From today's FT:
MPs will on Tuesday line up to condemn the plans for a third runway and sixth terminal [at Heathrow] during a Commons debate, with many saying they should be abandoned in the light of the economic slowdown.
Well duh ... the merits of increasing gummint spending in a slowdown are tenuous to say the least, but if a private company costs out a project and decides it's worthwhile, and a foreign-owned private company at that, I can't really see a downside. Even if turns out to be a poor investment from the point of view of the original shareholders - like the Channel Tunnel - there can still a huge benefit to society as a whole.
Elevate their cause?
10 hours ago
8 comments:
Ot to put it another way if it's a project proposed and funded by a private business WTF has it got to do with Parliament anyway?
Nearly half of voters are Greenies and 83% are NIMBYs (allegedly).
...assuming all necessary planning and building control approvals have been obtained of course.
83% are nimbys? Surely a gross underestimate. As for the Greenies, hit 'em in the wallet and see how many turn a much healthier colour.
The FT quoted a survey of a year ago that said 83%. Maybe it's more.
MW
I know you're not a great believer in planning regulation but we are where we are so local opinion counts (not with this - or any - government, I know, but that's the theory).
Of course BAA wants a third runway. AFAIAA the economics which make BAA such an enthusiast are that more air traffic might push more shoppers to its shopping malls there. I don't have much sympathy with those locals who want to reduce Heathrow's present traffic (after all it's a fair guess that most of them bought property locally knowing Heathrow was at the bottom of the garden). However, I do sympathise when it's obvious their quality of life (and the value of their houses) will be adversely affected: these costs are not, I suspect, included in BAA's profit projections.
Anyway, the location of an airport which obliges aeroplanes to fly over central London and other areas of dense population is suspect at best. I fail to see why it is somehow beneficial to route more low-flying planes over central London. An alternative might be a second runway at Gatwick with a vastly improved Gatwick/Central London rail link. Of course, BAA is selling off Gatwick and won't benefit were that alternative explored seriously. Hence BAA's desperation to get a third runway at Heathrow.
U, I agree on most of that in practice, but seeing as 6 flights p.a. = one job, I am sure that in some areas such an expansion would be welcome (Johnny Foreigner being indifferent whether he swaps flights at LHR or in the middle of a field in Suffolk).
The whole thing makes much more sense if we have proper user charges for the use of air-space and LVT (losers get automatic compensation via reduction thereof).
I agree with Umbongo and would add that, although locals were no doubt well aware of Heathrow's existence, they might not have signed up for its relentless expansion since they bought into the area. Those displaced usually seem to receive compensation that does not permit them to replace the dwelling space lost. Mayor Boris favours a Thames estuary airport - if this can secure private funding, why not go for that?
Post a Comment