ES Views: Airport parking charge won’t help cut air pollution

Have your say Twitter: @esviews Email: esviews@standard.co.uk
Car parking charges at Heathrow could be increased to deter people from travelling to the airport by car
PA
11 July 2017
WEST END FINAL

Get our award-winning daily news email featuring exclusive stories, opinion and expert analysis

I would like to be emailed about offers, event and updates from Evening Standard. Read our privacy notice.

I was disappointed but not surprised by former Airports Commission chair Sir Howard Davies’s suggestion that it would be acceptable for people to drive to an expanded Heathrow as long as they pay a £10 or £15 charge for the pollution they cause [July 7].

This would make virtually no difference to air pollution or congestion because most people who can afford to jet off on foreign holidays can easily afford a charge of £10 to drive their car to the airport.

An estimated 9,500 Londoners die every year prematurely from air pollution and Heathrow, with so many aircraft flying overhead and road traffic, is the biggest polluter.

Our real aim should be to reduce air pollution and protect Londoners’ health rather than expanding Heathrow — and allowing the airport’s car users to get away with a pathetically small charge for poisoning our air.
Nic Ferriday

With all the discussions about the impact of a third runway at Heathrow, I am left wondering why the noise-mitigation measures agreed by the pro-expansion lobby won’t be implemented immediately, regardless of whether a third runway is built.

The blight of aircraft noise in south-west London is a real issue today to residents, with a thundering airliner flying overhead every 90 seconds. If measures including steeper landing flight paths and more varied approach directions have already been approved to decrease the noise burden of a third runway, why would they not be put in place as soon as humanly possible?

It seems churlish not to. They could offer some real respite and just might help convince more Londoners of the merits of a third runway as the debate bubbles on.
Jeremy Calvert


Thank you for your thoughtful piece by Nicholas Cecil in conversation with Sir Howard Davies. However, whether or not flights are banned before 5.30am or 6am, I wonder why Heathrow cannot introduce this ban now, rather than only when an agreement on a third runway is made? If the airport has the means to do so, why can we not be allowed an extra hour of sleep now?

Furthermore, how meaningful would the no-fly period be when planes currently fly over London as late as 1am and as early as 4.15am, exercising an exemption that permits them hundreds of night flights a year before they even have to consider paying any penalties?

Incidentally, many of your readers will know that, at this time of the year when it is so stuffy and you have to keep windows open at night, Heathrow is particularly disruptive and affects the well-being of hundreds of thousands more Londoners than is normally the case.
Nic Oatridge


No end in sight to chaos on Southern

Yet again there is disruption on Southern as guards join drivers in protest at plans to remove guards from services and extend driver-only operated trains. These actions cause huge inconvenience as timetables are shaved and cancellation to peak-time services are implemented.

For the thousands of workers trying to get to and from work it is yet another blow. I have nothing but contempt for the unions and their dinosaur tactics and, for that matter, the management of Southern, who continue to demonstrate an arrogant position.

The polarised parties of unions and management should be forced into binding arbitration to resolve this nonsense once and for all. If not, Southern should be replaced with a new franchise.
David Doe


Leave campaign loses all credibility

Vince Cable is right to claim that “Brexit may never happen” to the public debate [July 7].

A year after the EU referendum, we have had the opportunity to test the veracity of the Leave camp’s arguments; almost all have been found to be either the result of wishful thinking or lacking in detail. Crucially, the notion that the EU “needs us more than we need them” has been shown to be nonsense.

With the credibility of Leave’s arguments so visibly undermined, we cannot continue on our current course to leave the EU.
Rohan Moorthy


Billionaire tax will achieve very little

David Reed suggests billionaires should pay more tax “to cover decent wages across the public sector, abolish student loans, and... [support] major investment projects” [Letters, July 7].

He mentions Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley in particular, who is said to be worth £2.2 billion. However, liquidating his assets would only keep the NHS running for about 5.5 days, or alternatively we would need 66 Mike Ashleys to fund the NHS for a year. Maybe we can find another source?
C D Drewe

Join the conversation: #esnewsviews


Konta is looking the part at Wimbledon

We have been waiting a long time for a British woman to win Wimbledon. But I think Johanna Konta has done everything she can so far to show she can end that run.

In typical British fashion Konta didn’t make it easy for herself, needing three sets to beat Caroline Garcia of France. But the grit that got her through against Croatia’s Donna Vekic in the second round was evident once again.

With Serena Williams not competing this year and Angelique Kerber, Agnieszka Radwanska and Caroline Wozniacki all out before the quarter-finals, Konta might not get a better chance to win. And yet I do not believe there has been as much support for her as there is for Andy Murray.

Konta is the first British woman to reach the quarter-finals of Wimbledon since Jo Durie 33 years ago — a damning reflection of the state of women’s tennis in Britain.

Many of your correspondents have written to complain about the predictability of the women’s game. I would counter with the fact that only Romania’s Simona Halep — the number two seed and Konta’s next opponent — made it to the quarter-finals out of the top five seeded players.

Let’s hope Konta can capitalise on this and make history at SW19.
Emma Stewart

Join the conversation: #essportviews


Commuters face serious health risks

RE: Robin De Peyer’s article [“Tube passengers ‘breathe in 12m toxic air particles a minute’... and could be at risk of dementia”, Online, July 7] — what about the carcinogenic asbestos dust from brake shoes that is known to be wafting around the network every time a train pushes its way through the underground tunnels?

How many Londoners have suffered permanent lung damage and premature death due to a lifetime’s exposure as part of their daily commute on the London Underground system? It appears that only half of the story regarding air pollution has been covered so far.
William Judge

Join the conversation: #escleancityviews

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in