tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/heathrow-6582/articlesHeathrow – The Conversation2020-03-09T16:10:24Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1328092020-03-09T16:10:24Z2020-03-09T16:10:24ZHeathrow’s third runway: how dogged persistence stopped London airport expansion<p>In a landmark decision, the UK court of appeal recently ruled that Heathrow Airport’s proposals to build a third runway <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/27/heathrow-third-runway-ruled-illegal-over-climate-change">were unlawful</a> because of their incompatibility with climate legislation. </p>
<p>Speaking on <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000frqk">BBC Politics Live</a>, the journalist Tim Shipman said the decision represented a “massive collective failure of the political class over the last 20 odd years”. Leaders of business and industry, as well as some parts of government were quick to express their concerns about the dangers to “Global Britain” and the perennial difficulties of delivering large-scale infrastructure projects:</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1232979232038555648"}"></div></p>
<p>The ruling does highlight how hard it is for governments to engineer legitimate and practical solutions to the increasingly complex dilemmas they face. Since the 1990s, successive UK governments have tried to push airport expansion, deploying various technologies and policy instruments to decide where and how the new airports or runways should be built. These include extensive public consultations, an independent commission of inquiry, parliamentary deliberations, and new institutions to “manage” noise or to facilitate local community engagement and legitimise whatever decision is taken. </p>
<p>The overriding aim has been to try and <a href="https://theconversation.com/heathrow-2-0-a-sustainable-airport-that-pretends-no-one-has-to-choose-between-planes-and-pollution-74206">depoliticise airport expansion</a> and to secure the consent of affected parties. Of course, such aims have been immensely complicated by a growing awareness of environmental problems such as climate change and air quality, and the problems of financing large-scale projects in an era of neoliberalism, where governments are reluctant to pay directly from the public purse. </p>
<h2>A campaign success</h2>
<p>But the verdict could be better viewed not simply as a failure of government but as a success for political campaigning by local residents, campaigners and environmental activists. </p>
<p>Such efforts go back to an inquiry against a fifth terminal at Heathrow in the late 1990s, if not to debates over a third London airport in the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33285659">late 1960s and early 1970s</a>. Indeed, local residents have been campaigning against aviation noise and expansion at Heathrow since the shifting of flight paths over south-west London in the late 1960s. In fact, for these residents and environmental campaigners, the real lesson of the ruling could be that persistence pays off.</p>
<p>Over the years, campaigners have skilfully exploited the repeated attempts by government to take aviation out of the realms of politics. While the Blair government tried to create a policy consensus over the future of air transport through a national dialogue, its process of consultation only served to deepen divisions, leading to the forging of rival national coalitions for and against expansion. </p>
<p>An independent Airports Commission established in 2012 pushed aviation out of the political arena for a time, but once its <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440316/airports-commission-final-report.pdf">recommendations were published</a> this temporary ceasefire was brought to a close. Campaigners immediately contested the report as well as the commission’s way of working – and indeed the role and character of its chair <a href="http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/08/independence-of-airports-commission-questioned-over-howard-davies-role-in-prudential-which-recently-bought-more-heathrow-property/">Howard Davies</a>.</p>
<p>Even during the deliberations of the Airports Commission, the efforts to take noise off the political agenda backfired. Davies and his fellow commissioners suggested the creation of an <a href="https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7433">Independent Aviation Noise Authority</a> to ensure an “objective” and evidence-led assessment of the noise impacts of any expansion. Yet this initiative just put the issue back to the top of the political agenda, legitimising the demands of local residents and reopening debates over what constitutes noise and its measurement. </p>
<p>The latest setback for Heathrow’s third runway shows that the courts have become once again another arena in which to challenge government decision-making and its support for aviation expansion, with the court of appeal recognising that the Paris climate agreement and the commitment to keep the rise in global temperature to 1.5 degrees centigrade have “binding effects” on government. </p>
<h2>But what’s the alternative?</h2>
<p>So, the real lesson is that persistence matters. But persistent opposition without putting forward a credible alternative only gets you so far.</p>
<p>Back in 2010, the third runway looked buried. But in the following months and years, the aviation industry mounted a <a href="http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2013/10/bosses-urge-heathrows-expansion/">well-funded and successful campaign</a> to get airport expansion back on the agenda of the newly-elected Conservative Party. Today, the politics of persistence has again stopped Heathrow expansion – but again it is hard to see a credible policy and lifestyle alternative to more aviation and more runways. </p>
<p>The upshot is that campaigners and environmentalists now need to go beyond obstruction and negation, and look to propose a credible path for aviation, one which is not just focused on new technologies and “sustainable growth”.</p>
<p>But this would require governments and decision-making bodies to shift away from the expansionist market liberalisation that has dominated aviation policy for the past 30 years. If environmental campaigners want to see their ideas implemented in the longer term, they must begin a cultural battle to reshape established thinking on mobility and future demand. </p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/imagine-newsletter-researchers-think-of-a-world-with-climate-action-113443?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=Imagineheader1132809">Click here to subscribe to our climate action newsletter. Climate change is inevitable. Our response to it isn’t.</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/132809/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Griggs has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Howarth has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. </span></em></p>Persistence pays off – but unless campaigners put forward an alternative, the airports will always be able to fight back.Steven Griggs, Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort UniversityDavid Howarth, Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1207402019-07-29T13:48:39Z2019-07-29T13:48:39ZWe can’t expand airports after declaring a climate emergency – let’s shift to low-carbon transport instead<p>The world may <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/05/greta-thunberg-effect-public-concern-over-environment-reaches-record-high">finally be waking</a> to the reality of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/15/theres-one-key-takeaway-from-last-weeks-ipcc-report">climate</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/revolutionary-change-needed-to-stop-unprecedented-global-extinction-crisis-116166">ecological crisis</a>, after 30 years of inaction. But while the UK parliament has <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-becomes-first-country-to-declare-a-climate-emergency-116428">declared a climate and ecological emergency</a>, ongoing plans for <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-planned-growth-of-uk-airports-not-consistent-with-net-zero-climate-goal">airport expansions</a> suggest we’re flying full-speed towards crisis rather than away from it.</p>
<p>Globally, greenhouse gas emissions from aviation are <a href="https://www.transportenvironment.org/news/aviation-2-3-times-more-damaging-climate-industry-claims">rising rapidly</a>, and set to further escalate. Passenger numbers <a href="https://theconversation.com/aviation-emissions-are-rising-and-industry-solutions-are-just-technological-myths-56032">are rising</a> far too fast for efficiency improvements and alternative technologies, such as electric or biofuel-powered engines, to keep up. What’s worse, the climate impact of flights is <a href="https://www.transportenvironment.org/news/aviation-2-3-times-more-damaging-climate-industry-claims">two to three times larger</a> than their CO₂ emissions alone, due to the release of nitrogen oxides – powerful greenhouse gases – and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/two-crucial-omissions-that-could-jeopardise-paris-climate-deal-52341">contrails</a> planes leave in their wake which trap even more heat in the atmosphere. The aviation industry has also <a href="https://carbonmarketwatch.org/2019/03/28/eu-tax-me-if-you-can/">evaded fuel taxes</a>, emissions regulations, and is often completely omitted in emissions accounting.</p>
<p>This is particularly important as cities are <a href="https://climateemergency.uk/">setting targets</a> to reduce their carbon emissions. While many of these cities have airports, their climate strategies tend to focus on the emissions released within the city’s boundaries and from their electricity use. They don’t account for emissions from <a href="http://www.emissions.leeds.ac.uk/">imported goods and services</a> that are consumed in the city but produced elsewhere, nor from flights through their airports. Any emissions from <a href="https://twitter.com/KA_Nicholas/status/1064813573275336704">residents travelling outside the city</a> are generally omitted. </p>
<h2>Take Leeds for example</h2>
<p>One example is Leeds in the UK, where <a href="https://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/documents/s186136/WEB%20White%20Paper%202%20J%20Blake%20Labour%20-%20Climate%20Emergency.pdf">the city council recently declared a climate emergency</a> and committed the city to emitting no more than 42 megatonnes of CO₂ from 2018 until 2050. But the city’s targets sit uncomfortably alongside plans to <a href="https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/climate-emergency-declaration-slammed-leeds-16106116">expand Leeds Bradford Airport</a>.</p>
<p>The expansion should more than double the number of passengers using the airport every year from 4m to 7.1m by 2030 and 9m by 2050. By 2030, the climate impact of all those flights would be double the target emissions for Leeds as a whole, and by 2045, the overshoot would escalate to almost a factor of 10.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303200/original/file-20191122-74576-11lqgz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303200/original/file-20191122-74576-11lqgz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303200/original/file-20191122-74576-11lqgz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303200/original/file-20191122-74576-11lqgz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303200/original/file-20191122-74576-11lqgz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303200/original/file-20191122-74576-11lqgz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=616&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303200/original/file-20191122-74576-11lqgz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=616&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303200/original/file-20191122-74576-11lqgz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=616&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Climate impact of all flights through Leeds Bradford Airport if passengers increase to 7.1m (red), remain at 2018 level of 4m (yellow) or fall to 1m by 2030 (green), compared to the target emissions for Leeds as a whole (black dashed curve).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jefim Vogel</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By 2050, the combined climate impact of all flights through Leeds Bradford Airport 2018 would be almost double the carbon budget for Leeds as a whole. Even if only one in five passengers are Leeds residents, their flights alone would use up 35% of the city’s entire carbon budget by 2050.</p>
<p>As aviation is governed mostly at a national level, Leeds City Council may argue it has little control over the expansion, but is it even trying to stop it? Their <a href="http://www.leedsgrowthstrategy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Leeds-Inclusive-Growth-Strategy-FINAL.pdf">Inclusive Growth Strategy</a> suggests the opposite: endorsing the expansion and promising new transport links to the airport with a new commercial centre nearby.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303201/original/file-20191122-74576-uvnfi1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303201/original/file-20191122-74576-uvnfi1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303201/original/file-20191122-74576-uvnfi1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303201/original/file-20191122-74576-uvnfi1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303201/original/file-20191122-74576-uvnfi1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303201/original/file-20191122-74576-uvnfi1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303201/original/file-20191122-74576-uvnfi1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303201/original/file-20191122-74576-uvnfi1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Even if passenger numbers remain at 2018 levels, air traffic at Leeds Bradford would overshoot the city’s carbon budget.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jefim Vogel</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Preparing an emergency landing</h2>
<p>If the number of passengers using Leeds Bradford Airport remained at their current levels, all flights from 2018 to 2050 combined would still produce a climate impact equivalent to the entire carbon budget of Leeds. Only if passenger numbers fell drastically could flying become remotely compatible with climate targets. </p>
<p>If cut in half by 2022 and 75% by 2030, the flights of Leeds residents alone would use up 6% of the city’s carbon budget. This might be just low enough to squeeze all other activities in Leeds into the remaining carbon budget – if these are also radically decarbonised.</p>
<p>Such a drastic reduction might seem difficult, but perhaps some flights are more dispensable than others. For UK residents, <a href="https://fullfact.org/economy/do-15-people-take-70-flights/">70% of all flights in 2014 were claimed by just 15% of the population</a>, and while many business leaders fly every week, more than half of the population didn’t fly at all in 2014.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286020/original/file-20190729-43140-1vy6bxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286020/original/file-20190729-43140-1vy6bxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286020/original/file-20190729-43140-1vy6bxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286020/original/file-20190729-43140-1vy6bxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286020/original/file-20190729-43140-1vy6bxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286020/original/file-20190729-43140-1vy6bxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286020/original/file-20190729-43140-1vy6bxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Leeds Bradford Airport in January 2018 – 4m passengers would fly through here that year.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/leeds-yorkshire-united-kingdom-january-2-787269655?src=R-VlFozCRNnThHyChxJtgw-1-0&studio=1">Leeds Fotografica/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Given how sharply the number of flights has to decrease, the difficult question then is who gets to fly, and for what purpose. Should priority be given to someone taking their fourth flight this year to their second home in the Mediterranean, or to someone visiting their family living abroad? And how is this decided? A first step might be to increase taxes in line with the number of flights a person takes, with what’s called <a href="http://afreeride.org/">a frequent flyer levy</a>. </p>
<p>But that’s not enough. Price mechanisms can’t make the value judgements at the heart of this – and they could just make flying exclusive to a rich elite who could still afford it. It seems more appropriate to make these decisions through democratic deliberation processes like <a href="https://sharedfuturecic.org.uk/citizens-assemblies-citizens-juries-and-climate-change/">citizens’ assemblies</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/to-tackle-the-climate-crisis-we-need-more-democracy-not-less-119265">To tackle the climate crisis we need more democracy, not less</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A low-carbon transport system</h2>
<p>Reducing flights will need to come with wider changes in transport systems and society. A large share of current air traffic could be made redundant by using video conferences for meetings. Improving rail transport could make for a low-carbon and affordable alternative to flying for medium-distance travel. More overnight trains with sleeping facilities and better cross-border integration of rail operators would help. Carefully developing attractive holiday locations closer to home, made accessible by electrified public transport, and promoting low-carbon activities like bike trips could also reduce demand for flights.</p>
<p>Another major issue is car transport which accounts for the <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20190313STO31218/co2-emissions-from-cars-facts-and-figures-infographics">lion’s share of transport emissions</a> and causes severe air pollution, with dramatic <a href="https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/">impacts on public health</a>. Road accidents are a <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death">major cause of death</a> worldwide, far <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/death-road-traffic-accidents-kill-malaria-hiv-tb/">exceeding deaths from malaria</a> or war, and road networks and car parks take up lots of public space.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286021/original/file-20190729-43145-6kaox2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286021/original/file-20190729-43145-6kaox2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286021/original/file-20190729-43145-6kaox2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286021/original/file-20190729-43145-6kaox2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286021/original/file-20190729-43145-6kaox2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286021/original/file-20190729-43145-6kaox2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286021/original/file-20190729-43145-6kaox2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Expanding and improving rail travel could make some flights redundant.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/shizuoka-japan-may-05-2017-shinkansen-1006229659?src=JLdshKou7roqGNcQSZmJLQ-1-7&studio=1">Blanscape/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Making transport systems sustainable means ending <a href="https://www.slideshare.net/GiulioMattioli/the-system-of-car-provision-elements-of-a-political-economy-of-car-dependence">the dependence on car travel</a>. This involves massively expanding reliable and affordable, low-carbon public transport within and between cities. It also means <a href="http://www.unlockingsustainablecities.org/car-free.html">better urban planning</a>, with more bike lanes, bike sharing and car-free zones. Suburbs should be designed so that a car isn’t necessary for getting around. And a drastically reduced car fleet could be bound to fuel efficiency standards before eventually becoming fully electric.</p>
