Runway 3 threat

Proposed location of R3 in green [DfT]

Note. This page was written at the time of the 'White Paper' on aviation in Dec 03. The government launched a consultation on Heathrow expansion in Dec 07. Mnay of the principles and main issues remain but some details are changed. But most importantly, the government now says that air pollution is not a 'show stopper'. See Heathrow consultation page.

The government's preferred option for the next runway in the southeast would have been a third runway at Heathrow.

This is stated in the government's 'White Paper' on airports, which was published in Dec 03 and followed an extended period of 'Public Consultation'.

However, a third runway could cause such high levels of air pollution that it could invoke sanctions from the EU.

Because of these concerns, the government proposes that a runway at Heathrow, named "R3" for short, is put off until about 2015-20.

R3 would have major environmental consequences for West London and beyond and would increase congestion and danger for hundreds of thousands of citizens.

The government's proposed location for the short third runway is north of the present Heathrow and Bath Road. There would be a connection between the the new runway and the rest of Heathrow. See diagram.

Quality of life, already under assault from Terminal 5, would be worsened for millions of people. There would also, less obviously, be significant economic and employment disadvantages arising from R3.

On this page, we outline the main arguments against R3. We also give links to other pages on this site and to other sites where more detailed information can be found.

Why R3 is a bad idea

The environmental arguments against R3 are compelling:

• Even higher levels of air pollution
• More greenhouse gas emissions (climate change)
• More noise
• Loss of wildlife and biodiversity
• Destruction of townscape and heritage
• Threats to Green Belt and urban open space

There are other serious threats to residents in West London:

• Increased congestion on the roads
• Destruction of local communities
• Increased risk of a crash killing people on the ground
• Flooding

The arguments in favour of R3 are contrived and exaggerated:

• Economic costs imposed on residents ignored
• Subsidies to the aviation industry ignored
• Economic benefits hyped up while offsetting costs ignored
• Real impact on employment hidden

The consultation documents (CDs) are biased in favour of airport expansion and R3:

• Environmental impacts underplayed
• Spin on economic and employment issues
• Omission of key issues
• Leading questions

For more information on these issues, see below.

Sustainable development

The government maintains that it is committed to 'sustainable development' and says it wants to ensure that " .. the long term development of aviation is sustainable". R3 would impact by far the largest population of any of the runway options in the UK and would lead to continually increasing environmental damage. This is inconsistent with sustainable development.

Air pollution

Air pollution will break the law [LB of Hillingdon]

It is estimated in the CDs that if R3 were to go ahead, some 35,000 people would be exposed to levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) that would breach EU standards. These standards have been set to protect human health. The map shows in red the areas that would breach the standards with the existing two runways. The mauve areas are the extra areas where standards would be breached with the third runway.

Remarkably, it appears only to be the fact that the EU could take action against the UK government that has caused it to highlight the issue as an argument against R3. One might have hoped that the government cared about the high existing levels of air pollution and people's health in West London, irrespective of EU rules.

To meet EU standards, it appears that the homes of 35,000 people would have to be demolished. Despite this, British Airways (BA) and the business community are campaigning for R3. BA even believes that the government, ie taxpayers, should pay the costs of re-housing. This would be yet another subsidy to the industry - of the order of £3.5 billion.

This huge dislocation and cost might seem to rule out R3. But in the Consultation Documents (CDs) there is reference to a set of more optimistic assumptions. Applying these assumptions would reduce the problem at Heathrow to 15% of the original estimate and make R3 financially viable. This seems just too convenient ! Ominously, BA and the Government immediately said they would carry out new studies of air pollution. Given the uncertainties and the opportunities for 'dodgy dealings', the only safe solution is to rule out R3 now.

BAA have carried out a new study of air pollution. By making a series of more optimistic about all the main parameters which affect the estimates, their consultants, AEA, are able to 'show' that only about 2000 people would be in areas exceeding EU limits. Friends of the Earth (FOE) believes that such important studies should be carried out by truly independent consultants, not by people who have a vested interest in producing the answers that their paymasters want.

The government, is now carrying out its own study. The project is called 'Project Heathrow'. The project is being led by David Gray at the Department for Transport (DfT) . FOE met the DfT on 28th June 04 and asked to be kept fully informed on the progress of the study. The DfT agreed. However, as at the end of Nov 04, 5 months on, the DfT is still refusing to allow us to see the notes of the meetings!

Climate Change

People living near airports have long suffered from aircraft noise, traffic congestion and air pollution. Indeed, communities around airports have been concerned about these issues for years. However it is now becoming widely known that air travel is contributing towards a far greater threat - climate change.

Air travel is the world's fastest growing source of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), which cause climate change. Unlike the other environmental impacts, the effect of climate change will be apparent at national and international level rather than locally. The threat of climate change is a strong reason to constrain growth in air travel and this is as true at Heathrow as at any other airport.

Noise

Approach path for R3

The CDs include 'noise contours' showing the number of people exposed to levels above 57 dBA Leq. (Noise is currently expressed in terms of an average called 'Loudness Equivalent', or Leq, in decibels, or dBA.) With two runways, 226,000 people would be affected in 2015 (allowing for T5). With R3 the number would increase to 333,000. In terms of the number of people exposed to noise, Heathrow would be by far the worst place in the UK for an additional runway.

Large numbers of people would be exposed to significant noise for the first time. Yet the CDs do not say anything about where the extra flight paths would be. For landings, it is in fact easy to see where one new flight path would be and it is clear that areas such as Heston, Brentford and Chiswick would be subject to far more noise. See map from HACAN (150 kbytes) and from the Evening Standard.

Noise can cause nuisance at levels well below 57dB. The 57dB is an average over 18 hours at day and over the whole summer. It can therefore conceal periods of much more intense noise. Even setting this aside, the use of 57dB is flawed. The WHO (World Health Organisation) recognises 50dB as an onset of community annoyance and 55dB as a serious issue. If contours for 55dB or 50dB were to be shown, the number of people 'affected' would be far greater. No wonder we see emotive images.

Water avens

Wildlife, habitats and biodiversity

Preservation of biodiversity is one of the great issues of our time. The Biodiversity Convention was one of just two signed by the UK government in 1993 after the Rio conference (the other being on climate change).

Terminal 5 will have serious consequences for wildlife, wiping out one of the best sites in the London area for wildfowl and waders and destroying the only site of one of the rarest plants in SE England, water avens.

While R3 does not apparently threaten such special sites, it would continue the catalogue of destruction of wildlife and habitats. The CD dismisses the whole of biodiversity thus : "There are no high impacts".

Safety

Where planes could have crashed

There is very little in the CDs on the issue of public safety and no assessment whatever of the increased risks that would result from the forecast massive increase in traffic. Only the area very close to the airport - the so-called Public Safety Zone - is considered. The risks to almost everyone in West London are ignored by the government.

Heathrow is by far the most dangerous airport in the country as far as total risk to people on the ground is concerned. This is because of the huge population overflown and the large number of big aircraft. It is obvious that R3, with its many extra flights, will increase the risk significantly. On safety grounds, Heathrow is the worst possible place for new runway.

A map has been produced which takes the location of crashes at airports around the world, but re-locates them to show where the aircraft would have come down if it had been using Heathrow rather than another airport. This is a chilling reminder of what BAA and the government know well but are hiding from us - that Heathrow is the worst possible place for another runway. A small version of the map is shown here - for a larger map and supporting text see crash map [PDF file, 56K]

Loss of townscape heritage and communities

Medieval barn in the way of R3

Whole villages and communities would be destroyed by T5. Harmondsworth and Sipson would be devastated.

In Harmondsworth, one of the finest medieval barns in Europe would be destroyed. So would a fine old church and a historic pub.

Development pressures

R3 would be build on Green Belt. Green Belt is an essential component of our protection against creeping urbanisation and loss of countryside. R3 would inevitably lead to Terminal 6, as BAA have admitted. There would be renewed pressure for road widening, extra demands for housing, warehousing, car parks, etc which threaten Green Belt and other open land. The CD notes " .. it is unlikely that the housing requirements or the employment land requirements could be met without loss of Green Belt to expanded urban areas".

Water

Heathrow already has a major effect on surface and groundwater in surrounding area. There is much pollution in the watercourses nearby.

In 2000/01 there was extensive flooding immediately to the west of Heathrow and this was undoubtedly exacerbated by Heathrow. Insurance companies are now threatening not to give cover to properties in the area.

Surface access

The extra passengers with R3 would mean even more congestion on road and rail. Already roads are congested due to the volume of Heathrow traffic, affecting quality of life for residents and increasing costs for business. The Piccadilly line is severely congested at rush hour, increasing problems for residents travelling to work. The extra passengers resulting from R3 would make the situation worse. The CDs offer little to address these problems. The amount of traffic would increase even more and gridlock could become an everyday occurrence.

