It is incredibly disappointing to see a Conservative spokesman argue so earnestly for a plan which means using regulations to block private industry spending £13.3 billion on a major infrastructure project, just so that £15.6 billion of taxpayers' money can be spent instead. The plan that Theresa Villiers defends on the Platform today is a bit of a joke. Unfortunately, it is a joke that becomes a lot less funny when you realise we will all pay a fortune for it in taxes and lost economic competitiveness.
Theresa makes several arguments against a third runway: it would mean more greenhouse gas emissions and would create localised externalities. I'll deal with these arguments before moving on to discuss why a third runway is so important to our economic interests and a high speed rail link isn’t an effective substitute.
There are a series of problems with her argument that we should avoid a third runway in order to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Limiting the number of flights people take by limiting capacity means trying to get people to stop flying by making it so inconvenient people stay at home or travel by some other means. That means creating delays and frustrations for millions of passengers as a matter of policy. That is something that ordinary people should resent, and will if they become aware it is happening, and also imperils our economic competitiveness by making Britain a less convenient place to do business.
Beyond that, high speed rail isn't nearly as efficient, in terms of emissions, as she suggests. French high speed rail is efficient, in terms of emissions, not because high speed rail is generally efficient but because the French energy sector emits very little thanks to nuclear power. Given that British energy policy is a complete farce and the Conservatives have no plans for ambitious expansion of nuclear power our high speed rail won't enjoy such advantages. George Monbiot, a man who hates aviation so much he compares it to child abuse, accepts that high-speed rail generally creates more emissions than flying:
"Though trains traveling at normal speeds have much lower carbon emissions than airplanes, Professor Roger Kemp of Lancaster University shows that energy consumption rises dramatically at speeds above 125 miles per hour. Increasing the speed from 140 to 220 mph almost doubles the amount of fuel burned. If the trains are powered by electricity, and if that electricity is produced by plants burning fossil fuels, they cause more CO2 emissions than planes."
What that means is that any train that goes anywhere near fast enough to represent a viable alternative to a plane will create more emissions, not less.
Finally, while trains are subsidised, planes are taxed to correct for the externalities of climate change. The Government's own estimate shows that passengers are already paying more than the social cost of the emissions they create by flying. If people are paying the social cost of the flights themselves and still choose to buy their ticket then the benefits are greater than the costs and there is no need to interfere in the market to stop them.
In terms of localised externalities (pollution, noise, etc.) there are a number of things to bear in mind. It isn't just planes that create localised externalities. Routing trains into or through major cities will require extensive use of compulsory purchase which is an imposition on the rights and interests of families and businesses which should be kept to a minimum. Trains also create significant amounts of noise and create it along the entire route, unlike planes which only do so at the start and end of their journey. In the end, there is no quiet and inobtrusive way of moving so many people quickly up and down the country.
A new airport at Heathrow at least affects people who, when they moved to the area, likely knew that they would be living near a substantial airport rather than disrupting the lives, and devaluing the property, of people who had no idea that would happen when they chose where to live or locate their business. In terms of pollution, just like greenhouse gases, trains move emissions to the site of the power plant rather than preventing them altogether. The localised externalities that will be created by building the third runway should be taken seriously but the Villiers plan doesn't avoid that issue and, by affecting people all around the country, could make it far worse.
There are several reasons why a third runway is important. It saves taxpayers a fortune compared to the only proposed alternative (those high speed trains), encourages a greater range of routes and frequency of flights from London and will reduce wasteful delays.
Theresa defends her plan, on cost grounds, by arguing that the £13.3 billion approximate cost of a third runway will end up being paid by airlines and passengers. However, the plan she is defending would require £15.6 billion of taxpayers' money and £4.4 billion from the private sector (airlines and passengers). At £20 billion her plan is massively more expensive than building the third runway. With the public sector finances already in ruins, raising those funds means heaping a new burden on taxpayers who have already been ripped off (PDF) over the last ten years or diverting resources from existing priorities (such as adding capacity on overcrowded suburban routes). With Crossrail only recently approved another massively ambitious railway investment looks like biting off rather more than we can chew. The Economist have noted the absurdity that George Osborne told the Conservative party conference that there is “no more money” in the public coffers on the very same day Theresa Villiers pledged to spend £15.6 billion on new railways.
The money the Conservatives are pledging to spend is raised from the entire taxpaying public - whether they use the new railway or not - which isn't as fair as leaving the market to provide airports which will be paid for by those that need them. Big government also wastes huge amounts in the collection, administration and distribution of taxpayers' money. Finally, avoiding the use of taxpayer cash means interfering less in how people spend the money they've earned - which is more just. There are a host of reasons conservatives prefer schemes that don't require the unnecessary use of taxpayer funding.
The high speed network Theresa promises isn’t remotely adequate as a replacement for the third runway. Willie Walsh has suggested that even if all of the flights from the destinations that the new railways link to Heathrow were shifted onto the trains it would only take 3 per cent of Heathrow’s current traffic. Theresa has responded that he is only counting the 13,200 travelling between Heathrow and Leeds and Manchester, whereas he should also include the 50,000 going to or from Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam and Rotterdam. If every one of them stopped flying then that would be 28 per cent of the capacity that the third runway is expected to add.
Clearly Theresa is overstating her case. It seems highly unlikely that more than a small fraction of those flying from Heathrow to the European cities at present would shift to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link if there were better links to Manchester and Leeds. Regardless, even if the new link can provide a quarter of the capacity we would get from the third runway that hardly suggests it is an adequate substitute. We’ll be spending nearly twice as much to get around a quarter of the capacity, a very poor deal.
Heathrow is particularly important because it is a hub. People fly to Heathrow then transfer to fly out somewhere else. Those passengers can very easily travel via an airport in some other European country. They will if Heathrow remains short of capacity. Unfortunately, their traffic is very important in making travel more convenient for British families and businesses. A high speed rail link is pretty much useless to them as only a tiny fraction are coming from the cities that Theresa Villiers hopes to link with high speed rail lines.
Transfer passengers make it economical for airlines to offer more flights, to more places, from Heathrow. That means that someone who lives in, or near, London can fly directly (which is quicker and cheaper) to more places than someone living just about anywhere else. They can also more easily choose a date and time to fly that suits their schedule. This makes ordinary Britons' holidays easier – particularly if they are travelling to destinations off the beaten track. It is also important to our economic competitiveness. If they regularly have to fly out to Frankfurt or Paris before heading on to their final destinations, then over time business people will find it more convenient to leave London and move to Frankfurt or Paris, with their firms. With the regulatory and tax burden in Britain increasing it would be a really bad idea to give business another reason to relocate. Having Europe's most important hub airport in the city is great for London's economy.
Finally, a lack of capacity creates endless frustrations for people who use Heathrow. Blocking the third runway would mean condemning passengers to years of delays; untold hours spent circling above London waiting for a chance to land. Putting too many planes on overloaded runways also compromises safety. Airline passengers have been the targets for a significant increase in taxation in the last few years. To frustrate them by making flying less convenient would be deeply unfair.
More people are riding the trains and increasing capacity to reduce overcrowding on the train network would be great. To spend vast amounts of taxpayers’ money, and concentrate resources, in a vain attempt to substitute for expansion at Heathrow would be a mistake, though. Failing to allow the proper development of our most important airport would cost taxpayers, airline passengers and British business dear.