<p>Deep and rapid changes to the world’s transport systems are needed to halt climate change, and many of these would also <a href="https://theconversation.com/imagine-newsletter-researchers-think-of-a-world-with-climate-action-113443">improve human well-being and public life</a>. But to get there involves <a href="https://medium.com/@JKSteinberger/climate-breakdown-capitalism-and-democracy-e11b16c7d9ef">challenging powerful vested interests</a> in aviation and the car and oil industries. The challenges are vast, but doing nothing means <a href="https://www.breakthroughonline.org.au/papers">accepting an unacceptable future</a>.</p>
<p><em>This article was amended on November 22 2019 to include updated figures on the carbon budget of Leeds and the projected increase from the expansion of Leeds Bradford Airport.</em></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/imagine-newsletter-researchers-think-of-a-world-with-climate-action-113443?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=Imagineheader1120740">Click here to subscribe to our climate action newsletter. Climate change is inevitable. Our response to it isn’t.</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120740/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jefim Vogel receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust through the 'Living Well Within Limits' project.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joel Millward-Hopkins receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust through the 'Living Well Within Limits' project.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Yannick Oswald receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust through the 'Living Well Within Limits' project. </span></em></p>Turning from the conflict of airport expansions to a vision of a low-carbon transport system.Jefim Vogel, PhD Researcher in Ecological Economics, University of LeedsJoel Millward-Hopkins, Postdoctoral Researcher in Sustainability, University of LeedsYannick Oswald, PhD Researcher in Ecological Economics, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/987812018-06-25T21:24:20Z2018-06-25T21:24:20ZHeathrow’s third runway is expensive, polluting and unequal – why the poor will lose out<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224642/original/file-20180625-19382-srgser.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>After more than a decade of debate, the expansion of London’s Heathrow airport has been <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44609898">given the green light</a> after MPs voted in favour of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/airports-national-policy-statement">government’s plans</a> to add a third runway. Construction could begin as early as 2021. However, in all the deliberation over costs and connectivity, the biggest losers from this decision have been largely left out of the discussion – the poor.</p>
<p>London Heathrow is the busiest airport in the UK with 48m passengers beginning or ending their journeys in London, and an additional 28m making interconnecting flights to other destinations. A third runway will increase the total capacity to 130m (that’s a 71% increase) and the number of flights will increase <a href="https://www.heathrowexpansion.com/">to 740,000 a year (up 56%)</a>. But who will be the new passengers flying to and from LHR?</p>
<p><a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07F2QMS6X/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1530166792&sr=1-1&keywords=banister">My analysis</a> of National Travel Survey data and the Civil Aviation Authority’s Air Passenger Surveys shows that just under half of the UK population has flown in the last year (47%), and this figure has been stable over the last 15 years. Most of those that do fly make one or two trips a year (31%). This means that 10% of the population makes about 60% of all flights, and as might be expected these people are mainly from the highest income groups. </p>
<p>The richest 10% make nearly seven times as many trips by air as the poorest 10% of the population. The inequality in air travel in the UK is far higher than any other form of travel, with the exception of high speed rail (more than ten times). Figures for the other forms of transport are much lower, with the difference for car travel being less than three times. When it comes to buses, the poor make far more trips than the rich – the poorest 10% making 109 bus trips a year, as compared with 29 bus trips a year for the richest 10%.</p>
<p>Some might argue that low-cost airlines have helped rebalance this inequality, but <a href="https://www.caa.co.uk/data-and-analysis/uk-aviation-market/airports/datasets/uk-airport-data/">the evidence</a> would suggest overall that cheaper flights have enabled those already flying to travel more frequently and possibly to save money. </p>
<p>Inequality is important as it reflects on societal values and the argument that society as a whole should gain from public investment. But it is equally important to identify who are the winners and who are the losers. This is about fairness and justice. </p>
<h2>Counting the costs</h2>
<p>This is particularly the case when large amounts of public money are involved. The new runway is estimated <a href="http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-surface-access-analysis-note-17-01-15.pdf">to cost £14 billion</a>, with a similar amount being needed to improve road and rail links to the airport. A substantial part of this funding will come from the government and Transport for London.</p>
<p>And, despite making limited use of the new runway, low-income people will be affected by it indirectly through additional CO₂ emissions. Overall, the richest 10% of households produce three times the levels of CO₂ emissions than those <a href="http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/CASEpaper152.pdf">from the poorest 10% of households</a>. For transport the difference is between seven to eight times and ten times for aviation. </p>
<p>New runway capacity at Heathrow will increase this difference, as more rich people fly further and more frequently. Local pollutants (like nitrogen oxides) and the noise impact are also likely to increase from the additional planes (and traffic). This means that it will become much harder to meet CO₂ reduction targets and improve local air quality – and air quality around Heathrow <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/astonishing-cost-to-public-health-of-heathrow">is already very poor</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224643/original/file-20180625-19408-1wyq1cl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224643/original/file-20180625-19408-1wyq1cl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224643/original/file-20180625-19408-1wyq1cl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224643/original/file-20180625-19408-1wyq1cl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224643/original/file-20180625-19408-1wyq1cl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224643/original/file-20180625-19408-1wyq1cl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/224643/original/file-20180625-19408-1wyq1cl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Air quality around Heathrow is already poor.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/">Jaroslaw Kilian / Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Even the argument about the importance of increased airport capacity to the local and national economies is weak. Business air travel accounts for about 20% of all passengers in the UK, with the figure for Heathrow <a href="https://www.caa.co.uk/data-and-analysis/uk-aviation-market/airports/datasets/uk-airport-data/">being higher (30%)</a>. But this is not a growing market. It has been relatively stable in recent years, as the growth in air travel has come from leisure travel and visiting friends and relatives.</p>
<p>In addition, UK residents spend more overseas than others do coming to the UK. In 2016, UK residents made 71m overseas visits and the <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/traveltrends2016">total spend was £43.8 billion</a>. Whereas there were 38m visits to the UK and the total spend was £22.5 billion. </p>
<p>The clear conclusion is that on grounds of inequality, environment and spend, building additional airport capacity at Heathrow does not add up, as it will enable the richest 10% to fly even more and spend their money overseas. It will be the poorest 10% that stay in the UK, and they will suffer from even higher levels of CO₂ emissions and poorer levels of air quality.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98781/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Banister does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A Heathrow expansion is going to benefit the rich and hurt the poor.David Banister, Emeritus Professor of Transport Studies, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/952892018-04-23T20:10:50Z2018-04-23T20:10:50ZMelbourne Airport is going to be as busy as Heathrow, so why the argument about one train line?<p>Public discussion of rail links to airports has been narrowly focused on the idea of a single line and <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/what-s-my-line-route-dispute-could-delay-airport-rail-by-five-years-20180412-p4z99u.html">where to run it</a>. In Melbourne, the politics of this debate has so far prevented a railway from being built, because it is not possible for one line to meet all of the landside access needs of the airport.
The issue of rail access for a new western Sydney airport has also not been resolved.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/flying-into-uncertainty-western-sydneys-aerotropolis-poses-more-questions-than-answers-73682">Flying into uncertainty: Western Sydney's 'aerotropolis' poses more questions than answers</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>If we want anything to happen at all, we must move beyond barracking for one or other route. We have to recognise the need for multiple lines to serve everyone’s needs.</p>
<p>If we look further afield, of the world’s top 20 airports, 16 have rail access, 14 have integrated metros (i.e. part of the commuter rail network) and four have dedicated express lines as well as integrated metro lines (<a href="https://www.heathrow.com/transport-and-directions">London Heathrow</a>, <a href="http://www.haneda-tokyo-access.com/en/transport/">Tokyo Haneda</a>, <a href="https://www.shanghai-airport.com/transport.php">Shanghai Pudong</a> and <a href="https://www.bangkokairportonline.com/public-transport-services-at-suvarnabhumi-airport/">Bangkok Suvarnabhumi</a>).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215711/original/file-20180420-163995-4sw11k.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215711/original/file-20180420-163995-4sw11k.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215711/original/file-20180420-163995-4sw11k.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=171&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215711/original/file-20180420-163995-4sw11k.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=171&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215711/original/file-20180420-163995-4sw11k.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=171&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215711/original/file-20180420-163995-4sw11k.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=215&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215711/original/file-20180420-163995-4sw11k.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=215&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215711/original/file-20180420-163995-4sw11k.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=215&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Other busy airports like Heathrow offer a much better choice of transport options than Melbourne does.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.heathrow.com/transport-and-directions">Heathrow</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In terms of passenger demand, Shanghai Pudong and Bangkok Suvarnabhumi <a href="http://www.ttf.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/TTF-Rapid-Buses-Road-Rail-Melbourne-Airport-2013.pdf">were comparable in 2012</a> with <a href="https://www.melbourneairport.com.au/Corporate/Planning-projects/Master-plan">where Melbourne will be in 2019</a>. London and Bangkok have populations of around 8 million, have other airports and have much greater numbers of passengers transferring within them than Melbourne Airport, but the most salient comparison is the means of landslide access.</p>
<p>We’ll look more closely at Heathrow, one of the more comparable airports to Melbourne, later in this article.</p>
<h2>The political divide on a rail link</h2>
<p>The history of planning for a Melbourne Airport rail link has been dogged by party-political differences focused on the idea of a single railway and the question of its route out to Tullamarine. Traditionally, the Coalition parties have favoured the express proposals, while the Labor Party has preferred alignments that benefit local commuters.</p>
<p>This difference and the impossibility of resolving it with a single line would be one of the reasons we have so far not gone to the bother of actually building anything. It has also distracted attention from more incremental ways to improve landside access to the airport beyond the <a href="https://www.skybus.com.au/">SkyBus</a>. Its market is similar to the main targets of the express route proponents.</p>
<p>The most recent express proposal is the <a href="http://www.railfutures.org.au/2018/04/rfi-media-release-on-federal-governments-melbourne-airport-commitment/">AirTrain</a> by the highly respected <a href="http://www.railfutures.org.au/2017/05/airtrain-the-airport-train-melbourne-needs/">Rail Futures Institute</a> (RFI), which would connect regional lines and the coming Melbourne Metro line through a newly expanded station at Sunshine. It’s part of a bold plan to separate Victorian regional services from the metropolitan commuter network. This would eventually provide statewide fast rail services, including a 15-minute ride between the airport and Southern Cross Station in the city centre.</p>
<p>The benefits of and urgent need for RFI’s AirTrain proposal are clear. But it still won’t solve all of Melbourne Airport’s landside access demands, nor will it have the city-shaping potential in the northwest region between Tullamarine and the CBD that’s driving the ideas for an airport metro service. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/airport-rail-link-can-open-up-new-possibilities-for-the-rest-of-melbourne-80203">Airport rail link can open up new possibilities for the rest of Melbourne</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull’s <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/malcolm-turnbull-pledges-5b-for-melbourne-airport-rail-link-20180411-p4z93a.html">embrace</a> of these ideas is a welcome change from his side of politics, as is Premier Daniel Andrews’ <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-23/melbourne-airport-rail-link-could-be-well-underway-by-2026/9182036">apparent support</a> for RFI’s proposal. These are amusing reversals of political positions on airport access, but the community should not be swayed by the potential for wedging.</p>
<h2>We can learn from Heathrow</h2>
<p>To understand our predicament of airport access, comparisons with London’s Heathrow are useful. Many Australians know this airport and its landside access demands are far more similar to those of Melbourne Airport than may be imagined.</p>
<p>The Piccadilly Tube line was extended to Heathrow in 1977. That was a decade before it was serving over <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport#Flight_movements">30 million passengers</a> comparable to what Melbourne airport was <a href="https://www.melbourneairport.com.au/Corporate/Planning-projects/Master-plan">serving in 2013</a>. </p>
<p>In 1998, Heathrow added a 15-minute express rail line to Paddington Station, when its landside access needs were about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport#Flight_movements">40 million</a>. That’s the demand Melbourne Airport is projected to hit in <a href="https://www.melbourneairport.com.au/Corporate/Planning-projects/Master-plan">2019</a>. When London’s <a href="http://www.crossrail.co.uk/">Elizabeth line</a> (formerly CrossRail) opens next year, it will connect Heathrow to a major east-west line similar to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_Metro_Rail_Project">Melbourne Metro</a>.</p>
<p>In 2028, Melbourne Airport is <a href="https://www.melbourneairport.com.au/Corporate/Planning-projects/Master-plan">projected</a> to hit the same level of landside access demand as Heathrow experienced in 2017. Currently, 40% of passengers using Heathrow do so via public transport – 27% via rail, 13% via bus or coach. And 35% of airport staff use public transport, and this is rising. </p>
<p>Heathrow has 13 public bus lines, 27 coach services and three railway services - the stopping-all-stations commuter service on the Piccadilly line and two levels of express service at premium ticket prices on regional railways (which will be subsumed by CrossRail). </p>
<p>By comparison, even though it is one of the world’s busiest, Melbourne Airport has a mere four public buses, some regional coaches and private express bus services. As a result, 86% of access is by car, including 17% by taxi or limo. SkyBus would take the lion’s share of the 14% bus/coach access.</p>
<h2>What do these comparisons tell us?</h2>
<p>These comparisons show how much more can be done to improve public transport access to Melbourne Airport, in the short, medium and long term. <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/melbourne-needs-two-new-rail-tunnels-by-2035-council-says-20180419-p4zalf.html">Melbourne Airport needs express as well as commuter rail access</a>, but it needs <a href="https://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/application/files/1915/2412/4069/Transport_Strategy_Public_Transport_Background_Paper.pdf">more than this</a>.</p>
<p>A wider spread of frequent public buses would be easy to implement. Extending the 59 tram service by 7km from Airport West would also be relatively quick and easy. Light rail lines to the airport from La Trobe University and Deer Park would provide much-needed connections to the main commuter rail system in parts of the metropolitan area where public transport is far worse than average.</p>
<p>A genuine commuter metro to the airport would not try to be an express. It would have stations that connect the major and emerging employment centres, such as Airport West, Essendon Fields, Niddrie, Highpoint, Footscray Hospital and Victoria University, and heavy rail stations at Arden and North Melbourne, before connecting with Southern Cross and then Bourke Street, Parliament Station and on to those eastern suburbs where metro services have long been planned. </p>
<p>Such a line would help with the redevelopment of <a href="https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/marise-payne/media-releases/defence-site-maribyrnong-sale-process-commences">Commonwealth land in Maribyrnong</a>. In fact, without it, redevelopment would not be viable.</p>
<p>The politics of airport access need to be shifted away from focusing on whether one rail route is better than another to the need for a <a href="https://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/transportstrategy/public-transport-network">comprehensive transport plan</a> integrated with land use that shows how we can shape our city and our state for a better future.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/victoria-needs-a-big-picture-transport-plan-that-isnt-about-winners-v-losers-65567">Victoria needs a big-picture transport plan that isn't about winners v losers</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95289/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Woodcock has conducted independent academic research funded by the Australian Research Council, the Victorian State Government and various local governments and private sector organisations. He has consulted for the City of Melbourne, and is affiliated with various non-profit organisations advocating for better planning and transport.
