The usual phrase is something like "the wheels of government grind slowly" but I'm pleased to see that Messrs Cameron and Clegg are getting a plethora of decisions made very quickly. Sure there are items for which a commission or some such similar device has been arranged so that they are effectively kicked into the long grass but there are huge amounts of policy being enacted even though the coalition is less than two weeks old and we only went to the polls a fortnight ago.
Full marks from me for not only stopping plans for a third runway at Heathrow but saying there would be no expansion at Gatwick and Stansted as well. And also goodbye and good riddance to the Home Information Packs (HIPS) - I've voiced my objections to these before. However the energy performance certificate is still there, courtesy of an EU directive. Not nice for HIPS inspectors finding themselves out of a job (although some will carry on with the energy efficiency bit no doubt) but the then government should never have embarked on such a flawed scheme in the first place.
Showing posts with label Heathrow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heathrow. Show all posts
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Sunday, 18 January 2009
Heathrow Third Runway
On the domestic front the decision last week to go ahead with a third runway at Heathrow was the really big story. Right at the outset I want to make clear my opposition to it. Now I've never had the misfortune to pass through Heathrow but when anyone talks about having to use our main airport it's pretty clear that they don't relish the thought of being there. Part of the problem is historical - what seemed like a decent enough idea straight after the second world war to use this ex military airfield is now, more than 60 years later, seen as a mistake. Bad enough with the colossal number of flights coming in and circling over the nation's capital but if Gordon Brown has his way that aspect will get much much worse.
One of the things that gets to me is the "promise" by the government that only planes passing certain environmental criteria will use 'Runway 3' and that the number of flights using it will be well below its theoretical capacity. This promise is absolutely WORTHLESS! Why? Governments have form on this: every promise previously made regarding the number of terminals to be built at Heathrow has been broken and every promise about the maximum number of flights at Heathrow has been broken (this has happened several times by the way). Bear in mind too that the most optimistic completion date is 2020 and it is unlikely to say the least that Messrs Brown and Hoon will be in government to answer for their decisions at that date.
Let's move on to the matter of jobs. This of course is why the unions are so enthusiastic about Runway 3. But what a pathetic smokescreen. The huge sum of money required for the development could be used instead for other much needed infrastructure; for example a series of lagoons in the Severn Estuary for power generation (reckoned to be cheaper and better than a barrage) and/or new high speed rail links. I think that these might generate some jobs don't you. As far as UK plc is concerned yes aviation has been a huge asset to the economy but that doesn't mean that there aren't other things that can play their part in maintaining our economic wellbeing.
An enlarged Heathrow is needed for business users is another cry. This doesn't really wash because many passengers using Heathrow are not business people. Much better surely to disperse these latter to the other airports around London and make better use of our rail system where practicable. And with the mind boggling changes that are occurring as part of the communications revolution will so much business travel really be needed even with the additional trade that we will do with the likes of China and India.
One of the outcomes of what happened last week is that we all now know where Sipson is. This is the community that will be obliterated by a third runway. Something like 700 homes will go, a school, church, the whole village. All for very dubious reasons.
Why has Brown made the decision on the runway right now? It would be of absolutely no surprise if it was for purely political motives like so much of what he blatantly does. Perhaps he wants to look decisive rather than dithering, perhaps he thinks it will make him look good both from the points of view of business leaders and of the unions. I'm pretty sure that he doesn't have any genuine interest in the environment. Perhaps he thinks it will make him look more pro-business than the Tories at a time when business needs support. He must know that there were going to be one or more judicial challenges, that short of getting an overall majority at the next general election the whole scheme will almost certainly get stopped in its tracks. But wasting money isn't something that keeps Gordon awake at night, it's political manoeuvring that drives him.
Before leaving this subject there is a very fundamental matter to be considered, one I have yet to mention. This country, no doubt in common with many others, has an absolute love affair with transport in its different forms. We just love to travel about. Part of this it has to be said is because families have got increasingly split up in the geographical sense. And it's not just that one's relatives have moved to other areas of this country, there are plenty of families split between different countries, continents even. (To be clear this is not a totally new phenomenon, plenty of Cornish miners moved abroad when their local mines closed leaving families back here, it's Whittle's invention of the jet engine leading to cheap air travel that has enabled relatives to meet up at a frequency not really possible before). Up until now our desires for ever increasing travel opportunities have been answered - need more motorways, we'll build them, cheap package holidays abroad, again no problem we'll build more airports or enlarge what we have got. The argument about the third runway might just prove to be a defining moment for us. This is a crowded country and the question needs to be asked: how much more large infrastructure do we want to absorb. My feeling is that we shouldn't be building more runways, end of story. Making better use of the existing runway capacity in the country as a whole is another matter.
