Phew, within minutes of launching the blog and wondering what on earth I was going to write about next, HACAN ClearSkies came to my rescue with a new report questioning key elements of the UK government's case for a third runway at Heathrow.
Essentially it's a rebuttal of at least parts of the Oxford Economic Forecasting-produced report on the claimed economic benefits of aviation which the UK Department for Transport uses to support the third-runway case. It was produced by Dutch consultancy CE Delft.
In its media material HACAN Clear Skies raises two key points. First is that the CE Delft report shows that OEF "significantly over-estimates the suppressed business demand that would be released by expansion by Heathrow". In particular it says it doesn't factor in the cost to the government of tax-breaks the aviation industry receives.
I don't know if the accusation is accurate, but I'm broadly sympathetic to the notion that there is some pretty questionable 'research' out there supporting aviation's benefits.
The second key point is that CE Delft found that "if Heathrow did not expand people would spend their money elsewhere with the result that other sectors of the economy would grow". HACAN cites the example of people switching discretionary spending on a holiday abroad to a holiday in the UK or "buying a new kitchen" - which all keeps the money in the UK.
I'm less sympathetic to that argument. I find it hard to believe that a significant number of British people make their holiday (or any other travel) plans around the facilities available at their local airport. They're either making the trip or they're not making the trip.
That's not to say that the overall emergence of low-fare airlines, development of regional airports, and so on haven't changed people's plans. But that infrastructure is now in place, and the marginal argument is much weaker. Leave a comment.
At the end of the day HACAn is a pressure group designed to influence politicians. How much depends upon their exposure in the media and funding.
Of course BAA and others have their influence as well but I do not understand how people who live in incredibly built up areas (London)next to some of the worst road traffic (M25) known to westerners can complain about aircraft noise when they have chosen to rent or buy near one of the busiest airports in the UK ! In addition most of these folk are very happy to fly away on business or holiday.
Were I one of the villagers displaced by the building of Bristol Filton's runway back in the Brabazon days no doubt I would think differently but back then there were less than 3 million cars on the road and Jet's were just appearing with noise levels far and above what modern machines produce.
Perhaps the poponents of a 3rd runway at LHR should offer One way tickets to Australia and 1/4acre of outback land to each family displaced by the construction. Maybe then people would realise (a) what real space and peace means and (b) that it is impossible in SE England.
Noise is very odd. I live in a part of London which in my view is not really affected by aviation noise - but just barely, you can travel say three miles and you are back into an area that unquestionably is affected. But I have plenty of friends and acquaintances who get quite excitable about the impact of aircraft noise on their lives. And some of them have lived in the same area for decades. So they have in fact experienced noise reducing for some time now - but they're convnced it's been increasing (for them personally I mean). Strange.