</span></em></p>Good public access for Melbourne Airport and others like it depends on not fixating on one solution, like a single rail line, but instead developing multiple options integrated with the city’s needs.Ian Woodcock, Lecturer, School of Global, Urban & Social Studies, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/742062017-03-14T14:16:49Z2017-03-14T14:16:49ZHeathrow 2.0: a ‘sustainable airport’ that pretends no one has to choose between planes and pollution<p>Britain and Europe’s largest airport is not the most obvious target for an eco-friendly rebranding. Yet Heathrow Airport recently unveiled a new sustainability strategy, <a href="http://your.heathrow.com/sustainability/">Heathrow 2.0</a>, to counter growing opposition to its expansion plans.</p>
<p>Both the government and an independent Airports Commission have backed proposals to construct a new third runway at London’s largest airport hub. But the plans remain highly contested, with ongoing concerns about noise pollution, air quality and rising carbon emissions. Heathrow expansion has become an emblematic issue in the <a href="http://londonist.com/2015/07/plane-stupid-protesters-occupy-heathrow-runway">fight against climate change</a>.</p>
<p>At first glance, it is tempting to dismiss the launch of Heathrow 2.0 as yet another attempt at <a href="http://greenwashingindex.com/about-greenwashing/">greenwashing</a>. Indeed, those in favour of the new runway have made sustained efforts to depoliticise the issue ever since the 2010-2015 coalition government declared its ambition to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8678282.stm">put the environment and local well-being ahead</a> of Heathrow’s growth. An airport that exists above politics gives the illusion that no one has to choose between planes and pollution.</p>
<p>In fact, the current plans to render its new runway carbon neutral echo the failed policy of “sustainable aviation” under the New Labour government. This strategy was quickly discredited by scientists and environmentalists, because of its <a href="http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9780719076138/">“cake and eat it” narrative</a>, in which we could fly more and still cope with rising carbon emissions.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"836594560813924353"}"></div></p>
<p>Nonetheless, such arguments pepper <a href="https://your.heathrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Heathrow2.0.pdf">Heathrow’s new vision for corporate social responsibility</a>. Much is made of the expected benefits of new technologies and innovations, the role of increased connectivity in creating jobs, the enjoyment we gain from the social benefits of flying, and the commitment to carbon offsetting schemes to address rising emissions. Heathrow 2.0 even aspires to “‘decouple’ aviation growth from climate change” – a key pillar of <a href="http://www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9780719076138/">the ideology of sustainable aviation</a>.</p>
<p>Yet Heathrow’s strategy at least engages with the idea of sustainable development, through what it calls “responsibility”. It promises to improve its practices as an employer, committing to a London Living Wage, and it pledges to put an end to human and wildlife trafficking. It wants to produce a “zero-carbon airport” with reduced emissions and “polluter pays” policies. Heathrow 2.0 might even satisfy local demands for better noise protection.</p>
<p>But it’s the detail that really matters. In important respects, the plans lack clarity and ambition. Strategic priorities like a “noise envelope” to cap the overall disturbance emanating from the airport are often stated, but not accompanied with clear targets. Similarly, it is questionable whether locals will be too enthusiastic about targets to reduce late running aircraft after 11.30pm from 330 in 2016 to 270 in 2017. Or whether they will welcome no arrivals before 4.30am without clarity over the agreement to ban night flights from 11pm to 6am.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160711/original/image-20170314-10720-1dqafbs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160711/original/image-20170314-10720-1dqafbs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160711/original/image-20170314-10720-1dqafbs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160711/original/image-20170314-10720-1dqafbs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160711/original/image-20170314-10720-1dqafbs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160711/original/image-20170314-10720-1dqafbs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160711/original/image-20170314-10720-1dqafbs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160711/original/image-20170314-10720-1dqafbs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Heathrow expansion has angered local residents and climate activists.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dinendra Haria / shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Where is the government?</h2>
<p>As Heathrow itself accepts, importantly, the airport cannot deliver on most of the claims it makes. Of course, a carbon neutral airport is a worthy ideal. But it is the flights themselves that cause most carbon emissions and account for much of the noise pollution, while traffic to and from the airport also creates air pollution. Heathrow cannot control or make guarantees about fixing any of this.</p>
<p>Indeed, at the heart of these limits to Heathrow 2.0 is the failure of the May government. The airport is simply trying to fill the void left by Theresa May and transport secretary Chris Grayling, who have abandoned their responsibility to offer policy leadership in this field. </p>
<p>A recent Heathrow report by MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/news-parliament-2015/heathrow-expansion-report-published-16-17/">criticised the government</a> for its lax interpretation of air quality directives, its failure to address local health impacts, its overly ambitious targets for ultra-low emission vehicles, and its absence of detailed plans for road improvements and new rail access to the airport. The committee also criticised the government for watering down proposals for an independent aviation noise authority and for not being clear about how to bridge the gap between theoretical models to reduce emissions and actual policy.</p>
<p>Most concerning is that this absence of leadership betrays the emergence of a new “post-sustainable” aviation, designed to accommodate the challenges of Brexit. Gone are the attempts by the previous government to put climate change before new airports. In their place, the vital justifications and mechanisms for an expansionist agenda are carefully being assembled. </p>
<p>The risk is that green concerns will be pushed further to the margins, as people are increasingly urged to believe that human progress and innovation are enough to meet environmental challenges. In this emerging discourse, the demands of economic growth trump those of the environment and social well-being.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74206/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Howarth receives funding from the ESRC. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Griggs receives funding from Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE).
