News Analysis: Is airport expansion the way to meet passenger demand?

Barrie Clement,Transport Editor
Wednesday 24 July 2002 00:00 BST
Comments

Doing nothing about airport capacity in Britain was not an option, according to the mantra chanted by the Secretary of State for Transport, Alistair Darling, yesterday.

But not making up your mind remained an option, it seemed.

While Mr Darling clearly stated his argument for attempting to meet the growth in demand for air travel, he steered clear of committing himself to any particular solution to the growing propensity for Britons to take to the skies.

The strategy in yesterday's consultation documents was to frighten the hell out of as many people as possible so that when the Government finally decides its course of action, electors will be more likely to breathe a sigh of relief than take to the barricades.

Despite 11 September and the huge drop in air travel in its wake, the Government, the business community and most unions believe there is a need to expand airport capacity.

Statistics released by Mr Darling yesterday reveal that 32 million passengers used airports in the United Kingdom in 1970 and 180 million in 2000.

Ministers estimate that in 2030, 500 million people will pass through British airports. About half of the UK population flew at least once in 2000, according to figures released by the Government yesterday.

The economic case for expanding capacity is formidable. A survey conducted by the CBI shows that 87 per cent of companies want expansion and 80 per cent argue that restrictions would affect their ability to compete internationally.

The study of 160 firms found that the main reason for using air travel was for contact with customers, the development of new markets and company meetings. Two thirds of respondents said they planned to use aviation more over the next 10 years during the course of their business.

Neil Johnson of the Freight Transport Association pointed out that some 20 per cent of all British exports were moved by air and that the figure was expected to grow by 7.5 per cent a year over the next decade. The association believes that expansion is needed to cope with the growth.

Mr Johnson said: "The UK currently has one of Europe's most vibrant and competitive air transport industries.

"It is instrumental in attracting business to the UK whilst at the same time allowing UK exporters to serve their markets efficiently and effectively."

And as Mr Darling said in the Commons yesterday, about 180,000 people are employed in the industry and as many people again are, indirectly, dependent on the sector.

Perhaps the most persuasive argument for expanding capacity is that Britain would otherwise fall behind its competitors on the Continent.

The British Air Transport Association believes that demand will exceed supply by 100 million passengers in 30 years and that European airports, unhindered by complicated planning laws, are expanding apace. Extra runways are being built at Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt, all of which would gratefully soak up demand if it were turned away by Britain, some argue.

Residents near future airports and those that are being expanded might be forgiven for finding the economic case less than convincing.

Responding to plans for a third runway at Heathrow, John Stewart, chairman of the pressure group HACAN Clear Skies, remarked yesterday that even well-heeled citizens near the west London airport might take to the streets.

"The most respectable of residents are talking about direct action. Swampy is alive and well and living in Richmond," he said.

With all respect to those who live under flight paths, their protests are predictable – and to a certain extent can be dismissed. The Government might be tempted to take their views into account only if they live in the most marginal of Labour constituencies.

There are also ways round their protests. The Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, announced last week that while the Government did not intend to use parliamentary procedures to speed up the examination of planning objections from local residents, ways would be found of streamlining the process.

The contentions of environmentalists, however, can not be dismissed easily.

They believe the economic benefits are exaggerated and that the industry does not pay for the pollution it causes. They also believe that the aviation industry has prospered at the expense of the taxpayer. Green groups point out that there is no duty on aviation fuel and say that has helped to create a huge and "artificial" demand for air travel.

Friends of the Earth argues that government studies on pollutionhave failed to include all the main pollutants from airports. The studies also underestimate the number of people who suffer from poor air quality and general airport operations, it says.

The only significant pollutants covered by the official studies are nitrogen dioxide and particulates, but they ignore ground-level ozone. The organisation asserts that the studies use air-quality standards that have been relaxed.

The green lobby says that ministers underplay the impact of airport operations on flora and fauna. Clearly, such a consideration will be important if the Government decides to press ahead with a new airport at Cliffe on the Kentish side of the Thames estuary.

The site is a protected sanctuary for rare wading birds, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is already planning litigation in the British and European Courts. A spokesman for the society said yesterday that it was "hard to think of a worse site".

Objectors believe the Government has also been publishing misleading data on aircraft noise.

While official research uses 57 decibels as the starting point for measuring disturbance, people experience "noise nuisance" at lower levels. Friends of the Earth says that the World Health Organisation uses 50 decibels as the limit. By using the higher limit, all those affected by aircraft noise caused by an expanded airport would not be considered.

There is calculated to be a £8.6bn annual deficit in "aviation tourism" caused by people forsaking British holiday destinations to take low-cost flights abroad.

While it might seem obvious that expanding airport capacity would increase employment in the local area, environmentalists contend that there would be no net increase in jobs in the economy. The green lobby believes that jobs in aviation are "substitutable"; if people do not find employment in industries associated with the airport, they would find jobs elsewhere.

Friends of the Earth concludes: "If the large public subsidies currently handed to the aviation sector were spent elsewhere in the economy they would create as many, if not more jobs and employment and with less pollution and environmental damage."

While Mr Darling has not selected which airports are to be expanded or built, he has clearly rejected the argument that demand for air travel should be suppressed by limiting capacity. The Government has also decided that suppression through taxation is not an option. Any attempt to stop people travelling by aircraft is unlikely to be an election winner.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

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