On Saturday Nantes was ablaze.  The anger at the proposed new airport outside this city in Western France boiled over:  http://youtu.be/eIgNvAHIVmw.  Up to 60,000 people took part in what was largely a peaceful demonstration:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyZ9aDDqWfQ&list=PLYfjo3JyLy2TBtLWV_afrBLvUCVOzdOWa&feature=share   The local campaign group ACIPA say that the tension rose when the police refused to allow the march to take the normal route through the city.   When part of the march tried to do so it “faced violent police repression shot with rubber bullets, tear gas and stun grenades”: http://communiques-acipa.blogspot.co.uk/  

I have been to Nantes several times over last few years (although wasn’t there not on Saturday).  The campaign has become a cause célèbre in France.  It has “support committees” in over 200 towns and cities across France and Belgium.  On a regular basis each committee lobbies and demonstrates in its own area.  Over 60 coaches arrived in Nantes on Saturday with supporters from across the nation.

During the last Presidential elections four “peasant” farmers, whose land was threatened by the new airport, went on hunger strike for a month.  They were visited by most of the presidential candidates.  All, except for Hollande and Sarkozy, came out against the airport.

The profile of the campaign wasn’t always so high.  I first met the campaigners in 2008 when five desperate farmers drove through the night to promote their case at a major Heathrow rally.  They subsequently modelled much of their campaign on the successful fight against the 3^rd runway.  In particular, they built up the widest possible alliance of support.

The proposed new airport would be built around 15 miles from the city of Nantes in a landscape dotted with small farms and attractive villages.  It is the classic French countryside, but without the British and their second homes!

The rationale for the new airport has never been entirely clear.  Nantes already has a single runway airport which is under-used.  The regional government argues that the new airport would regenerate the area.  This is hotly contested by the campaigners who commissioned their own report which challenged the government’s economic case: http://www.cedelft.eu/publicatie/review_of_the_social_cost-benefit_analysis_of_grand_ouest_airport_%3Cbr%3E_comparison_with_improvements_of_nantes_atlantique/1191   They argue that the new airport has more to do with boosting the egos of the local politicians – including the former Mayor of Nantes Jean-Marc Aryault who was made Prime Minister under Hollande – than beefing up the economy.

It remains unclear how much support there may be from people in Nantes living under flight path to the current airport for the new airport.  Certainly, it is not visible.  In contrast, the opposition has mushroomed over the last six years.  Local people have been joined by a range of political and environmental organizations as well as the direct action campaigners, many of whom live in tents and tree houses in a local wooded area known as the ZAD.

There have been tensions from time to time between the local community and the direct action activists in the ZAD but last winter the ZAD won huge respect from other parts of the coalition when, in freezing cold conditions, they defied attempts by authorities to remove them.

It is probably impossible at this stage to know what will happen next in Nantes.  But I think it is part of an emerging pattern:  it is becoming increasingly difficult to build major new projects anywhere in Western Europe.  The Nantes campaigners have links with those opposing the HS2 high-speed link in Britain (http://stophs2.org/news/5792-les-grands-projets-inutiles-imposes) through what is known as the Campaign against Useless Imposed Mega-Projects.  It is what is says on the tin!  It includes the NO-TAV movement against high-speed rail in Northern Italy and Save Rosia Montana, the Romanian campaign against a vast cyanide-mined gold extraction project in Western Transylvanian.  Last year the Nantes campaigners hosted the Useless Imposed Mega-Projects’ annual meeting. 

Iain Martin wrote in the Daily Telegraph (14/1/09) about the Heathrow anti-third campaign: “the coalition assembled outside Parliament is extraordinarily wide. It runs from radical eco-warriors to middle-class mothers in west London, hedge fund managers in Richmond, to pensioners and parents in Brentford”.  The links now being made by opponents of mega-projects are in some ways an extension of this.  The anarchist on the streets of Nantes has little in common with the millionaire executive in the Chilterns…….except they are both passionately against a mega-project.

Certain things seem to need to be present for a mega-project to attract opposition from very disparate people.  

• There is a real doubt whether the mega-project is essential for the economy.  The economic case for the new Nantes Airport, HS2, the Rumanian gold-mine and the third runway at Heathrow are all hotly contested.

• The mega-project is site-based, i.e. there is land, homes, countryside or communities to defend.

• The mega-project is attracting significant local opposition.  If the local opposition is non-existent or small, the essential first building block is missing.

