Plans to expand Heathrow with a £21bn third runway have reignited a fierce debate among Independent readers, many of whom have questioned whether the UK’s travel infrastructure is fit for purpose – or heading in the wrong direction.
A recent poll found 57 per cent of readers oppose Heathrow’s third runway, with 39 per cent in favour and 4 per cent unsure.
Supporters of the project remain convinced it will create jobs and stimulate economic growth. But critics argue the £21bn plan worsens regional inequality and neglects wider infrastructure needs, with several calling for a second runway at Gatwick instead.
Others raised environmental concerns, noting the impact on emissions, noise and local communities already struggling with air traffic pollution.
Several commenters questioned the wisdom of funnelling so much air traffic through a single airport, especially after the recent outage at Heathrow, which many saw as proof of overstretched systems.
And when we asked for your views on the UK’s travel infrastructure more generally, many readers drew comparisons with better-funded transport systems in Europe, lamenting ageing roads, poor rail connectivity and high train fares.
Some said the country’s failure to invest in long-term infrastructure was “saddening” and emblematic of wider decline.
Here’s what you had to say:
Unequal UK
No doubt the expansion of Heathrow will grow the economy a bit and provide more jobs, although 100,000 extra jobs seems a tad optimistic. But once again, it will be economic growth and jobs for the South East, making the UK even more unequal. The North (or Wales, or South West) could use said investment of £49bn a lot more. And that would also grow the economy and deliver more jobs, but in places where it is most needed.
Bink
Public transport is rubbish
I get excited when I go abroad or to a British city that has a range of public transport options. I live in north-west Derbyshire where the public transport is rubbish — the traffic is terrible as a result. Wherever we need to go by train, we have to take a 40-minute journey to Manchester and go from there — even if we want to go east — we have to go west for 40 minutes first. I would love to have a reliable public transport system, but cars are king in this country — or at least outside the big cities. Even trying to get to London, Newcastle or Edinburgh, train prices are extortionate and take almost as long as driving, as there are few direct trains. I considered flying to Edinburgh recently, but the only flights from Manchester go via Belfast! And all of this just adds to the climate crisis.
RhubarbRhubarb
The noise is already horrible
The noise pollution from landing planes in Richmond, Kew and Hounslow is already horrible. For the third runway, the landing path will be above Southall, South Ealing, Chiswick and Hammersmith. Many people will be extremely unhappy.
Just build another runway at Gatwick. The added noise would affect a couple of Surrey villages at most.
Mandible
Sick man of Europe
When I visit Europe – notably France, Spain and Germany – it is obvious they fund public transport properly. Services are more modern and run more efficiently. In Germany, commuting to Berlin is less than half the cost of commuting in London and has a much more reliable service. Coming back to the UK is saddening as it is clear we are returning to the “sick man of Europe” we used to be before 1972.
Sturluson
We stopped building new roads in 1991
The UK hasn’t invested enough in upgrading infrastructure for over 30 years. Our motorway network was primarily built between the 1960s and the 1980s, with the last long-distance motorway built on a new route opening in 1991 — the M40 between Oxford and Birmingham.
In contrast with France, which constructed its first tranche of autoroutes during the same time period, but has continued building new routes since, right up to the present day, with more still planned.
Yes, France is a larger country with a lower population density, but it’s not all down to this. A more pertinent reason is a much better willingness on a national level to build infrastructure that will benefit the entire country, be that roads, railways, airports, power stations, power lines, etc.
Local opposition is, I believe, given much less importance than in the UK, where NIMBYism is rampant and far too many people want the benefits of living in a modern society without any of the associated infrastructure near them.
Coasterjunkie
Too much traffic through one airport
I think the issues caused by the recent fire and power outage at Heathrow demonstrated the folly of putting too much air traffic through one airport. A third runway would compound this risk further.
Add to that, I don’t believe the economic case (sounds like a case constructed by the owners of Heathrow for a government desperate for growth) and the obvious environmental concerns.
Wineman
Growth at what cost?
£49bn to be spent on a project that will increase our emissions in the medium term is going to be so detrimental for communities living nearby and for the environment. The argument for growth is taking prominence – but at what cost? Greenhouse gas emissions emitted today hang around in the atmosphere for decades and centuries, gently warming the planet. The tech solutions promised are decades away, and there is no guarantee that they will solve the problem. The sure way to reduce emissions is for people to take fewer flights.
Amunguy61
The roads budget needs to change
The road network is in a dire state. The bill for fixing just the current mess of wall-to-wall potholes is £15bn+, according to the Asphalt Association.
There are too many motor vehicles making journeys that could be done by walking, cycling, public transport or rail. But there is chronic underinvestment in all of these alternatives, while the government, captured by the motor industry, always defaults to solving issues of congestion by increasing road capacity, which simply attracts even more traffic.
The roads budget should be confined to fixing the existing network, and investment needs to be poured into cycling, walking and public transport, including rail, which should be returned to state ownership along with all public transport.
In order to reduce the harmful effects of road use by private cars, couriers and HGVs, we need to make it unattractive and expensive to use these modes, and more attractive to use active travel and public transport. The latter needs to be cheap (or free), comfortable, reliable, safe, frequent and reach all parts of the country.
The government really needs to be thinking about what’s best for all citizens and their health, rather than what’s best for the transport industry.
Geejay
Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.
Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.
Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here.
