3rd runway not essential to London’s economy

On the face of it, it may seem odd to cite the economy as a reason why Heathrow does not need a third runway.  After all, many in business back a third runway.  And it is the main reason Heathrow Airport gives for promoting one.

Let’s acknowledge up front that a 3rd runway would bring economic benefits.  And that it would improve connections for business to key markets in the world’s emerging economies – places like China, India and Brazil.

But all that is very different to saying that a 3rd runway is essential to London’s economy.  There is clear evidence it is not.  

Only today, the influential Forbes international survey named London as the top city in the world for business – without a third runway.  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-tops-forbes-list-of-the-worlds-most-influential-cities-in-2014-9676264.html It is worth reading what, Joel Kotkin, the author of the Forbes report wrote: “London is not only the historic capital of the English language, which contributes to its status as a powerful media hub and major advertising centre, but it’s also the birthplace of the cultural, legal and business practices that define global capitalism. The city has upward of 3,000 tech startups, as well as Google’s largest office outside Silicon Valley. Compared to New York, it is also time-zone advantaged for doing business in Asia, and has the second best global air connections of any city after Dubai, with non-stop flights at least three times a week to 89 per cent of global cities outside of its home region of Europe.”

The Forbes survey gives added weight to what a number of commentators have been saying for some time.  To meet current growth projections London and the South East may need a new runway by 2030 but it need not be at Heathrow.

The main reason the London economy doesn’t depend on Heathrow expanding is this:  more passengers (business people and tourists) terminate in London than in any other cit yin the world.On the whole, they do not mind which London airport they use.

Heathrow must be looked at in the context of all London’s airports.  London has six airports and seven runways.  London has more runways than any of its European rivals, except Paris:  Paris is served by 3 airports and 8 runways; Amsterdam by 1 airport and 6 runways; Frankfurt by 2 airports and 5 runways; and Madrid by 1 airport and 4 runways. 

As the Forbes survey so clearly indicated, London is the hub.  The vitality of London is what draws business people and tourists in world-beating numbers.  Because London is the magnet, Heathrow does not need to expand as a hub in order to enable more transfer passengers to provide sufficient numbers of people to fill flights to destinations across the world that would not otherwise be commercially viable.  

If airport capacity is provided – at whatever airport – people will flock to the capital in even larger numbers, drawn by the magnetic pull of London. A third runway at Heathrow may boost the coffers of Heathrow Airport’s foreign owners.  It is not, though, essential for the health of London economy.

Populus

Populus, Heathrow’s favourite pollster, are in trouble.  Their questionable methods have been exposed in a poll they did for the fracking industry. Thie poll published on Monday, carried out for UK Onshore Oil and Gas, was described by a polling expert as ‘one of the most misleading poll findings I’ve ever seen’.

And today the pressured on Populus has increased with the publication of a Government-funded survey which shows markedly different results to the Populus poll.  The Government survey found  that only 25% of people supported fracking compared to the Populus poll which claimed 57% support.

The headline in today’s Times gets to the heart of it: Public back fracking . . . depending on how you ask the question http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4174476.ece …  Ben Webster, the Times environment editor, puts it like this in his article: “The questions about fracking in the two surveys were posed in very different ways. The survey commissioned by UK Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG) asked several questions about Britain’s need for investment and greater energy security before the key question on fracking.  The question included a long preamble explaining the “tiny fractures” involved and how shale gas could “heat the UK’s homes for over 100 years”.  The energy department survey included a brief explanation of fracking as “a process of pumping water at high pressure into shale”,then asked people to state their level of support for it”.

Polling expert Leo Barasi wrote in Noise of the Crowd http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/this-fracking-poll-finding-is-one-of-the-least-convincing-ive-ever-seen/  about the Populus poll: “Short of faking results or fiddling the weights or sample (which this poll doesn’t), there are two ways to get a poll to give the answers you want. You can ask a series of leading questions that get respondents thinking the way you want them to, then ask the question you’re really interested in. Or you can word the questions so respondents only see half the argument. This poll does both”.