</span></em></p>Those backing Heathrow’s proposed new runway want to depoliticise the issue entirely. But hard choices are inevitable.David Howarth, Professor of Ideology and Discourse Analysis, University of EssexSteven Griggs, Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/698082016-12-02T12:36:58Z2016-12-02T12:36:58ZHeathrow, Brexit and a pointless political suicide – that Richmond by-election in full<p>The 2016 <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38178486">Richmond Park by-election</a> must surely be one of the most frivolous and pointless instances of political suicide in recent British political history.</p>
<p>Conservative incumbent Zac Goldsmith should perhaps be praised for sticking to his promise of resigning if the government backed a third runway for <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/heathrow-6582">Heathrow airport</a> to stand as an independent candidate. But he could clearly have done far more to support his cause had he not made that promise.</p>
<p>It can only be hoped that his defeat by Liberal Democrat Sarah Olney will put an end to the expensive and self-indulgent trend of MPs stepping down, only to then run in the subsequent by-election.</p>
<p>While Richmond is traditionally a Conservative area, the party’s lead has often been relatively modest (and non-existent for a while after 1997) in the current constituency and its predecessors. Goldsmith won by a significant margin – a majority of 23,000 – in the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000896">2015 election</a>, but that was unusual and linked to the general Lib Dem collapse that year.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrat victory in this by-election is a serious upset, for Goldsmith himself obviously, but also for the government. With one fewer Conservative MP, its already <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/">narrow majority</a> has been cut further. The idea that Goldsmith was an independent candidate was always somewhat fictitious considering the <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/zac-goldsmith-conservatives-vow-not-to-field-candidate-in-richmond-park-byelection-after-mp-quits-a3378666.html">lack of an official Conservative candidate</a>. This is very much a defeat for the Conservatives, regardless of Goldsmith’s formal non-affiliation. The bottom line is that a Conservative-held seat has gone to the opposition.</p>
<h2>‘Zacxit’</h2>
<p>Ironically, the decision by the Conservative Party to not run a candidate may actually have harmed Goldsmith’s main appeal – his opposition to Heathrow. </p>
<p>Regardless of their personal views on the issue, any Conservative candidate would inevitably have been seen as the Heathrow candidate due to the government’s decision to support the third runway. The absence of a Heathrow candidate (all the other significant candidates opposed the runway plans) meant that the Lib Dems’ tactic of turning the by-election into a referendum on what kind of Brexit the country wanted, rather than a referendum on Heathrow, had a far easier time than it otherwise would. Obviously, a Conservative candidate would have split Goldsmith’s vote, but at least he would have had a more solid target for his anti-Heathrow position.</p>
<p>For Goldsmith himself this is almost certainly the humiliating end of an otherwise promising political career. High office was perhaps unlikely to be in the offering but he was a diligent and hardworking local MP. However, his campaign for London Mayor <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2016/apr/21/zac-goldsmith-must-be-held-to-account-for-his-poisonous-london-mayor-campaign">was deeply divisive and unpopular</a>, even with his own party. Having now thrown away a Conservative-held seat for his own personal gratification he is unlikely to find another local Conservative association to make him their candidate.</p>
<p>In wider terms, this result suggests that an anti-Brexit campaign can still succeed despite evidence that Remainers have, to a large extent, accepted that leaving the EU will happen. It does seem that concerns over the specific terms of the departure can be leveraged for electoral gain.</p>
<p>This will no doubt be used by Remain campaigners to argue that there is support for soft Brexit. However, one should not read too much into the result in a Brexit context. It does appear that the Lib Dems’ anti-leave, or at least soft Brexit position resonated, but Richmond Park was also one of the most staunchly Remain constituencies in the country. A similar approach is unlikely to have much success in areas where Leave support is lower. This campaign mobilised existing Remain support. It is unlikely to have changed the minds of any Leave voters.</p>
<h2>What happened to a progressive alliance?</h2>
<p>Much has been said of a so-called <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/04/greens-alliances-work-britain-progressive-parties">“progressive alliance”</a> of opposition parties working together to take on the government. And indeed, this victory could be seen as a slightly more positive end to a year that has been pretty disastrous for “progressives”. However, no such alliance was in evidence in Richmond Park.</p>
<p>Labour stuck stubbornly to its Clause I objective to “support, and promote the election of Labour Party representatives at all levels”, regardless of how unlikely victory might be. The local Green Party did agree not to run anyone in the by-election but, at the same time, refused to endorse Olney. </p>
<p>Clearly, for a progressive alliance to have hope of success, progressive parties need to be willing to give others a clear run, and be politically mature enough to support the progressive candidate most likely to win, regardless of how weak one might believe their progressive credentials are.</p>
<p>At the very least, had the Labour Party had the sense to have gone with the “progressive alliance” line in a constituency where it had no chance of ever winning, it could have avoided the humiliation of that traditional symptom of a party in trouble: the <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/labour-lost-deposit-richmond-by-election-2016-12">lost deposit</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69808/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robin Pettitt is a member of the Loughton Residence Association and the Women's Equality Party.</span></em></p>A tory political career ends, a Lib Dem’s begins – and Labour loses its deposit.Robin Pettitt, Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics, Kingston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/676742016-10-26T09:22:52Z2016-10-26T09:22:52Z#Hypernormalisation – and why Heathrow plan is proof we exist in a catastrophic fantasyland<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143253/original/image-20161026-11252-het4f9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Altered states.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/dl2_lim.mhtml?src=51QF1MclrroU2pNWcNjoRQ-1-12&id=141168931&size=medium_jpg">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The British government recently gave the <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/expansion-of-heathrow-airport-approved-by-ministers-a3377796.html">green light for Heathrow airport’s third runway</a>. It was heralded by its supporters as a vital boost for jobs and growth – and proof that the UK was “open for business”. The transport secretary, Chris Grayling, referred to the decision as “truly momentous” while for the prime minister, Theresa May, the planned expansion is “vital for the economic future of the whole of the UK”. </p>
<p>The decision has already been vociferously opposed by environmental campaigners. Simply stated, flying is a significant source of air pollution, and a carbon-intensive means of moving people around, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/travel/video/2016/oct/25/layers-of-london-air-traffic-build-up-over-24-hours-video-animation">despite technological developments and modifications</a>. Airport expansions puts, as Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas describes it, “<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/heathrow-expansion-gatwick-green-party-theresa-may-carbon-emissions-wealthy-a7379136.html">a wrecking ball through the UK’s climate change commitments</a>”. </p>
<p>The decision to approve airport expansion is indeed “truly momentous” – because it shows just how far governments, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/14/unions-write-to-labour-mps-urging-them-to-back-heathrow-expansion">but also trade unions</a>, businesses and many individuals, are willing to go in denying that climate change and related ecological crises require us to significantly change the way we live. In fact, as a policy move, it arguably epitomises the phenomena of “hypernormalisation”, as described in Adam Curtis’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/oct/15/hypernormalisation-adam-curtis-trump-putin-syria">new documentary</a> of the same name. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AUiqaFIONPQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>HyperNormalisation was commissioned by the BBC and released as an iplayer exclusive on October 16 2016 – you can watch it <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04b183c/adam-curtis-hypernormalisation">here</a>. Curtis is a fascinating filmmaker. He weaves archive footage of events over the past half-century into provocative historical narratives. His commentary is informed by sociological theory, political economy and much more besides. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tVx3lt8ZKHw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Are we living in the real world?</h2>
<p>HyperNormalisation is no exception. It clocks in at just under three hours and takes in numerous people, places and events. Curtis’s overarching claim is that those in power have been increasingly incapable of dealing with a sequence of global issues with any meaningful plan. They are devoid of any vision beyond the maintenance of the status quo. He uses the term hypernormalisation to explain the prevailing response of politicians to this state of affairs, and the effect it has on the wider population.</p>
<p>Alexei Yurchak coined the term in his 2006 book <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8102.html">Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More: The Last Soviet Generation</a>. He uses it to describe Soviet life in the 1970s, when the population was pushed to maintain the façade of a socialist utopia to the point that it was impossible to see beyond this system, despite everyone knowing it was an illusion. </p>
<p>This manically heightened state of fake normality – and collective investment in it – is “hypernormalisation”. Curtis uses the term more loosely. He argues that it can be used to make sense of the maintenance of a simplified, reassuring and fake version of the world in the face of unprecedented global challenges that incumbent governments and power alliances do not have the competence or inclination to address. Climate change and environmental disasters do not loom large in the HyperNormalisation film, but they are, for me, an extension of the phenomenon – precisely the kind of challenge we might expect to be “hypernormalised”. </p>
<p>The decision to approve Heathrow’s third runway is a government policy manifestation of hypernormalisation. Those in power simply do not have the capacity or willingness for leadership on climate change as an issue that demands societal transformation. The alternative, if we apply Curtis’s logic, is to strive to maintain a narrative in which these issues do not appear to really matter. Everything, we are told instead, is going to be fine. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/R13YQy05n1w?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Instead of dealing with the real issues at hand, we will instead be admitted to the fantasy land of accelerated mobility and consumption. In this alternate reality, the “environmental future” must not impinge on May’s “economic future”. </p>
<h2>The dangers beyond the fantasy</h2>
<p>But of course events are unfolding in the world outside the hypernormal narrative of business as usual: the well-documented forces unleashed by the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, the ongoing extinction and displacement of countless species, warming and acidifying oceans, deforestation and arctic melting. </p>
<p>These forces are the product of industrial society and capitalism, now exacerbated by the demands of a globalised consumerism. We know that the practices and pastimes that make up these societies, including frequent and long-haul flying, are unsustainable. Every government leader in the world knows this. But the psychological and social processes we engage in to avoid confronting the implications of climate change are now well documented in the social sciences – as <a href="http://discoversociety.org/2015/03/01/apocalypse-when-not-thinking-and-talking-about-climate-change/">individual and collective forms of denial</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143255/original/image-20161026-11252-57la8a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143255/original/image-20161026-11252-57la8a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143255/original/image-20161026-11252-57la8a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143255/original/image-20161026-11252-57la8a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143255/original/image-20161026-11252-57la8a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143255/original/image-20161026-11252-57la8a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143255/original/image-20161026-11252-57la8a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What a pretty sunrise.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-122042254/stock-photo-polluting-factory-at-dawn-also-see-video-3152725.html?src=51QF1MclrroU2pNWcNjoRQ-1-4">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is even claimed that the closer a threatening event, the <a href="http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art34/">more manically we defend existing worldviews and associated ways of life</a>. There is no reason to assume that these dynamics are any less prevalent in our leaders and decision-makers in business, government and trade unions.</p>
<p>These dynamics of denial and displacement are precisely those that reflect and maintain a state of hypernormalisation. So airport expansion can be heralded unequivocally as “momentous”, “correct” and “bold” in the same week that global concentrations of CO<sub>2</sub> pass <a href="http://400.350.org">400 parts per million</a>. It is a policy move which simply does not make sense … unless we are operating in an atmosphere of hypernormalisation. </p>
<p>Defending it on behalf of our “economic future” is a grotesquely comic perpetuation of that fakery. If it goes ahead, it is likely that history will judge the expansion of Heathrow as an act of collusive madness, a desperate attempt to add another coat to the painted theatre set of the hypernormal.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67674/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Adams does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Lessons from the Soviet Union reveal how we can fret about climate change and celebrate Heathrow’s expansion at the same time.Matthew Adams, Principal Lecturer in Psychology, University of BrightonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/675832016-10-26T09:08:22Z2016-10-26T09:08:22ZHeathrow airport may have government approval, but it’s a long way from take off<p>Theresa May’s cabinet has endorsed the proposal <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-decides-on-new-runway-at-heathrow">to build a third runway at Heathrow</a>. It follows 15 years of deliberations over where to expand the UK’s airport capacity. But the decision is less the beginning of the end than the end of the beginning.</p>
<p>The government “approval” still has to be voted through parliament – not scheduled until late next year – and plans for the new runway must also go through a rigorous planning approval process. </p>
<p>There has been much agonising, mainly on account of the <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/news-parliament-2015/airports-commission-report-15-16/">environmental impact</a> – noise and local air pollution – of adding capacity to an already large airport within the bounds of London. MPs that represent affected constituencies are generally opposed, including foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, and education secretary, Justine Greening. </p>
<p>They have been given freedom to object to the decision for a limited time – in aberration of the ministerial code of collective responsibility, which requires cabinet ministers to support government positions. London mayor, Sadiq Khan, is also opposed, preferring expansion at Gatwick, well away from his domain.</p>
<p>But Heathrow is the decision favoured by big business. It was also the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440316/airports-commission-final-report.pdf">recommendation of the Airports Commission</a> – the independent report commissioned by the government to propose the best solution to the country’s airport capacity problem. </p>
<h2>Next steps</h2>
<p>The process for delivering planning consent for airport expansion will involve an airports “national policy statement”. This is the process that all big infrastructure projects must go through whereby the government sets out its case for the project, followed by public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, before the policy statement is finalised.</p>
<p>These <a href="https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/national-policy-statements/">national policy statements</a> are a statutory requirement. They provide the framework within which planning inspectors make their recommendations, and are intended to prevent national issues being reopened at a later stage.</p>
<p>Consultation on the Heathrow policy statement would probably take around a year, given the range and contention of the issues involved, and would allow all parties to have their say. Concerns about local air pollution will be prominent. Expect there to be debate, for example, over unpublished (and disputed) <a href="http://www.aef.org.uk/2016/10/06/%e2%80%8bheathrow-air-pollution-research-challenged-by-aviation-environment-federation/">research</a> by the University of Cambridge, which finds that the marginal increase in nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) pollution associated with airport expansion would be against the background of reduced NO₂ from other traffic, if Heathrow was expanded.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143260/original/image-20161026-11256-uv6nxl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/143260/original/image-20161026-11256-uv6nxl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143260/original/image-20161026-11256-uv6nxl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143260/original/image-20161026-11256-uv6nxl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143260/original/image-20161026-11256-uv6nxl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143260/original/image-20161026-11256-uv6nxl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/143260/original/image-20161026-11256-uv6nxl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Aerial view of Heathrow.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport#/media/File:London_-_Heathrow_(LHR_-_EGLL)_AN1572653.jpg">Konstantin Von Wedelstaedt</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are also questions about the affordability of a third runway at Heathrow. Willie Walsh, chief executive of British Airways, has questioned the costs of expansion <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/05/cheaper-heathrow-expansion-plan-willie-walsh-third-runway">and the impact on landing charges</a>. He said: “I honestly can’t see how you can spend that much money on an airport and not discourage people from flying there.”</p>
<p>Gatwick – the alternative option – is unlikely to cease campaigning in the meantime. It <a href="http://www.gatwickobviously.com/debate">has argued vigorously</a> that it should be allowed to add another runway, which would be built faster, be less costly and have less of an f an environmental impact than Heathrow. </p>
<p>An issue for the draft national policy statement is whether Gatwick should have the option of expanding, as well as Heathrow, to achieve more competition. This, however, could lead to the owners of Stansted Airport <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/14/heathrow-gatwick-runways-theresa-may-manchester-airports-group">launching a legal challenge</a>, on the grounds that it has not been given the opportunity to present its own case for expansion.</p>
<h2>A long way to go</h2>
<p>When it is scrutinised in parliament, the Heathrow expansion plans will face probing questions, not least from the <a href="http://www.heathrowappg.com/heathrow-expansion-a-risk-assessment-press-release/">All Party Parliamentary Group on Heathrow</a>, which has already identified 16 serious risks that could stop or delay expansion. As well as the pollution issue, these include concerns about excessive noise, and a whole variety of likely legal challenges. It will then face a vote, which is likely to be a free one to allow dissenting Conservative MPs to register the unhappiness of their constituents – so no assured outcome here.</p>
<p>Evidently, there is a long way to go before construction could start at Heathrow. The timeline includes publication of the draft airports national policy statement, public consultation, the government’s response, parliamentary scrutiny and endorsement (all of which could take a year), a public examination by a planning inspector of the detailed plans (which could take another year), the inspector’s report, and the final decision of the secretary of state for transport. </p>
<p>In the meantime, the finances would need to be agreed, including the necessary increase in airport landing charges to recover the costs, as well as the issue of who pays for surface transport provision.</p>
<p>It is worth recalling that planning consent for the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/hinkley-point-c-13861">Hinkley Point C nuclear power station</a> was originally given in 1990, following a year-long public inquiry. Agreement to begin construction was reached only in September 2016. The delay was mainly due to difficulties about financing a plant that generates high cost electricity, but it is a salutary warning of the length of time it can take for large and contentious infrastructure proposals to even get to the point of starting construction.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67583/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Metz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Heathrow’s bid for a third runway is not over yet. Political wrangling, environmental concerns, planning and financing must all be overcome.David Metz, Honorary Professor of Transport Studies, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/584612016-04-28T12:23:52Z2016-04-28T12:23:52ZBrexit: big trouble for British tourism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120506/original/image-20160428-28064-un0ad.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Looking back in languor? Cullen in the north of Scotland</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelchekroun/14483720950/in/photolist-o4SRCJ-4uGuY-4uGrx-4uGps-4uGvy-4uGqw-4KUFCf-4KQepD-cktUh9-4uGwL-4uGq8-4KQiQt-e5EtC4-sqFzXi-agPxjW-5uP9fT-6SxaJc-hE9ohE-f9R4kk-agPxxC-e5pweH-agPwCL-wCcmb-4KUKi7-eytRZe-fFEKNd-7bDVwd-4uGr8-4uGpM-4uGu9-a9WtSo-a9WvkL-a9WtQN-4KQ6mF-a9WtZG-2RqkfE-4uGrX-o4T9Eh-9EeRz1-fFEKfj-agPxE9-9Ef5Gy-9EbVR8-4uGxn-a9TGnx-a9TGLi-4KQhkg-pfnGPw-a9Ww11-4KUvBy">Raphaël Chekroun</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>From the Tower of London to Edinburgh Castle, from Stonehenge to Brighton Pier, tourism is a vital industry for the UK. It <a href="http://www.tourismalliance.com/downloads/TA_369_395.pdf">is worth</a> £125 billion a year to the economy, constituting 9% of GDP and 10% of total employment. </p>
<p>A big slice of that comes from tourists from other parts of the European Union. In Scotland, for example, where I am based, visitors from the EU <a href="http://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/sites/default/files/papers/britains_decision_0416.pdf">account for</a> just over 54% of visits and just under 42% of the £10 billion annual tourism expenditure. In the other direction, the EU is the top destination for 76% of UK holidaymakers and 68% of business travel. A key question, then, is how this will be affected if the UK votes to leave. </p>
<p>Brexit <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/eu-referendum-sterling-will-take-a-huge-hit-if-britain-backs-brexit-2016-4">would certainly impact</a> on sterling, at least in the short term, and a weaker pound would increase what it costs British consumers to visit or holiday abroad – while also potentially offering better value for money to in-bound tourists. This might affect the UK’s <a href="https://www.visitbritain.org/2014-snapshot">longstanding</a> tourism balance of payments deficit, which means that British residents spend more money overseas than tourists coming to Britain spend there. </p>
<p>Since the UK joined the then EEC in 1973, it has certainly been easier to travel within the bloc by air. This is hugely important, since 73% of international visitors <a href="https://www.visitbritain.org/2014-snapshot">come to the UK this way</a> (and 87% of visitors to Scotland). The relative cost of flights <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/14/brexit-could-risk-tourists-safety-and-push-up-flight-prices-say-top-travel-figures">has decreased</a> thanks to the <a href="http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/pub/pdf/14AirServiceAgreements.pdf">removal of</a> restrictive air-service agreements within the EU, which created the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/international_aviation/country_index/ecaa_en.htm">single aviation area</a>; and also thanks to the <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Al24483">Open Skies policy</a>, which allows any American or EU airline to bid for all transatlantic routes. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120507/original/image-20160428-28061-x5o0k9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120507/original/image-20160428-28061-x5o0k9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120507/original/image-20160428-28061-x5o0k9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=795&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120507/original/image-20160428-28061-x5o0k9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=795&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120507/original/image-20160428-28061-x5o0k9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=795&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120507/original/image-20160428-28061-x5o0k9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=999&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120507/original/image-20160428-28061-x5o0k9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=999&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120507/original/image-20160428-28061-x5o0k9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=999&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Blue skies ahead?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/blizzard/70825047/in/photolist-7fZPv-4fsg46-aodcGb-7xANm-pUzL7-gH1pSX-vZHiMg-iRtFWx-q4aa7c-6gG4ei-6gFZFc-6gG8gB-fhProW-uE6Nx7-uWGcsr-9aEzJ1-6dNhk2-dKzr-979HQC-dKzn-9tpdV-6ksJqm-poSTo-aoaqce-9pKaGw-5Y4cQ5-5XZ2NZ-7qAWdu-FCfZt-Kgi3L-6VhiJ1-2KXNBe-7kBu1L-XV8Y-an5SCv-4SRip1-negU6-3T5XWv-hJifd-an8FqC-qwPvxY-vD5em-5XxUHC-3Tamty-6dkwzq-4xbixZ-6vSnwZ-4fvq2m-6eB8Tm-5PhaxZ">Claudio</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For airlines, Brexit would mean negotiating new service agreements for destinations and visitor-generating markets across the EU 27. The UK would obviously seek to maintain Open Skies, but with access comes treaties, rules and costs. The risk is that competition would reduce and air fares would rise. <a href="https://subscribe.ft.com/barrier/logic?location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Ffastft%2F2016%2F02%2F24%2Fuk-should-remain-in-uk-ryanair%2F&referer=&classification=conditional_standard">Ryanair</a>, <a href="http://blog.euromonitor.com/2016/02/in-or-out-potential-impact-of-brexit-on-uk-travel-and-tourism.html">easyJet</a>, <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/905d6d40-ddd1-11e5-b072-006d8d362ba3,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F905d6d40-ddd1-11e5-b072-006d8d362ba3.html&_i_referer=&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app#axzz477cbuNP8">Qantas</a>, <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13151614.Thomas_Cook_boss__indyref_and_EU_vote_create_massive_uncertainty_for_businesses/">Thomas Cook</a> and <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/1646654/heathrow-boss-to-warn-on-brexit-uncertainty">Heathrow and Gatwick airports</a> have already registered concern at what Brexit could cost. Airlines and other travel providers also benefit from <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/international-relations-and-international-organisations/rise-european-security-cooperation">closer security cooperation</a> across EU boundaries.</p>
<h2>The consumer perspective</h2>
<p>For tourists, there are many other factors that affect the cost of travel besides airfares. Brexit would see duty-free return for tobacco, wine and spirits between British and EU destinations. Some see this as a benefit, though the British would lose the right to purchase virtually unlimited amounts of duty-paid goods from EU countries on returning from the continent. And the UK benefits from tariff-less trade in areas such as food and beverages. These lower material costs would no longer be passed on to tourists, which currently improves the value of the UK with its <a href="http://www.uscib.org/valueadded-taxes-vat-ud-1676/">high VAT</a> and significant <a href="https://www.gov.uk/topic/business-tax/air-passenger-duty">air passenger duty</a>. You would have to offset this loss against any benefit from a lower level of sterling, of course.</p>
<p><a href="http://europa.eu/eu-life/healthcare/index_en.htm">Access to</a> free healthcare services across much of the EU in the form of European Health Insurance would inevitably need to be renegotiated, too. As for the EU’s environmental regulations, these have encouraged tourism in both directions by making bathing water and sewage more bearable. In terms of the environment and specifically water quality and sewage, it would be interesting following a Brexit to see if the Scottish/UK government keeps the pressure on the relevant operators to maintain current standards. </p>
<p>Then there are mobile phone roaming fees. They are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/27/europe-abolishes-mobile-phone-roaming-charges">being abolished</a> across the EU in 2017, which will benefit tourists in both directions. If the UK leaves the EU, it would be left out. </p>
<p>On the other hand, an unarguable benefit if EU destinations became more expensive and less accessible for British holidaymakers – due to a weaker pound and these other rising costs – is that it might increase demand for holidays at home. Vote to leave and there could be further growth in the British staycation. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120511/original/image-20160428-28026-gkkie7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120511/original/image-20160428-28026-gkkie7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120511/original/image-20160428-28026-gkkie7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120511/original/image-20160428-28026-gkkie7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120511/original/image-20160428-28026-gkkie7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120511/original/image-20160428-28026-gkkie7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120511/original/image-20160428-28026-gkkie7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/120511/original/image-20160428-28026-gkkie7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Fancy an ice cream?’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/benrodford/9272810456/in/photolist-f8pzum-f8pDqw-f8ahSF-f8pC25-fKG5km-f8ahLX-acVzk8-6Nzx6R-f8pzi9-f8pz2b-bvcaXm-fvEtsf-df434B-tC9JK1-queCuE-6zxUno-5DQNg1-qd7419-cUA7Lq-67tzcS-bEfxTC-6QaDL4-aBxCBR-6dLvfp-g1Uz9p-kged7w-3nLxgD-6dQSqs-aeKXZT-LS1fU-j1idkP-793BCz-fvEqs9-4khJM-6ScZy8-3RBFHf-atcVmh-4N2WTD-4NJ9db-oi3khV-8xfnUm-oUeH7z-4NDUET-6Logax-4ki7V-9fuhyW-a6HYGf-dm1Zye-dyidcX-9rq4RY">Ben Rodford</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At the same time, Brexit would trigger compensation claims for delayed or cancelled flights. Pan-European compensation arrangements predate EU membership, though UK travellers do benefit from <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/28/brexit-effect-everyday-life">EU directives and legislation</a> improving consumers’ rights to compensation for delays. And in future British tourists would miss out on the enhanced protection that will flow from the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_rights/travel/package/index_en.htm">Package Travel Directive</a> in 2018. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, there would be the prospect of national-level renegotiations over the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/comment/what-would-brexit-mean-for-travellers/">arrangements</a> for when tour operators collapse; as well as the rules for British owners of holiday homes elsewhere in the EU in relation to asset protection and taxation. These home owners also currently benefit from levels of protection <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/fddc5b3c-aae8-11e4-81bc-00144feab7de,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Ffddc5b3c-aae8-11e4-81bc-00144feab7de.html&_i_referer=&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app">flowing from</a> EU membership. </p>
<h2>Wider matters</h2>
<p>Some <a href="http://www.betteroffout.net/why-british-tourism-would-be-better-off-out/">argue that</a> a distinct/stand-alone/independent UK would attract more visitors from overseas. But the rich heritage and iconography of the UK has long attracted visitors already and is unlikely to change. It is <a href="http://www.betteroffout.net/why-british-tourism-would-be-better-off-out/">also claimed that</a> Brexit could see us benefit from tourists from the Commonwealth (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India and Pakistan are cited). Realistically, when you look at the <a href="https://www.visitbritain.org/2014-snapshot">visitor statistics</a>, you realise these nations are of limited significance in terms of tourism. </p>
<p>Uncertainty, which is not good for exchange rates, is also not good for business and business locations. If Brexit catalysed a relocation of corporate headquarters it is probable that business and conference traffic to the UK (and Scotland) would diminish. Meanwhile, those wanting to work in the EU area outside the UK would have to await a new regulatory framework. </p>
<p>My conclusion is that Brexit looks like trouble in all directions. It would have an overall negative effect on EU visitors coming to the UK – a feeder market that is just too important to antagonise. Outbound UK holidaymakers would also face cost rises and issues of access. And the inevitable period of transition and renegotiation would create uncertainty, which is not good for leisure or business tourism. </p>
<p><em>This is a summary of a chapter in the newly published Britain’s Decision – Facts and Impartial Analysis. The book can be downloaded <a href="http://www.davidhumeinstitute.com/britains-decision-facts-impartial-analysis-eu-referendum-23-june-2016/">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58461/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Lennon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Holiday making accounts for almost a tenth of the British economy. Here’s how it might be impacted by a vote to leave the EU.John Lennon, Assistant Vice-Principal and Director of the Moffat Centre for Travel and Tourism Business Development, Glasgow Caledonian UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/580082016-04-27T12:24:42Z2016-04-27T12:24:42ZThe Heathrow problem – and how London mayoral candidates can handle it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/120216/original/image-20160426-1330-y1bs9c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ooomz/4993058859/sizes/l">ooomz/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>With Heathrow already operating at 98% capacity, airport expansion will be one of the biggest issues facing the next mayor of London. Whoever is elected to the position won’t have the final say – that power lies with the UK government – but their opinion carries the weight of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-are-the-main-contenders-for-london-mayor-and-what-do-they-stand-for-57391">largest electoral mandate</a> of any UK politician. Given that neither of the two main contenders – Labour’s Sadiq Khan and the Conservatives’ Zac Goldsmith – support the expansion of Heathrow airport, both will need to think carefully about how they’d like to address the problem. </p>
