ICAO’s environment committee comes up with some standards for new aircraft, years ahead

The meeting of the ICAO “Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) in Montreal has ended. The committee’s purpose is to try to reduce and limit the environmental damage done by the aviation industry (noise, air pollution, carbon emissions).  It has not been very successful to date. This meeting has agreed on an

Aircraft Engine Standard: “A new stringency level that would limit the emissions of non-volatile Particulate Matter (nvPM) from aircraft engines was agreed. The ICAO standard is expected to drive technologies to address non-volatile particulate matter, which in the long run will minimise their potential environmental and health impacts.” ie. for planes yet to be built, with any impacts decades ahead. At least admitting the problem of PM particles produced by planes.  On noise ICAO said: “The meeting also delivered …improvements of aircraft noise up to 15.5 dB below Chapter 14 limits for single-aisle aircraft by 2027, NOx emission by 54 per cent relative to the latest ICAO NOx SARPs and fuel efficiency up to 1.3% per annum can be expected for the new aircraft entering into production.” Again, for new planes, with no real impact for decades. On CORSIA they said CAEP had agreement (not spelled out) on how to assess life-cycle CO2 emissions reductions for biofuels or other lower carbon fuels.  ie. not a lot.
.

 

Sustainable aviation takes significant step forward at ICAO 

​Global measures to address aviation’s environmental impact were agreed at a meeting of the two hundred and fifty experts of ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), which concluded today ICAO’s Montréal headquarters today.

​Montréal, 15 February 2019

ICAO website

Global measures to address aviation’s environmental impact were agreed at a meeting of the two hundred and fifty experts of ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), which concluded today.

The meeting was opened by Dr. Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu, President of the Council of ICAO, recognizing that “In the 35 years since the CAEP was established, the scope of work and the technical areas which it covers have widened. Yet, despite the monumental challenges set before it, the CAEP remains a tremendous example of international cooperation.”

The main outcomes of the meeting are as follows:

Aircraft Engine Standard

A new stringency level that would limit the emissions of non-volatile Particulate Matter (nvPM) from aircraft engines was agreed. The ICAO standard is expected to drive technologies to address non-volatile particulate matter, which in the long run will minimize their potential environmental and health impacts.

With this new standard, ICAO has completed all main environmental standards for the certification of aircraft and engines, namely for noise, local air quality (NOx, HC, CO, nvPM) and climate change (CO2), making the aviation industry the only sector with environmental mandatory certification requirements at the global level for the operation of its equipment. Once applicable, all new aircraft will need to be certified to those ICAO standards before operating.

The meeting also delivered new technology goals for the sector, including improvements of aircraft noise up to 15.5 dB below Chapter 14 limits for single-aisle aircraft by 2027, NOx emission by 54 per cent relative to the latest ICAO NOx SARPs and fuel efficiency up to 1.3 per cent per annum can be expected for the new aircraft entering into production.

Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) 

Agreement has been achieved on the means to calculate and claim the benefits accrued from the use of sustainable aviation fuels within the context of CORSIA. This is significant in terms of reducing airlines’ offsetting requirements.

The agreement included the default values and the methodologies for calculating actual values needed to calculate the life-cycle CO2 emissions reduction benefits of different feedstocks. CAEP has also agreed on the requirements for Sustainability Certification Schemes (SCS) and a process to evaluate and recommend a list of eligible SCS, which will certify fuels against the CORSIA sustainability criteria. This package of agreements provides the clarity needed for the energy sector to embark in the production of sustainable fuels for aviation, and is an important step towards CORSIA implementation.

In addition, CAEP has delivered a recommendation for the rules and procedure for the ICAO Council’s Technical Advisory Body (TAB), which will evaluate the eligibility of emissions units for use in CORSIA. Another agreement was the technical updates of Environmental Technical Manual on CORSIA, which clarifies the recommended actions by States and airlines for monitoring, reporting and verification of CO2 emissions under CORSIA.

Environmental Trends and Outlook 

The meeting agreed on the updated ICAO environmental trends for noise, local air quality (NOx and nvPM) and global climate (CO2), which will be the basis for the considerations of ICAO environmental policies at the next ICAO Assembly, in September 2019.

Important publications were also developed as part of ICAO’s eco-airport toolkit collection in the areas of renewable energy, waste management, environmental management, and eco-design of airport building.

Regarding climate change adaptation, a Synthesis Report was approved for publication, providing important information on the climate risk impacts and resilient options for the sector.

Two other important reports were agreed: one on the state of aircraft end-of-life and recycling; and the other on performance-based navigation and community engagement.

The meeting further agreed with the results of the assessment of the positive effects of operational improvements. The assessment showed that the implementation of these measures, as per ICAO global plans, savings of fuel between of 167 to 307 kg per flight can be achieved by 2025. This corresponds respectively to a reduction of 26.2 to 48.2 Mt of CO2. The meeting agreed on the publication of the white paper “State of the Science 2019: Aviation Noise Impacts Workshop”.

CAEP also considered the progress that has been achieved towards supersonic transport operations, and agreed that an exploratory study should be undertaken.

