Opinion | Airport Authority's fixation with third runway is blinding it to other options
Albert Cheng says more feasible ways to reduce airspace congestion must be considered, not least because of the hefty costs of airport expansion
Over the years, the Airport Authority has been funding research and more research to legitimise its claim that Hong Kong needs a third runway. The findings have boiled down to a single conclusion - that the proposed three-runway system is environmentally acceptable and economically indispensable.
Another such report - an environmental impact assessment - was submitted to a subcommittee of the Advisory Council on the Environment for endorsement earlier this month. In a nutshell, the document concludes that mitigation measures can limit the potential damage to the environment to within permissible levels.
This is what sociologists refer to as "instrumental rationality" in action. It is all about finding ways to achieve one's defined goals with the available resources, whether or not the goal is worth the cost.
Thus, a person who believes he is a dog might be considered instrumentally rational as long as he acts in accordance with canine beliefs and desires. If he's got his eye on a bone for lunch, he would yap and howl in order to get it.
The third runway is the metaphorical bone for the Airport Authority. To the exclusion of other considerations, it has convinced itself that a third runway is the only way to keep Hong Kong vibrant as an aviation hub. The feasibility studies - economic, technical and environmental - are just a means to that preconceived end.
The authority's latest bark came in the form of its environmental report.