Demand forecasts

Impacts quoted in the Consulation Document (CDs) are based on unrealistically low levels of throughput - 89m passengers pa with two runways; 116m with three runways. At the Terminal 5 inquiry it was widely accepted that 100m with two runways was a reasonable forecast. The rate of growth since then suggests that this is, if anything, an under-estimate. More passengers and more flights, together with the extra road traffic, mean greater environmental impacts than have been admitted by the government.

External costs

'External costs' are the costs imposed on society by air transport but which are not paid for by the industry or its passengers. The estimated external costs for the UK are between 2 and 4 billion pounds pa. We do not have full figures for Heathrow, but it was estimated that for Heathrow Terminal 5 alone, the cost of air pollution would be about £40 million pa and the cost of road congestion £60m pa.

Currently, the air transport industry and its users do not pay for the external costs they impose on society. The main forecasts used in CDs assumes this will continue to be the case up to 2030. This is despite that fact that the Government has said on various occasion that it believes air transport should pay its external costs. If the external costs were paid, this would increase prices and damp down demand. The forecasts used in the consultation are inflated because the government has assumed that society will continue to pay these costs. In effect, we will continue to subsidise the industry.

Our calculations suggest that if external costs were paid, the demand in the Se of England would be reduced by about the amount of traffic that would be carried by R3. That is, R3 would not be needed ! (This assumes that other runways proposed as part of the various options were not changed.)

Tax dodges

It is now well known that the air transport industry and its customers do not pay taxes which they might be expected to pay. There is no tax on fuel, no VAT on tickets or on the components of air travel such as aircraft, and no duty or VAT on airport purchases for journeys outside the EU.

While other industries and sectors pay tax and charge their customers to reflect those taxes, the exemptions for air transport amount to a public subsidy to the industry and its customers. This is because they allow the air transport industry to operate at lower costs than other industries and, by virtue of not paying tax, increase the tax burden elsewhere. The tax avoidance effectively subsidises those who fly (or fly more often) at the expense of those who do not. As the better-off fly more, this means poorer people subsidising the well-off. The subsidies also distort the economy.

There are no good social, economic or environmental reasons for these tax exemptions. It is recognised that there are practical difficulties in charging certain types of tax, for example a direct tax on fuel. Taking the longer-term view, however, it is reasonable to assume that the situation will be rectified and that air transport would pay its fair share of tax by 2030.

If the full and equitable taxes were paid, this would increase prices and greatly reduce demand. The forecasts used in the consultation are inflated because the government has assumed that taxes will continue to not be paid. In effect, we will continue to subsidise the industry. Our calculations suggest that if the industry were to pay its fair share of tax, demand would be reduced by an amount of traffic much greater than would be carried by R3. That is, R3 would not be needed ! In fact, no new runways at all would be needed in the SE.

Other economic issues

Air transport is a big business. It has been estimated that it 'contributes' £10.2 billion to the Gross National Product of the UK (1.4% of the total). This 'contribution' is however irrelevant to the debate on the growth of air travel. The fact that air travel is part of the economy does not mean that the economy would be smaller if there was less air travel. If billions of £s was not spent on flying, it would be simply be spent on other goods and services. This has been pointed out by an independent economic consultancies advising local government as well as organisations such as Friends of the Earth. The government has tried to trick consultees in supporting airport expansion by omitting this vital point while eulogising about the economic benefits of air travel.

The CDs emphasise economic benefits of air travel by referring to the money brought in by foreign tourists and by the value of investment brought into the country. However, there is no attempt to quantify these values. Even more importantly, all the related economic costs or disbenefits have been ignored. For example there is barely a mention of the fact that tourism takes far more money out of the country than it brings in. Nor is it mentioned that R3 would help suck investment out of the country as well as bring some in.

Jobs

One might expect that more air transport means more people employed in the industry and therefore more jobs over the whole UK economy. In fact this is not so. Professional economists consider that the volume of air transport does not affect the level of employment in the country. The reason for this is not hard to see. In our economy, people have a choice as to how they spend their money. They may choose to spend it on air travel, in which case there will be jobs created in the air transport industry as it meets that demand. But if they choose instead to spend their money on some other product, the demand for that product will equally generate jobs within the industry that supplies that product.

The CDs, remarkably, make no mention of this vital point while talking at length about the jobs that would be 'created' by a growth in air transport. This appears to be another trick to induce consultees to support airport expansion.

Although growth of air travel does not affect employment at the UK level, there will be effects locally. R3, together with associated terminals and other knock-on developments, would generate more jobs in an area where staff for vital public services cannot be found. Already, we cannot get the police, nurses, teachers or bus drivers we need. R3 would make the situation worse.