• The mega-project must attract outside opposition.  Nantes has become a magnet that has drawn a diverse range of protesters each there for a differ reason: environmentalist; anti-capitalist etc.

The new Nantes airport proposed for this unfashionable part of France has become the classic ‘useless’ mega-project.  I suspect Heathrow Airport – and probably also the promoters of HS2 – will be looking closely at what happens next at Nantes.

But, win or lose, the Nantes protests are part of a pattern.  It is becoming increasingly difficult to build a new runway anywhere in West Europe.  The 3^rd runway at Heathrow has been dropped (for now).  Attempts to build a new runway in Munich and new airports in Siena and Viterbo in Italy were defeated.  Plans for a third runway at Vienna have stalled.  The 4^th runway at Frankfurt only went ahead after an almighyly struggle and  2 ½ years after it opened  there are still constant protests.

Airport expansion protests are bringing together a wide rahne of bedfellows from local residents to anti-captialist anarchists.  It has become an inevitabklre fact oif life.  And a challenge to aynbodty who wants to build a new runway, p[robably anywhere in Western Europe.

The Economy is not dependent on a 3^rd runway at Heathrow.  

Here’s the evidence.

Heathrow Airport is more honest than many of its supporters when making the economic case for a third runway.  They acknowledge that it is not the only game in town.  The issue was highlighted last week when DeAnne Julius, a former member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England and British Airways chief economist in the 1990s, wrote a piece in the Financial Times (No one answer to the London airport question, 14/2/14 – http://on.ft.com/1c4OyKj) suggesting that a two-hub solution may be best for London’s economy, i.e. a second runway at Gatwick rather than a third runway at Heathrow.

I will return to Julius’s case for Gatwick in a moment but first to acknowledge there is merit in Heathrow’s argument.  Their case is well-known.  The Airport argues that, unless  a third runway is built, London will have fewer direct flights than other European hub cities (Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Madrid) to the key business destinations in emerging economies like China, India and Mexico.  And that this matters because there is evidence that direct flights are an important tool in attracting business.

Heathrow argues that it is only a major hub airport which can provide those flights because the transfer passengers which a hub attracts provide the extra passenger numbers which make frequent flights to these destinations commercially viable.

Organisations like the Independent Transport Commission support this view.  Peter Hind, author of research they commissioned and highlighted in the Financial Times (16/2/14), said “Regular long-haul routes need transfer passengers to supplement those starting or ending journeys locally. Hosting a hub will remain key to sustaining and or developing global aviation connectivity.”  He added: “More UK passengers already transfer via Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle hubs than through Heathrow. Amsterdam, Paris and others are able to compete with London by hosting growing networks.”

Boris and the backers of an Estuary option make a similar argument but go further.  They are arguing for a mega-hub (4 or more runways, 24 hour operation) that would give London the hub airport in Europe.  It would be in the super league alongside Dubai and the fast-expanding airport in Istanbul.  Paris, Frankfurt and the other European hubs would be left behind.

The argument Julius makes is different.  Here’s how she put it in the Financial Times:

“There are clearly advantages to large hub airports, especially for cities with small domestic markets. For Singapore or Dubai, it is imperative to have an airport large enough to attract transfer traffic on which the small domestic market can piggyback. But London is the very opposite of Singapore or Dubai. It is the quintessential international city. It has a big domestic market of business and leisure travellers who want to fly from London. It also attracts large numbers of business and tourist visitors from other countries who want to come to London, not transfer through it. The larger this so-called ‘origin and destination’ traffic is, the smaller will be the benefit to a city of attracting transfer traffic. According to the Airport Commission, London is the largest aviation market in the world (in terms of passenger numbers) and the largest ‘origin and destination’ market. In other words, like New York, London is both large enough and international enough to support two international airports. It does not need to consolidate capacity in a single mega-hub – whether at Heathrow or in the Thames estuary – in the hope of attracting more transfer passengers”.

Her argument rests on this key fact: more passengers (business people and tourists) terminate in London than in any other world city.  Because London is the magnet, Heathrow does not need to expand as a hub in order for 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.  London is the hub.  

It is becoming clear that the economy is not dependent on a third runway being built at Heathrow.

Britain’s aviation future will depend on a three-runway hub airport, says a leading transport think-tank, lending weight to the option of expanding London’s Heathrow.

Only such a hub would allow airlines to provide an extensive network of long-haul routes, according to research by the Independent Transport Commission.

Heathrow has been shortlisted by the body set up by the government to study how best to increase the UK’s flight capacity. Gatwick airport has also been shortlisted in the interim report from the panel, chaired by the economist Sir Howard Davies.

Adding its voice to many in the aviation industry who have urged the government to take action to expand flight capacity, the think-tank warns the UK is already falling behind its European rivals.

“Regular long-haul routes need transfer passengers to supplement those starting or ending journeys locally,” said Peter Hind, author of the ITC research. 

“Hosting a hub will remain key to sustaining and or developing global aviation connectivity.” 

He added: “More UK passengers already transfer via Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle hubs than through Heathrow. Amsterdam, Paris and others are able to compete with London by hosting growing networks.”

Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam offer many times better connectivity to emerging market destinations such as Brazil, Russia, India and China, and especially to those such as Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey. Direct flights to these destinations would prove valuable to companies looking to export or extend business to those countries.

The research points out that Heathrow now serves fewer destinations than in 2005. Without new capacity, airlines would be likely to focus on safe routes to mature markets, it noted.

Heathrow is operating at virtually full capacity, with Gatwick also close to that point.

A hub airport, such as Heathrow, offers transferring passengers a wide range of connecting flights to onward destinations and contrasts with airports that offer so-called point-to-point flights.

The research does not explicitly recommend Heathrow over an option such as the London mayor’s Thames estuary hub, however, the estuary hub was not shortlisted by the panel and Boris Johnson has fought to keep the idea alive.

The Davies commission will make its final decision next year.

The findings go against Gatwick’s plan to add another runway, in its dispersed hub model.

John Strickland, an aviation consultant, said: “A three-runway hub is certainly what’s needed. There are no cities in the world where hubs are split into fragments, because the idea will not work.”

Bringing Reality to the 3^rd Runway Debate

This blog is not dedicated to Back Heathrow.  That would be a step (or a runway) too far! Even on Valentine’s Day!  But it has been prompted by a Back Heathrow ‏@BackHeathrow  tweet: 

Trouble is, protestors do or say anything to halt expansion anywhere so much harder for genuine concerns to be heard.

How true is that?  And, equally, how much do pressure groups like Back Heathrow use the same tactics.  Here’s my attempt at a neutral assessment.

725,000 people live under the Heathrow flight paths

5 STARS   The figure comes from the European Commission, based on their noise maps

Another 150,000 people would be under the flight path to a 3^rd runway

4 STARS   The Department for Transport figure from its 2003 consultation; a fair indication, but maybe a little dated

A total of 875,000 people would be disturbed by noise from a 3 runway Heathrow

0 STARS   Not true.  Acousticians reckon about 10% of the population is particularly noise-sensitive.  A good number of people would be irritated and annoyed by the planes but the percentage seriously disturbed unlikely to exceed 5%.  Still, at Heathrow that’s a lot of people:  43,000.

People newly exposed to aircraft noise get most annoyed by it

4 STARS   All the anecdotal evidence suggests this is true.  But only 4 star since it is anecdotal.  Has clear implications for people living under any new flight path

People knew the airport was there & shouldn’t have moved under the flight path

2 STARS   Some truth in it but too simplistic.  Because people could never have expected the number of planes they now get, especially in those areas 15 or miles from the airport.  And because many people on low-incomes don’t have a realistic choice.  But two stars because it is true that in recent years a lot of people, with choices, have bought under the flight path  

If the noise worries you, you should move away

2 STARS   Again, too simplistic.  Many people don’t have the realistic choice for reasons of income, employment, family or disability.  Social housing tenants, in particular, have limited choices. But warrants two stars because a lot of people do have the choice but don’t take it.

“It is possible to deliver a third runway without increasing airport-related traffic on the road” Heathrow Airport

3 STARS   Heathrow bases its claim on Crossrail, an upgraded Piccadilly Line, fast direct rail services from Reading, Slough and Thames Valley, an interchange with High Speed 2, new rail connections to SW London via a version of Airtrack, and improved bus and coach services all being in place.  That requires a lot of faith in other people paying for and delivering a number of major projects but Heathrow may make it because it is unlikely any Government would give a go-ahead to a 3^rd runway that would clog up West London. 

“We can add capacity at Heathrow without exceeding air pollution limits”   Heathrow Airport

3 STARS   Areas around Heathrow already exceed the EU legal limits for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2).  Will it really go down with another 260,000 aircraft using the airport each year?  Heathrow bases this claim on the fact that by 2025/2030 planes and cars will be a lot cleaner.  While this remains a faith-based policy, the technology is moving in Heathrow’s direction.

