Predict and it will be provided, part two

In an earlier article, I talked about 'predict and provide', a pro-growth transport policy model which has lead to self-fulfilling and exponential growth in surface transport. In this article I'll be looking at the Government's argument that Heathrow must be expanded to meet the growing demand for air travel, and consider if this is a predict and provide approach.

Let's quickly recap on predict and provide. Officials make a prediction based on current growth rates, and extrapolate future data. It is presumed that this demand cannot be checked (because demand is caused by forces over which the Government has no control) and therefore the space for the demand to grow into is provided.

Let's look at the Government's line on aviation growth. According to Government advisor Rod Eddington (former head of British Airways), "to seek artificially to constrain the natural growth of air travel, once carbon pricing is fully in place, would pose a significant cost to the UK economy".

Notice the emphasis on "artificially". Growth occurs naturally, and restricting it is unnatural or artificial. Not providing the capacity is one very neat way to restrict growth, but that is not up for discussion; it would be artificial to not provide the capacity for growth to occur in. Sounds pretty much like predict and provide to me.

Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly takes a similar line. The growth is natural, and will otherwise go to Schipol and Charles de Gaulle. "If Heathrow is allowed to become uncompetitive, the flights and routes it operates will simply move elsewhere". Here "uncompetitive" is a euphemism for capping capacity - Kelly makes no attempt to consider modal shift from flying to rail or even a reduction in journeys. As far as she is concerned, people will just keep on increasing the amount they fly, regardless of "policy controls". This is predict and provide logic, pure and simple.

In a recent meeting with Jim Fitzpatrick, the Aviation Minister, his officials fiercely denied that adding capacity to Heathrow was fueled by predict and provide. They cited two barriers to growth - climate taxes (the APD 'rise') and, strangely, the failure to already provide a third runway. The DfT claims that the former has reduced predicted demand by 30 million passengers per year; the latter by 15 million.

What's going on here? Well, the Government has made an unrestricted growth prediction, based on the idea that the third runway was already in place, and assumed that there were no carbon taxes. They've then done a second calculation based on the situation as it actually stands, and used the discrepancy between the two to argue that they are not using a predict and provide model.

This is quite simply the most fantastic application of 'what if' doublethink I've ever seen - so much so that I'm left wondering why they stopped where they did. Imagine if all plane tickets were free, and the whole of the south-east was one giant airport. The two cited barriers to growth only create a discrepancy between unrestrained and restrained growth of 8.7%; what would happen to growth if the civil servants had really pushed the boat out?

I'll leave it up to you to decide whether the Government's sole defence of their position has any merit. Instead, I'll make a quick comparison with rail travel. The Rail White Paper suggested using only existing rail lines, and catering for a 3% growth in demand; but as the Guardian pointed out today, rail passenger numbers are growing at over double that rate. This is demonstrably not predict and provide, as it's meeting les than 50% of demand.

Perhaps it's just a pity Doctor Beeching's civil servants weren't in charge of the Heathrow plans. They'd have sold off half the runways in the time it took to say Terminal 5...