Afternoon:
15°c
Research questions benefits of Heathrow’s third runway
Joe Murphy09.02.09
The battle over Heathrow intensified today after a new study cast doubt on the Government's case for a third runway.
Research by the House of Commons library questioned the economic benefits, availability of cleaner aircraft and future demand for flights.
The analysis revealed that the economic model published by the Government relied on projections from the 2008 spring Budget, rather than the more pessimistic autumn pre-Budget report that reflected the impact of the credit crunch.
It also said the recession may permanently subdue demand for air travel.
Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon gave the go-ahead for the runway and a sixth Heathrow terminal last month, coupled with strict pollution limits.
His announcement was the trigger for a heated battle between environmentalists and the Government, while the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats said they will cancel the project if Labour loses the next election.
The Commons study was written to give MPs a balanced overview and it raises questions rather than flatly contradicting the Government.
It says low-emission aircraft, the only type that would be allowed on the new runway, are not yet in use and that kerosene is still the only viable airliner fuel “for the foreseeable future”. While Mr Hoon said the estimated value to the country of a third runway was £5.5 billion, the Commons library highlights possible flaws in his figure, revealing that the cost of extra road traffic congestion was not included in the calculation.
Theresa Villiers, the shadow transport secretary, said: “Even the impeccably bipartisan and impartial work of the Commons library has exposed the weakness of Labour's case.
“Hoon's figures on environmental safeguards rely on planes that aren't even in the pipeline.”
The Department for Transport stood by its own figures, saying its analysis had been “thorough and rigorous”.
Reader views (2)
Why are NATS and Eurocontrol keeping silent? Don't say they have been bought off by the airlines and airport operators.
Safety before profits, surely?
- Peter Seekings-Foster, Mildenhall, Suffolk.
Everyone knows that there is no justification for a third runway. The only people who won't admit it are BA and BAA who stand to profit, and companies and MPs who have vested interests - eg links with BA and BAA. Yet another example of snouts in the trough to the detriment of the ordinary people of Britain. Thank goodness they won't be in power much longer.
- Claire Moran, London Middx
