Infrastructure Past, Present, and Future Casebook/Heathrow 3rd Runway (UK)

Introduction

Heathrow Airport map with third runway

Heathrow Airport wants to build a third runway, expanding their capacity and adding a whole new terminal complex. This is going to serve up to an extra 150 million passengers per year, including 740,000 flights per year. This project is privately funded, and expected to cost 21-50 billion British pounds, or 26.3 to 62.5 billion dollars. This cost includes a new runway, extended terminals, noise mitigation, upgraded transportation links, and community measures. This project has been considered controversial for years because of the climate impacts. The climate impacts are a major increase in CO2 emissions. Furthermore, not only is the air pollution increasing, but so is the noise pollution and the community displacement. In addition, there have been several legal challenges because of the UK climate laws and international obligations like the Paris Agreement. To add on to that, there was a court of appeal ruling in 2020 that found the project unlawful because of the lack of consideration to the climate, but the Supreme Court overturned the ruling. This allowed the project to continue, but the project is still frowned upon.  

Background

Although the Heathrow expansion is currently in works to be constructed, the possibility of the expansion as been hotly debated for almost twenty years now. While the people in power and with the ability to develop this infrastructure has varied, the proponents and oppositional groups have stayed relatively the same.  

The modern groups can first be seen in the 2009 Prime Minister Brown’s cabinet, which was part of the Labour Party. The Labour-led government supported the economic and population benefits the third runway would add. As determined by previous studies, Heathrow’s capacity was already almost full, and the best solution to improve capacity and economic output was through expansion. Not only did the Labour party back this development, but many UK business groups, including the British Chamber of Commerce, did as well.  

On the other hand, the expansion of the runway would add to the environmental pollution that already existed, and would especially increase noise pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Due to this, many global and local environmental activism groups, such as Greenpeace and the Camp for Climate Action, opposed this proposition. Additionally, other popular UK political parties, such as the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, and Green Party oppose this infrastructure. Due to the political parties’ influence in passing legislation within each Prime Minister administration, the expansion went back and forth due to differing politics.

As the next decade passed, the largest change came with legal battles in the late 2010s. In 2020 the Court of Appeals, the UK’s second highest legal authority, ruled the expansion was unlawful due to environmental affects, specifically as specified in the Paris Climate Agreement. Later in December of 2020, the UK Supreme Court, highest legal authority, declared the Court of Appeals decision to be overruled, and that the government plan could be environmentally safe and sound. With that, plans continued on way. Since 2024, the current Prime Minister Starmer has been pushing for the third runway expansion. Although political differences remain, Starmer and his Chancellor Reeves have been strongly pushing for this infrastructure to be developed.

Financial Structure/Cost

1. Third Runway and Airfield Infrastructure: Consent, site preparation, land acquisition, runway, and taxiways, Cost: 21 billion British Pounds
2. New Terminal: New T5X Terminal, stands connecting to terminal 5, and baggage, Cost: 12 billion British Pounds
3. Fixing Existing Infrastructure: Phase closure in terminal 3, expansion of terminal 2, and modernization of existing facilities, Cost: 15 billion British Pounds  
4. Total Project Cost: This is the combination of all costs, Cost: 49 billion British Pounds

• Private Funding: The entire project is being funded privately. This means that the money is coming from the shareholders, investors, debt, and equity.  

• Regulatory Framework: This includes planning consent, environmental permissions, and constant changes to the pricing models to airlines. Heathrow needs this so that the investors get a sufficient return. However, in the current model the cost burden is high.

• Cost Recovery from Fees and Charges: The plan for this project is to make up some of the funding from an increase in passenger charges, landing fees, and many others.  

