Londoners have been debating an expansion to Heathrow Airport for decades. Opposition has gotten so heated that a former mayor and later prime minister once pledged to lie down in front of bulldozers to stop it.
And yet, across all the years of theatrical debate, the case for adding a third runway to the UK’s busiest airport has only gotten stronger.
Could this British government finally be the one to get it done?
British Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves has promised to do so. To succeed where her predecessors have failed, she would need to once again make the case to the public — and show the competence and forbearance needed to see the project through.
Start with the basics. Heathrow Airport — which handles more than one-quarter of the UK’s exports by value, 60 percent of its air freight and more than 80 million passengers annually — is at full capacity and has been for decades. That congestion chokes commerce and constrains the country’s potential. It means fewer routes, higher airfares, slower logistics, weaker connections with other major cities and ultimately reduced economic growth.
It also hinders London in the fierce competition among global hubs for talent and trade. Long-haul flights, for freight and business passengers, are key to connecting markets in Asia, the Middle East and North America. China, France and the Netherlands have all expanded their hubs; Dubai now beats Heathrow in annual passenger traffic. By 2050, Heathrow might lose out on about 100 million passengers a year, with all the missed connections and opportunities that implies.
An expansion would not transform that picture overnight, but the benefits would be pronounced. A third runway would increase Heathrow’s capacity from about 480,000 flights a year to about 720,000, allowing total passengers to rise to perhaps 140 million. It would create, by one estimate, 100,000 jobs and boost GDP by 0.43 percent over two decades. Cheaper fares, fewer delays, improved supply chains and daily access to dozens of new markets would follow.
However, perhaps a more important benefit would be symbolic. After the self-harm induced by Brexit and following several recent public-works debacles, the UK badly needs to show that it can still act with ambition. An expanded Heathrow should not only widen the gateway to London’s intellectual and commercial assets, but also signal renewed confidence to wary investors after years of chronic indecision.
What are the drawbacks?
Noise and traffic are among the chief complaints, but as a government report found in 2015, prudent new measures — such as banning night flights, enforcing a “noise envelope” and establishing new traffic-management procedures — could mitigate many of those concerns and even mean improved quality of life for neighboring communities.
Opponents also cite environmental concerns. Yet aviation accounts for just 8 percent of the UK’s emissions, which in turn are a negligible fraction of global emissions. More to the point, rejecting expansion would simply divert flights to Paris or Amsterdam, outsourcing carbon rather than reducing it. Constrained capacity also means more planes circling, wasting fuel as they wait for landing slots.
It is worth emphasizing, finally, that technology is already mitigating such problems. Modern aircraft are quieter and more fuel-efficient than ever. Ground transportation, which accounts for a big portion of local emissions, is transitioning to electric. Advances in sustainable aviation fuel and other technologies might make air travel even cleaner. Enlightened policy — such as giving preference to airlines with lower emissions for landing slot allocations — can speed that transition.
All of which is to say that the case for expanding Heathrow remains overwhelming.
However, ultimately, the question is about more than economics. It is about whether the UK still wants to be an open and ambitious country, and whether London still wants to be the global city of tomorrow.
The British government should have a ready answer.
The Bloomberg Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of national and global affairs.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS