Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE), commenting on the new DfT air passenger forecasts, say that even in 2050 Stansted would be able to meet all its market demand without any need for a second runway. For Stansted, which handled 17.5 million passengers last year, the DfT predicts unconstrained demand of 26 million passengers in 2030 and of 38 million passengers in 2050. SSE say“These new official Government forecasts are far more credible than anything we have seen before, and far less threatening. The new DfT forecasts are also very much in line with the aspirations of Stansted’s new owners, Manchester Airport Group (MAG), whose Chief Executive, Charlie Cornish, has set his sights on restoring Stansted to its 2007 traffic peak within a decade. That would mean a return to an annual throughput of 24 million passengers by 2022. SSE say that amidst all the hot air from Boris about building a 4-runway ‘mega-hub’ at Stansted, it’s refreshing to have some realism from the DfT and MAG. SSE hope that removing the threat of a new runway once and for all would will lay the foundations for a vastly improved long term relationship with the local community.
GOVERNMENT’S NEW AIR TRAFFIC FORECASTS SHOW NO CASE FOR STANSTED EXPANSION
30.1.2013 (SSE)
New air traffic forecasts just published (29 January 2013) by the Department for Transport (DfT) reveal that even in 2050 Stansted would be able to meet all its market demand without any need for a second runway.
For Stansted, which handled 17.5 million passengers last year, the DfT predicts unconstrained demand of 26 million passengers in 2030 and of 38 million passengers in 2050.
The figures, provided as part of an overall picture of predicted demand for UK air travel show that for the UK as a whole, demand for air travel will grow from 221 million passengers last year to just 320 million passengers a year in 2030, a growth rate of just 2% a year, compared to average annual growth of 5% over the past 40 years.
The DfT cites the main reasons for the slowdown as higher oil prices, market maturity and an end to the days when air fares were becoming cheaper, year on year.
Welcoming the downward revision in the DfT forecasts, Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) Chairman Peter Sanders said: “These new official Government forecasts are far more credible than anything we have seen before, and far less threatening. They show that even in 2050, Stansted would be able to meet all its market demand without any need for a second runway.”
The new DfT forecasts are also very much in line with the aspirations of Stansted’s new owners, Manchester Airport Group (MAG), whose Chief Executive, Charlie Cornish, has set his sights on restoring Stansted to its 2007 traffic peak within a decade. That would mean a return to an annual throughput of 24 million passengers by 2022.
Mr Sanders continued: “Amidst all the hot air from Boris Johnson about building a four-runway ‘mega-hub’ at Stansted, it’s refreshing to have some realism from the Department for Transport and Stansted’s new owners.”
Mr Sanders concluded: “If we can remove the threat of any new runways once and for all, this will lay the foundations for a vastly improved long term relationship with the local community, based on maximising the benefits of the airport and minimising its adverse impacts.”
illustrates the range of unconstrained forecasts graphically. Annex D provides
more detailed results.
and
.
see also
New Air traffic forecasts: Government expects growth in air travel to slow down considerably
Date added: January 30, 2013
The Department for Transport expects the rate of growth in air travel to slow down considerably over the coming decades. Their passenger forecasts published late yesterday expect demand for air travel to increase by just 1%-3% a year up to 2050 compared to historical growth rates of 5% a year over the last 40 years. The DfT lists 4 reasons for the slow down in growth for air travel: – higher oil prices; – an end to the decline in average fares seen in the last two decades; – the maturity of the air travel market to and from the UK; – and the availability of alternative modes of travel. The Department estimates that the major South East airports will be full by 2030 but recognizes there is some uncertainty about this: “ there is a range around this projection and they could be full as soon as 2025 or as late as 2040”. The central forecast, taking into account the impact of capacity constraints, is for passenger numbers at UK airports to increase from 219 million passengers in 2011 to 315 million in 2030 and 445 million by 2050. Compared to the DfT forecasts in August 2011, these forecasts are 6% lower for 2030 and 5% lower for 2050. Any proposals for airport expansion must be seen in this light.
Phase 2 of High Speed 2 has been announced, and the planned spur taking HS2 to Heathrow has been put on hold until after the Davies Commission’s review of Britain’s hub capacity is completed in 2015. The HS2 document says: “there would still be the opportunity to consult separately at a later point and include the Heathrow spur in legislation for Phase Two without any impact on the delivery time if that fits with the recommendations of the Commission.” This leaves uncertainty for local communities that could be blighted by the Heathrow link, and people want to know if local areas still be safeguarded and eligible for compensation. Nobody knows yet if Phase 1 will continue to be built as proposed, in order to keep options open – causing uncertainty, blight, and suffering to residents and businesses whilst leaving them ineligible for compensation. The Government has also launched a consultation on an Exceptional Hardship Scheme for Leeds, Manchester and the proposed Heathrow spur, to assist people who need to urgency sell their home or business.
Today the government has announced Phase 2 of HS2 – an extension to Leeds and Manchester with other stops at some bizarre places, and with news many were not expecting – no Heathrow Link!
This appears to be an attempt to give some credibility to The Davies Commission on airport expansion, which isn’t due to report until 2015.
Although this announcement is cautiously welcomed by our local communities who are already suffering blight due to the proposed Heathrow link, this leaves many questions unanswered.
Will local areas still be safeguarded and eligible for compensation?
Can construction of Phase 1 now include more, and better, mitigation options in the hope that no spur will ever be built?
Or will Phase 1 continue to be built as proposed in order to keep options open – causing uncertainty, blight, and suffering to residents and businesses whilst leaving them ineligible for compensation?
Will HS2 Ltd even bother to tell these people their plans have changed?
In many ways this news is no surprise to us. They removed all mention of Heathrow and HS2 from their new website 2 weeks ago, but failed to answer our questions about why, and Only last October at a community forum a HS2 Ltd engineer told us:
“…the link to Heathrow might never happen. Connecting HS2 to Old Oak Common will allow passengers to reach Heathrow in 11 minutes. That was our original proposal”
Will people who support HS2 in the mistaken belief that HS2 will reduce domestic flights now realise HS2 is not about that. Nor is it about the environment, reducing carbon or true connectivity. Maybe it’s about airport expansion after all.
As for the Heathrow Link and for our community, it is still not certain if this is a permanent reprieve or a temporary one till 2015.
Another major point of interest for Londoners today is the route through the city of Manchester is almost all in tunnel – meanwhile many Londoners still face HS2 ploughing through their gardens, schools, closing roads and so on. Time for a fair deal for all!
There is no information yet on the Heathrow Spur in phase 2 but here is the selection of routes engineers were considering as published in the Gazette:
There is important information for anyone affected by the line, on the consultation and on getting compensation etc, at http://ruislip-against-hs2.co.uk/
Read their reaction here and the message from HS2 on this subject here.
As stated in January 2012, the Government believes that the HS2 network should link to Heathrow and its preferred option is for this to be built as part of Phase Two. However, the Government has since established an independent Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, to recommend options for maintaining the country’s status as an international aviation hub.
The Government has therefore taken the decision to pause work on the spur to Heathrow until after 2015 when it expects the Airports Commission to publish its final report. The proposals for the Heathrow spur and station are not planned to be part of the Phase Two consultation. However, there would still be the opportunity to consult separately at a later point and include the Heathrow spur in legislation for Phase Two without any impact on the delivery time if that fits with the recommendations of the Commission.
To avoid severe disruption to the Phase One line after it has opened, however, the Government would consider carrying out the preparatory construction work needed to preserve the option of our preference serving Heathrow in the future. Including this work now could save significant disruption and cost at a later point.
Heathrow spur and Exceptional Hardship Scheme consultation
Alongside the Phase Two announcement, the Government has also launched a consultation on an Exceptional Hardship Scheme for Leeds, Manchester and the proposed Heathrow spur. The scheme aims to assist eligible residential and small business owner-occupiers whose property value may be affected by the initial preferred route options for these lines and who can demonstrate that they have an urgent need to sell.
Though the Heathrow spur is not part of the initial preferred route for Phase Two, the Government recognises the impact that the release of information about the recommended Heathrow route may have on property owners and therefore is willing to consider applications from property owners potentially affected by it under the proposed Exceptional Hardship Scheme (EHS) for Phase Two.
The Minister of State for Transport will write to the small number of people whose land may be required or whose properties are at risk of demolition should the recommended Heathrow route be built, to explain the situation to them and, in respect of property owners, to confirm that the Phase Two EHS would be open to them. The Government will also write to people whose land or property is above a proposed tunnel on the Heathrow spur route to make them aware of it.
You can find more details on the Exceptional Hardship Scheme consultation for the proposed routes to Manchester, Leeds and Heathrow on our dedicated pages
Maria Eagle (Labour Shadow Transport Secretary) said: “…we seem to have abandoned the spur to Heathrow, and I think that is a big concern. I think the whole point about high speed rail links is connectivity. Not to go to our hub airport is a real concern.” link
.
Phase 2 of HS2 announced, with no spur to Heathrow – though that could be added later
January 29, 2013 The government has announced details of the 2nd phase of High Speed 2, from Birmingham north to Leeds and to Manchester. The Chancellor, George Osborne, predicted the investment would become “the engine of growth” in the north of England and the Midlands. The government is due to finalise the precise route of HS2 next year in advance of legislation in 2015 – though it is likely to be delayed by a flood of judicial reviews and court actions over the legality of the consultation process. These could delay planning authorisation, and ultimately require routes to be heavily redrafted. Instead of work on the first phase, to Birmingham, starting in 2017, it could be delayed till 2022. A planned spur taking HS2 to Heathrow has been put on hold until after the Davies review of Britain’s hub capacity is completed in 2015. The HS2 document says: “there would still be the opportunity to consult separately at a later point and include the Heathrow spur in legislation for Phase Two without any impact on the delivery time if that fits with the recommendations of the Commission.” Meanwhile, a useful piece by Christian Wolmar sets out the main reasons by HS2 is not a wise plan, and not value for money, or even of environmental benefit. Click here to view full story…
Local campaign group HALE (Hertfordshire Against Luton Expansion) says that Luton Airport’s expansion plans are based on projections to increase flights at night by 50%. This is based on information in the airport’s planning application which shows that the number of take-offs and landings between 11pm and 7am is projected to rise to 52 by 2028, compared to 34 in 2011. HALE points out that this is just the average figure – during the summer peak there could be as many as 80 flights each night. There is a public consultation on the application until 18th February. HALE is urging people to respond to this planning application by demanding that Luton Borough Council forces its Airport to reduce, not increase, night flights; to monitor and fine night arrivals as well as night departures; and to install a noise monitor on the approach to runway 08 for the purpose. Luton airport currently has very lax night noise restrictions.
“LUTON AIRPORT PLANS TO INCREASE FLIGHTS AT NIGHT BY 50%” SAYS HALE
29 January 2013
Local campaign group HALE (Hertfordshire Against Luton Expansion) is claiming that Luton Airport’s expansion plans are based on projections to increase flights at night by 50%.
The claims are based on information in the Airport’s planning application (* see below) which shows that the number of takeoffs and landings between 11pm and 7am is projected to rise to 52 by 2028, compared to 34 in 2011.
HALE points out that this is just the average figure – during the summer peak there could be as many as 80 flights each night.
The data also shows that the main wave of early morning departures would start to ramp up at 5am rather than 6am.
“This is going to come as a very rude awakening to people – in more ways than one” said Tim Moss of HALE. “Just look at the rhetoric of the Master Plan, when the airport was keen to make us believe in its commitment to noise mitigation: they told us how much they wanted the airport to be the best neighbour it could be, and that they would ‘promote measures to minimise noise from aircraft operated at night’. How does that square with a proposal to increase flights at night by 50%, and to start the early morning departures at 5am? At the end of the day this expansion proposal is purely driven by commercial gain, regardless of community pain.”
HALE has also discovered assurances from the Airport to monitor noise levels and fine airlines which exceed noise violation thresholds are almost meaningless at night, because the fines only apply to departures, and yet according to Airport annual reports 72% of flights at night are arrivals.
“Arrivals often make even more noise than departures because although the engines are throttled back, the planes are that much lower” said Andrew Lambourne of HALE. “The commitment to fine night noise offenders is just ludicrous when the noisiest two thirds of night flights are actually being ignored.
“We urge people to respond to this planning application by demanding that Luton Borough Council forces its Airport to reduce, not increase, night flights; to monitor and fine night arrivals as well as night departures; and to install a noise monitor on the approach to runway 08 for the purpose” he added.
For those wanting to comment on the expansion plans, or to object, you can send an email including your name and address to developmentcontrol@luton.gov.uk quoting planning application 12/01400/FUL.
Objections need to be submitted by 18th February. Seewww.hale.uk.netfor more details and a summary of the expansion proposals.
. (*) Graphs of the current and proposed hourly arrivals and departures are provided below, taken from the Environmental Statement Appendix H Noise Appendix N(3) accompanying the planning application. Adding up the hourly movements at night between 23:00 and 07:00, the timeframe used for the night noise contours, shows the 50% increase projected by 2028 compared to 2011.
HALE (Hertfordshire Against Luton Expansion) is a campaign group committed to opposing plans to expand Luton Airport which will export further noise and pollution to Hertfordshire. It represents communities all around the airport.
See www.hale.uk.net
Local people in the Luton area made it very clear -during the airport’s recent consultations – that night noise was top of the agenda of concern, and the airport Managing Director acknowledged this in a really good interview with the BBC on Sep 14th last year (see http://www.hale.uk.net/theyre-listening/), so it’s almost incredible to discover in the detail of the planning documents the projection that by 2028 flights at night (23:00-07:00) will be up by 50%.
.
.
HALE’s website says:
Noise and night-flights are a major problem:
the mix of flights from Luton is getting noisier year-on-year
Luton Airport has very lax night-flight restrictions
noisy cargo planes wake people at night and cause stress
departing night flights often cut corners directly over villages
Planning application received from London Luton Airport Operations Ltd
London Luton Airport Operations Limited (LLAOL), the airport operator, submitted a planning application to Luton Borough Council [the airport's owner] on 7th January 2013.
The Council’s Development Control Division has confirmed that the application is now valid and the consultation period can commence on this planning application.
The works proposed in the application are all contained within the existing boundary of the airport and include:
alterations to the access to the airport from Airport Way/Airport approach road
infill extensions and alterations to the terminal buildings
extensions to the mid-term and long-term car parks
construction of a new taxiway parallel to the existing Delta taxiway
extensions to the existing Alpha taxiway parallel to the runway
extensions to existing aircraft parking aprons to provide six new stands
new multi-storey car park, to be linked to the terminal building
graphs showing the percentage of departures from Luton Airport which are noisier than 76dbA, by day and night, from 2005 to 2010:
In 2005 only 8% of departing daytime flights were above 76dbA - by 2010 this had doubledto around 16%. At night, 10% were louder than 76dbA but this had doubled to 20% in 2010. These figures clearly show that the flights are getting noisier over time – and the raw data has been available in the public domain for years. Did they miss it?
Why the additional noise? The airport are struggling to explain it. We believe it’s caused by the changing mix to larger, heavier aircraft, plus the fact that the flights are going further so are carrying more fuel. The effect of this is completely the opposite to what futureLuToN had said. “As passenger numbers increase”, Steve Heappey said, ”bigger planes will be used so that double the passengers does not mean double the flights.” But the last 5 years have shown that bigger planes mean more noise, hence they are completely misleading us by claiming that the aircraft will be quieter.
The annual noise figures for departing flights from Luton Airport can be found here: Annual Reports 2005-2010. You can add up the number of flights that are louder than a chosen value and calculate the percentage of the total. To save you the trouble you can download the results here: Luton Airport Noise Trends. These graphs will show you the real trend behind their tables of data.
Noise from aircraft is particularly and can have significant impacts on health: see our page dedicated to night noise at Luton.
Night noise at Luton
In contrast with the main airports in the south east of England and a number of major airports in Europe, no controls are imposed on night flying at Luton. Heathrow, for example, has no scheduled departures between 23:30 and 06:00, an indirect result of controls imposed by Government.
Luton Airport’s voluntary Night Noise Policy comprises only measures which are calculated to prevent a massive worsening of the noise disturbance currently suffered by local residents but which barely affect current operations.
The controls on average night noise (23:00 to 07:00) imposed by the 1997 planning permission will not be triggered unless the hourly number of flights at night reaches 80% of the daytime rate, an intolerable situation and, in effect, no limit at all.
The key problem at Luton
The fundamental problem with Luton Airport is that it is located very close to south Luton. At night, this means that a large number of people experience high levels of aircraft noise which are likely to interrupt or disturb their sleep.
Based on a wide range of scientific studies, the 2009 World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines for night noise propose that, to protect the public, outside noise should not exceed 40 dBA Lnight.
This is a very demanding target so the WHO recommends that governments mandate a limit of 55 dBA Lnight as an Interim Target while planning to meet the more demanding Protection Level. Much of the research which underlies the WHO guidelines indicated that the number of noise events is a key determinant of sleep disturbance.
The recommendations are based on an assumption that there are 8 noise events each night. Other research findings suggest that a doubling of the number of events is equivalent to an increase of 10 dBA Lnight so, at very busy airports, the limits should be lower.
Night Noise Controls
LADACAN believes that urgent action is needed to curb night noise around the Airport principally to protect the large population in south Luton which is subject to very high noise levels. This action must be based initially on achieving the WHO Interim Target.
The government has announced details of the 2nd phase of High Speed 2, from Birmingham north to Leeds and to Manchester. The Chancellor, George Osborne, predicted the investment would become “the engine of growth” in the north of England and the Midlands. The government is due to finalise the precise route of HS2 next year in advance of legislation in 2015 – though it is likely to be delayed by a flood of judicial reviews and court actions over the legality of the consultation process. These could delay planning authorisation, and ultimately require routes to be heavily redrafted. Instead of work on the first phase, to Birmingham, starting in 2017, it could be delayed till 2022. A planned spur taking HS2 to Heathrow has been put on hold until after the Davies review of Britain’s hub capacity is completed in 2015. The HS2 document says: “there would still be the opportunity to consult separately at a later point and include the Heathrow spur in legislation for Phase Two without any impact on the delivery time if that fits with the recommendations of the Commission.” Some people affected by the Heathrow spur will be eligible for the Exceptional Hardship Scheme. Meanwhile, a useful piece by Christian Wolmar sets out the main reasons by HS2 is not a wise plan, and not value for money, or even of environmental benefit.
The environmental and economic case for HS2 is losing clout, and yet the coalition ploughs on regardless
by Christian Wolmar
The Guardian,
A Javelin train passes through Ashford on the HS1 rail link. Today it was announced that HS2 stations would be built in the centres of Leeds and Manchester. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA
Let battle commence. The controversy so far over the building of the new north-south high-speed railway line, HS2, has been led by well-heeled residents of the Chilterns who are seen as self-serving nimbys. Now that the northern sections of the route have been announced, the arguments will undoubtedly intensify and broaden out to examine the viability of a project that will cost at least £33bn and take 20 years to build.
Indeed, ministers face an uphill task in convincing many of their own supporters, let alone a sceptical public, of the project’s wider benefits.
Let’s take that price tag first. It was first announced when the broad outlines of the scheme were set out by the Labour government in its dying days and is therefore merely a guess with no detailed analysis to back it up. Indeed, the decision announced today to build stations in the centre of Leeds and Manchester, while definitely correct in terms of bringing benefits to those cities, will increase the cost enormously since, as our Victorian forebears found out, that last mile or so of rail line into urban areas is by far the most expensive.
Then there is the gradually weakening case for the line. When HS2 was first announced, it was presented as not only having enormous economic benefits but also as environmentally sustainable because of people transferring from road and air to rail.
In fact, subsequently the environmental case has all but collapsed since the effect of the line would be pretty much carbon neutral according to the study by HS2 Ltd, the government body charged with taking forward the scheme, if the impact of its construction were taken into account.
The environmental case was fatally weakened by the realisation that few high-speed train passengers would transfer from air.Again, HS2 Ltd found that most users would otherwise have taken conventional train services or simply not made the trip.
That left the business case as the principal justification for the scheme and this has steadily worsened over time as more details of the plan emerged.
The benefits are based largely on journey time reductions made by those travelling, but when opponents highlighted the fact that since people now can work on trains with their laptops and mobiles, these savings are largely illusory.
Today’s document promises “benefits” of just £2 for every £1 spent, a pretty weak ratio for such a massive scheme, especially as it is based on an unrealistic cost estimate and these imaginary savings.
That is why, in announcing the second stage, the government is now focusing on the regeneration benefits, presenting the line as a way of bridging the north-south divide.
However, the evidence that the new line will help reduce divisions between the regions is thin and, indeed, can point the other way, with London being the beneficiary.
On Radio 4′s Today programme, Prof John Tomaney of the School of Planning at University College London, who has researched the effect of high-speed lines across the world, said: “The argument that high speed can reshape economic geography has been used in several countries around the world such as France, Spain, South Korea… but in practice there is very little evidence that building a high speed rail line heals north-south divides.”
In fact, Tomaneyn found there was strong evidence the other way, with the capital cities rather than the provincial towns, benefiting from the line.
In terms of employment, therefore, the argument in the government’s report that the line would create 100,000 jobs smacks of pure fantasy.
Ultimately, this whole scheme is a finger-in-the-air job. The Victorians built their railways on that basis, not really aware of the huge impact they would have or, indeed, whether they would ever pay for themselves. However, in the 19th century, the railways were a monopoly and it took almost a hundred years before the car and the lorry made inroads into the railways’ market.
Today we have the internet, broadband, mobile telephony and even the possibility of driverless cars let alone more mundane exogenous factors such as oil prices and planning policies that ultimately could all affect demand for rail travel.
The variables and what Donald Rumsfeld would call the unknown unknowns over a 20-year period are so great that in effect, despite all the pseudo scientific business case methodology, this is all one big punt by the politicians.
Yet, despite the lack of evidence to support the case for the line, it has now become part of the political consensus supported by all three main political parties rather like the idea in the noughties that Britain’s wealth would be sustained by allowing bankers free rein.
There is no information yet on the Heathrow Spur in phase 2 but here is the selection of routes engineers were considering as published in the Gazette:
There is important information for anyone affected by the line, on the consultation and on getting compensation etc, at http://ruislip-against-hs2.co.uk/
Read their reaction here and the message from HS2 on this subject here.
As stated in January 2012, the Government believes that the HS2 network should link to Heathrow and its preferred option is for this to be built as part of Phase Two. However, the Government has since established an independent Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, to recommend options for maintaining the country’s status as an international aviation hub.
The Government has therefore taken the decision to pause work on the spur to Heathrow until after 2015 when it expects the Airports Commission to publish its final report. The proposals for the Heathrow spur and station are not planned to be part of the Phase Two consultation. However, there would still be the opportunity to consult separately at a later point and include the Heathrow spur in legislation for Phase Two without any impact on the delivery time if that fits with the recommendations of the Commission.
To avoid severe disruption to the Phase One line after it has opened, however, the Government would consider carrying out the preparatory construction work needed to preserve the option of our preference serving Heathrow in the future. Including this work now could save significant disruption and cost at a later point.
Heathrow spur and Exceptional Hardship Scheme consultation
Alongside the Phase Two announcement, the Government has also launched a consultation on an Exceptional Hardship Scheme for Leeds, Manchester and the proposed Heathrow spur. The scheme aims to assist eligible residential and small business owner-occupiers whose property value may be affected by the initial preferred route options for these lines and who can demonstrate that they have an urgent need to sell.
Though the Heathrow spur is not part of the initial preferred route for Phase Two, the Government recognises the impact that the release of information about the recommended Heathrow route may have on property owners and therefore is willing to consider applications from property owners potentially affected by it under the proposed Exceptional Hardship Scheme (EHS) for Phase Two.
The Minister of State for Transport will write to the small number of people whose land may be required or whose properties are at risk of demolition should the recommended Heathrow route be built, to explain the situation to them and, in respect of property owners, to confirm that the Phase Two EHS would be open to them. The Government will also write to people whose land or property is above a proposed tunnel on the Heathrow spur route to make them aware of it.
You can find more details on the Exceptional Hardship Scheme consultation for the proposed routes to Manchester, Leeds and Heathrow on our dedicated pages
Maria Eagle (Labour Shadow Transport Secretary) said: “…we seem to have abandoned the spur to Heathrow, and I think that is a big concern. I think the whole point about high speed rail links is connectivity. Not to go to our hub airport is a real concern.” link
Today the government has announced Phase 2 of HS2 – an extension to Leeds and Manchester with other stops at some bizarre places, and with news many were not expecting – no Heathrow Link! This appears to be an attempt to give some credibility to The Davies Commission on airport expansion, which isn’t due to report until 2015.
Although this announcement is cautiously welcomed by our local communities who are already suffering blight due to the proposed Heathrow link, this leaves many questions unanswered.
Will local areas still be safeguarded and eligible for compensation?
Can construction of Phase 1 now include more, and better, mitigation options in the hope that no spur will ever be built?
Or will Phase 1 continue to be built as proposed in order to keep options open – causing uncertainty, blight, and suffering to residents and businesses whilst leaving them ineligible for compensation?
Will HS2 Ltd even bother to tell these people their plans have changed?
In many ways this news is no surprise to us. They removed all mention of Heathrow and HS2 from their new website 2 weeks ago, but failed to answer our questions about why, and Only last October at a community forum a HS2 Ltd engineer told us:
“…the link to Heathrow might never happen. Connecting HS2 to Old Oak Common will allow passengers to reach Heathrow in 11 minutes. That was our original proposal”
Will people who support HS2 in the mistaken belief that HS2 will reduce domestic flights now realise HS2 is not about that. Nor is it about the environment, reducing carbon or true connectivity. Maybe it’s about airport expansion after all.
As for the Heathrow Link and for our community, it is still not certain if this is a permanent reprieve or a temporary one till 2015.
Another major point of interest for Londoners today is the route through the city of Manchester is almost all in tunnel – meanwhile many Londoners still face HS2 ploughing through their gardens, schools, closing roads and so on, time for a fair deal for all!
Lawyers on the line: high-speed rail plan faces 10-year delay
Details unveiled of second phase of £32.7 billion project which government claims will create at least 100,000 jobs
28.1.2013 (Independent)
by James Cusick
Britain’s HS2 high-speed rail line could be delayed for a decade as a unified coalition of Conservative councils, MPs and environmental groups threaten disruptive legal action.
The new £33bn line is intended to kickstart the country’s economic recovery, but Department for Transport officials now fear work may not begin until 2022, amid a flood of court cases and judicial reviews, The Independent can disclose.
David Cameron today promised that HS2 would “spread the UK’s wealth” and give a “better balance to the UK economy” as the route of its Y-shaped second phase from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds was unveiled.
But the Government is now facing a concerted revolt as northern local authorities and backbench MPs affected by the proposed line unite with campaigners opposed to its first phase from London to Birmingham.
Michael Fabricant, MP for Lichfield and Tory deputy chairman, warned that Chancellor George Osborne, will now “see the strength of public opinion for himself”, with the line due to pass through his Tatton constituency in Cheshire. He added: “Every MP along the route will have people lobbying him. The people of Cheshire, like the people of Staffordshire, don’t hesitate to make their views known – and quite right too.”
The Conservative MP for North-West Leicestershire, Andrew Bridgen, Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin today trumpeted the benefits of HS2, including increased North-South rail capacity, halving the current two hour eight minute journey time between and Manchester and London, the creation of 100,000 new jobs, and substantial investment boosts for major city centres,
Mr Cameron chaired a special gathering of the Cabinet in Leeds to discuss the plans, with ministers then fanning out across the region to make the case for the project.
Phase two running north from Birmingham along a total of 211 miles of new track will have stops and new stations at Manchester, Manchester Airport, Toton in the East Midlands, Sheffield and Leeds.
Sheffield will miss out on a city-centre station with a new link built instead at Meadowhall. High-speed trains will also stop at Crewe’s existing station.
But a planned spur taking HS2 to Heathrow airport has been put on hold until after the Davies review of Britain’s hub airport and aviation policy is completed in 2015.
Constituencies bisected by the provisional route for the second phase are located in Cheshire, Staffordshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, the East Midlands and Yorkshire.
The government is due to finalise the precise route of HS2 next year in advance of legislation in 2015. Construction of the first phase is planned to start in 2017,.
However if a flood of judicial reviews and court actions over the legality of the consultation process delay planning authorisation, and ultimately require routes to be heavily redrafted, Whitehall officials fear that work could be pushed back to 2022.
This could also delay the start of work on the northern extension, which is due to begin in the middle of the next decade ahead of a planned opening in 2032-33.
The High Court is already considering whether the first phase of the project, which will take is legally flawed. The challenge was taken to the court by campaigners who accused the Government of failing to undertake a “strategic environmental assessment” or arrange an adequate consultation process.
The legal action focuses on the London-Birmingham route, however its outcome will have repercussions for the entire HS2 project.
Penny Gaines, chair of the StopHS2 pressure group, said she had already been contacted by constituents and local politicians in northern counties opposed to the provisional route of the second phase.
Ms Gaines said the gathering storm against HS2 was on course to produce “a strong alliance that included Conservative-run councils, MPs, activists from both the Green Party and UKIP, as well as a some Labour MPs and supporters who will take action to oppose this fundamentally flawed London-centric policy.”
Last week in the Commons, the Shadow Works and Pension Secretary, Liam Bryne, described HS2 plans for his Birmingham city-centre constituency as likely “not to last 10 minutes in court.” He described plans to tie up land for a marshalling yard as “a monstrous economic crime against the city.”
Councillors contacted by The Independent echoed Mr Byrne’s comments that the HS2 consultation process was flawed and would be legally challenged.
Councillor George Walton, a civil engineer and the mayor of Cheshire East, predicted there would be visible public outrage if the HS2 route was forced through “highly loved countryside” lying south of Manchester.
Simon Jenkins, the chairman of the National Trust, said: “It is not a sensible project. If you’re going to spend £33 billion on transport in this country you would not spend it on this train.”
In Nottingham, the local chair of the Campaign for Better Transport, David Thornhill, described the government’s plans as “environmentally catastrophic and wasteful”.
Professor Greg Marsden, director of the Institute for Transport Studies at Leeds University, said “It is hard to assess just what HS2 will achieve.” He said critics could rightly round on the lack of precision and detail on what it would deliver for its “ big ticket price.”
The Chancellor, George Osborne, predicted the investment would become “the engine of growth” in the north of England and the Midlands.
Positive reaction to the plans included the TUC’s general secretary, Frances O’Grady, who said HS2 held the potential to be “ a game-changer for the economy ”.
The British Chambers of Commerce, and the Institute of Directors, both welcomed the provisional route and the government’s commitment to new investment.
LONDON HEATHROW AIRPORT LEFT OUT OF HIGH SPEED RAIL NETWORK
28.1.2013 (Airport World)
Proposals for high speed rail links across the UK have left London Heathrow Airport off the map.
Manchester Airport will gain its own dedicated high-speed link – halving the journey time to London to just 68 minutes – however, the UK Government has left Heathrow out of its plans until a review into the future of airport expansion in the South East has been completed.
Critics of the Government’s delay on a Heathrow link said high-speed travel from Heathrow could free up slots currently occupied by domestic flights.
Transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin said decisions on how to connect Heathrow to HS2 would be made once the Airports Commission is completed in 2015.
By 2033, two branches to Manchester and Leeds are due to be fully open.
Corin Taylor, senior economic advisor at the Institute of Directors, said: “Air and rail need to be much better connected, and so it is very welcome to see the Y-network serving Manchester Airport directly.
“But by the same token it is disappointing to see a direct connection to Heathrow left out altogether.
“If the Airports Commission recommends that Heathrow should remain the UK’s main hub airport, then the first section of HS2 ought to run through Heathrow, not around it.”
Labour’s shadow transport secretary, Maria Eagle, said: “Surely, the answer is not to delay decisions on HS2 but to speed them up on aviation?”
This assumes that Heathrow will continue to be the major airport serving the South East: what if Stansted (now Boris’ preferred option) gets the expansion green light instead? Either way, failing to coordinate plans for the two different transport modes, one bringing businesses and tourists into the country, and the other taking them northwards, isn’t the smoothest way of closing the North/South divide, especially if high speed rail and London’s biggest airport for the future don’t even join up.
Grimshaw, a firm of architects that have offices in London, have put forward their own idea for what should happen about airport capacity in the south east. Their idea is to focus on London, the city, as the hub rather than any one airport. They want to have a 3rd runway at Heathrow, so it can deal with problems like snow, and then link London from Stansted, Gatwick, Luton and an airport in the Thames estuary, by high speed rail to London No one airport would be the main hub. They rather unrealistically anticipate that many transit passengers would want to break their journey at Heathrow, then travel into London on a special ticket on fast rail, to do a bit of tourism and spending, before getting their return flight. This scheme needs to have very efficient immigration and baggage transfer facilities to avoid being a nightmare. The report questions whether the view of the airlines, on the need for a hub airport, should dominate the planning of capacity for London. It also says that: “It is extremely difficult to predict what will happen to aviation beyond the next few years. Recent decades have demonstrated this” And it cites Stansted’s decline. However, they say “Looking ahead, we might confidently predict growth in aviation”.
These are the projects involving air travel that Grimshaw have done. Projects
Grimshaw is the latest architect with a scheme to expand the UK’s airport capacity. But its plan – revealed here exclusively – takes a different approach by placing London at the centre of it all
The challenge of expanding the UK’s aviation capacity sure is keeping the country’s architects busy. Since Foster + Partners unveiled its highly ambitious Thames Hub proposal – a scheme also worked on by engineer Halcrow – a host of rival firms have revealed plans of their own.
Gensler has put forward the idea of a floating four-runway airport which – like Fosters’ scheme – would be located in the Thames Estuary, while Make Architects is working up a scheme to expand Stansted.
Urban planning guru Terry Farrell favours improving connectivity between existing airports such as Gatwick and Heathrow while Weston Williamson came forward in October with a plan for a new four-runway airport at Luton.
In this context, you might be forgiven for sighing at another leading architecture firm entering the fray. But a new scheme by Grimshaw, unveiled exclusively in Building, is very different from what’s come before.
The plan, called “London: Hub City”, is the brainchild of the firm’s chief executive Jolyon Brewis and aims to tackle the fundamental challenges of meeting the need for more airport capacity in the UK without proposing a single “superhub” airport.
With an independent inquiry under way on airports, led by former Financial Services Authority boss Sir Howard Davies, the plan comes at a vital moment. And given the tens of billions of pounds of investment and hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake, it could influence a debate that is pivotal to the fortunes of the construction industry.
Rather than the “grand projet” approach taken by, for example, Fosters’ Thames Hub, the plan from Grimshaw – the firm that designed the Eden Project as well as masterplanning Heathrow’s aborted third runway – envisages a more incremental, more British approach starting with a vision for the capital.
“Most of these proposals effectively ignore London,” Brewis explains. “They lack a singular vision for the city building on the best of London’s attributes, around which an integrated transport strategy might be formed. At best, they indicate ways to bypass the metropolis.”
A hub airport takes advantage of combining local and transfer passengers to offer flights to more destinations more frequently than local demand alone could support. Offering low minimum connect times (MCT) of less than one hour, they tend to be built relatively far outside cities, allowing space for associated infrastructure and expansion.
But the Brewis blueprint questions whether this airline-driven orthodoxy is right for the UK and argues that London boasts the size and cultural vibrancy to be itself the hub, to become the world’s first “hub city”. The idea is that this would result in London deriving more economic benefits, spread more evenly across the city, as a result.
City breaks
It contends that London – like just a handful of other world cities such as Hong Kong and New York – has the attractions necessary to persuade a large proportion of transfer passengers to extend their lay-over and spend their time between flights in central London rather than an airport lounge.
After all, a recent study found over 30% of international passengers travelling through Heathrow leave the airport and spend more than £500 per head in central London. Airline Virgin Atlantic has also noted that its passengers prefer travelling through Hong Kong than the Middle East for similar reasons.
To make London: Hub City work, Grimshaw envisages splitting aviation capacity between a number of existing airports and, crucially, achieving a step-change in the speed and reliability of transport links into the city.
Especially given the recent performance of the UK Border Force, the scheme clearly also relies on improvements in baggage handling and passport and immigration checks and might also benefit from an Oyster-type travel card for transferring passengers.
“The focus would be on allowing passengers to reach the city centre less than 30 minutes after leaving the aircraft, meaning that passengers can choose a meaningful connect time that includes a number of hours spent in the city,” Brewis says. “Airports are therefore located in relatively close proximity to the city centre and, as a result, are limited in their potential for expansion.”
But doesn’t the idea lack ambition? Given that rival airports on the continent boast several runways – Amsterdam’s Schiphol has six [which, of course, cannot all be used at once. In effect only two are used at a time] – isn’t Grimshaw inviting us to tinker with a problem which really needs to be grasped with both hands? Brewis insists not, saying his scheme is ambitious in its own way, sustainably making use of existing airport infrastructure and turning London into the world’s most accessible city.
He says: “Britain has a terrific pedigree of finding ingenious solutions that are pragmatic, creative and efficient. We should seek a similarly ingenious answer to our current aviation needs.”
He agrees that Fosters’ Thames Hub is an attractive proposition, but calls it “dangerous” as well as visionary.
“It is a curiously un-British way of doing things and it arguably has way too much ambition,” he says. “The sustainability side is something we should focus on and aviation is a very difficult sector to predict long-term.
“There is a real risk that any “super-hub” airport could become a white elephant or vanity project.”
Brewis claims his scheme could also cater for the “significant proportion” of passengers who do not wish to extend their lay-over and simply want the shortest connect time. He says that Heathrow already offers MCTs (minimum connect times) of 45 minutes and says this could be provided for more passengers through”physical improvements” and the dispersal of some of its traffic.
And what would this actually mean for the airports around London?
Grimshaw says all alternatives should be considered including developing the capabilities of Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stanstead and a potential new airport to the east of the capital.
But the firm says that Heathrow is currently closest to operating in the right way to support a hub city and controversially says a third runway must be considered as part of its plan.
With many including the mayor of London implacably opposed to Heathrow expansion and committed to a hub airport in the east, Grimshaw still has its work cut out.
.
What others make of Grimzshaw’s big idea
Baroness Jo Valentine, chief executive of non-profit lobby group London First
“We agree that the South-east aviation capacity shortage needs to be looked at holistically rather than on an airport-by-airport basis. In the short term, the only way to increase capacity is to make more use of the existing runway capacity, so all of London’s airports have a potential contribution to make.
“Improving transport links into central London is part of the picture. Crossrail and the Thameslink upgrade will benefit Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton, but more needs to be done to make Stansted easily accessible and we should not overlook the fact that many passengers arriving at London’s airports want to travel on to other parts of the country and need good links in the opposite directions.”
.
Mike Davies, senior partner at Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners and project architect on Heathrow Terminal Five
“I think Jolyon is absolutely right to see this as a strategic, large-scale, regional planning issue. You have to think urbanism as well as transport and people should remember that powerful transport authorities wrecked British cities in the sixties.
“You could easily be seduced by nice images of new airports but, in overview terms, the idea of London as a hub city is right. I think we are a hub city but with poor connections at present. [With all London's 5 airports, it is in practice, actuallt one of the best connected].
“However, I think money will drive the eventual solution. Heathrow and Stansted will take the brunt of expansion and the numbers will dictate a third runway at Heathrow while local communities will have to be properly compensated.”
.
Daniel Moylan, aviation adviser to the Mayor of London and TfL board member
“What we’re up against is competition from Munich, where they’re targeting a 30-minute transfer time, gate to gate, and from Frankfurt, where they’re targeting 45 minutes.
“If you’re an American businessman wanting to go to Islamabad and want to transfer through somewhere, the idea that you want to go on a tour of Harrods, is to my mind, a joke … most people just want to complete their journey.
“If you spread your investment across three or four airports around London then you lose any hub capacity and would see hub capacity outsourced to airports like Frankfurt or Munich.
“I think this plan also throws up potential security implications and any claim it has to be a sustainable solution is totally flawed by the idea of expanding Heathrow. After all, 28% of the people in the EU adversely affected by airline noise live near Heathrow.”
.
Airport specialist working at leading international engineer [anonymous]
“I like Grimshaw’s focus on London – everything is considered in the context of London and that wider perspective is a useful contribution to the debate. It’s different because it doesn’t try to promote a specific solution and what’s particularly admirable is that it’s trying to integrate the different modes of transport. The Heathrow and Gatwick Express and Crossrail would all be working with our airports to the benefit of passengers.
“While aviation continues to grow, there are blips and a scheme where you can incrementally grow may be better than building the full four-runway, 24hr operation now, although I don’t doubt that may eventually be required.
“It’s not necessarily an ‘either or’ question, you need to improve connectivity as well as tackling the future aviation needs. There may be a need for short, medium and long-term solutions.”
.
Tony Douglas, former Heathrow chief executive and leader of the Terminal Five project
“Like other schemes put forward, this is a well thought-out concept but lacks understanding of how regulated aviation policy works within the UK.
The fundamental question to ask is: “How is it fundable and what do the airlines want?” Many of these schemes are trying to answer a completely different exam question.
“An airport is there to serve airlines. Airports are largely paid for through retail – 50% in Heathrow’s case. And if you listen to what airlines want it’s something that gives access to extra capacity. One big hub makes more sense to them.”
.
Mike Forster, aviation and infrastructure consultant at Forster Associates
“I’m working with Foster + Partners and Halcrow on the Thames Hub proposal. What matters to airlines is to offer that competitive minimum connect time (MCT). They don’t see the idea of an extended lay-over as a core principle – it’s a ‘value add’ but it’s not central.
“You’re dealing in a competitive market where the passenger is sitting in position A, trying to get to position C with a choice of Bs and the Bs are competing for this traffic. The passenger wants to know if it’s going to be punctual, is my bag going to come with me, is it going to work?
“This plan would put London at a disadvantage because you would lose potential transfer traffic. A single hub gives you the maximum choice of connecting flights.”
Additional aviation capacity will still be required to serve London and the UK. Priority should be given to capacity that can be delivered effectively and support the Hub City concept. All alternatives should be considered, including existing airports and potential new locations.
A 3rd runway at Heathrow should form part of this consideration, with a focus on further improving resilience and reliability; it might also represent the quickest way to increase overall capacity in the medium term, but should be looked at in the context of a network
of airports serving London. (Page 8)
It also says (Page 4)
Redefining the concept of an aviation hub Heathrow Airport Limited have defined a hub
airport as “an airport where local passengers combine with transfer passengers to allow airlines to fly to more destinations more frequently than could be supported by local demand alone.”
Much is made of the narrow economic margins involved in airline business
models. Some argue that, if a single hub model is not adopted, the UK will fail to connect to
enough places around the world to support our economic well-being.
It is questionable, though, whether the current model of airline, alliance and airport economics should dominate the aviation strategy of London so completely.
It is extremely difficult to predict what will happen to aviation beyond the next
few years. Recent decades have demonstrated this.
Stansted Airport was originally planned ultimately to accommodate four runways and a substantial proportion of long-haul, full service operation. The current situation, with a single runway dominated by budget airlines operating short-haul routes, was not the intention.
Looking ahead, we might confidently predict growth in aviation, and should provide fertile
conditions for the UK to capture this growth. The operating models of aviation will change
in the future as they have in the past, and will ultimately respond to passenger demand as
markets always do.
London has the opportunity to influence that demand by establishing a coordinated
approach to its airports and transport connections and, crucially, project an image of
accessibility to a world audience.
A report by the economic consultants, Oxera, commissioned by the Commons Transport Committee has shown that a massive hub airport in the Thames estuary would only be viable if it had a subsidy, from UK taxpayers, of some £10 – 30 billion (in today’s money). Oxera looked at various scenarios, and found that otherwise such an airport would not be viable or provide the sorts of returns that a private investor would require. Depending on the airport’s design, it could cost £20 – £50 billion. The potential impact on Heathrow and other airports – and necessary compensation – were had to be taken into account, and would have an impact on a new hub airport’s commercial viability. Transport committee inquiry chairman Louise Ellman said: “The results suggest a new airport would require public investment and have considerable impact on Heathrow and other London airports. The research findings also shed significant light on the scale of investment required to deliver essential related surface transport links for any new airport. “We hope this work delivers something new to a crucial debate.”
New research suggests a hub airport for London cannot be built without public subsidy
24 January 2013
Under most scenarios, expected revenues from a new hub airport for London would be less than the expected costs of construction, and the development of such a facility would not be commercially viable without substantial support from the taxpayer, says new research conducted by economic consultancy Oxera for the Transport Select Committee.
Publishing a report setting out the findings of research commissioned for the Transport Committee inquiry into the Government’s aviation strategy, Committee Chair, Louise Ellman MP said:
“We asked Oxera to develop a set of questions for the Committee to use to probe the evidence put forward by witnesses to our Aviation inquiry. This work was framed specifically to help the Committee assess the commercial viability of a new hub airport by asking whether any future owners could make adequate returns sufficient to obtain finance.
The results suggest a new airport would require public investment and have considerable impact on Heathrow and other London airports. The research findings also shed significant light on the scale of investment required to deliver essential related surface transport links for any new airport.
We hope this work delivers something new to a crucial debate. It doesn’t provide answers but it does set out in a systematic way which areas of questioning the Davies Commission must address and answer fully.”
The questions highlighted in this research will now inform the work undertaken by the Transport Committee when they take further oral evidence for the Aviation Inquiry. The next session takes place on Monday 28 January with diverse witnesses including those involved with and opposed to the development of hub airport proposals.
Background notes
The Oxera methodology makes reference to a number of specific hub airport proposals, but focuses only on the overall rationale for the concept of a new hub and does not evaluate any or each proposal in detail. This ‘proposal-neutral’ approach means that revenue and cost estimates set out in the research findings have been calibrated using broad conceptual numbers, rather than proposal-specific estimates.
The analysis developed by Oxera includes:
Scenarios taken from primary sources that address demand, airport and surface access construction costs, and landing charges are all used as objective inputs to model the expected cash flows associated with a new hub airport.
A range of designs for any new hub airport, covering aspects such as the number of runways and policy options towards existing airports.
The Oxera research does not examine whether government support for such an airport would offer good value for money. Nor does it attempt to offer a full social or environmental cost benefit analysis.
The results of this research should not be considered on a stand-alone basis since this work has been commissioned within the context of wider UK aviation policy and in line with the goals of the Transport Committee’s inquiry.
Up, up and away! New London airport would need up to £30bn public subsidy
MPs asked if any future owners could make adequate returns sufficient to obtain finance
24 JANUARY 2013 (Independent)
A new hub airport for London would need public subsidy of up to £30 billion, according to new figures published today.
A Commons Transport Committee-commissioned report found that a “substantial” subsidy would be needed.
The MPs wanted to find out if a new hub airport to increase capacity to south east England would be commercially viable for a private investor. They asked if any future owners could make adequate returns sufficient to obtain finance.
Researchers for the economic consultants Oxera found: “Specifically all the scenarios have a negative value at a rate of return that a private investor would require and the analysis implies that substantial public support/subsidy would be needed (in the range of £10-30 billion in today’s money for the base-case scenarios examined).”
The report adds that the project could still offer the public good value for money “depending on the scope of the wider benefits that the airport could facilitate”.
Different potential situations in which that would have a direct impact on costs were looked into. These included airport design and the number of runways, demand forecasts and construction cost estimates which range across various proposals from £20-£50 billion.
Oxera considered various hub scenarios, rather than any of the actual plans which have been put forward. Researchers did not look in detail at the expansion of existing airports.
The potential impact on Heathrow and other airports were also imagined as this would also have an impact on commercial viability. Compensation to Heathrow needed to be arranged in scenarios where it had to close. Landing charges plus operating costs, all based on current Heathrow usage figures, were also viewed. Policy options towards existing airports was another factor.
The closure of Heathrow was among the potential situations imagined by the researchers which would influence financial viability and demand.
If Heathrow closed, all its traffic would move to the new hub airport. If Heathrow stayed open, the new airport would soak up all unmet traffic and attract some of Heathrow’s existing demand.
Forecasts also suggested there could be “a degree of diversion” from London airports to the rest of the UK due to capacity constraints at the London airports.
Researchers also assumed that if there was no capacity constraint at the new hub then the airport could cope with unlimited demand growth.
Transport committee inquiry chairman Louise Ellman said: “The results suggest a new airport would require public investment and have considerable impact on Heathrow and other London airports.
“The research findings also shed significant light on the scale of investment required to deliver essential related surface transport links for any new airport.
“We hope this work delivers something new to a crucial debate.”
The MPs are set to use information in their ongoing examination of aviation policy.
The report did not look at whether Government support for a new hub would offer good value for money or to suggest what the overall social and environmental benefits could be.
The Institute of Directors urged a comprehensive overhaul of aviation policy, including the construction of new runways at Heathrow and Gatwick Airports.
Corin Taylor, the IoD’s senior economic adviser, said: “This analysis confirms our view that a new hub airport would need substantial public subsidy and probably require the closure of Heathrow.
“Expanding our existing hub airport would be cheaper, quicker and offer far better rail and road connections to the rest of the country.”
Stansted airport emerged as Boris Johnson’s favoured option for a new international hub for the South-East today.
Sources close to the Mayor admitted he accepted expanding the Essex airport would be “the easiest” way to increase aviation capacity.
It comes after a major report claimed yesterday his proposal for an airport in the Thames Estuary was not “commercially viable”.
Today Mr Johnson criticised the “panda-like pace” at which the Government was coming up with a solution and again rejected Heathrow expansion.
He said: “I urge leaders of UK business now to look at the extraordinary potential of the alternatives either at Stansted or at the two estuary sites that, with sufficient political will, could be delivered on roughly the same timescale as the third runway at Heathrow and would be very largely financed by some of the international investors at Davos today.”
However, City Hall sources acknowledged that Stansted increasingly looked like the front runner to get the Mayor’s backing. He has been creeping slowly closer towards supporting expansion of the Essex airport since he first raised the prospect in a major aviation speech last autumn.
Speaking in Davos, Mr Johnson added: “We need a new 24-hour hub airport with four runways so that we can properly compete with our continental rivals and let me assure you that the expansion of Heathrow is a delusion and a disaster. We cannot understand the panda-like pace with which the Government is addressing the problem. See you in London — when you get clearance to land.”
A report by the Commons Transport committee highlighted the risks of the Mayor’s Thames Estuary airport idea to private sector investors as the project would rely on higher passenger numbers or heftier charges.
But it concluded that building a hub airport instead of expanding Heathrow could still offer “good value for money” if it led to significant economic benefits for Britain.
It comes as a leading architect said the solution to the South-East’s aviation crisis lay in creating a “hub-city” rather than a “super-hub” airport. Eden Project designer Grimshaw is the latest firm to throw its hat into the ring with a scheme to expand capacity.
Unlike most of the other projects on the table, chief executive Jolyon Brewis has suggested splitting capacity between a number of existing airports. At the same time, he proposes encouraging transfer passengers to spend their time between flights travelling around the city on an Oyster-type card.
The DfT has launched its consultation on the new night flight regime. The intention is partly to examine what could be done to make life easier for residents near Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted – while not unduly affecting the airlines. Heathrow has a much larger noise problem than the other two airports, due to the number of flights, the geography of their flight paths, and the sheer numbers overflown. There is also the problem that the planes that come in at night – some 16 per night between 11.30pm and 6am are from long haul destinations, and are larger, heavier and noisier planes than those for short haul European destinations. There are also around 60 flights per night at Heathrow between 6 – 7am. The consultation proposes a range of measures to cut the noise nuisance, such as requiring aircraft to have a steeper angle of descent into the airport than the current 3 degrees. Another proposal is to reduce the proportion of flights landing from the east from the current 70%, which could lead to an estimated 110,000 people experiencing less noise as a result, thought another 15,000 people would face more disruption.
A consultation published by the Department for Transport is designed to ease the plight of those whose sleep is disturbed especially by early morning flights into the airport.
The Government is examining what can be done to make life easier for residents near Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.
It is Heathrow which causes the biggest problems, because of the number of flights over densely populated central and west London during the early morning.
Currently around 17 flights arrive at Heathrow between 11.30pm and 6am and another 60 over the following hour.
Campaigners have called for a complete ban on night flights, which the Government has yet to accept.
But earlier this week it proposed an array of measures which it believes could make a difference including requiring aircraft to have a steeper angle of descent into the airport than the current three degrees.
“Though a number of technical and practical issues would first need to be addressed before a steeper angle can be introduced, the noise benefits of steeper approaches would be potentially significant.”
Another option proposed in the consultation would be to reduce the proportion of flights landing from the east from the current 70 per cent.
This would lead to an estimated 110,000 people experiencing less noise as a result, thought another 15,000 people would face more disruption.
Trials have already started of a respite scheme, in which people living in certain parts of London at the start of the descent are spared noise for a week at a time with air traffic controllers diverting planes onto alternative routes.
According to the DfT many of the benefits will come from the next generation of aircraft, which will be quieter than those operating currently.
With aircraft normally having a 25 year lifespan many of the first generation of Boeing 747s – or jumbo jets – are expected to retire over the next decade.
Already the Airbus A380, the biggest commercial aircraft in the skies, generates considerably less noise than the Boeing 747s it could replace.
Unveiling its proposals the Government, which has been under pressure from the airline industry to allow more night flights, admitted that sleep deprivation carried an economic cost and is seeking views on how this could be calculated.
John Stewart, Chair of HACAN, which represents residents under the Heathrow flight paths, said: “We are very clear that we want a ban on night flights before 6 o’clock and a progressive reduction between 6am and 7am.
“Many people under the Heathrow flight paths don’t need an alarm clock; the first plane wakes them at 4.30am.”
He added: “However, we do welcome the fact that the Government is prepared to look at noise mitigation measures such as steeper approaches and guaranteed respite periods.”
The consultation does mention that the A380 powered with Trent engines is anomalously louder than it should be for its noise classification and the CAA is working with Rolls Royce to understand this.
Close to the airport the A380 may be quieter than the 747 , but over several suburban areas a little further away this variant of the A380 is no quieter than the noisy 747s it is meant to replace. I wouldn’t want them throughout the night !
.
.
See also
DfT announces start of 3 month consultation on night flight regime at Heathrow, Gatwick & Stansted
Date added: January 22, 2013
The government has begun a 3 month consultation into night flights at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted Airports. It is calling for views and evidence on “the effectiveness of the current regime, the costs and benefits of future options and airlines’ fleet replacement plans”. The consultation closes on 22nd April 2013. Transport Minister Simon Burns says: “This consultation includes a review of current evidence on the costs of night flights, particularly noise, and the benefits of these flights. It sets out our thinking on how we would expect to appraise the policy options for the next night flights regime.” The government will publish the 2nd consultation later this year. It will include specific proposals for the new regime, such as the number of permitted night flights. The proposals in the 2nd consultation will be informed by the evidence received from this 1st stage consultation. The Dft says it aims to strike “a fair balance between the interests of those affected by the noise disturbance and those of the airports, passengers and the UK economy.”
Heathrow residents disappointed there is still no night flight ban in the Dft consultation
Date added: January 22, 2013
Commenting on the publication today of the DfT’s consultation into a new night flight regime at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, HACAN (the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) said is was disappointed that the Government has still not committed itself to a night flight ban. However, they have welcomed the fact that the Government is prepared to look at measures which could mitigate the noise. These include increasing the angle of descent on approach; guaranteed respite periods; changing the existing scheduling or operating bans which affect the noisiest aircraft types. John Stewart, Chair of HACAN, which represents residents under the Heathrow flight paths, said: “We are very clear that we want a ban on night flights before 6 o’clock and a progressive reduction between 6am and 7am. Many people under the Heathrow flight paths don’t need an alarm clock; the first plane wakes them at 4.30 am.”
Night flights at Heathrow could be changed so that people in the less populated area west of the airport suffer more noise.
The plan was floated in a government paper on the future of controls at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. It will consider the economic benefits of more flights after 11pm and in the early morning. Options for reducing noise include:
Directing aircraft landing at Heathrow at night to approach from the west rather than over the city. It would mean nearly 110,000 people in west London would suffer less noise, while 15,000 living west of the airport would suffer more.
Allowing aircraft to land at a steeper angle so that fewer homes are affected by low-flying jets.
Telling pilots to land farther along main runways, sparing some homes from noise.
Night flights currently alternate between westerly and easterly approaches to Heathrow, with 16 between 11.30pm and 6am, and about 60 between 6am and 7am.
Transport minister Simon Burns said proposals this year would try to strike “a fair balance” between the interests of those disturbed by the noise and of the airports, passengers and the economy. Local residents welcomed the noise reduction ideas but were disappointed there was no ban on extra night flights.
Operational Freedom trials at Heathrow started in November 2011 and ended in February 2012. The second phase of the trial started in July 2012 and due to go on until the end of March 2013. In November 2012, BAA announced that two parts of the trails would not take place (Phase 2, Operational Freedoms 2 and 3 – about delaying flights from 4.30 to 5.00am in exchange for more flights from 5.30am to 6am; and re-directing departing aircraft from their route sooner after take-off). Simon Burns has now announced that the trials will end a month early, on 28 February 2013. Some specific tests scheduled for March will be brought forward into February, which will accommodate the space left behind by the early morning arrivals freedom being inoperable during the trial period. Simon Burns says: “The revised end date will enable the overall analysis of the trial to begin sooner and support the government’s objective, as announced in the Autumn Statement, to bring forward the consultation and final decisions by ministers on whether an operational freedoms regime of some form should be adopted on a more permanent basis at Heathrow.”
Today I am announcing that the government’s trial of operational freedoms at Heathrow Airport will be ending a month earlier than scheduled, on 28 February 2013.
As the availability of the freedoms was staggered during phase 2, the early completion to the trial will be achieved by bringing forward specific tests scheduled for the final month of the trial into February, which will accommodate the space left behind by the early morning arrivals freedom being inoperable during the trial period.
I have sought advice from the UK’s aviation regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is overseeing the trial and has confirmed that the rescheduling of these tests will not affect the quality of the evidence obtained. The revised end date will enable the overall analysis of the trial to begin sooner and support the government’s objective, as announced in the Autumn Statement, to bring forward the consultation and final decisions by ministers on whether an operational freedoms regime of some form should be adopted on a more permanent basis at Heathrow. I will make a further announcement on this in due course.
November 2011 to March 2012 and during the Olympics. Then extended to March 2013
People living under Heathrow flight paths faced increased noise after the introduction of new runway rules. BAA has trialled a scheme allowing the use of both runways simultaneously from July to Sept 2012. Currently, those living under the flight path have a respite from noise when the runways alternate at 3pm.
Under the trial, which will also run from November 2012 to February 2013, the threshold for triggering emergency dual use of the runways will be lowered. Residents could face increased noise from losing some of their respite periods. More details …..
On 1st November 2012, BAA (now called Heathrow Airport) announced that two parts of the trails will not take place (Phase 2, Operational Freedoms 2 and 3 – about delaying flights from 4.30 to 5.00am in exchange for more flights from 5.30am to 6am; and re-directing departing aircraft from their route sooner after take-off). More details ….
The European Commission has announced that 2013 is the ‘Year of Air’ with key European air pollution legislation up for review. The review represents a tremendous opportunity to improve public health by tightening air quality standards. Clean Air in London (CAL) believes that key outcomes from the ‘Year of Air’ must include continuity and the further tightening of health and legal protections. Increasing ‘flexibility’ in air pollution laws would weaken existing health and legal protections and is therefore unacceptable. There is a consultation by the EC, on options for the revision of the EU Thematic Strategy on air pollution and related policies, with the closing date on 4 March 2013. Heathrow is a major contributor to air pollution in West London, both from the airport itself and associated road traffic. Information from Hillingdon Council showed a clear correlation between the number of air transport movements and the levels of NOx.
The European Commission has announced that 2013 is the ‘Year of Air’ with key European air pollution legislation up for review. The review represents a tremendous opportunity to improve public health by tightening air quality standards. Commissioner Potočnik made speeches about the ‘Year of Air’ on 22 March 2011, 24 September 2012 and 8 January 2013.
Attempts are already being made by the UK authorities to weaken existing air pollution laws during the ‘Year of Air’.
For example, the UK Government has stated‘Working in partnership with other Member States, we will also use the European Commission review of air quality legislation, expected in 2013, to seek…amendments to the Air Quality Directive which reduce the infraction risk faced by most Member States, especially in relation to nitrogen dioxide provisions’.
Similarly, the Mayor founded a group of 12 European cities and regions that signed a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ on 10 November 2011 that emphasised ‘The revised [Air Quality] Directive shall include a degree of flexibility that allows the specific characteristics of our Regions to be taken into account’.
Given the Mayor promised Jenny Jones (Assembly Member) on 19 December 2012 that he will ‘oppose anywatering down of the current European limit values for reducing air pollution…’ it seems likely that he hopes to achieve ‘flexibility’ through: delays to the legal deadlines; and/or ‘Partnership implementation agreements negotiated between the Commission and Member States in infringement, where further legal action would be suspended subject to proper implementation of agreed transparent and binding programmes to address air pollution’ (or similar) (which is being considered in the Commission’s consultation which closes on 4 March).
Increasing ‘flexibility’ in air pollution laws would weaken existing health and legal protections and is therefore unacceptable. CAL is publishing key events planned for the ‘Year of Air’ on its Facebook events page.
Please respond by 4 March 2013to Commission’s consultation on options for the revision of the EU Thematic Strategy on air pollution and related policies.
There is a briefing page and consultations for four groups:
There is much of interest, but one section states:
Heathrow Airport (including the M4 and surrounding areas)
The problems of air pollution in the Heathrow area have been recognised for a number of years and in a number of key national documents, including the National Air Quality Strategy, the Air Transport White Paper, and the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy. Given the problems that already exist it is of considerable concern that Heathrow has not yet reached its authorised capacity (480,000 air transport movements and a terminal capacity of 80mppa). Reaching this capacity will bring increased pollutant emissions from the increased flights, increased on-airport emissions, and increases from extra road transport accessing the airport.
The following sections provide new information that has emerged in the last year concerning the future of Heathrow and data concerning pollution levels, traffic flows and Air Traffic Movements (ATMs).
.
Heathrow’s contribution to emissions across the Borough
Activities at Heathrow (from aircraft emissions and operations at the airport), make up over half of the total emissions across the Borough. The contribution of Heathrow and the road network together makes up over 80% of the Borough’s emissions, with much of the traffic being on roads that are not the responsibility of the Borough Council.
Quantifying the impact of the airport on air quality in different parts of the Borough has always been a controversial subject with regards to what element of the source mix is contributing at each location.
[The table] … shows that airport emissions contribute significantly to NOx levels in the southern half of the Borough but not the north. Emissions from traffic on major roads are significant wherever such roads exist. Contributions from background (sources outside the Borough) and ‘other’ (which includes traffic on minor roads) are also significant, but not dominant, throughout the AQMA. (Air Quality Management Area).
.
Air traffic movements and NO2
Concentrations of NO2 at the LHR2 monitoring station inside the airport fell in 2009 compared to previous years. There is, however, a question of whether the decline is a result of measures taken under the Action Plans introduced by Hillingdon, neighbouring local authorities and BAA, or whether it is a consequence of a reduction in flights linked to the economic downturn.
Figure 2 shows that there is almost a perfect correlation between ATMs and air quality at the LHR2 monitoring station on the airport since 2005 in other words, more than 99% of the variability in NO2 levels appears to be explained by variation in ATMs). Going back further, however, for example considering the 2004/5 data shown in red in the graph, the relationship breaks down – it would be interesting to know if there were any changes at the airport at this time that could explain this shift. However, the correlation for the following years is sufficiently good that it is worth noting for future reference as it may be useful in providing direct insight on the level of change in airport activities needed to bring about a change in concentrations that is significant in the context of the Action Plan.
.
and
With Heathrow, in particular, any changes to operational practices especially those that may also lead to increases in the number of flights on the existing 2 runways, may lead to unacceptable consequences for local air quality, for noise levels and for impacts on public transport capacity and congestion of the surrounding road network.
.
.
How bad is air pollution in London?
• London has the highest levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution of any capital city in Europe. Concentrations of dangerous airborne particles (PM10) also breach legal limits in several parts of the city particularly near waste management sites.
• Government estimates that some 440,439 Londoners were exposed to unlawful levels of NO2 in 2011 at background locations alone i.e. away from busy roads.
• London’s residents are not the only ones affected by poor air quality. Every day hundreds of thousands of people commute into the polluted heart of London. NO2 concentrations are well over twice legal limits and World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines near many London roadside monitoring sites. NO2 limits are also breached at a larger number of city centre ‘background’ sites away from busy roads.
. What are the health impacts of air pollution in London?
• Air pollution comprises particles and gases. The particles are categorised by their maximum diameter in microns e.g. PM2.5 and PM10. In practice, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a toxic gas, is the only molecule within the gas category with relevant WHO guidelines and legal limits.
• Poor air quality has a significant impact on the health of London residents. The Mayor published a study in 2010 estimating 4,267 premature deaths in London in 2008 attributable to long term exposure to fine particles (PM2.5). These occur mostly as heart attacks and strokes. The Department of Health estimates 6.3% to 9.0% of all deaths in London in 2010 were attributable to long-term exposure to man-made PM2.5 alone.
• Children, the elderly and people with existing respiratory illness suffer disproportionately from the effects of air pollution. Over 1,100 schools in London are within 150 metres of the city’s busiest and most polluted roads (i.e. those that carry over 10,000 vehicles a day). Traffic pollution from such roads may be responsible for 15-30% of all new cases of asthma in children and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in adults of 65 years of age and older.
. Are there air pollution standards that London should be meeting?
• Legally binding, health based limit values have been set for several air pollutants by the European Union since 1999. London is failing to meet these for PM10 and NO2.
• For PM10 London was required to meet limit values by 2005 but obtained unlawfully a time extension in 2011 to comply that year. That time extension has now expired but London has continued to exceed PM10 limits known as ‘Bad Air Days’ particularly near waste management sites e.g. Neasden Lane in Brent.
• NO2 limits were required to be met by 2010. The Government has admitted they are not expected to be met in London before 2025 and has been caught seeking to weaken NO2 laws.
• The Commission is expected to commence infraction action against the UK early in 2013.
. What are the authorities doing to reduce air pollution in London?
The Mayor of London’s Air Quality Strategy is not ‘fit for purpose’. The Mayor has also used Pollution Suppressor vehicles to reduce air pollution near air quality monitoring stations most-used to report legal breaches and warn the public of smog episodes. The Mayor has also been caught lobbying to weaken international air pollution laws.
Diesel engine exhaust, recently classified by the World Health Organisation as carcinogenic to humans, is a particular problem in London which has: some 8,500 diesel buses; over 20,000 diesel taxis; and a low emission zone that is two steps and two years behind the equivalent in Berlin. A ground breaking study by Policy Exchange found that diesel vehicles are responsible for 95% of NO2 and 91% of PM2.5 exhaust emissions respectively from road transport in London.
The Government has not published a press release warning of smog since April 2011 when it made headline news. The Mayor also refuses to issue public warnings of smog even though Murad Qureshi AM discovered that hundreds of additional people in London have been admitted to hospital during smog episodes in the last five years alone.
The section dealing with air pollution from aviation states that:
5.3 Air pollution around airports
The main sources of air pollution around airports are aircraft, stationary sources and other mobile sources. Aircraft emissions are mainly associated with fuel combusted in the engines and auxiliary power units (APU), as well as tyre and brake wear.
In terms of local air quality, emissions during the landing take-off (LTO) cycle are important, as they include emissions produced during idle, taxi to and from terminal gates, take-off and climb‑out, and approach to the airport.
Emissions from stationary sources are largely associated with power generation (including heating/cooling units). Other mobile sources include ground support
equipment (e.g. mobile generators, tugs, baggage handling equipment, fuel trucks/loaders), airside vehicles (service vehicles, tankers, catering trucks) and other traffic that facilitate access to the airport (e.g. buses, taxis, trucks, passenger cars, rail). The main pollutants of concern around airports are NOX, PM (including ultrafine particles — see Box 5.4) and VOCs.
Several studies have evaluated the air quality around airports in Europe, the results of which gave rise to concerns. For example, high NO2 concentration levels are often measured at London’s Heathrow airport.
During 2011, the annual average limit value was exceeded at one monitoring site within the airport boundary and two sites within a 2 km distance of the airport (GLA, 2012).
The contribution to NOX concentrations from Heathrow airport activities has been assessed based on measurement data close to the airport. The results show that aircraft NOX sources can be detected at least 2.6 km from the airport, even though the airport contribution at that distance is very small. [compared to the NOx from road traffic].
Approximately 27 % of the annual mean NOX and NO2 concentrations at the airfield boundary could be attributed to airport operations, with less than 15 % at background locations 2–3 km downwind of the airport (Carslaw et al., 2006).
Modelling undertaken at Heathrow Airport on emissions data from April 2008 to March 2009 confirms the above by estimating relatively high (about 30 %) airport‑related NOX
concentrations within the airport boundary, decreasing considerably with distance (11–19 % at about half a kilometre away) (HAL, 2011).
Another example is Zurich Airport, where monitoring data in 2008 were above the limit values for NO2, PM10 and O3 in the centre of the airport and at other locations dominated by road traffic.
Dispersion modelling and sensitivity analysis were also undertaken in 2008 to assess the contribution from activities at Zurich Airport to ambient air quality, particularly on NO2. The results show that airport activities significantly impact the air quality at the airport perimeter (> 25 %) for NO2.
The airport contribution to NO2 concentrations decreases rapidly with distance and becomes less than 10 % within one kilometre from the airport boundary (Flughafen Zürich, 2009). Additional conclusions from this study that are applicable to other airports
are outlined below:
• the significance of airports in the context of local air quality is not only determined by the
total emissions in the airport area but also the different heights at which emissions occur;
• ground-based airport activities, typically from road vehicles, contribute more towards high concentrations within the airport boundaries and along the access roads where exposure is greatest compared to aircraft. Aircraft emissions are dispersed over a larger area, but generally result in lower concentrations;
• the distribution of NOX concentration is more dependent on meteorological conditions than on a variation in emissions.
The air quality impacts from the closure of national airspaces and the suspension of air traffic due to the volcanic eruption in Iceland in 2010 were assessed at, and around, 14 airports across Europe.
The closure of airspace also affected other airport operations, such as transport to and from the airport. During the airspace closure, lower NO2 concentrations were observed, showing a correlation with the reduction in air traffic. However, the study considered this correlation weak in view of wider observations, based on one month’s monitored data.
The study concluded that the major disruption and reduction of flight activity did not significantly reduce air quality concentrations of NO2; nonetheless, the very local effects resulting from the emissions changes were noted (i.e. monitoring stations at or close to the airport showed lower NO2 concentrations). Meteorological conditions such as
wind speed showed a more significant influence on measured concentrations (ACI, 2010).
6.3 Effects of aviation emissions on air quality
Emissions from the aviation sector contribute very little to EU‑27 total emissions. International and national aviation (including both the LTO (landing and take off) and
cruise cycle) was responsible for around 4 % of NOX emissions, and less than 1 % of SO2 emissions, VOC emissions, PM emissions and CO emissions in EU Member States in 2010 (TERM 03).
Emissions of CO and VOC from aviation are generally low, when compared with emissions from other transport modes. NOX emissions are relatively high when
compared to other pollutants, even though the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has established aircraft engine emission standards for NOX and has gradually made these more stringent over time.
Nevertheless aviation continues to be a growth sector and it is important to have appropriate policies in place to control pollution (see Box 6.5). When compared to other transport modes, a key difference for aviation is that aircraft emissions occur at different altitudes as emissions are released during the whole flying cycle. Activities below 3 000 feet (i.e. about 915 m) are commonly referred to as the LTO cycle, comprising taxi-out, take-off, climb out, landing approach and taxi-in.
Activities that take place at altitudes above 3 000 feet include the climb out, cruise and descent.
The effect of aircraft emissions on local air quality around airports has been discussed in Section 5.3. It should be noted that emissions above 3 000 feet are typically not considered when undertaking local air quality assessments for airports. However, it
has been estimated that NOX and SO2 emissions in the non-LTO phases are dominant and constitute over 90 % of the total aircraft emissions in Europe, whilst for CO and non-methane VOCs emissions were estimated to be about 40 % of total emissions.
Global non-LTO NOX emissions have a small but still significant impact on surface air quality in Europe; more specifically they contribute 1 % to average annual secondary inorganic aerosol, NO2 and O3 concentrations.
The contribution of LTO emissions from aviation is generally an order of magnitude smaller; thus considered to be of little significance for European air quality at a regional scale.
However, specifically for NO2 concentrations in the vicinity of airports, European non-LTO and LTO NOX emissions have been estimated to contribute 1 % to 2 % to surface concentrations (Tarrasón et al., 2004) though at some large airports such as Heathrow the combined contribution of emissions from aircraft and other airport operations make a larger contribution to surface concentrations of NO2 (Carslaw et al., 2006) (see Section 5.3).
Box 6.5 Key policies for controlling emissions from the aviation sector
Pollutant emissions from aircraft are regulated by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) through its Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP). Emission standards for engines are currently in place for smoke, unburned hydrocarbons (HCs), CO and NOX during the LTO cycle. For the latter, since its first introduction in the 1980s, the NOX standard has been reduced by 50 %. An aircraft CO2 emissions standard is expected to be established by 2013 (ICAO, 2010). A PM certification standard is expected to be established by 2016.
The EU ETS Directive (2003/87/EC) and its subsequent amendments established an emission trading system that sets a limit on the total amount of certain GHGs emitted by the sectors covered. Aviation is one of these sectors, so airlines receive tradeable emission allowances for a certain level of CO2 emissions and after a year need to
surrender a number of allowances equal to actual emissions. This measure may reduce fuel consumption, which could reduce air pollution; however, more fuel-efficient engines tend to operate with a higher pressure ratio and emit more NOX.
Furthermore, the low carbon sustainable fuels target for the sector (EC, 2011a) may also
reduce emissions of the air quality pollutants SO2 and PM due to their lower sulphur content (SWAFEA, 2011).
In addition, the deployment of the modern air traffic management infrastructure, the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) project by 2020 is expected to achieve 10 % of fuel savings, leading to a 10 % reduction of CO2 emissions per flight (Eurocontrol, 2010).
—–
Box 5.4 Ultrafine particles at airports
Ultrafine particles are particles with a diameter of less than 100 nanometres. There are no regulations specifically targeting these particles, although these are thought to be particularly harmful to human health.
Various studies have noted that aircraft contribute considerably to ultrafine particle pollution, as do road vehicles and ships. (US EPA, 2010; Paulsen, 2009). More recently in 2010–2011, a study focusing on air pollution at Danish airports conducted stationary measurements of ambient air quality at and around Copenhagen Airport.
With regards to ultrafine particles, the study found that the average 24 hour concentration within the airport boundaries at one site was two to three times higher than on city streets with heavy traffic, while ultrafine particle concentrations within the airport boundaries at two other sites were only 20–30 % below those in streets with heavy traffic.
This shows that concentration levels varied significantly within the airport boundaries. It is interesting to note that the two stations that showed lower concentrations are the official monitoring stations used in accordance with the environmental approval, while the one with the highest concentration was an additional one, placed in the airport yard close to employees loading and handling aircraft.
During the main working hours, concentrations within the airport boundaries were higher than those on city streets with heavy traffic. This was the case for two stations for which monitoring data were available (The Danish Ecocouncil, 2012).
—-
Carslaw, D., 2005, ‘Evidence of an increasing NO2/
NOX emissions ratio from road traffic emissions’,
Atmospheric Environment, 39 (26), 4 793–4 802.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1352231005005443) accessed 3 August 2012.
.
Carslaw, D. and Beevers, S. D., 2005, ‘Estimations
of road vehicle primary NO2 exhaust emission
fractions using monitoring data in London’,
Atmospheric Environment, 39 (1) 167–177, (http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1352231004008775) accessed 3 August 2012.
.
Carslaw, D., Beevers, S., Ropkins, K. and Bell, M.,
2006, ‘Detecting and quantifying aircraft and other
on-airport contributions to ambient nitrogen oxides
in the vicinity of a large international airport’,
Atmospheric Environment, (40) 5 424–5 434,
( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1352231006004250 ) accessed 3 August 2012.
.
Carslaw D., Beevers, S., Westmoreland E., Williams,
M., Tate, J., Murrells, T., Stedman, J., Li, Y., Grice,
S., Kent A, and Tsagatakis, I., 2011, Trends in NOX
and NO2 emissions and ambient measurements in the
UK, Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, London, (http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/reports/
cat05/1108251149_110718_AQ0724_Final_report.pdf) accessed 3 August 2012.
EC stance on air pollution in London could affect ability of Heathrow to expand
November 17, 2012 Government plans to delay air pollution improvements in 12 areas of the UK areas were refused by the European Commission in June. The UK may now face fines if it fails to improve air quality quickly. The worst offender is London, where it is estimated that there over 4,000 ‘excess deaths’ per year from air pollution. This could have implications for Heathrow expansion. Air pollution is recognised by the government as the 2nd-biggest public health threat, after smoking. A judgement will be made at a later date on government plans to delay meeting NO2 standards in major cities until 2020 – or in the case of London, 2025. The EC decision addresses the shorter term, whereas a 3rd runway at Heathrow could not be operation for about 10 years. However, the tough stance by the EC suggests that any plan for Heathrow expansion, which increased air pollution and prevented limits being met, would face legal action. Click here to view full story…
and
Is air pollution the biggest obstacle to a third runway at Heathrow?
September 7, 2012 Alan Andrews, from Client Earth (a group of environmental lawyers) writes that though Cameron’s reshuffle might have removed a couple of high profile political obstacles to a third runway, it has not dealt with the more difficult obstacle: EU air quality limits. EU law sets legally binding limits on levels of harmful pollution in our air. These limits, which are based on WHO guidelines, govern a number of pollutants which are damaging to human health. The limits for NO2 are currently being broken in towns and cities throughout the UK. But they are worst in London – which is thought to have the worst levels of NO2 of any EU capital. Where limits are breached, EU law requires that an action plan be drawn up which achieves compliance in the “shortest time possible.” The Government’s plan for London shows that limits won’t be achieved until 2025. Alan explains how this means expanding Heathrow would be subject to legal challenge and EU opposition. Click here to view full story…
Commenting on the publication today of the DfT’s consultation into a new night flight regime at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, HACAN (the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) said is was disappointed that the Government has still not committed itself to a night flight ban. However, they have welcomed the fact that the Government is prepared to look at measures which could mitigate the noise. These include increasing the angle of descent on approach; guaranteed respite periods; changing the existing scheduling or operating bans which affect the noisiest aircraft types. John Stewart, Chair of HACAN, which represents residents under the Heathrow flight paths, said: “We are very clear that we want a ban on night flights before 6 o’clock and a progressive reduction between 6am and 7am. Many people under the Heathrow flight paths don’t need an alarm clock; the first plane wakes them at 4.30 am.”
Residents expressed disappointment that the Government has still not committed itself to a night flight ban in its consultation on a new night flight regime at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick, released earlier today. However, they have welcomed the fact that the Government is prepared to look at measures which could mitigate the noise. These include increasing the angle of descent on approach; guaranteed respite periods; changing the existing scheduling or operating bans which affect the noisiest aircraft types.
This consultation is the first part of a two-stage consultation process into replacing the current night flight regime at the UK’s three designated airports which runs out in October 2014. The first stage of the consultation closes on 22nd April. The second part will contain more detailed proposals.
John Stewart, Chair of HACAN, which represents residents under the Heathrow flight paths, said: “We are very clear that we want a ban on night flights before 6 o’clock and a progressive reduction between 6am and 7am. Many people under the Heathrow flight paths don’t need an alarm clock; the first plane wakes them at 4.30 am.”
Stewart added: “However, we do welcome the fact that the Government is prepared to look at noise mitigation measures such as steeper approaches and guaranteed respite periods.”
Currently there are 16 flights permitted at Heathrow between 11.30pm and 6am and around 60 between 6am and 7am each day.
DfT announces start of 3 month consultation on night flight regime at Heathrow, Gatwick & Stansted
Date added: January 22, 2013
The government has begun a 3 month consultation into night flights at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted Airports. It is calling for views and evidence on “the effectiveness of the current regime, the costs and benefits of future options and airlines’ fleet replacement plans”. The consultation closes on 22nd April 2013. Transport Minister Simon Burns says: “This consultation includes a review of current evidence on the costs of night flights, particularly noise, and the benefits of these flights. It sets out our thinking on how we would expect to appraise the policy options for the next night flights regime.” The government will publish the 2nd consultation later this year. It will include specific proposals for the new regime, such as the number of permitted night flights. The proposals in the 2nd consultation will be informed by the evidence received from this 1st stage consultation. The Dft says it aims to strike “a fair balance between the interests of those affected by the noise disturbance and those of the airports, passengers and the UK economy.”
@AirportWatch
