All over the media today is news that the government is expected to approve the third runway at Heathrow.
So hell bent are they on spending their way out of the economic downturn (which, by the way, is putting it mildly!), that they're ploughing ahead with projects that otherwise could have been considered more wisely. Even if EU guidelines on air quality are met, the impact on the health of people living in the area would still be severe according to the Environment Agency. This is what they said on the Guardian website in March 2008:
"It is likely that worsened air quality will result in increased morbidity and mortality impacts ... These air quality impacts will be present irrespective of whether air quality remains within EU guidelines, and are likely to be especially important given the high population density of the SE region."
Since the economy crumbled, these issues somehow seem less important. How is it that the value of money is always more important than the value of human life?! If looking after the planet isn't a priority (which it should be), surely looking after the people on it is!!!
Sorry - but extra airport capacity is going to happen somewhere - and someone's going to be unhappy about it, wherever the airport is.
Construction's shedding jobs like no tomorrow - and this will generate 60,000 jobs.
Let's stop the dithering and just get on with it.
It's only 'going to happen' if the government says so.
The government could equally say - we're going to spend that £9bn on high speed rail. That would allow cuts in domestic flights and be a far greener option (yes, sorry, I'm sticking up for the environment even though everyone else seems to have forgotten about it during the downturn).
I'm not sure domestic flights are the issue really - it's more about the international flights and particularly Heathrow's position as a 'hub'. It faces losing out to Schipol and Charles de Gaulle if it can't offer more capacity.
Having said that, Heathrow's location is a nightmare. To quote a friend - we're playing Russian Roulette having a major airport in suburban London, with a flight path over the Thames, and building another runway is like putting another bullet in the barrel. How long before a plane drops out of the sky onto the Houses of Parliament? Then you add in all the noise pollution, and other environment issues for people living nearby...
I'm not really a fan of Boris - but I have to say he was right on the money about resurrecting the plan to build a new airport out on the Thames Estuary, complete with high speed links. I know there are wildlife issues there, but not surmountable, and more importantly - there is plenty of space for expansion and there would not be any noise pollution or need to knock down whole villages.
A shame it didn't come to anything. I suspect in the current economic climate they will push through this Heathrow third runway pretty quick.
Boris plans to block it.
http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/4050867.Boris_backs_challenge_to_third_runway/
Boris Johnson has vowed to back a legal challenge against Heathrow expansion and demanded the Prime Minister publically justify giving it permission.
The Mayor of London said: “This is a truly devastating blow for millions of Londoners whose lives are now set to be blighted by massive increases in air pollution and noise.”
The Mayor, who has already pledged £15,000 towards a court battle against the decision, gave his support to the 2M group – made up of 21 councils including Hounslow and Richmond – and campaigners who said they will continue to fight against the third runway.
Speaking after Thursday's decision Mr Johnson said: “I am deeply concerned the proper processes of coming to this decision may not have been followed, and will support a legal challenge should this prove to be the case.
“To this end we are currently considering today’s announcement in detail.”
Barbara Reid, lead member for aviation at Hounslow Council, confirmed the local authority was consulting its lawyers regarding a legal challenge, adding: “The Government have cobbled together some sort of compromise. They have made so many concessions that their commitment to air emission targets is now completely meaningless.
“We will fight on because we are right. The battle is not over.
“We are not willing to accept any compromise.
“The people of west London have already compromised for years on their quality of life.
“I would like to thank the people of Hounslow for voicing their opinions so forcefully, and I would ask them to carry on voicing them, because we are fighting on.”
Mr Johnson also called on the Prime Minister to give a public account of his decision.
He said: “Today I throw down the gauntlet to Gordon Brown to publicly defend this deeply undemocratic decision on January 21 at my People’s Question Time in Hillingdon, a community that is being asked to live with its consequences.
“There has never been a proper public debate on this issue and now the Government has decided to proceed, there clearly has to be.”
Did anyone see Question Time last night? Was quite funny. The Tory on whose name I forget was basically saying they would oppose the third runway because they believed in high-speed rail, etc, etc.
Dimbleby asked the BA chief exec Willie Walsh what he thought of that and he said I think opposition politicans say very different things to what they actually do in government! Cue sniggers from the audience and the rest of the panel.