Timeline/Maps

Date	Events	Detail
1946	Early proposals	Post-WWII planning documents included ideas for more runways north of Heathrow, including the same northwest site being debated now.
2003	Government White Paper	The UK’s Future of Air Transport White Paper identifies Heathrow as needing additional capacity and raises the third runway as a solution.
2009	Labour Government approval	Gordon Brown’s Labour government formally backs a 2,200 m third runway plus a sixth terminal. This would have required demolishing villages such as Sipson.
2010	Plan scrapped	After the election, David Cameron’s Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition cancels the runway, with Cameron promising: “No ifs, no buts, no third runway."
2012–2013	Airports Commission	The Airports Commission is set up to review UK airport capacity. In 2013, it shortlists Heathrow’s northwest runway option, the basis of today’s plan.
2015	Airports Commission report	Final report strongly recommends the northwest runway at Heathrow, citing economic benefits and the UK’s hub status.
2016	Government adoption	Theresa May’s government formally adopts Heathrow expansion into national policy (the Airports National Policy Statement, NPS).
2018	Parliamentary vote	The House of Commons votes 415–119 in favour of the NPS, giving political approval for Heathrow expansion to proceed.
Feb 2020	Court of Appeal blocks plan	Judges rule the NPS unlawful because it failed to consider the UK’s obligations under the Paris Agreement on climate change.
Dec 2020	Supreme Court overturns ruling	The UK’s highest court reinstates the NPS, allowing Heathrow to resume preparation of its planning application.
2021–2024	Post-COVID stall	The pandemic slashes passenger numbers, pausing expansion. Rising costs and climate concerns slow progress even as demand recover.
Jan 2025	Labour government support	Chancellor Rachel Reeves says Labour supports Heathrow’s third runway “in principle,” provided it meets environmental and noise standards. Heathrow submits updated proposals.
2029 (target)	Construction begins	Heathrow and government aim for “spades in the ground” around 2029, assuming approval and legal hurdles are cleared.
~2035 (est.)	Runway in operation	If built on schedule, the runway could be handling flights by the mid-2030s, boosting Heathrow’s capacity to ~150M passengers annually.

Environmental Impacts

The addition of this third runway is so controversial because of the impact it has on the environment, including the increase of C02 emissions, a decline in air quality, and a major increase in noise pollution. The Airport Commission says that the extra runway could lead to another 4.4 million tons of CO2 per year because of the increase in flights going from 480,000 to 720,000 a year. Furthermore, the aviation volume increase is going to cause an increase in pollutants like NO2 which is very harmful to humans. The NO2 could increase by 4 to 8 micrograms per cubic meter, leading to respiratory and cardiovascular health risks. Noise is another major environmental concern from the additional third runway. This is going to expose people to high decibels from the increase in flights, and these new flights could fly over areas that were previously not affected. The third runway will also have some local impacts like homes being demolished, rivers diverted, and infrastructure would need tunnels or alterations to be able to handle the expansion. Those who oppose the third runway believe that even if the airport uses sustainable aviation fuels and improvements to the aircraft efficiency, it will not be able to meet the requirements of the UK climate obligations.  

Proponents of the Third Runway

Airport Commission – Independent commission created by the UK government in 2012, reported back to the Department of Transportation. Ran from 2012 to 2015. Concluded in favor of expansion of the airport.  

British Chambers of Commerce – Non-governmental organization that represents UK commerce organizations. In favor of expansion of the airport.

Brown Ministry – cabinet of the UK Prime Minister Brown, which ran from 2007 to 2010. In favor of expansion of the airport.

Conservatives – political party that has supported and opposes airport expansion.

Department for Transport – division of UK’s government responsible for the English transport network.

Heathrow Airport Holdings – private company that holds ownership of Heathrow Airport, formerly owned all airports. Belongs to FGP Topco Limited.

Heathrow Hub – group that presented the independent proposal to expand heathrow airport to improving capacity.

House of Commons – one of the two parts of UK’s bicameral government. Voted in favour of supporting the expansion in 2018.

Jock Lowe – Former Concorde Pilot, one of two people behind the Heathrow Hub.

Keir Starmer – Current UK prime minister. In favor and taking action for airport expansion.

Labour - political party that supports airport expansion.

London First – Lobbying group supporting businesses and transportation coalitions. Supported the expansion of the airport.

