Economists, academics and transport
experts have written to chancellor and transport secretary
to raise concerns over the
government's airport expansion plans.
The signatories, including 16
professors of economics at top UK universities, have described
the claimed economic benefits of airport expansion as “at best
uncertain”.
The letter also states that there are
“no indications that the environmental and health impacts of
airport expansion can be adequately
mitigated”.
It comes after the government has
received outline proposals from business groups hoping to build
Heathrow's third runway.
Before any of those proposals can be
approved, the government has committed to reviewing the Airports
National Policy Statement which sets the decision-making criteria
for a third runway at Heathrow.
Dr Alex Chapman, senior economist at
the New Economics Foundation, signed and helped co-ordinate the
letter.
He said:
“With the Reform Party surging in
the polls, and Britain's historic seaside destinations emerging
as the heartlands of their support, it is odd that the government
appears desperate to send as many British tourists as possible,
and their money, to holiday destinations in other
countries.
“The economic case for airport
expansion is questionable from so many angles, but chief among
them is the decline of business reliance on air travel.
Government's support for expansion appears grounded in
assumptions and industry vibes more so than evidence and
research.
“The most comprehensive recent
assessments of airport expansion were conducted by
government-appointed inspectors assessing the Gatwick and Luton
proposals. In both cases they recommended refusal because the
balance of benefits and costs didn't stack
up.
“As a bare minimum the upcoming
review of the Airports National Policy Statement must involve a
thorough and independent impact assessment of Heathrow's
expansion and should consider other, lower-impact,
alternatives.”
ENDS
Notes
The New Economics Foundation is a
charitable think tank. We are independent of political parties
and committed to being transparent about how we are
funded.
The letter can be seen in full
here.