<p>Airport capacity has been an issue in London at least since the government initiated a consultation in 2000. In 2012, the government set up the Airports Commission to evaluate the evidence on the matter and propose a way forward. The commission rejected outgoing mayor <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/11069851/Boris-Island-airport-plan-pros-and-cons.html">Boris Johnson’s proposal</a> for a whole new airport in the Thames Estuary as too costly. </p>
<p>Instead, when giving <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/airports-commission-final-report">its final report</a> in July 2015, the Airports Commission plumped for an additional runway at Heathrow, believing that noise and air pollution could be adequately mitigated. </p>
<p>Since then, the government has <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-confirms-support-for-airport-expansion-in-the-south-east">decided that</a> further work was needed to ensure that the environmental impacts of a third runway could be managed – effectively delaying a decision on the proposal until after the mayoral election, and the UK’s referendum on EU membership. </p>
<h2>Under pressure</h2>
<p>The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmenvaud/389/38902.htm">later argued</a> that the government should not approve Heathrow expansion unless the project can be reconciled with legal air pollution limits, and would be less noisy than a two-runway airport. </p>
<p>There is a strong demand from business organisations – notably <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35038073">the CBI</a> – for a commitment to Heathrow, and the government has been criticised for flip flopping. Meanwhile, Gatwick Airport has energetically <a href="http://www.gatwickobviously.com/debate">pressed its case</a> for the additional runway to be located there, on grounds of environmental acceptability and lower cost. </p>
<p>The new mayor would make his views felt ahead of the government’s announcement. If the go-ahead is given for Heathrow, the new mayor may also intervene in the public inquiry to address local impacts that would precede the granting of detailed planning consent.</p>
<h2>Wait and see</h2>
<p>Both the main mayoral candidates are against more runway capacity at Heathrow. Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmth is MP for Richmond and North Kingston – a constituency under Heathrow’s flightpath. As such, he has long <a href="http://www.zacgoldsmith.com/campaigns/opposing-heathrow-expansion">campaigned against expansion</a>. Labour’s Sadiq Khan <a href="http://www.sadiq.london/a_modern_and_affordable_transport_network">opposes</a> a third runway at Heathrow too. Instead, Khan advocates a second runway at Gatwick, and he has also pledged to improve rail links to Stansted airport. </p>
<p>It would be easier for a Conservative government to resist the opposition of a Labour mayor to a Heathrow expansion. But Conservative MPs for West London constituencies affected by noise and air pollution would put up a vocal challenge to the plans, too. </p>
<p>Alternatively, there is a respectable case for deferring this difficult political decision, to see how a very competitive aviation sector copes with the growth of demand for air travel. As I have <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-solution-to-londons-airport-capacity-crisis-do-nothing-37866">suggested previously</a>, market forces would likely mean that priority would be given to business travellers at Heathrow, displacing leisure travellers to other airports – such as Stansted – which have plenty of spare capacity.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58008/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Metz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above. This article does not reflect the views of the research councils. </span></em></p>Both Goldsmith and Khan oppose the Heathrow expansion – so how will they solve the air capacity crisis?David Metz, Honorary Professor of Transport Studies, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/554642016-02-26T17:04:22Z2016-02-26T17:04:22ZWhy Heathrow 13 verdict could lead to more radical climate activism, not less<p>The so-called “Heathrow 13” <a href="http://www.planestupid.com/">Plane Stupid</a> climate activists have been given <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35651166">suspended prison sentences</a> for trespassing on the airport’s runway. The case – and the decision of the judge to hand down custodial sentences at all, even if they were suspended – illustrates the way judicial attitudes to unlawful climate activism have seesawed over the years, and the harsh treatment meted out to the activists may yet backfire. </p>
<p>In 2008, six Greenpeace activists who had admitted causing criminal damage at Kingsnorth power plant were <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/sep/11/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamp">found not guilty</a> by a jury, following a week of expert testimony on coal and climate change. It seemed a significant moment for the UK climate movement. Their “lawful excuse” defence justified their actions to fight global warming, and appeared to offer campaigners a way to make governments take both notice and action.</p>
<p>But subsequent acts of mass disobedience faltered: in April 2009, 114 activists planning to shut down Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station were <a href="http://newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2011/01/12/undercover-and-over-the-top-collapse-of-ratcliffe-trial/">pre-emptively arrested</a> in a case which ultimately brought to light the extent of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/21/drax-protesters-convictions-quashed-police-spy-mark-kennedy">police infiltration</a> of the environmental protest movement.</p>
<p>Later that year 29 activists were found guilty of “<a href="https://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/131_09/">obstructing the railway</a>” by a jury in Leeds after the judge refused to allow them to present a <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-necessity-defence-should-climate-activists-be-allowed-to-break-the-law-53181">necessity defence</a> and call expert witnesses to justify their “hijacking” of a coal train at Drax power station. And in June 2010, nine Plane Stupid activists were found guilty by a jury and fined for breach of the peace after they had broken into Aberdeen airport and played golf on the runway, dressed as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/03/aberdeen-airport-climate-protest">Donald Trump</a>. Taking non-violent direct action in order to “put climate change on trial” seemed at a dead end.</p>
<p>The trial of the Heathrow 13 may have changed all that. In fact, the activists probably owe a vote of thanks to district judge Deborah Wright. History tells us that social movements not only mobilise when conditions are favourable; they also mobilise in response to threat, especially where that <a href="https://mobilizingideas.wordpress.com/category/essay-dialogues/violent-state-repression/">threat</a> is widely seen as an injustice.</p>
<p>The court’s guilty verdict was to be expected, but the judge’s threat to impose the maximum sentence of three months imprisonment succeeded in producing a wave of <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/heathrow-13-jailing-peaceful-protesters-would-be-unprecedented-attack-on-dissent-judge-told-a6849636.html">sympathetic media coverage</a>, <a href="https://secure.avaaz.org/en/heathrow_13_11/?pv=67&rc=fb">internet petitions</a> and an impressive and sustained show of solidarity from <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/24/heathrow-13-climate-change-protesters-avoid-jail">300 or so supporters</a> outside the court. Criminal trials are social theatre: Wright’s promise of a punitive sentence turned this one into a political event.</p>
<p>In so doing, the trial reminds us that the courts, especially the criminal courts, are a site of battles over legal and political legitimacy. Trials like that of the Heathrow 13 are, in the strict sense, about the causes that motivate action, the weighing of harms and the acceptability of specific conducts – but they are also about the scope that democratic societies afford for small groups of citizens to challenge what they perceive to be injustice in the name of the collective good.</p>
<h2>What next for the climate movement?</h2>
<p>Though the Heathrow 13 were spared jail time, a suspended prison sentence for a non-violent minor crime, committed by (largely) first-time offenders, arguably remains extraordinary and excessive. In 2006, sitting in a <a href="http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/16.html">High Court appeals case</a> of anti-war activists who had committed aggravated trespass and criminal damage at RAF Fairford on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Lord Justice Hoffmann formalised a basic bargain: where activists act in a publicly accountable way – with restraint, sincerity, and a sense of proportion – then police, prosecutors, and magistrates should show sensitivity and equal restraint, taking the conscientious motives of protesters into account.</p>
<p>Activists are aware of the bargain: the Heathrow defendants certainly were, and it is a staple of <a href="https://netpol.org/resources/sentencing-on-conviction/">advice for would-be environmental disobedients</a>.</p>
<p>But this sentence throws the bargain into confusion. By acting with less restraint – and causing more damage – activists can potentially secure a jury trial. Though the potential penalties are more severe, this move typically works in favour of the activists as juries, in general, are <a href="http://cps.sagepub.com/content/47/1/3">less likely than magistrates to convict</a> in these sorts of cases (despite the Leeds and Aberdeen verdicts).</p>
<p>But if magistrates are now imposing jail time, actual or suspended, for minor offences, then acting with restraint starts to appear less attractive. If you’re going to be dealt with harshly for aggravated trespass, you may as well cause criminal damage too, because that might get you a more favourable trial.</p>
<p>This year will see a concerted wave of climate disobedience across Europe, as activists react, post-Paris, both to the lack of a concrete action plan by Western governments and to the apparent necessity of citizen action in order to force governments do anything meaningful at all. In the UK, we should expect more climate disobedience, not less: the Heathrow 13 trial raises the stakes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55464/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian Doherty receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. He is a member of the Green Party and a supporter of Friends of the Earth. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Graeme Hayes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Protesters could be tempted to add ‘criminal damage’ to trespass, thereby ensuring a more sympathetic trial by jury.Graeme Hayes, Reader in Political Sociology, Aston UniversityBrian Doherty, Professor of Political Sociology, Keele UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/378662015-12-11T14:07:13Z2015-12-11T14:07:13ZThe solution to London’s airport capacity crisis? Do nothing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105479/original/image-20151211-8326-791ftb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>London’s Heathrow airport is currently operating at <a href="http://www.heathrow.com/company/company-news-and-information/airports-commission">98% capacity</a> – and the rest of London’s airports are set to be full by 2040. The debate over how to address this problem has been raging for years – but a workable solution has yet to be found. </p>
<p>Several strategies have been considered to help free up more space for air traffic – there have been proposals for an extra runway at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted, or even a brand new airport in the Thames Estuary. Following an <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440316/airports-commission-final-report.pdf">independent report</a> by the Airports Commission in July 2015, Heathrow was recommended as the best candidate for expansion, with a new northwest runway to cater for an extra 35m passengers per annum. </p>
<p>But still the argument rages on. The Heathrow proposal has been met with vocal opposition from environmental groups, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35025797">key political figures</a> and <a href="http://www.stopheathrowexpansion.co.uk/about-us/">residents</a> who would be affected by the changes. Meanwhile, business groups including the Institute of Directors, the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce have <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/heathrow-expansion-the-business-community-reacts-to-airport-commission-decision-10356803.html">pledged support</a> for the Heathrow expansion, as a way of protecting and promoting the UK’s economic interests. </p>
<p>Now, the UK government has <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35062739">deferred its decision</a> on how best to increase London’s airport capacity until the summer of 2016, by commissioning a further study on the new runway’s environmental impacts. </p>
<p>Underlying all these discussions is the assumption that something must be done to increase London’s airport capacity. This is based on a traditional approach to transport planning, called “predict and provide” – wherein authorities try to estimate and cater for future transport requirements. But what if that isn’t our only option? </p>
<p>Indeed, when it comes to road travel, “predict and provide” has been largely abandoned by developed economies. These days the favoured approach is called “managing demand”. This method works on the basis that attempting to meet an ever-growing demand is impractical: instead, systems can be managed to encourage people to take more sustainable modes of transport. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105480/original/image-20151211-8304-43zk9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105480/original/image-20151211-8304-43zk9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105480/original/image-20151211-8304-43zk9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105480/original/image-20151211-8304-43zk9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105480/original/image-20151211-8304-43zk9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105480/original/image-20151211-8304-43zk9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105480/original/image-20151211-8304-43zk9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tight squeeze for traffic.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/134898965@N04/19960853932/sizes/l">Greater London National Park City Initiative/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, in the 1970s London’s authorities opted not to enlarge the road network to accommodate growing car ownership. Since then, London’s historic street pattern, as well as disincentives such as the <a href="https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge">congestion charge</a>, have constrained car use. Car traffic has <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/452923/future-cities-peak-car.pdf">not increased</a> over the past 20 years, despite a period of population and income growth. So the share of journeys by car has fallen, while investment in public transport – rail in particular – has met the mobility needs of inhabitants and visitors. London has thrived economically, culturally and socially despite the major capacity constraints of its road system. </p>
<h2>Constraining capacity</h2>
<p>So what would happen if we didn’t build another runway at all? For air travel, the answer lies within the market. Three–quarters of passengers are on leisure trips – and, even at Heathrow, <a href="http://www.heathrow.com/company/company-news-and-information/company-information/facts-and-figures">70% of passengers</a> are tourists, or visiting family and friends. Yet the arguments for more runway capacity are largely about the need to allow for the growth of business travel: to help British business develop new markets overseas, to foster inward investment into the UK and to allow London to continue to develop as a world city.</p>
<p>The case for more airport capacity to support inbound tourism is weak. While London’s hospitality, entertainment and retail sectors would welcome more visitors, Britain has a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271231/airports-commission-interim-report.pdf">negative balance of trade</a> in tourism: that is, British people abroad spend a lot more each year than overseas visitors to the UK. And, while London is the typical destination for first-time visitors to Britain, the capital is essentially a working city – you could argue that excessive numbers of tourists detract from the quality of life. So the promotion of inbound tourism might better focus on places outside the capital, which are accessible from regional airports.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105481/original/image-20151211-26763-qxtrpe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105481/original/image-20151211-26763-qxtrpe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105481/original/image-20151211-26763-qxtrpe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105481/original/image-20151211-26763-qxtrpe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105481/original/image-20151211-26763-qxtrpe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105481/original/image-20151211-26763-qxtrpe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105481/original/image-20151211-26763-qxtrpe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Taking care of business.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/23065375@N05/2247355466/sizes/o/">think panama/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If we decided not to build a further runway at Heathrow, the market would respond to this capacity constraint by accommodating the most valuable passengers through price increases. Business travellers would command priority, since they would be willing to pay for the convenience, connections and direct flights at Heathrow. The growth of business travel would displace leisure travel, both within aircraft on existing routes and between routes, where time is traded against money. </p>
