increased morbidity and mortality” if a third runway goes ahead.
So we have repeatedly argued that instead of pushing blindly ahead with a third runway, the government should consider alternative ways to deal with the capacity constraints at Heathrow.
I believe that in proposing a new high-speed rail line connecting Heathrow terminals directly with Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and the Channel tunnel, we have found the solution. Our plan would relieve overcrowding problems and make Heathrow a much better airport, but without the negative consequences for the environment and for quality of life that would inevitably come with a third runway.
Not only would our proposal dramatically improve public transport access to Heathrow, but evidence from Europe shows high-speed rail provides an attractive alternative to competing flights. For example, Air France has abandoned flying between Paris and Brussels, preferring to charter carriages on Thalys high-speed trains instead. Figures published by BAA confirm there were about 63,200 flights between Heathrow and Manchester, Leeds, Brussels, Paris, Amsterdam and Rotterdam in 2007, all destinations where it is realistic for high-speed rail to replace flying. BAA’s own figures are thus consistent with our claim that high-speed rail has the potential to free landing slots equivalent to about a third of the 222,000-flight capacity of a third runway. This proportion is likely to rise significantly with improvements and additions to the high-speed network in the UK and the rest of Europe.
Furthermore, there is an increasingly widespread acknowledgement that the flight growth forecasts in the government’s 2003 aviation white paper should be revisited. The white paper is no longer fit for purpose, drafted as it was in different economic circumstances and before the urgent need to tackle environmental concerns had forced its way up the political agenda.
Eurostar tells us its high-speed trains emit just a tenth of the carbon of competing aviation. Even with a higher-carbon electricity generation mix than Eurostar uses, high-speed trains are far greener than aircraft. And the government’s decision this week to include emissions from aviation in its carbon reduction targets, a decision we support, makes the green case against the third runway even stronger.
Our high-speed link would also boost jobs in the Midlands and the north and help to remedy long-standing imbalances in our economy that have seen more and more pressure piled on the south-east, with the north left at an economic disadvantage and starved of the transport improvements it needs.
Our proposals would take some years to deliver – but so would a third runway. Quite apart from the huge controversy that the planning process would attract, a legal challenge under European Union air quality rules could tie the project up for years. Moreover, the government acknowledges that the usage of a third runway would have to be capped until 2030 anyway; even with its optimistic assumptions, it admits there is no prospect, before then, that technology will deliver the much cleaner, quieter aircraft needed to reconcile an increase to 702,000 flights with the promises Labour has made on pollution and noise around the airport.
The business case for the new rail link we propose is strong. There is an industry consensus that the west coast main line will be full to bursting within a decade, necessitating construction of a new line anyway. It would be a huge lost opportunity not to seize this moment to address three problems – the north/south divide, chronic rail overcrowding and Heathrow – with a single scheme: a scheme, moreover, that we hope will be the foundation of a countrywide high-speed rail network that would transform the UK’s transport infrastructure and radically improve our economic competitiveness.
The writer is shadow transport secretary
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