“There isn’t a choice between more flights or less noise.  Heathrow can deliver both”  Heathrow Airport

1 STAR   Heathrow is on much dodgier ground on noise.  Their cut-off point for noise annoyance – the 57 decibel contour – they are using is regarded, even by the Airports Commission, as outdated.  It only takes in areas from about Windsor to Barnes.  Silence from Heathrow about the impact on areas beyond that.  Experts say that planes are not getting quieter at anything like the same rate as they are getting cleaner.  And Heathrow refuses to take fully into account the impact of increase in the number of planes overhead: still the biggest complaints of residents.  Even with quieter planes, steeper descent approaches and respite periods for resident, the claim remains unconvincing.

Heathrow would need to shut if an Estuary Airport was built

Frankie Goes to Hollywood had a big hit with their 1983 song Two Tribes to War.  It is a bit like that with aircraft noise.  Not so much war, perhaps; just mutual incomprehension.  People who are deeply disturbed by aircraft noise just can’t understand why their next-door neighbour hardly hears the planes.  And the neighbour dismisses the noise sufferer next door as either cranky or using the noise to cover up their real concern: the price of their house.

Just how noise affects people is a key question – perhaps the key question – in assessing the impacts of a third runway at Heathrow.  Heathrow Airport is carrying out useful focus group research in an attempt to find the answer.

The numbers under the Heathrow flight paths are well-known:  currently over 725,000; a third runway would add around another 150,000.  What is much less clear is how many of these people are, or will be, deeply disturbed by aircraft noise.

However, there is some research to help us find that answer.  It is estimated that about one in ten people are particularly noise-sensitive.  According to the German psychologist, Rainer Guski, these people are likely to become more annoyed by noise than the general population.

But there are other factors at play.  I summarized them in my book Why Noise Matters, published by Earthscan in 2011: “we are likely to become more annoyed if we believe the noise may be harming our health or putting us in danger.  We can get very annoyed too – even desperate – if we feel we have no control over the noise or we cannot stop it getting worse.  Generally, we are less annoyed if we feel there may be benefits linked to the noise: such as jobs or economic regeneration.  We are also less annoyed if we believe the authorities are doing everything they can to mitigate the effects of it.”

We also know that, although many more people are exposed to traffic noise, there is evidence to show that people become disturbed more quickly by aircraft noise.  It is thought this could be to do with the high-level of low frequency it contains.  In Why Noise Matters I concluded: “Wherever noise has a stronger than average low-frequency component – such as powerful stereo-systems, wind turbines, heavy lorries, high-speed trains – it seems particularly problematic.”

How does all this play out in the communities under the Heathrow flight paths?  Reactions of individuals to aircraft noise could not be more varied.  At HACAN we get angry letters from people who live within touching distance of the airport telling us we are talking nonsense since they have no problem with the noise.  At the other end of the spectrum, there are people 20 miles from the airport who go to their relatives at weekend to escape the noise.  In between, there are a lot of people who feel they can live with the noise (particularly if they were born and brought up under the flight path); and there is the group of people who are annoyed by the noise but not to the extent that it preoccupies them or they grab the first chance to move away when the opportunity presents itself. 

What, then, be the impact of a third runway at Heathrow?

A small number of people would be deeply disturbed by the extra planes.  Heathrow’s early research suggests it will be a lot less than 10%.  I suspect it might be closer to the 10% mark because of the large number of people who would be under a flight path for a first time.  What happened when the fourth runway at Frankfurt opened is instructive.  The shock to the system of a plane coming over every 90 seconds or so brought thousands on to the streets in protest.  These protests still continue well over two years after the runway has been open.  I suspect that Heathrow will try to manage the impact of a new runway better than the Frankfurt authorities did but we can still expect a percentage of lives of be wrecked by the noise.

Heathrow’s problem, though, is less the fact that 10% of people or, if their predictions are right, even fewer, will be utterly disturbed by the noise if a third runway is built but more that it will be 10% of such a high overall number:  with a new runway in place at least 875,000 people will be under the Heathrow flight paths

10% of 875,000 is 87,000 people.  Even 5% is 43,000.  That 43,000 figure is just less than 3 times the total number of people who will be living under a flight path at Gatwick if a second runway is built.  Or about 4 times the total number current affected by noise at Stansted.

Aircraft noise is not the defining issue in the lives of most people living under the Heathrow flight paths.  But it might be the issue that defines whether or not a third runway is ever built at Heathrow.