Mark Bostock – Former director of the Arup Group, one of two people behind the Heathrow Hub.

May Prime Ministry – Cabinet of Prime Minister May. Support airport expansion.

Rachel Reeves – current UK Chancellor for finance. Supports airport expansion.

UK Supreme Court – Highest legal court in the UK and Wales. Lifted the ban on the third runway.

Policy Issues

Heathrow Airport Aerial View

The Third Runway at Heathrow raises policy concerns about striking a balance between social justice, environmental sustainability, and economic growth. Heathrow's expansion is necessary to keep the UK competitive internationally, boost trade, and generate employment. As important economic advantages, they highlight the possibility of higher passenger capacity and better connectivity. Critics point out important issues, though, such as rising carbon emissions, noise and air pollution, and community relocation. These conflict with the UK's legal obligations under the Climate Change Act of 2008 and the Paris Agreement to attain net-zero emissions by 2050. In 2020, the Supreme Court concluded that the government's approval of the runway was lawful, overturning a previous ruling that found it inconsistent with climate duties. Despite this, local councils and environmental organizations are still opposing the development, claiming it goes against the UK's climate aims. Although the government's Jet Zero Strategy intends to de-carbonize aviation by 2050, many people are still doubtful that it will be successful in reducing the environmental impact of the runway. The difficulties of coordinating infrastructure expansion with social and environmental obligations are highlighted by this continuing discussion.

Opposition of the Third Runway

Camp for Climate Action – activism group that opposes movements that hurt the climate. Oppose expansion of the airport.

Cameron Prime Ministry – Coalition government led by Minister Cameron and Deputy Minister Clegg. Opposed Third Runway and canceled government plans to build it.

Climate Rush – UK environmental organization. Opposes airport expansion.

Conservatives – political party that has supported and opposes airport expansion.

Court of Appeals – Second highest legal court in the UK and Wales. Ruled the expansion was unlawful.

Green party – political party that opposes airport expansion

Greenpeace – Independent global network that supports environmental protection through activism. Opposes expansion of the airport.

Liberal Democrats – political party that opposes airport expansion.

Plaid Cymru – political party that opposes airport expansion.

Plane Stupid – UK environmental activism group that oppposes airport expansion.

Sadiq Khan – Mayor of London since 2016. Opposes expansion of the Airport.

Alignment with Ostrum’s Theory

1. Efficiency: The main motivation behind the expansion of the third runway comes from the desire and need to improve the efficiency of Heathrow airport. By having this infrastructure in place, the airport will become theoretically much more efficient. Efficiency is a major motivation in this project.
2. Fiscal Equivalence: As part of a government project, the funding will come from taxes by citizens as well as funding more major developers and groups who are interested in the increased economic output of the airport.
3. Redistribution: The redistribution of this project has been a major source of debate and contention. The project will be serving many more travelers and passengers for the airport. Citizens in the area surrounding the airport however, might gain noise pollution. Additionally, approximately 700 residents will have to relocate, as their residential property will be getting destroyed to make space for the runway.  
4. Accountability: Accountability is another major source of debate and issue. Some organizations and politicians stand in favor of the expansion and desire it. While another aspect of those interested, organizations and politicians alike, desire the expansion to be dismissed and forgotten. This makes accountability a controversial aspect of the infrastructure.  
5. Adaptability: This aspect of Ostrum’s theory has been demonstrated most, as the developmental planning for this infrastructure has been changing and adapting for over two decades. As needs change and details vary, the infrastructure plans have been adapted over and over again.  

Acknowledgements

This casebook is a case study on the Heathrow Airport 3rd Runway by Viola Soliman, Ronan Livingston, and Charlotte Bell, created as part of Infrastructure Past, Present and Future: GOVT 490 (Synthesis Seminar for Policy & Government) and CEIE 499 (Special Topics in Civil Engineering) at George Mason University. This project is under the instruction of Professor Jonathan Gifford at the Schar School of Policy and Government and the Volgenau School of Engineering’s Sid and Reva Dewberry Department of Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure Engineering.