BAA case for Heathrow expansion flawed says environmental group

A call has been made for and independent study of the economic case for the expansion of Heathrow Airport after BAA was accused of basing its argument on flawed figures.

A new report has suggested that the economic case for expanding the airport is unsound because the argument for adding a third runway is relying on assumptions that are unrealistically optimistic, such as low oil prices and significantly increased passenger demand.

The government case for a third runway ignores the impact that new rail lines may have on passenger demand, it assumes that air fares will continue to fall and it is based on unfounded forecasts that oil prices will drop to $53 a barrel by 2030, the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) commented.

The SEI has done work for the British government before and for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is recommending that the case for a third runway at Heathrow be re-examined by “disinterested researchers.”. “Considering the size of the project and the irreversibility of its consequences, a full and accurate accounting of impacts is essential before any decision-making process can go forward,” noted a report issued by the SEI US centre.

The SEI Heathrow consultation has been called biased by local residents, opposition politicians and environmentalists - who have also voiced their concerns about what they see as overly-close cooperation between the government and the owner-operator of Heathrow, the BAA, during the process.

www.baa.com