If the Tories cancel the third runway when/if they get into government I'll eat my hard hat.
Frank Heaven:Sorry - but extra airport capacity is going to happen somewhere - and someone's going to be unhappy about it, wherever the airport is. Construction's shedding jobs like no tomorrow - and this will generate 60,000 jobs. Let's stop the dithering and just get on with it.
60,000?! Just how big is this runway going to be? I'm sure T5 didn't even require a workforce on this scale.
This is surely just another way of spinning the statistics to make the government look like their doing something about the growing numbers of unemployed.
ParsonsGreen: 60,000?! Just how big is this runway going to be? I'm sure T5 didn't even require a workforce on this scale. This is surely just another way of spinning the statistics to make the government look like their doing something about the growing numbers of unemployed.
Exactly.
Boris was on the Andrew Marr programme this morning (hosted by Fiona Bruce), confirming the legal challenge.
Also said he's going ahead with the feasability study for the Thames Estuary airport, which is being done by Douglas Oakervee, the engineer behind the Hong Kong island airport.
I can't see the opinions of the people having much impact on the government's decision.
Presumably they were aware of the 'flaws in the consultation process' and chose to ignore them. Either that or it's another clear demonstration of Parliamentary incompetence.
Then there is potential for terrorist actions! Planes arrive at Heathrow from all over the world, so any idea of guaranteeing security is farcical.
I don’t think safety wasn’t in the remit of those looking into the third runway. It’s a typical government ploy: if you don’t ask the question, you won’t get an answer you don’t like.
ParsonsGreen:Presumably they were aware of the 'flaws in the consultation process' and chose to ignore them.
Aside from the flaws in the consulation process, what about the increased impact upon the environment? We are told that a new runway at Heathrow is "the best way to maximise efficiency" (Geoff Hoon), with incentives put in place for the use of cleaner and quieter aircraft.
But Heathrow is already breaching environmental guidelines! If the airport in its current state cannot be reined in, how are we to expect that an expanded airport will be an improvement? As for the noise pollution - quieter aircraft? There's no doubt a limit to how quiet an aircraft can be made, and I'm pretty sure it won't be quiet enough for the residents beneath the flight path.
Boris's town hall 'debate' on the third runway was last night. The Harrow Observer described it as a 'frank and often angry exchange of views'.
The 'pro' camp was represented by Labour peer Clive Soley (who?). He talked about the fact that there were 72,000 jobs at Heathrow and a further 100,000 jobs dependent on it retaining 'hub' status.
You see, this is the problem - whenever there's any opposition to something like this, they just play the 'jobs card'. It is used shamelessly to squash opposition, particularly at a time when unfortunately a lot of people are losing their jobs.
However, if the government looked seriously at other airport locations, then those jobs would surely be created there instead.
More on Boris's island airport. It would be "easy" to build according to the chap who built Hong Kong's airport - well it would be, wouldn't it. Full report in the Standard.
They've also done this nice illustration showing how it would work:
It would cost £40bn according to the Times.
£40bn?!!! Not a snowball in hell's chance of that happening when the Heathrow third runway would cost a quarter of that.
It looks over-complicated to me. Why do there have to be two runways, and why have an undersea rail link to both sides of the Thames estuary?
Couldn't they just build it out from the Isle of Sheppey or Canvey island - that would surely be much cheaper.
Apparently Brown was in tears last night over the Heathrow vote - you would think there's other stuff going at the moment more worth crying about.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iGfmrTmwggCELiE-rLElqyx5avww
The vote was a bit of a squeaker - got through by just 19 votes, with quite a few Labour MPs against it and one junior minister resigning.
It never fails to amaze me how a government can press on with something like this even when it's facing a rebellion from its own ranks.
demondigger:You only have to look at the latest accident at New York – what would have happened if that had been Heathrow?
Bird strikes would be even more of a problem if an airport was built on the Thames estuary.
Fred20:Bird strikes would be even more of a problem if an airport was built on the Thames estuary.
British birdlife would be severely threatened in this case. The Thames estuary is one of the top 5 internationally important sites for birds in the UK. More than 200,000 birds use it in winter alone.
It would be impossible to avoid bird strikes. The accident in New York could in one way prove beneficial. While the risk to wildlife might not be enough to disuade these proposals perhaps the risk to human life is.