Author: John Stewart

What if Davies got his sums wrong

What if Davies got his sums wrong……………

The Airports Commission recommended a third runway at Heathrow largely on the basis of the economic benefits it would bring to the country.  However, over the last few weeks evidence has emerged that the economic case for a third runway is much less convincing than it may have appeared.

What strengthens the argument is that much of this evidence, whilst unearthed by Gatwick Airport and others, is contained in the report of Airports Commission itself.

We now know:

The number of domestic airports linked to Heathrow will fall from 7 to just 4.

A 3rd runway will provide no more than 12 additional long-haul destinations by 2050

The case for a new runway at Heathrow always rested on the fact it would significantly improve connectivity to the emerging economies of the world and that it would connect more UK airports to Heathrow.  The facts suggest otherwise.  Indeed, a second runway at Gatwick would add 10 new long-haul destinations at a fraction of the cost to the taxpayer.

We also now know:

The £147 billion the Commission said a 3rd runway would bring to the national economy over 60 years is likely to be way too high.

Its own experts Professor Peter Mackie and Brian Pearce told the Commission that the method of modelling used by consultants PwC, which produced this figure, faced “a number of difficulties” and was about three times higher than traditional estimates.

Using the more traditional modelling methods, and assuming carbon trading is in place, the benefits of a third runway over a 60 year period fall to £69 billion.  A second runway at Gatwick would bring in just over £60 billion.

But, if the costs of the disbenefits (such as noise and emissions) and the costs of delivering the third runway are included, the economic benefits fall to £11.8 billion over 60 years.  The Commission admits Gatwick would be close behind at £10.8 billion.  (Gatwick Airport believes this is an underestimate as it argues the Commission has underestimated the number of passengers it would attract).

A recent report from the Aviation Environment Federation puts the benefits of a third runway even lower as it believes the Commission hasn’t fully factored in the costs of climate emissions.

But, even on the Commission’s own figures, the economic benefits of a third runway at Heathrow could be much less than has been commonly assumed. 

Food for much thought for the cabinet committee which is assessing the Commission’s recommendation.    

What if Davies got his sums wrong

The Airports Commission recommended a third runway at Heathrow largely on the basis of the economic benefits it would bring to the country.  However, over the last few weeks evidence has emerged that the economic case for a third runway is much less convincing than it may have appeared.

What strengthens the argument is that much of this evidence, whilst unearthed by Gatwick Airport and others, is contained in the report of Airports Commission itself.

We now know:

  • The number of domestic airports linked to Heathrow will fall from 7 to just 4.
  • A 3rd runway will provide no more than 12 additional long-haul destinations by 2050

The case for a new runway at Heathrow always rested on the fact it would significantly improve connectivity to the emerging economies of the world and that it would connect more UK airports to Heathrow.  The facts suggest otherwise.  Indeed, a second runway at Gatwick would add 10 new long-haul destinations at a fraction of the cost to the taxpayer.

We also now know:

  • The £147 billion the Commission said a 3rd runway would bring to the national economy over 60 years is likely to be way too high.

Its own experts Professor Peter Mackie and Brian Pearce told the Commission that the method of modelling used by consultants PwC, which produced this figure, faced “a number of difficulties” and was about three times higher than traditional estimates.

Using the more traditional modelling methods, and assuming carbon trading is in place, the benefits of a third runway over a 60 year period fall to £69 billion.  A second runway at Gatwick would bring in just over £60 billion.

But, if the costs of the disbenefits (such as noise and emissions) and the costs of delivering the third runway are included, the economic benefits fall to £11.8 billion over 60 years.  The Commission admits Gatwick would be close behind at £10.8 billion.  (Gatwick Airport believes this is an underestimate as it argues the Commission has underestimated the number of passengers it would attract).

A recent report from the Aviation Environment Federation puts the benefits of a third runway even lower as it believes the Commission hasn’t fully factored in the costs of climate emissions.

But, even on the Commission’s own figures, the economic benefits of a third runway at Heathrow could be much less than has been commonly assumed.

Food for much thought for the cabinet committee which is assessing the Commission’s recommendation.    

What if Gatwick are right

What if Gatwick is right……………

The Airports Commission recommended a third runway at Heathrow largely on the basis of the economic benefits it would bring to the country.  However, over the last few weeks evidence has emerged that the economic case for a third runway is much less convincing than it may have appeared.

What strengthens the argument is that much of this evidence, whilst unearthed by Gatwick Airport and others, is contained in the report of Airports Commission itself.

We now know:

The number of domestic airports linked to Heathrow will fall from 7 to just 4.

A 3rd runway will provide no more than 12 additional long-haul destinations by 2050

The case for a new runway at Heathrow always rested on the fact it would significantly improve connectivity to the emerging economies of the world and that it would connect more UK airports to Heathrow.  The facts suggest otherwise.  Indeed, a second runway at Gatwick would add 10 new long-haul destinations at a fraction of the cost to the taxpayer.

We also now know:

The £147 billion the Commission said a 3rd runway would bring to the national economy over 60 years is likely to be way too high.

Its own experts Professor Peter Mackie and Brian Pearce told the Commission that the method of modelling used by consultants PwC, which produced this figure, faced “a number of difficulties” and was about three times higher than traditional estimates.

Using the more traditional modelling methods, and assuming carbon trading is in place, the benefits of a third runway over a 60 year period fall to £69 billion.  A second runway at Gatwick would bring in just over £60 billion.

But, if the costs of the disbenefits (such as noise and emissions) and the costs of delivering the third runway are included, the economic benefits fall to £11.8 billion over 60 years.  The Commission admits Gatwick would be close behind at £10.8 billion.  (Gatwick Airport believes this is an underestimate as it argues the Commission has underestimated the number of passengers it would attract).

A recent report from the Aviation Environment Federation puts the benefits of a third runway even lower as it believes the Commission hasn’t fully factored in the costs of climate emissions.

But, even on the Commission’s own figures, the economic benefits of a third runway at Heathrow could be much less than has been commonly assumed. 

Food for much thought for the Cabinet Committee which is assessing the Commission’s recommendation    

Plane Stupid activists in Court

A large number of people turned out to support the Plane Stupid activists, who occupied the Heathrow runway last month, when they appeared in Uxbridge Magistrates Court on on 19th August.  Photos here:  http://www.demotix.com/news/8344293/heathrow-climate-activists-protest-outside-plane-stupid-court-hearing …  They pleaded not guilty and were bailed on condition they don’t enter airport.  There will be 2 week trial starting Jan18th.

Most noise emails come from…..EAST of Clapham Junction

HACAN gets more emails from areas in South London east of Clapham Junction in a typical week than any other single area. 

This surprises people when I mention it to them.  They expect most of the complaints to come from areas closer to the airport.

I suspect there are four reasons for this:

  • In West London there is now more of an acceptance of the noise (though this is far from universal).
  • Most people moving into West London know there may be planes in the area; this is not the case elsewhere.
  • Unlike West London, there is no real respite from the noise.  In West London people under the landing flight paths get a half day’s break from the noise when planes switch runways at 3pm each day.
  • The fact, brought up in a number of the emails, that  an operational change (often quite a small one) by air traffic controllers can have the effect of concentrating flights over particular areas.

The number of planes flying over parts of SE London can be considerable, with HACAN having recorded over 40 planes an hour at the Oval, the vat majority under 4,000 ft.

Below are a selection of the emails we received over the last week or so.

(Note to aviation experts: some of the assumptions people make about why they are suffering noise may not be accurate.  Don’t let that get in the way of their clear message: they are suffering from the noise.)

Message:  

Morning, I’ve just moved into Camberwell and I’m devastated by the CONSTANT drone of aircraft. There is literally no respite and the garden has become a no-go zone. We are so far away from Heathrow but almost every plane that lands there flies directly over us and unlike areas of West London, there is no respite or ‘off-days.’

Is there any good news you can provide or have I just made the most expensive mistake of my life?

Message:

Hi, when you see coverage of noise you see more (understandably) on noise near the airport. However, we in Forest Hill get noise from around 5am loud enough to wake us up, and are in SE6 area. What can residents from further afield do to get their point about noise across?  Do you have regional or borough action groups or citizen reporting and monitoring groups? I would like to set up a noise monitor but don’t know how to best do this in a way that will ensure the data is usable. Please advise!

Message:

Dear Sir or Madam, Do you know if there are any groups or people in Kennington/Lambeth North area who are also disturbed by the massive increase in aviation noise since 2012? I am looking to get in touch to compare their experiences to my own. I assume you are aware that peak noise from Heathrow arrivals have increased fourfold in this area and due to the increase in frequency of flights, there no gaps in the noise.

Message:

Hi John, I hope you are well.  We have noticed a further increase of flights – this is now getting out of hand!  We now have times where there are planes every 2 minutes!  We never used to be overflown like this in Hither Green.  Could you please provide the latest data so we can see the increase and suggest what we can do to take further action.

Message:

Thanks John.  So from the WebTrak data yesterday I can see now that planes cut across Wandsworth Common so at least now it’s starting to show what we can all see so some progress here*.  The obvious next question is who changed the approach path (it seems from the Croydon stack) as they have never come across the Common before?

* His previous email was a complaint that Webtrak was not showing the true location of the planes.

Message:

Please can you advise on action I can take.  Family and neighbours suffering from sleep deprivation thru 4am onwards noise of numerous Heathrow flights and total loss of amenity and enjoyment of our homes. Our property seems to be under the direct flight path. Flights greatly increased as has noise. Generally woken up every morning just after 4am by noise Heathrow incoming flights which even keeping a radio on overnight as background noise, can’t block out aircraft noise. We suffer noise blight from the two “stacks” etc our side of Kent (Biggin and the other one). Have you been contacted by anyone else the Sundridge Park/Elmstead Woods side of Bromley? Can you please let us know whom we can take this totally unacceptable situation up with and if I can do anything constructive in your organisation to get satisfaction for all the residents her in getting rid of this blight on our lives.

Message:

I would like to report intense, constant aircraft noise in Brockley, SE4. Planes thunder over the house, over and over again, every day for 18 hours non-stop – a relentless drone and roar of aircraft (e.g. today 21/7/2015).  There is absolutely no relief in the area. I am aware that “planes have always been over the area”, as Heathrow often says, but they have never been at this concentration or intensity, this has got a lot worse recently.

When will the area gets some respite?

Where the Labour candidates stand on the 3rd runway

HACAN outlines where the Labour candidates for Party Leader stand on a third runway at Heathrow and, below that, were the London Mayoral hopefuls stand.

Labour leadership candidates

Jeremy Corbyn.  AGAINST.

Mr Corbyn told The Independent: “A third runway at Heathrow would mean 4,000 homes demolished and 10,000 people displaced.

It would cause massive increases in noise and air pollution and inflict misery on hundreds of thousands of Londoners.

UK air pollution is already above EU limits, and 30,000 people are dying every year because of it.

We should be ensuring our existing national and regional airports are linked effectively by public transport and work together to maximise existing capacity and help spread economic benefits across the country.”

He is also on record as saying the demand should be managed through ending the tax-breaks the aviation industry enjoys, such as tax-free fuel.

Andy Burham.  FOR

Mr Burnham believes it is time to “just get on with it” following the Davies report. He is backing Michael Dugher, one of his supporters, who as shadow Transport Secretary last month dropped Labour’s opposition to Heathrow expansion under Ed Miliband.

Liz Kendall.  FOR

Ms Kendall was the first leadership runner to endorse a third runway.

She said: “The country has to get behind this now – the time for fudge and indecision is over.

Many thousands of jobs right across the country depend on Britain maintaining an international hub airport that keeps pace with the rest of the world.

With my leadership, Labour will be a party of jobs and work – so I will back the commission’s decision. We need to act now.”

Yvette Cooper.  FOR

Ms Cooper said the Heathrow project should go ahead provided the environmental safeguards proposed by the commission are introduced.

She said: “We have spent a very long time on this; we do need to get on with it.

The experts have looked at it and made a recommendation. I think we should go with it.”

