Mayor of London logo London Assembly logo
Home

Search questions

Filter results

Asked of 1

Category

Meeting type

Organisation 1

Question by

Status

Year

  • Effect on the Environment of a Third Runway

    • Reference: 2015/2495
    • Question by: Valerie Shawcross
    • Meeting date: 08 September 2015
    Is it possible to expand Heathrow Airport without having a negative effect on London's environment and the health of Londoners?

  • Meagre benefits from a third runway (Supplementary) [1]

    • Question by: Fiona Twycross
    • Meeting date: 08 September 2015
    Fiona Twycross AM: In answer to a question earlier, you suggested that Gatwick would not deliver more long-haul flights, but your report’s analysis shows that by 2050 Heathrow will deliver 133 long‑haul routes while Gatwick will deliver 131 and both airports will deliver a total of 405 destinations. Given your view that a key objective for expansion should be to facilitate new connections or more marginal long-haul routes to emerging markets, is it not the case that both airports actually fulfil this objective?

  • Meagre benefits from a third runway (Supplementary) [5]

    • Question by: Valerie Shawcross
    • Meeting date: 08 September 2015
    Valerie Shawcross CBE AM: Thank you, Sir Howard. I am just looking at the table on NPV and social benefits on page 147 [of the Airports Commission’s final report]. Without being economists, we are trying to grapple with the issue of calculating the benefits and costs and the negative and positive aspects of the proposal. While you say Gatwick is a feasible proposal, you are saying the economic benefits would be considerably smaller than Heathrow. If you look at the bottom line of the calculations you have done - and I accept there are a lot of variables in here...

  • Utilising Capacity at Airports in the South East. (Supplementary) [1]

    • Question by: Navin Shah
    • Meeting date: 08 September 2015
    Navin Shah AM: Following up Caroline’s question on surface transport, Sir Howard, could I explore further the surface access investment issue? Your Commission estimates the surface access investment required for servicing an expanded Heathrow will be £5.7 billion. If you look at that against the TfL estimate, it reckons the sum required will be £20 billion, which is four times higher than your estimate. I believe this is due to the fact that the Airports Commission has included a number of unapproved and unfunded schemes in its assumptions of what the transport situation will be around 2030. Is that not...

  • Utilising Capacity at Airports in the South East. (Supplementary) [2]

    • Question by: Valerie Shawcross
    • Meeting date: 08 September 2015
    Valerie Shawcross CBE AM: I just wanted to come in, if I may, Sir Howard, with a quick reaction to that comment. You have encapsulated a problem but you have it the wrong way around. You have said the problem is that TfL is trying to talk about growth that is not attributable to Heathrow. The problem is the other way around. Your projections are not taking account of the fact that all of those schemes that you have referred to there and that you are taking for granted will happen, like Crossrail 2, are actually being driven by the...

  • Effect on the Environment of a Third Runway (Supplementary) [1]

    • Question by: Murad Qureshi
    • Meeting date: 08 September 2015
    Murad Qureshi AM: I have to say on the noise front that I am staggered that Heathrow Airport has got away with decades of not offering the same compensation and mitigation that every other airport in Europe, including City Airport, offers to the residents even before expansion is considered. That aside, can I bring you back to air quality mitigation as you have mentioned a few times earlier? You put a lot of weight on the Marylebone Road. I should be grateful; I am a resident who lives off the Marylebone Road. Quite honestly, by using that as the indicator...

  • Effect on the Environment of a Third Runway (Supplementary) [2]

    • Question by: Nicky Gavron
    • Meeting date: 08 September 2015
    Nicky Gavron AM: Sir Howard I want to ask about some of the carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) implications - and carbon-emission reduction - that flow from your report. The context is that the Committee on Climate Change has said that to meet the Government target of an 80% reduction for the UK in carbon emissions by 2050, UK aviation emissions will have to stay within a cap of 37.5 million tons per annum. You are saying that even with a third runway you can stay within that cap. First, the basic assumption you make is that your baseline is...

  • Independent Aviation Noise Authority (Supplementary) [1]

    • Question by: John Biggs
    • Meeting date: 18 June 2014
    John Biggs AM: I should start by saying that although the Assembly is unanimous in taking the view that Heathrow presents all sorts of problems, we are not necessarily unanimous on the conclusions that flow from that. I am very interested in this issue of noise. There is a health warning here, which is that scientists can measure it but the individual experience of it seems to vary from person to person and from time of day to time of day as well, so we need to be very clear about that and how people find it offensive. In your...

  • Planning for Britain’s future aviation needs (Supplementary) [3]

    • Question by: John Biggs
    • Meeting date: 18 June 2014
    John Biggs AM: I am reminded in the context of Kit Malthouse’s last question that people often wonder why people live on the foothills of active volcanoes and it is because the soil is fantastically fertile. It does not necessarily answer the question as to why we should have people living next to airports but it is a relevant issue. My question is about the modal split and it follows from the first part of Caroline Pidgeon’s question about HS2. Do you take a position on the sort of modal split Heathrow Airport should have? Clearly one of the terms...