<p>For instance, when I travel to India on a business trip for which others are paying, then if possible I would fly direct from Heathrow. But if I am on a holiday visit, paying out of my own pocket, than I may choose the cheaper alternative via a Middle East hub – the inconvenience of the change of aircraft would be acceptable because of the more attractive price on offer.</p>
<p>At present, both routes to India start from Heathrow. As passenger numbers grow, the airlines would serve the routes with larger aircraft. If demand grew yet further, then alternative departure points for leisure travellers would be offered at subsidiary airports such as Stansted, which <a href="http://www.stanstedairport.com/about-us/media-centre/press-releases/stansted-publishes-sustainable-development-plan-highlighting-the-growth-potential-of-existing-runway">has the capacity</a> to more than double its passenger throughput from 20m to 40-45m passengers per year without expansion. </p>
<p>The growth of business travel under the conditions of capacity constraint would be profitable for both the airlines and Heathrow airport. If profits were judged excessive, then regulatory interventions such as a cap on charges could be considered to prevent travellers from being exploited.</p>
<p>There is a case for an additional runway in south-east England, as argued by the Airports Commission. But if it proves too difficult to agree where to build it, then we could manage without. The market would give priority to business travellers, while the more flexible leisure travellers would take advantage of the cheaper, alternative routes offered by competing airlines. Managing the demand for air travel though market mechanisms is a viable alternative to building more airport capacity – especially where environmental concerns generate strong political opposition.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37866/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Metz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As fierce debate rages over where to build London’s next runway, we may well be missing a trick.David Metz, Honorary professor, transport studies, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/441492015-07-01T13:44:01Z2015-07-01T13:44:01ZWhy Heathrow got the nod from the Airports Commission report<p>Seventy years since the first new full-length runway was built in the southeast of England, the government finally has a flight path for future airport capacity. After decades of consultation and deliberation, the Howard Davies Airports Commission report <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33340565">has made its recommendation</a>. The verdict – London Heathrow Airport should receive a third runway, with a second runway at Gatwick on the cards as well.</p>
<p>For far too long, a lack of policy around the future of airport expansion has thwarted development of the aviation industry – and the UK has been losing out to its European and global competitors. Based on the report, the government must now make a decision. A formal response is expected in the autumn.</p>
<p>Heathrow Airport is full, <a href="http://www.heathrowairport.com/about-us/company-news-and-information/airports-commission">operating at 98% capacity</a>. Gatwick is now the <a href="http://www.gatwickairport.com/business-community/about-gatwick/at-a-glance/facts-stats/">busiest single-runway airport in the world</a>. For both airports, every possible airfield re-design and every possible operational procedure has already been implemented to improve capacity by just a few more runway arrival and departure slots each year. The challenge is always to optimise capacity within strict limitations. Despite continuous growth, airline margins are constantly under pressure, and passengers require safe, secure, affordable and environmentally friendly travel.</p>
<h2>Follow the money</h2>
<p>There has been much debate on the issue of “deliverability” – that is, which UK airport can realistically build new runway capacity with the least environmental impact and the maximum economic benefit to the people it serves. But the key consideration for new capacity is market demand. What do customers want? </p>
<p>The customers here are not you or I, but ultimately the world’s airlines. A new runway will sit empty without airline demand. Airlines will only fly where they make money and Heathrow is the UK hub where airlines wish to fly. It is where they see yield – the opportunity to fill the front end of the cabin with high-fare-paying first and business class passengers. And where they can develop both domestic and international feed for their hub, through a growing network of alliances. Heathrow also allows them to develop air cargo, the oft forgotten but <a href="https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/Documents/economics/profitability-and-the-air-transport-value%20chain.pdf">critical element</a> of the global air transport business and an important component in the ability of airlines to break even.</p>
<p>Airlines have made it quite clear that if they cannot fly into Heathrow, they will take their business elsewhere – to European hub airports such as Amsterdam Schipol, Paris, Frankfurt, Copenhagen, where there is still capacity, or further afield to rapidly developing airport capacity in Turkey and the Middle East.</p>
<h2>The one hub rule</h2>
<p>Cities served by multi-hub airports <a href="http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowAboutUs/Downloads/PDF/best-placed-for-britain_LHR.pdf">do not work</a>. Airlines need to consolidate their business at one airport, to maximise feed and economies of scale. Developing greater capacity at Heathrow opens up the market for new entrants and competition. It allows domestic feeder services to better serve markets in the north and south west of the UK, boosting air accessibility and economy in regional markets. It will also allow Gatwick to grow as a “point-to-point” airport for non-transfer passengers.</p>
<p>“Boris Island” – the idea backed by Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, to build a brand new airport or second hub airport in East London was blown out of the water early on as far too expensive and unviable. Regional airports, including Manchester, Birmingham and Stansted were also evaluated in the report, concluding that much capacity is still available to serve their regional markets. More recent focus has been on which of selected airport options for new runway capacity would best serve air passenger and cargo demand, and drive the UK economy.</p>
<h2>Growing demand</h2>
<p>Despite economic recession, the world aviation industry has shown a pattern of continuous growth over the past few decades, and that growth is set to continue. According to Boeing, global passenger numbers are expected to reach <a href="http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/cmo/pdf/Boeing_Current_Market_Outlook_2014.pdf">nearly 7 billion per annum by 2026</a>. Airbus expects a <a href="http://www.airbus.com/company/market/forecast/">4.6% growth per annum for the next 20 years</a>, indicating that the amount of traffic will double within 15 years. </p>
<p>Supplying this growing demand is not just a problem faced in the UK. European flight body Eurocontrol released its <a href="https://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/challenges-growth">Challenges of Growth report</a> in 2013, detailing the constraints it has identified in the European air transport system between now and 2035. According to this, airport capacity crunch is set to cost airlines and airports in excess of €40 billion of lost revenues and €5 billion in congestion costs – per year – by 2035. </p>
<p>The wider economic impact estimated is far more dramatic. It is foreseen that by 2035, insufficient airport capacity will cost Europe €230 billion in lost GDP. Among the countries that will suffer the most from the airport capacity crunch are Turkey (27%), the UK (14%), the Netherlands (17%), Bulgaria (22%), Hungary (17%), Germany (11%), Poland (9%) and Italy (8%). The economic need to meet this is evident.</p>
<p>The UK can now start steps to compete with Europe and the rest of the word for its share of air traffic – let’s hope the process does not take another 70 years.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44149/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jenni Fernando does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The key consideration for a new airport is ultimately market demand – what do customers want. And airport customers (airlines) want a Heathrow hub.Jenni Fernando, Senior Lecturer in Aviation Management, Coventry UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/343692014-11-19T06:04:43Z2014-11-19T06:04:43ZWhy Heathrow’s hopeless flight plan will struggle to take off<p>Heathrow’s refurbished Terminal 2 was unveiled to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-27980337">much fanfare</a> earlier this year. Officially re-opened by the queen, the shiny new terminal even provided the studio for an episode of the BBC’s weekly Question Time programme.</p>
<p>Although present on the TV show, actual discussion about Heathrow’s new terminal and especially the issue of airport expansion was brief. But the implication of using T2 as their stage was clear: Heathrow, for all the talk of considering different options for airport expansion in the UK, remains at the centre of the airport debate. It was a PR coup for the UK’s busiest airport, but only a curtain raiser for their third runway campaign that is set to become more strident in the run up to the 2015 general election.</p>
<p>All UK politicians tremble in the face of the Heathrow question. One ill-considered statement can immediately unite the business community, the surrounding constituency or the very vocal green lobby in high profile anger towards them. </p>
<p>It was partly for this reason that HS2, a proposal for a new high speed rail system connecting the North and middle of England to the capital, was introduced in 2010. The flawed logic of HS2 was that air passengers could be persuaded to take the train rather than the plane, thus <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmtran/78/78vw_c13.htm">freeing up capacity at Heathrow</a>. But nearly 40% of passengers using the Heathrow hub are <a href="http://www.heathrowairport.com/about-us/company-news-and-information/company-information/facts-and-figures">transferring from one flight to another</a>. And, apart from a handful of daily flights to Manchester, there are no direct services from Heathrow to the cities located on the HS2 route.</p>
<p>Had Heathrow and HS2 planners followed examples like Schipol airport in Amsterdam – and taken the HS2 line right into the airport complex – the rail connection might have worked. But this has been steadfastly resisted, perhaps because Heathrow’s managers perceive an integrated high speed rail connection as eventually opening the market to competitor airports including Charles de Gaulle in Paris via the Eurostar.</p>
<p>The Airports Commission was set up in 2012 to examine all the options of how best to increase the UK’s airport infrastructure. Under its respected chair, Howard Davies, an <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/airports-commission-interim-report">interim report</a> concluded that the future of London’s airport facilities boils down to three options: a third runway at Heathrow, an extension of one of Heathrow’s existing runways or a new runway at Gatwick airport. </p>
<p>But politicians would do well to consider an alternative option: increasing capacity at airports outside of London within easy, high speed access to the capital.</p>
<h2>A complex debate</h2>
<p>There is no easy way to summarise the complex issues entailed in any debate about airports. The casual observer is quickly lost in claim and counter-claim about direct and indirect connectivity, landing charges, the growing threat of Middle Eastern hubs, long haul requirements versus low-cost carrier imperatives and relative land values.</p>
<p>But there are two key aspects to the debate. First, Heathrow’s expansion is underpinned by the simple logic of higher target revenues – it needs more customers and thus more airport space. But the downsides of this plan in terms of noise, environmental impact and road congestion are borne by the community at large. </p>
<p>The other persistent theme of the pro-Heathrow expansion lobby is the interdependence of the capital’s largest airport with London’s identity as a global brand. As architect Christopher Choa <a href="http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/estuary-airport-fight-to-continue-despite-funding-threat-says-mayor/8669472.article">recently opined</a> in the Architects’ Journal: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>This airport debate is about much more than just runways. London and the UK urgently need to secure their global gateway hub at Heathrow. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>As we are learning the hard way in all business sectors, however, modern consumers are more likely to choose benefits over things.</p>
<h2>Alternative options for the same outcome</h2>
<p>So before we turn the bulldozers loose across the suburbs of west London we should consider the outcome we are trying to achieve. In the case of city airports, two major objectives (or benefits) are usually in play: maintaining the brand value of connectivity for the city and not squandering the time efficiency you gain in the air on clunky and slow transfers to the city centre.</p>
<p>Both these outcomes could also be achieved by flying passengers to an alternative UK airport such as Birmingham and then seamlessly via high speed rail to London. This would not diminish the perception of London’s connectivity, especially if the total journey time remains the same – if not better – than the present offer of getting a train into the city from Heathrow or Gatwick. </p>
<p>Critically, doing things this way would signal the UK’s commitment to competitiveness which, as any business school will confirm, is dependant upon innovation. Right now policy is being built on the outdated doctrine of “predict and provide” which bases plans on current travel patterns. Refusing to innovate and expanding Heathrow will skew investment further toward London and undermine the HS2 potential.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34369/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Synnott does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Heathrow’s refurbished Terminal 2 was unveiled to much fanfare earlier this year. Officially re-opened by the queen, the shiny new terminal even provided the studio for an episode of the BBC’s weekly Question…Michael Synnott, Senior Teaching Fellow in Strategy and International Business, University of WarwickLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/313882014-09-08T14:27:52Z2014-09-08T14:27:52ZBoris Island is sunk but it may help other airports expand<p>The Airports Commission has finally <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29021459">rejected Boris Johnson’s proposal</a> for a new international hub in the Thames estuary, reinforcing the expectation that Heathrow and possibly Gatwick will be given the go-ahead to expand their capacity. </p>
<p>This decision will not surprise many in aviation policy circles. “Boris Island” was never a realistic option. Too many factors went against it: it was the most expensive of the proposals on the table, it raised environmental and wildlife objections, it posed challenges for air traffic control, it garnered little support from either leading carriers or London’s business community – and it faced highly effective rival campaigns from Gatwick and Heathrow. </p>
<p>As the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/349518/decision-and-summary.pdf">Airports Commission concluded</a>: “We need to focus on solutions which are deliverable, affordable and set the right balance for the future of aviation in the UK.”</p>
<h2>Expansion agenda</h2>
<p>But it would be wrong to simply dismiss the Mayor of London’s campaign as a failed sideshow, or a wasteful <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/boris-johnson-owes-londoners-apology-wasting-public-money-over-airport-folly">airport folly</a>. Johnson’s very public support for a new international hub has played a significant, if largely unnoticed, political role in getting aviation expansion back on the policy agenda, following the coalition government’s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/may/24/third-runway-heathrow-scrapped-baa">2010 moratorium on the building of new runways</a> in the south-east of England. </p>
<p>If nothing else, Boris’ passionate rallying calls and continuous drip-feeding of new initiatives, reviews and briefings has kept the issue of capacity resonating throughout Whitehall and the Westminster village. In the early months of the coalition government, his public support for aviation expansion was a lone voice among political leaders across the three major parties. Indeed, his persistent proposals for a new international hub did much to return the policy debate back to issues of airport capacity, the benefits for the UK of an international hub airport, and the international competitiveness and the connectivity of London. </p>
<h2>Sidestepping climate change</h2>
<p>In his campaign for Boris Island, the mayor of London also depoliticised the impact of aviation on carbon emissions and climate change. The <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2058322/Heathrow-third-runway-Thousands-join-protest.html">anti-expansion coalition</a> against Labour’s plans for a third runway at Heathrow brought together an alliance of local residents and climate change activists, combining the struggles against aviation with the fight against climate change. Johnson had supported this campaign. </p>
<p>His Thames estuary plan, however, for a new four-runway airport side-stepped the issue of climate change and strained the coalition by offering a divisive NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) solution to the dilemma of aviation expansion. In fact, the alternative of an estuary airport tested the allegiance of local residents to the common platform of “no airport expansion anywhere in the UK” that mobilised local residents from Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick, as well as environmental and climate change activists.</p>
<h2>Heathrow paradox</h2>
<p>It is this wider political fallout that is a significant element of the Boris island plan. In many respects it was an effective and necessary Trojan horse for supporters of airport expansion. </p>
<p>The appointment of Justine Greening, an opponent of Heathrow expansion, as transport secretary in 2011, appeared to put the issue of airport capacity to bed. And, like road building in the 1990s, aviation’s expansionist post-war regime had been stalled, if not defeated. Boris Island did much to loosen the lack of political support behind this nascent policy reversal. </p>
<p>Now, with the rejection of a Thames estuary airport, Boris Johnson’s proposals have served their purpose for the pro-expansion campaign. Paradoxically, the mayor of London’s efforts to offer an alternative to expansion at Heathrow may have made expansion at the international hub more likely. Almost by default, following the arguments used by the Airports Commission to reject Boris Island, expansion at Heathrow has become a more reasoned response to the issue of airport capacity.</p>
<h2>Democratic discussion</h2>
<p>In the longer term, the rejection of a Thames estuary airport has done little to build any wider political agreement. Labour attempted to engineer a policy settlement during the consultation for its <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100513020716/http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/whitepapers/air/thefutureofairtransportwhite5694">2003 Air Transport White Paper</a>. After this backfired, the coalition has retreated to the politics of expertise and technocracy to resolve this thorny issue. </p>
<p>But it remains doubtful whether the Airports Commission can generate an evidence-based consensus in a policy arena riven by competing values and interests, as Johnson’s own <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/02/boris-johnson-airport-commission-estuary-plan-ruled-out">strident reaction</a> to the rejection of his proposal demonstrates. Perhaps it’s time to look for new democratic means of resolving complex policy issues like aviation. </p>
<p>In the meantime, we need new ways of productively discussing the issue of airport expansion. This means reducing antagonism between the parties involved, while also enabling the emergence of competing policy coalitions. Only then can we build a genuine political consensus, which can generate a legitimate solution. Otherwise we will continue to be trapped in this cruel policy dilemma for another ten years.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31388/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Airports Commission has finally rejected Boris Johnson’s proposal for a new international hub in the Thames estuary, reinforcing the expectation that Heathrow and possibly Gatwick will be given the…David Howarth, Co-Director, Centre for Theoretical Studies, University of EssexSteven Griggs, Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/216592013-12-19T14:09:20Z2013-12-19T14:09:20ZNew runways to support leisure even as transport at home is cut<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/38295/original/bxvtk9vb-1387456141.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Coming down to earth - just like house prices near airports.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Steve Parsons/PA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The interim report of the Davies Airports Commission <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sir-howard-davies-airports-commission-air-travel-could-be-transformed-within-a-few-years--with-no-more-stacking-9010363.html">published this week</a> presents an in-depth analysis of aviation’s value to the UK economy and suggests the country will need a new runway by 2030, and a second by 2050. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/airports-commission-publishes-interim-report">The report</a> examines various future predictions and possible plans of action to cope with what could be a doubling of flight demand by 2050. Even with significant carbon emission limits and capacity constraints, the report estimates that by 2030 runways will be operating so close to their capacity that major reliability issues will emerge. Yet despite these strong words, the report will take another two years to come to a conclusion on which of the two contenders – Heathrow and Gatwick – will get extra runways. Shouldn’t we just get on with it?</p>
<p>I was fortunate to work in Parliament at the time the <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/whitepapers/air/">2003 Airports White Paper</a> was produced. I saw the reports and arguments that underpinned the last policy statement, which ultimately failed to achieve what it set out to. At the time it seemed clear that the majority business interest and the strongest economic case was for a third runway at Heathrow. Gatwick was then out of the question as there was a moratorium on further development until 2017. Expansion of Stansted was supported, although ultimately that seemed more like the option with the least collective opposition rather than one which had logic behind it and buy in.</p>
<p>The politics of expansion was huge then and it clearly has not diminished now, with the commission’s final report not due until after the next election (check the constituency maps near the airports for further details).</p>
<h2>Economic vs environmental concerns</h2>
<p>Those <a href="http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/press_centre/index.cfm?uNewsID=6949">against airport expansion</a> question the growth figures and the government’s proposals as a “predict and provide” approach. They claim it is inconsistent with our environmental commitments. This line of argument is important to explore.</p>
<p>The Davies report examines flight demand worldwide as well as in the UK. Demand for flights from emerging economies is growing (more than doubling in the past 20 years) and this is beyond the control of UK policy makers. Heathrow retains a globally leading status as an international hub airport, but faces competition from Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt. </p>
<p>From an environmental perspective it doesn’t matter much if the demand is truly global (it matters of course for those under the flight path). So does UK Plc benefit more from having these flights going through London and making it a more accessible city than we lose from not having those flights? The report suggests it does and a failure to act will cost the UK economy between 48 and 65 billion pounds over the next 60 years.</p>
<h2>Demands of business vs leisure</h2>
<p>What about overall demand? The report relies heavily on models based on the past decades, with grown driven by rising disposable income. In London the average person takes 2.7 flights a year, almost double that of a resident of the West Midlands. From that it’s clear that there’s room for demand to rise not only with a growing population, but with growth from areas of the country where demand is currently low.</p>
<p>But dig a little further and you see that even in London, fewer one sixth of the flights are for business, with this being around one ninth for the whole of the UK. The real question is why we are travelling so much more for leisure or to visit friends and relatives, and whether this is sufficient to justify expansion. </p>
<p>If expansion is driven by the needs of business, then there is surely plenty of capacity to expand business use of existing flights by pricing some leisure trips out of the market. Any debate on proposals that would imply a significant environmental impact must include a discussion on changing patterns of business travel, and whether supporting leisure travel is the best use of resources. This is not just about which proposal brings about the most value, but what sort of society we want our transport system to support.</p>
<p>Are we also happy for a different logic to apply to aviation than to other parts of the transport system? This is also the week where <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25429562">further cuts</a> were announced to local authority budgets. The subsidised evening and weekend bus network <a href="http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/save-our-buses">continues to shrink</a> as we prioritise education and social care over transport. What are essential transport services for some are being lost, while we debate not whether, but where to expend resources that will mainly support leisure travel. That is something worth talking about.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21659/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Greg Marsden receives funding from Research Councils UK under the End User Energy Demand reduction programme. Full details of the funding are available at <a href="http://www.demand.ac.uk">www.demand.ac.uk</a></span></em></p>The interim report of the Davies Airports Commission published this week presents an in-depth analysis of aviation’s value to the UK economy and suggests the country will need a new runway by 2030, and…Greg Marsden, Professor of Transport Governance, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/164112013-08-02T05:44:12Z2013-08-02T05:44:12ZA multi-airport system works for London and the UK<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28501/original/www9xvt8-1375360139.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Budget airlines are helping Southend airport compete.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Chris Radburn/PA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>One of the key issues behind the recent debate over UK airports is the <a href="https://theconversation.com/regional-britain-would-benefit-from-heathrow-closure-16177">unwieldy dominance of Heathrow</a>, both within London and across the whole nation. But the little guys are fighting back. Using a variety of strategies, London’s other airports have carved out successful niches for themselves, and the rest of the country has become directly connected to overseas destinations. <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bc5abaf4-ed71-11e2-8d7c-00144feabdc0.html">Whatever its future</a>, Heathrow must beware.</p>
<p>The development of multi-airport systems like London’s has been a recent trend in global commercial air travel. All airports in such systems serve a particular metropolitan area, often with overlapping catchment areas. <a href="http://web.mit.edu/bonnefoy/www/pb/Pub_files/Bonnefoy_J_Tranp_Eng_MAS_2009_2.pdf">A study in 2008</a> identified 59 such multi-airport systems around the world, with 25 in Europe. </p>
<p>Multi-airport systems serving the same metropolis always have a dominant or primary airport, with a high, and constant, levels of traffic. As well as having lower passenger numbers overall, traffic at secondary airports tends to be more volatile as they rely on start-up airlines and routes to new markets. These smaller airports often specialise in a particular market segment not shared with the dominant rival. This can be the result of airline strategy, geographical location, government regulation or simply historical precedent. </p>
<p>At the top of the airport food chain is London, Europe’s largest multi-airport system. The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) recognises no fewer than six airports as serving the city.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28498/original/syyd9vwb-1375356819.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28498/original/syyd9vwb-1375356819.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=310&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28498/original/syyd9vwb-1375356819.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=310&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28498/original/syyd9vwb-1375356819.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=310&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28498/original/syyd9vwb-1375356819.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28498/original/syyd9vwb-1375356819.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28498/original/syyd9vwb-1375356819.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">UK Civil Aviation Authority</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Primary vs secondary</h2>
<p>Heathrow clearly dominates - the system’s primary airport. However, 48% of London passengers still used other airports in 2012. To see how this has come about, it is worth looking at each of Heathrow’s rivals.</p>
<p>Gatwick airport’s early traffic grew as a result of charter flights. It also benefited from regulation by the UK government in 1978 designed to achieve a “better” distribution of traffic between Heathrow and Gatwick, the UK’s two main international airports at the time. Conversely, the airport was the victim of later deregulation in 2008, when the EU/US “Open Skies” policy resulted in the loss of many North American services back to Heathrow. The airport is now unique in that it offers a mix of scheduled full-service (both short-haul and long-haul), scheduled low cost and charter carriers. Unlike London’s other secondary airports, no single sector dominates.</p>
<p>Stansted exhibits the classic traffic volume volatility and market specialisation of the secondary airport. In just five years from 1998 to 2003, passenger numbers grew from 7m to 19m, driven by rapid expansion among low cost carriers. By 2003, Ryanair operated services from Stansted to 66 destinations in competition with easyJet (23 destinations), buzz (21) and Go (20). But this was as good as it got. Both of the Stansted start-ups buzz and Go ceased operations around this time, and the airport’s traffic peaked at 24m in 2004 before showing a significant decline to 17m in 2012. </p>
<p>Luton also played an important role in the growth of the inclusive holiday tour flights in the UK. It is now dominated by budget carriers, being both easyJet’s headquarters and first operational base. This low cost sector accounts for 86% of passenger traffic with charter passengers now reduced to just 4% of business and full-service airlines taking 10%. Luton is notable for successfully avoiding the traffic volatility of Stansted, with consistent passenger numbers of 9-10m in the last five years.</p>
<p>London City airport’s small size and geographical proximity to the City of London and Canary Wharf allow it to offer a unique experience to business passengers that can never be matched by other London airports. Despite the global economic crisis, the airport’s traffic has remained stable around at around 3m passengers per year since 2007.</p>
<p>Southend, now a base for easyJet, is the new kid on the block. With direct rail links to London Liverpool Street from the airport station, 600,000 passengers used the airport in 2012. The numbers are small compared to established rivals, but Southend started from a low base: passenger numbers were negligable in previous years.</p>
<h2>Region to region</h2>
<p>Heathrow’s status as national hub and primary London airport is threatened by two other trends in the aviation market. UK regional airports have created direct passenger flights to other regional airports in Europe, bypassing national hubs. Regional UK airports are now directly connected to regional France and Italy, for example, thus avoiding the use of the London, Paris, Rome or Milan airport systems. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28496/original/r835xp5n-1375355057.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28496/original/r835xp5n-1375355057.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/28496/original/r835xp5n-1375355057.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=183&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28496/original/r835xp5n-1375355057.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=183&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28496/original/r835xp5n-1375355057.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=183&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28496/original/r835xp5n-1375355057.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=230&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28496/original/r835xp5n-1375355057.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=230&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/28496/original/r835xp5n-1375355057.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=230&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Regional UK connections to France & Italy in 1998, 2003 and 2013.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">OAG</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Furthermore, larger regional UK airports like Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow and Edinburgh have also encouraged North American and Middle Eastern carriers to replicate the connections they originally only offered from Heathrow. This connects these airports to the global networks of airlines like Delta, United, Qatar Airways and Emirates without the need for passengers to transfer through London.</p>
<p>But, thus far, Heathrow has shown great resilience as both national hub and London’s primary airport. Potential threats to business from low cost carriers in the London secondary airports, direct regional European connections and competition from foreign flights to larger UK regional airports have made little impact on Heathrow’s market share in the very challenging economic climate since 2008. Even with very constrained capacity, its share of both the London and UK markets has shown considerable growth in recent times. Perhaps the biggest threat to Heathrow comes not from its rivals, but <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2363945/Boris-Johnsons-plan-replace-Heathrow-65bn-Thames-Estuary-airport-grandiose-Hitlers.html">from politicians</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/16411/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Moxon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>One of the key issues behind the recent debate over UK airports is the unwieldy dominance of Heathrow, both within London and across the whole nation. But the little guys are fighting back. Using a variety…Richard Moxon, Senior Lecturer in Airport Planning and Management, Cranfield UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.