TAKE ACTION
Recent entries
- Wooden spoons all round for the nuclear industry
- Palm oil tanker gets another visit from Greenpeace
- Palm oil companies talk while the rainforests burn
- Video: highlights from the BP 'Emerald Paintbrush' awards ceremony
- Will the real Ed Miliband please stand up?
- BP wins coveted 'Emerald Paintbrush' award for worst greenwash of 2008
- AWE Aldermaston now in US hands
- CFP 'pantomime farce' continues as cod quota is raised again
- Economic crisis hits airport expansion
- Because there's more at stake than just the climate
It's official: BAA will say anything to get a 3rd runway approved at Heathrow
Posted by jossc on 26 November 2008.
Boy are BAA keen on a third runway for Heathrow. Their enthusiasm knows no bounds, and there appear to be no lengths they won't go to to get their own way - purely for the good of the country, of course (even though they are Spanish owned) - no shabby profit motives involved.
So far in order to see their dream come true they have:
- colluded with the government (through a joint body - the Heathrow Delivery Group) to steer their plans through the consultation process
- supplied their own data for calculations of noise and pollution that inform the proposal, and prevented opposition groups gaining access it it to carry out their own analyses
- written parts of the consultation themselves
- drawn up a 'risk' list with the Department of Transport to counter opponents of the proposal (including the 2M campaign, the group comprising local councils representing 2 million people who'll be affected by the new runway)
- taken out an injunction against Airportwatch, the umbrella organisation who's members include such radical groups as the National Trust, the RSPB, the Woodland Trust and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, as well as ourselves.
And these are just a sample of their tactics (you can read the full details here) - in fact their whole attitude from day one has been to use their corporate clout to spread secrecy and disrupt legitimate protest about the impact of their expansion plans.
So I had to stifle a chuckle this morning when I tuned in to Radio 4's Today programme to hear BAA's Chief Exec Colin Matthews guaranteeing to give an independent regulator the power to limit flights in and out of Heathrow for environmental reasons - provided that a third runway is approved.
Mr Matthews did his best to sound convincing as he promised that his company would "welcome being held to strict noise and pollution controls" - once the 3rd runway was in operation. "We have listened to the many arguments around expansion at Heathrow. Although the economic case remains compelling, we understand that we can only increase the number of flights if we can safeguard levels of noise and air quality."
"The history of Heathrow is littered with broken promises. Once extra capacity has been agreed, it is used to the full. No-one will believe claims by either BAA or the Government that flights will be cut in the future in the light of environmental concerns."
Edward Lister, Wandsworth Council & 2M Group
Hmm - would those be the same levels of noise and air quality that BAA have been happy to fiddle so consistently in their desperate quest to get the runway approved, by any chance? They surely would. So the question has to be asked, would they be making the same offer if they weren't absolutely certain that they can rely on any "government-appointed assessor" to happily accept whatever figures BAA decides to give them?
Well, those that have been following the story closely have their doubts. Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker's reaction? "This is a worthless promise, as BAA has to stick to EU emissions limits anyway. It is clearly an attempt to get the new runway in place and then to come back demanding more flights at a later date. The last 15 years have been littered with promises of no more expansion, followed by demands for exactly that."
And shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers agreed; "BAA are right to admit that they have lost the trust of Parliamentarians and local communities over the third runway. However today's letter is just the next in a long line of promises which may have been sincere at the time, that were subsequently cast aside by the company. We have seen this all before. What BAA needs to realise is that people do not want a third runway, we do not need a third runway, and under a Conservative government there will not be a third runway."
As Greenpeace director John Sauven pointed out, "If BAA builds a third runway at Heathrow there is simply no way the airport will avoid breaking pollution limits. That's a fact. Nitrogen dioxide levels at Heathrow are already bumping up against the limits. On top of this, a new runway would wipe out any chance we have of meeting our climate change targets. Two independent watchdogs - the Environment Agency and the Sustainable Development Commission - have already said no to a third runway for just these reasons."
The difficulty of BAA's position wasn't lost on Today's presenter Evan Davies who, after pointing out that in the past the airports operator had also promised never to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow or a 3rd runway only to go back on its word a few years later, suggested that one way of regaining public trust would be to post a £5 billion bond, payable to Greenpeace, if BAA were ever found to be in breach of environmental regulations once a third runway had been built.
Not surprisingly, though I must admit disappointingly for us (given the help it would be in the battle against climate change), Mr Matthews declined.
Heathrow Expansion
The answer to this should be easy-peasy. Don't fly! Boycott is a mighty weapon in the fight again greed. Unfortunately too many people are more concerned with following their own pleasures than caring about the environment. Maybe the recession/credit crunch will make the third runway seem like a less attractive proposition.
The BAA will destroy communities to the south too
So the BAA will split and destroy communities to the south and north of the airport in the name of unsustainable air travel, and the Government goes on supporting them.
This is news that will affect everyone living or needing to travel across the SW Trains level crossings south of Heathrow. Airtrack intend to run fast services from major hubs into the airport. The proposed Airtrack (who are in fact the BBA) link to Terminal 5 will have a significant detrimental impact on the time these barriers are down. The printed Airtrack report is unable to say the decrease in barrier open time (despite the fact that it does similar for other level crossings further afield), and in no case do they say from what current % open time they are working away from.
Someone I know had a rare chance to talk to representatives of Airtrack and they say that the crossings at Egham and Pooley Green could be down between 35 and 44 min in every hour, effectively cutting the area in two, and at peak times barriers could actually be down continually for over 45 minutes. Can you imagine the gridlock, especially the first time the M25 is blocked once this is complete? Imagine the pollution caused by cars waiting to cross?
The BBA (who are in fact Airtrack) have deliberately not been extended to our area because we are not deemed as being directly affected, vis. there is no actual works in the area. It has been admitted that strong opposition is expected thus consulting would only attract negative feedback which is obviously not advantageous to Airtrack's cause.
Now the interesting bit: The drivers behind these proposals are purely financial based. Airtrack will tell you that this is all about improving service, increased frequency of trains and local economic growth, reduction in cars and reduced pollution. However the basic economics seem to be that unless Airtrack can run trains across the south West train area network (requiring rescheduling to some SW train services) the costs do not stack up, a shuttle service between Staines and Heathrow is not financially viable. What does stack up is providing an 'express' service between Reading, Guildford, Working, via Heathrow "charging a small supplement" [to go via Heathrow] into London and help Network Rail make use of the now redundant EuroStar terminal platforms. Don't think this will help you, if you are local, to access express services as there is no stated plan for trains coming from or going to the south or west to stop at Staines or Egham. You may even find your SW Trains services become less frequent. This is because the original plan to have a second station in Staines has been dropped due to local objection in first consultation phase. There is no reason to stop trains coming from the west or south at Staines let alone Egham. Indeed now with the dropping of the second Staines station the trains cannot stop locally. Most traffic that the train will substitute is coach traffic. This does not pass through our area, thus its omission is of no benefit to us. There will be no economic benefit; even the track build will make no difference [what happened to the thousands of T5 jobs?]
Having also had close contact with the BBA and other relations of that company for some 10 years I know they are not to be trusted. I have been aware of this scheme for the past 10 years. I have had the privileged position of hearing the talk on the inside and I know that the real reason for the wide network Airtrack is proposing is purely to make the private development costs stack-up. This has always been the Achilles heel of the rail link for BAA. This can be demonstrated by comparison of early draft proposals that did not include such extensive interface with SW Trains network. Airtrack's mission is to run fast services from major hubs into the airport, however for Airtrack to suggest that in doing to make any discernable difference to local road traffic is a ridiculous claim. Most traffic that the train from the west will substitute is coach traffic. This does not pass through our area, it uses the M4 thus its omission is of no benefit to us. The volume of traffic the train will take off the M4, M3, M25 and M40 in negligible compared to the loads these roads carry now.
So the BAA will split and destroy communities to the south and north of the airport in the name of unsustainable air travel, and the Government goes on supporting them.
THE CLOSING DATE FOR COMMENTS IS MONDAY 15TH DECEMBER,
To read all about it and comment go to:
www.heathrowairtrack.com/airtrack
e-mail them at:
heathrowairtrack@cjassociates.co.uk
10 Downing Street petition
Please help us to defeat a proposal that would cut our town in two and sign the petition:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/EghamCrossings/
Egham has 3 level crossings on main roads, already causing huge congestion and pollution. BAA is proposing to make it WORSE!