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.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS