London’s Insufficient Airport Capacity:

Why is it a recurring problem? Anna HopperDecember 10, 2013

BackgroundLondon airports will be saturated by 2030• 395-420 million pax/year—at least 13 million more

than can handle • 2012 government set up Davies Commission to

recommend a solution• Will finish after 2015 election• Have already announced need for new runway in

SE• Received dozens of proposals—but many are not

new ideas!

Then again, capacity has been a problem for decades….WHY has it not been solved already??

RoadmapExamine 3 prior cases where the problem might have been solved: • A New Airport at Maplin Sands (1970s)• Development at Stansted (1980s)• Third runway at Heathrow

What do these cases reveal?

Building at Maplin Sands• Proposed in 1967 by the

Noise Abatement Society• Reclaim land in Thames

Estuary for airport/seaport

• Considered by Roskill Commission

• Approved by Tory government

• Cancelled by new Labour gov’t in 1974

• Recurring idea todayADVANTAGES: Less people affected by noise/buildingDISADVANTAGES: Cost, impact on wildlife and industries, too risky

Building at Maplin Sands

2003

1969

Despite its failure, the plan has recurred over and over….

Building at Maplin Sands

‘BORIS ISLAND’ PROPOSAL

2013

Developing Stansted• Original government favorite in the 1960s,

discarded for Maplin Sands• Inquiry in the early 1980s: resulted in the

recommendation that Stansted get a new terminal but not a new runway

• Controversial development because it would send more money to the wealthy SE instead of the regions (e.g. Manchester)

• Approved by government in 1985• New capacity up to 8 million• Potential expansion up to 15 million with gov’t

approval• Approved by government in 1985• Even as construction began, CAA said a new runway

would be needed

Developing Stansted

2003

2013

Also a recurring plan….

Third Runway at HeathrowProposed as far back as 1960s:

Third Runway at Heathrow• Has often been suggested and discarded• Particularly big issue in 2000s

• Labour government supported it for economic reasons• Liberal Democrats opposed due to climate change impact• Tories neutral, not opposed

• 2008 scandal: BAA and govt accused of doctoring the reports• 2009 Government approved the expansion• Upcoming election led to Conservative reversal of position• 2010 election: Conservatives and Liberal Democrats pledged

no runway• Many London-area Labour MPs sided with Tories

• Plan discarded when coalition government came to power

Third Runway at HeathrowRecent revival of the option, but it is being put off until after the next election.

Davies Commission submission by Heathrow Airport Ltd.

So WHY is it still a problem?• Political process takes so long that opinions

and forecasts change

• Variability in forecasts allows for very different conclusions which lead to long debates

• No one wants to take responsibility! • Want to ‘sweat the equity’• Benefits of airport expansion = long term• Short term have angry constituents

and/or get voted out of office

Questions?