We have already started to see some disincentives to use the car so much, an example being congestion charges whilst general road charging is also being examined. The senior citizens bus pass is also helping people look at an alternative to the car. But flights are (mostly) different. The reason is that for the majority of trips between different countries flying is the one practical means of travel. Inevitably there are grey areas, for instance if I wanted to get to Scotland in a hurry from here I might be tempted to fly but I would be using underemployed airports in this instance rather than bursting at the seams Heathrow. On the other hand London to Paris would be the Eurostar train rather than flying for me.
So far as flying is concerned the question that the country has to ask is have we got to a stage where we say "enough is enough" or do we reckon that there is nothing wrong in letting aviation expand without limit. It is a subject that should surely be discussed.
One of the things that gets to me is the "promise" by the government that only planes passing certain environmental criteria will use 'Runway 3' and that the number of flights using it will be well below its theoretical capacity. This promise is absolutely WORTHLESS! Why? Governments have form on this: every promise previously made regarding the number of terminals to be built at Heathrow has been broken and every promise about the maximum number of flights at Heathrow has been broken (this has happened several times by the way). Bear in mind too that the most optimistic completion date is 2020 and it is unlikely to say the least that Messrs Brown and Hoon will be in government to answer for their decisions at that date.
Let's move on to the matter of jobs. This of course is why the unions are so enthusiastic about Runway 3. But what a pathetic smokescreen. The huge sum of money required for the development could be used instead for other much needed infrastructure; for example a series of lagoons in the Severn Estuary for power generation (reckoned to be cheaper and better than a barrage) and/or new high speed rail links. I think that these might generate some jobs don't you. As far as UK plc is concerned yes aviation has been a huge asset to the economy but that doesn't mean that there aren't other things that can play their part in maintaining our economic wellbeing.
An enlarged Heathrow is needed for business users is another cry. This doesn't really wash because many passengers using Heathrow are not business people. Much better surely to disperse these latter to the other airports around London and make better use of our rail system where practicable. And with the mind boggling changes that are occurring as part of the communications revolution will so much business travel really be needed even with the additional trade that we will do with the likes of China and India.
One of the outcomes of what happened last week is that we all now know where Sipson is. This is the community that will be obliterated by a third runway. Something like 700 homes will go, a school, church, the whole village. All for very dubious reasons.
Why has Brown made the decision on the runway right now? It would be of absolutely no surprise if it was for purely political motives like so much of what he blatantly does. Perhaps he wants to look decisive rather than dithering, perhaps he thinks it will make him look good both from the points of view of business leaders and of the unions. I'm pretty sure that he doesn't have any genuine interest in the environment. Perhaps he thinks it will make him look more pro-business than the Tories at a time when business needs support. He must know that there were going to be one or more judicial challenges, that short of getting an overall majority at the next general election the whole scheme will almost certainly get stopped in its tracks. But wasting money isn't something that keeps Gordon awake at night, it's political manoeuvring that drives him.
Before leaving this subject there is a very fundamental matter to be considered, one I have yet to mention. This country, no doubt in common with many others, has an absolute love affair with transport in its different forms. We just love to travel about. Part of this it has to be said is because families have got increasingly split up in the geographical sense. And it's not just that one's relatives have moved to other areas of this country, there are plenty of families split between different countries, continents even. (To be clear this is not a totally new phenomenon, plenty of Cornish miners moved abroad when their local mines closed leaving families back here, it's Whittle's invention of the jet engine leading to cheap air travel that has enabled relatives to meet up at a frequency not really possible before). Up until now our desires for ever increasing travel opportunities have been answered - need more motorways, we'll build them, cheap package holidays abroad, again no problem we'll build more airports or enlarge what we have got. The argument about the third runway might just prove to be a defining moment for us. This is a crowded country and the question needs to be asked: how much more large infrastructure do we want to absorb. My feeling is that we shouldn't be building more runways, end of story. Making better use of the existing runway capacity in the country as a whole is another matter.
We have already started to see some disincentives to use the car so much, an example being congestion charges whilst general road charging is also being examined. The senior citizens bus pass is also helping people look at an alternative to the car. But flights are (mostly) different. The reason is that for the majority of trips between different countries flying is the one practical means of travel. Inevitably there are grey areas, for instance if I wanted to get to Scotland in a hurry from here I might be tempted to fly but I would be using underemployed airports in this instance rather than bursting at the seams Heathrow. On the other hand London to Paris would be the Eurostar train rather than flying for me.
So far as flying is concerned the question that the country has to ask is have we got to a stage where we say "enough is enough" or do we reckon that there is nothing wrong in letting aviation expand without limit. It is a subject that should surely be discussed.
Wednesday, 17 December 2008
From the Wright Brothers to Heathrow
It's not unusual for me to wake early and if this happens I will as often as not listen to 'News Briefing' at 5.30 on Radio4. For some reason I very often go back into a deep sleep thereafter and this morning was a case in point with me not getting out of bed till about half past eight. Oh how I miss that daily commute! Not.
Back to 'News Briefing'. Each day there is a rundown on the news headlines, weather forecast, review of the newspapers, business and sport reports. If I'm sufficiently with it I get a fair idea of what is happening in the wider world. Right at the end of 'News Briefing' a minute or two is devoted to noting significant events in former years of which that date is an anniversary. This can be quite interesting and one example on this morning's programme was the fact of the first flight by the Wright brothers on 17 December 1903 i.e. exactly 105 years ago. (More about the Wright Brothers in Wikipedia here). It's quite extraordinary how far aviation has come in such a short time.
This all brings me on to ... Heathrow Airport. Today right of centre blogger Iain Dale has had another go at Theresa Villiers, the Tory shadow on Transport, who firmly nailed her party's colours to the mast in opposing a third runway at London's main airport. Mr Dale doesn't beat about the bush - he is firmly agin the Tories on this one. It transpires now that certain government ministers are going cool on the extra runway proposal, there's even a suggestion it should be put to the vote in the House of Commons. Personally I hope that it doesn't go ahead, I know that Heathrow is running at almost full capacity but expanding the facility just seems so fundamentally wrong. Local residents have suffered far too much already and the thought of, and please God it never happens, a mid air incident above the airport in such a built up area doesn't bear thinking about.
One of the outcomes of the rapidly deteriorating value of sterling against other currencies, particularly the Euro, is the fact that holidays abroad suddenly got a lot more expensive. Significant numbers of people jet off to sunnier climes for Christmas and I suspect many will still do this next week as a goodly proportion of them would have booked long ago before the credit crisis really took hold. But what will happen in 2009? Will a lot more UK residents suddenly realise that yes this country has a lot to offer and, assuming petrol prices stay down, a holiday in the home country could look like a very attractive option. After the last two wet summers you would think that a better one should be on the cards too. As a nation holidays are very important to us and are one of the last things we would wish to do without. Tourism in my two counties just might benefit a little next year providing operators maintain reasonable prices.
The worrying low value of the pound could have a silver lining and of course we might attract more foreign holidaymakers to our shores as well!
Back to 'News Briefing'. Each day there is a rundown on the news headlines, weather forecast, review of the newspapers, business and sport reports. If I'm sufficiently with it I get a fair idea of what is happening in the wider world. Right at the end of 'News Briefing' a minute or two is devoted to noting significant events in former years of which that date is an anniversary. This can be quite interesting and one example on this morning's programme was the fact of the first flight by the Wright brothers on 17 December 1903 i.e. exactly 105 years ago. (More about the Wright Brothers in Wikipedia here). It's quite extraordinary how far aviation has come in such a short time.
This all brings me on to ... Heathrow Airport. Today right of centre blogger Iain Dale has had another go at Theresa Villiers, the Tory shadow on Transport, who firmly nailed her party's colours to the mast in opposing a third runway at London's main airport. Mr Dale doesn't beat about the bush - he is firmly agin the Tories on this one. It transpires now that certain government ministers are going cool on the extra runway proposal, there's even a suggestion it should be put to the vote in the House of Commons. Personally I hope that it doesn't go ahead, I know that Heathrow is running at almost full capacity but expanding the facility just seems so fundamentally wrong. Local residents have suffered far too much already and the thought of, and please God it never happens, a mid air incident above the airport in such a built up area doesn't bear thinking about.
One of the outcomes of the rapidly deteriorating value of sterling against other currencies, particularly the Euro, is the fact that holidays abroad suddenly got a lot more expensive. Significant numbers of people jet off to sunnier climes for Christmas and I suspect many will still do this next week as a goodly proportion of them would have booked long ago before the credit crisis really took hold. But what will happen in 2009? Will a lot more UK residents suddenly realise that yes this country has a lot to offer and, assuming petrol prices stay down, a holiday in the home country could look like a very attractive option. After the last two wet summers you would think that a better one should be on the cards too. As a nation holidays are very important to us and are one of the last things we would wish to do without. Tourism in my two counties just might benefit a little next year providing operators maintain reasonable prices.
The worrying low value of the pound could have a silver lining and of course we might attract more foreign holidaymakers to our shores as well!
Labels:
Heathrow,
Wright Brothers
Monday, 29 September 2008
Third Heathrow runway - maybe not
People living in the vicinity of London's Heathrow Airport have long been wondering if and when a third runway would be built, further disrupting their lives. It looks as if a "yes" or a "no" could come before too long. Last week the decision of Transport Minister Ruth Kelly to resign her post at the next reshuffle, which is thought to happen sooner rather than later, means that there will be a new person to take on the Heathrow headache - a headache because the airport is running at almost full capacity off its two existing runways.
Today has seen another item of news that could have a huge bearing on Heathrow's future. At their annual conference the Tories have declared that they would not build a third runway if they came to power, they would upgrade some of our railways instead. Of course saying something at your party conference doesn't necessarily equate with what you might do in power but the third runway thing is of such fundamental concern to environmental campaigners that it would be very difficult surely for Cameron to change tack if he got into Downing Street.
I've stated before on this blog that I'm very against taking ever more land to extend airports. Making increased use of the existing airport infrastructure at such places as Exeter and Newquay doesn't bother me so much, it's the grabbing of extra land and demolition of homes that irks me.
The importance of Heathrow for business travellers is one of the reasons I've seen advanced for expanding the airport and the thought crossed my mind "I haven't heard anything about London's City Airport for a very long time. Is it still functioning?" Well I've just looked at the wikipedia entry on that very subject and it appears to be going from strength to strength. It now has a railway connection giving rapid access to the financial heart of the capital. I think that its original short runway has been extended a little but it is still quite restricted on the size of planes that can use it.
We seem to have an insatiable appetite for travelling and it's interesting to note ever increasing use of the railways so any upgrading of the system would be welcome in principle. However what didn't come over to me was whether the Tories were looking at a totally new track between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds (I think they were the cities specifically mentioned) or whether it was a matter of just improving what was there already. Improving the railway system in this country would get my vote if the choice was between that and making Heathrow bigger.
Today has seen another item of news that could have a huge bearing on Heathrow's future. At their annual conference the Tories have declared that they would not build a third runway if they came to power, they would upgrade some of our railways instead. Of course saying something at your party conference doesn't necessarily equate with what you might do in power but the third runway thing is of such fundamental concern to environmental campaigners that it would be very difficult surely for Cameron to change tack if he got into Downing Street.
I've stated before on this blog that I'm very against taking ever more land to extend airports. Making increased use of the existing airport infrastructure at such places as Exeter and Newquay doesn't bother me so much, it's the grabbing of extra land and demolition of homes that irks me.
The importance of Heathrow for business travellers is one of the reasons I've seen advanced for expanding the airport and the thought crossed my mind "I haven't heard anything about London's City Airport for a very long time. Is it still functioning?" Well I've just looked at the wikipedia entry on that very subject and it appears to be going from strength to strength. It now has a railway connection giving rapid access to the financial heart of the capital. I think that its original short runway has been extended a little but it is still quite restricted on the size of planes that can use it.
We seem to have an insatiable appetite for travelling and it's interesting to note ever increasing use of the railways so any upgrading of the system would be welcome in principle. However what didn't come over to me was whether the Tories were looking at a totally new track between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds (I think they were the cities specifically mentioned) or whether it was a matter of just improving what was there already. Improving the railway system in this country would get my vote if the choice was between that and making Heathrow bigger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)