Labour London Mayoral Hopefuls

Diane Abbott, Sadiq Khan and Christian Wolmar.  AGAINST

Tessa Jowell and David Lammy.  FOR (as long as key conditions on noise and air pollution are in place)

Gareth Thomas.  FOR…and wants a 2nd runway at Gatwick as well

HACAN’s Achievements

HACAN was formed in the 1970s.  In our long campaigning life, there have been successes and failures.  Here are some of the things we have done:

  • In the 1970s we were instrumental in persuading the Government to introduce runway alternation in West London. This is the practice whereby planes landing at Heathrow switch runways at 3pm in order to give residents a half day’s break from the noise.
  • We took the lead representing local communities on noise issues at the Terminal 5 Enquiry.  The Enquiry was lost but it resulted in a legally-binding cap of 480,000 planes being able to use the airport each year.
  • In 2001 we took the UK Government to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that, under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, night flights were an infringement of our right to the ‘peaceful enjoyment’ of our homes.  We won the case but the Government appealed and they won that in 2003.
  • We were the central body in the successful campaign against the 3rd runway when it was proposed by the last Labour Government.  We brought together a wide-ranging coalition of residents groups, local authorities, sympathetic politicians of all parties, environmentalists, direct action campaigners, businesses and trade unions opposed to as new runway.
  • We commissioned an important report which challenged the economic case for the new runway.
  • You can read about the campaign at http://www.hacan.org.uk/resources/reports/how.the.heathrow.campaign.was.won.pdf
  •  
  • In recent years we have lobbied on noise issues and have been instrumental in putting the concept of putting respite on the agenda.  We are members of, the Heathrow Consultative Committee, the Heathrow Noise Forum and The Community Noise Forum
  •  
  • We engaged with the Airports Commission on noise issues, such as the idea of bringing respite to more areas.  In his speech on the day the Airports Commission released it report, HACAN and Hounslow Council were the only two organizations singled out for special thanks by its chairman.
  •  
  • We have played a role in persuading the Government to introduced new, more meaningful metrics for noise annoyance, moving away from the 57dbLAeq contour as ‘the onset of community annoyance’.

Only 13.2% of Britons Back a Third Runway at Heathrow

Press Release

28/7/15 for immediate use

Only 13.2% of Britons Back a Third Runway at Heathrow

A Mori poll released yesterday shows that only 13% of people in the UK back a third runway at Heathrow.  Most people, 60%, want to see more airport capacity in the country but few of them want it at Heathrow.  A third of people are against any expansion at all.

Of those who favour expansion, 30% want to see a new airport, 24% support Gatwick and 22% Heathrow.  But, when those who oppose all expansion are taken into account, support for a third runway at Heathrow falls to a mere 13%.

John Stewart, chair of HACAN, which opposes a third runway, said, “The politicians who back Heathrow expansion are simply out of tune with public opinion. Moreover, this independent poll shows Heathrow-commissioned polls do not tell the full story”.

Most people thought that concerns about noise and the natural environment were more important than jobs and economic growth when considering where new runway or a new airport should be built.

Gideon Skinner, Head of Political Research at Ipsos MORI, said: “At the moment, the public’s view is dominated by concerns about environmental impact and noise rather than jobs or cost.”

Ends

Notes for Editors:

1.  Link to the survey: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3606/Most-Britons-believe-airport-capacity-should-be-increased.aspx

 

 

Happiness

The Airports Commission has a view on happiness.  It got lost in the immediate analysis of its report. But it is important……because a key justification it gives of  a third runway at Heathrow is that flying abroad on holiday or to visit family and friends makes you happy.

On page 70 of its final report it says: 

“Leisure flights have a high social value. Empirical analysis focused on passengers travelling on holiday or to visit friends and family has shown how the access to leisure travel affects mental health and wellbeing. The findings demonstrate these patterns of travel are associated with higher levels of life satisfactions, general and mental health, and happiness.”

The Commission had asked PwC to look at the academic literature on happiness.  They found that it did show that taking a holiday did make people happy.  Their second claim – that air travel is associated with a higher level of happiness – was less well-founded because the statistical work that PwC did for the Commission didn’t split up the respondents into those that travelled on holiday by car, train or bus and those that flew.

However, it would be churlish to deny that cheap flights providing holidays in the sun don’t bring happiness to people.  Only last week I was having a snack at a cafe in Canning Town in East London.  When I asked the young waiter if he was going on holiday this year, his eyes lit up as he explained to me that for the first time in the years he and his girlfriend had saved enough money to fly off for a holiday to Portugal. 

The really interesting question is why the Airports Commission is, at least in part, justifying the expansion of Britain’s premier international airport on the grounds of increasing the happiness of a young lad from Canning Town.

Can it be that it found:

The proportion of business trips is falling