Barasi says: “This isn’t an attempt to find out what the public think about fracking. It’s message testing. That’s what political candidates or businesses do before launching a campaign. They fire a load of messages at respondents to see how much support they could gain in a theoretical world where only their view is heard, and which arguments are most effective. It’s a useful technique for finding out how people might respond to your arguments.  But it’s not supposed to represent what people actually think now”.

The criticism of Populus has important implications for Heathrow.  The airport has consistent commissioned polls from Populus in an attempt to show support for a third runway is growing.

In May 2014 Heathrow Airport claimed, on the basis of a Populus poll,  that there was more support now for a 3rd runway than when it was proposed by the last Labour Government.  The poll claimed to show 48% were in favour of a third runway while 34% opposed.

http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Heathrow-Borough-Poll-March-2014.pdf

In an uncanny parallel with the fracking results, these Populus results were flatly contradicted by referenda and surveys carried out by Hillingdon, Richmond and Hounslow local authorities which found around 72% of residents opposed a 3rd runway: http://www.richmond.gov.uk/100000_say_no_to_heathrow_expansion 

All the polls done by Populus for Heathrow must now be regarded with suspicion.  In December last year Heathrow claimed “people in West London are more likely to vote for their MP if they support Heathrow expansion than if they oppose a third runway according to new research from independent polling company Populus”.

http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/Press-releases/One-quarter-of-West-London-more-likely-to-vote-for-their-MP-if-they-back-Heathrow-expansion-77e.aspx .  This is in flat contradiction to what MPs are telling us they are hearing on the doorstep and reading in their mail.

Heathrow need now to publish not just the questions Populus are asking people but also the ‘spiel’ leading up to the questions.  Unless they can convince us all that they are not leading people to their chosen answer, their results can only be regarded as fiction rather than fact…..to be filed alongside this entertaining incident from Yes Minister http://youtu.be/G0ZZJXw4MTA  

HACAN calls for Heathrow Airport to come clean on its Populus polls after the polling company’s methods are exposed

HACAN  has called on HeathrowAirport to come clean about its surveys carried out by its favourite pollster Populus following the revelations this week about the methods Populus used in a recent survey on fracking.  The  fracking poll published on Monday, carried out for UK Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), was described by a polling expert as ‘one of the most misleading poll findings I’ve ever seen’.  And today it has been revealed that the UKOOG findings have been flatly contradicted by a Government survey found which only 25% of people supported fracking compared to the Populus poll which claimed 57% support. Heathrow has relied on Populus polls, conducted over the phone, to back its claims there is growing support for a third runway at the airport. Heathrow claimed, on the basis of a Populus poll, that there was more support now for a 3rd runway than when it was proposed by the last Labour Government.  The poll claimed to show 48% were in favour of a third runway while 34% opposed results which were flatly contradicted by referenda and surveys carried out by Hillingdon, Richmond and Hounslow local authorities which found around 72% of residents opposed a 3rd runway.

 See HACAN  blog for more details:  http://hacan.org.uk/blog/?p=316

HACAN calls for Heathrow Airport to come clean on its Populus polls after the polling company’s methods are exposed

Press Release

13/8/14 for immediate use

HACAN, the campaign group opposed to expansion at Heathrow, has called on Heathrow Airport to come clean about its surveys carried out by its favourite pollster Populus following the revelations this week about the methods Populus used in a recent survey on fracking (1).  The  fracking poll published on Monday, carried out for UK Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG), was described by a polling expert as ‘one of the most misleading poll findings I’ve ever seen’ (2).  And today it has been revealed that the UKOOG findings have been flatly contradicted by a Government survey found which only 25% of people supported fracking compared to the Populus poll which claimed 57% support (3).

Heathrow has relied on Populus polls, conducted over the phone, to back its claims there is growing support for a third runway at the airport. Heathrow claimed, on the basis of a Populus poll, that there was more support now for a 3rd runway than when it was proposed by the last Labour Government.  The poll claimed to show 48% were in favour of a third runway while 34% opposed (3), results which were flatly contradicted by referenda and surveys carried out by Hillingdon, Richmond and Hounslow local authorities which found around 72% of residents opposed a 3rd runway (4).

In December last year Heathrow claimed “people in West London are more likely to vote for their MP if they support Heathrow expansion than if they oppose a third runway according to new research from independent polling company Populus” (5)  in contradiction to what MPs day they are hearing on the doorstep and reading in their mail.

Experts are claiming that Populus are asking questions in a way that is guaranteed to get the answers their paymasters want.

HACAN chair John Stewart said, “Heathrow need to come clean about these Populus surveys.  It looks as if their favourite pollster has been discredited.   Heathrow should now to publish not just the questions Populus are asking people but also the ‘spiel’ leading up to the questions.  Unless they can convince us all that they are not leading people to their chosen answer, their results can only be regarded as fiction rather than fact…..to be filed alongside this entertaining incident from Yes Minister http://youtu.be/G0ZZJXw4MTA .”

 ENDS

 Notes for Editors:

 (1). See HACAN  blog for more details:  http://hacan.org.uk/blog/?p=316

(2).  http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/this-fracking-poll-finding-is-one-of-the-least-convincing-ive-ever-seen/

(3). http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4174476.ece …

(4). http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Heathrow-Borough-Poll-March-2014.pdf

(5). http://www.richmond.gov.uk/100000_say_no_to_heathrow_expansion

(6). http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/Press-releases/One-quarter-of-West-London-more-likely-to-vote-for-their-MP-if-they-back-Heathrow-expansion-77e.aspx .

For further information:  John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650

AIRCRAFT NOISE COMPLAINTS SOAR AS PASSENGERS NUMBERS REACH RECORD LEVELS AT HEATHROW DURING THE RECENT HEATWAVE

PRESS RELEASE

 for 11/8/14 for immediate use

 Heathrow’s busiest ever month together with the recent heat-wave have resulted in a record number of aircraft noise complaints received by campaign group HACAN .  Heathrow’s figures for July, just released, show that 6.97 million passengers used the airport during the month (1).

HACAN chair John Stewart said, “Open windows at night coupled with more outdoor activities has meant that more than hundreds of thousands people in West London and beyond are having to put up with what at times seems like constant aircraft noise.”

He added, “It puts into perspective Heathrow’s current consultation on compensation – www.heathrow.com/publicconsultation – if a third runway is ever built.  You simply can’t compensate people for the disturbance of planes thundering over as they sit in their gardens trying to enjoy the summer sunshine. And of course, there is increasing evidence that too much noise is as bad for your health as too much sunshine.”

Stewart said, “Just imagine how much worse the noise could be with a 3rd runway and at least 250,000 more flights each year using Heathrow”.

ENDS

Notes for editors:

(1). Heathrow records busiest month ever (6.97m pass., +0.5%), busiest day, & cargo up 7.8%. July results: http://bit.ly/1mBIhHU 

For further information:

John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650

 

HACAN reveals: 3rd runway could mean 13 hours of non-stop flying

If a third runway is built some areas will experience 13 hours of non-stop flying – a plane every 90 seconds.  These will include places under the new flight path like Harlington and Brentford.  It would also apply to places such as Richmond under the approach to the southern runway.

Third Runway would halve respite period for tens of thousands in West London

Press Release

3/8/14 for immediate use

Third Runway would halve respite period for tens of thousands in West London

 How the flight paths will work if a third runway is built:

planes

  • Planes will land on the new runway for 12-13 hours a day
  •  Planes will land on the current northern runway for 6-7 hours a day 
  • Planes will land on the current southern runway for 12-13 hours a day

 Places like Kew or Hounslow West under the northern runway will continue to get around 8 hours of respite but this will be off-set for many because they will be able to hear aircraft from one of the two other runways.  For places like Richmond under the southern flight path the respite period will be cut from 8 hours to just over 4.

A similar system of respite will apply when planes land from the west

The same system will also be introduced for take-offs to allow periods of respite for communities within a few miles of the airport

 Tens of thousands of people who currently enjoy a half day’s break from the aircraft noise would see their respite period halved if a third runway went ahead at Heathrow.  Campaign group HACAN, which opposes any new runway, has revealed that many areas of West London would have planes passing overhead at a rate of one every ninety seconds for almost 13 hours a day.

The information is buried in an appendix to a report HeathrowAirport slipped out before the summer holidays (1).  It shows residents under the southern flight path, over places like Richmond, would only get just over 4 hours break from the noise each day.  Currently they enjoy an 8 hour break when the planes switch runways at 3pm.

It would be all change if a third runway were to be built.  People living under the current northern flight path would continue to get around 8 hours of respite but this would be off-set for many because they will be able to hear aircraft from one of the two other runways on either side of them.

HACAN Chair John Stewart said, “The prospect of 13 hour flying is nightmarish.  Quite simply, many communities are going to be hammered if a third runway is built.”

Stewart added, “Heathrow Airport hasn’t hidden the information but the fact that it is buried in an appendix shows how reluctant they are to spell out the implications of a new runway.”

A decision on a third runway will not be taken for at least a year.  The next Government will assess the findings of the Airports Commission, to be released in summer 2015, before deciding what to do.

ENDS

 Notes for editors:

(1). Air and Ground Noise Assessment – http://your.heathrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/01-Heathrow-3RNW-Air-and-Ground-Noise-Assessment.pdf  or at 01: Air and ground noise assessment

For further information:

John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650

 

 

History of HACAN

HACAN started life in the 1960s as KACAN, Kew Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise. Within 10 years the acronym altered and we became HACAN, Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise.

Both organisations always recognised that Heathrow has a contribution to make to the national economy, and to the London’s local economy. We have never opposed Heathrow per se. Our aim has been to represent the concerns of the residents under the flight paths and around the airport.

HACAN became HACAN ClearSkies in 1999/2000 as aircraft noise became a serious problem for the first time in areas of London and the Thames Valley much further away from Heathrow. People are troubled by aircraft noise who live over 20 miles from the airport. There was a change in the way the aircraft were brought into land in 1996, bringing noise to these new areas. This was done in secret, without consultation or warning with the local councils or the local communities.  Subsequently went back to just calling ourselves HACAN.

We believe that residents have been betrayed by successive governments.

In 1978, the Inspector at the Terminal 4 Public Inquiry recommended the go-ahead for the terminal, but with a strict limit on the number of flights. Within a short time of the terminal opening (in the late 1980s) that limit had ben ignored.

In the 1990s we fought the longest Public Enquiry in UK history – lasting nearly 4 years – against Terminal 5. In 2001, the Inspector recommended the go-ahead for Terminal 5, but with a limit of 480,000 flights per year. The Government accepted the limit, but within 9 months it had put out for consultation proposals for a 3rd runway which would have increased the annual number of flights to 655,000. Terminal 5 in due to be open in 2007.

HACAN  has gone to the highest court in Europe over night flights.

In 2001 the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg found in our favour, and against the Government. It agreed that night flights were an infringement of our human right to a good night’s sleep. But the Government appealed and the court upheld the appeal in July 2003. 

HACAN ClearSkies now works with protest groups across the UK and all over Europe.

We are not in the business of ‘exporting our misery’ to somebody else. We believe that the only hope to bring a halt to the incessant pressure for expansion of Heathrow is a change of direction in European policy.. We argue that, if the substantial tax concessions the industry receives each year were phased out, Governments could manage demand.

 

Residents’ anger at Heathrow compensation consultation

28/7/14

Furious residents have complained to campaign group HACAN about Heathrow Airport’s most recent consultation.  Last week Heathrow released a three month consultation seeking people’s views on who should qualify for compensation if a third runway goes ahead.  But residents have told HACAN that they feel they are being steamrollered into accepting the fact that a third runway is inevitable at a time when the Government has made no decision on the future of Heathrow.

Read the consultation: http://your.heathrow.com/consultation/

Read the HACAN press release: http://hacan.org.uk/residents-fury-at-heathrow-compensation-consultation/

Read the HACAN blog: http://hacan.org.uk/blog/?p=305