CAEP will also assess how to certify other new technologies such as hybrid and electric aircraft as part of its future work.

CAEP is a technical body of the ICAO Council, and all the technical recommendations agreed by CAEP above will be considered by the Council for final approval.

https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/Sustainable-aviation-takes-significant-step-forward-at-ICAO.aspx

.

.


See earlier:

Critics attack secrecy at UN’s ICAO CAEP committee, tasked with cutting global airline CO2 emissions

A UN ICAO committee, Committee on Aviation and Environmental Protection (CAEP), with the job of cutting global aircraft carbon emissions (an issue of global concern) is meeting secretly, for discussions dominated by airline industry observers. The committee always meets behind closed doors; the press and other observers are not allowed in (unlike other UN committees).  The committee’s agenda and discussion documents are not released to the public or the international press. Anyone who leaks documents being discussed faces “unlimited liability for confidentiality breaches”, according to ICAO rules.  The only non-governmental body not linked to the airline industry allowed into the meeting is the International Coalition for Sustainable Aviation (ICSA), made up of a small group of international environmental NGOs. Transparency International says “Agencies which set common global standards for large, international industries have to be transparent in order to prevent capture by corporate interests … ”  A key concern is that the committee wants to certify biofuels, that are definitely NOT environmentally sustainable, as low carbon. And also fossil oil, produced using solar energy – also NOT a low carbon fuel. The committee needs to be open to public scrutiny.

Click here to view full story…

ICAO’s CORSIA low standards on biofuels risk undercutting EU’s new renewables rules

The UN’s ICAO is a secretive organisation, that has been woefully ineffective in limiting the CO2 emissions of global aviation. There are considerable concerns that it will try to get bad biofuels certified as low carbon, in order to whitewash the sector’s emissions in future. The global deal, CORSIA, making the first tentative steps towards restricting aviation CO2 at all is just starting. There is, elsewhere, growing understanding that biofuels are generally not the way forward, and their real lifecycle carbon emissions are far higher than their proponents make out. ICAO has now agree 2 criteria (out of 12 possible) for aviation biofuels. These are that there should have been no deforestation after 2009; and there should be at least a saving of 10% of green house gas emissions, (including emissions from indirect land-use change or ILUC) compared to fossil jet kerosene. ICAO’s environment committee will develop rules for what biofuels can be credited – ie. how much of an emissions reduction each biofuel delivers.  The effect can only be accurately accounted for using models. There is a serious danger they will try and include palm oil. And countries like Saudi Arabia are trying to get “lower carbon” fossil fuels included, if their production can be 10% more carbon efficient.  So aviation will continue to emit vast amounts of carbon for decades….

Click here to view full story…

Experts say legal obstacles no barrier to introducing aviation fuel tax for flights in Europe

EU countries can end the decades-long exemption on taxing aviation fuel. Legal experts say it is possible to tax kerosene on flights between EU countries. This could either be done at EU level through a series of bilateral agreements or by agreement between individual countries. Transport & Environment (T&E) has found that the old argument that foreign carriers’ operating within the EU – de facto a small number of flights – can’t be taxed can be overcome by introducing a de minimis threshold below which fuel burn would not be taxed.  At present (and for decades past) airlines, unlike almost all other forms of transport, pay no fuel tax on flights within or from the EU – even though aviation causes 5% of global warming. They also pay no VAT.  Despite the aviation industry’s attempts to hide behind the 1944 Chicago Convention, when the agreement was made on not taxing aviation fuel, that is not what is preventing fuel taxation. In fact it is old bilateral ‘air service agreements’ that European governments signed up to years ago that include mutual fuel tax exemptions for non-EU airlines. It remains too hard to tax fuel for international, non-EU, flights.

Click here to view full story…

CORSIA and its failings explained – great piece from Carbon Brief

In a long, detailed and very informative article from Carbon Brief, Jocelyn Timperley explains the CORSIA scheme for aircraft carbon emissions, and its failings. While airlines are starting this year to measure and record their carbon emissions for the first time, it is not expected that the scheme will do anything much to limit aviation carbon.  “It can be expected to “modestly reduce” the net climate impact of international aviation up to 2035, according to the (ICCT). This is only if high-quality offsets are used and those offsets are not “double counted”, the think-tank adds….  Unless it is extended beyond 2035, Corsia will cover only 6% of projected CO2 emissions from all international aviation between 2015 and 2050, ICCT data indicates.”  That assumes China will partake from the pilot phase. “Base emissions continue to grow under Corsia due to uncovered traffic….. The ICCT argues this means Corsia “does not obviate the need for an ICAO long-term climate goal”. Because of a range of issues, like biofuels, offsets, forestry etc : “It’s not just that Corsia is a weak measure – it’s that it’s an actively bad measure, that risks doing more harm than good.”

Click here to view full story…

.

 

Read more »

TAG: Heathrow air pollution does NOT stop 2km from the airport, or just 1,000ft altitude. DfT is wrong

Teddington Action Group (TAG) have been doing research into how likely it is that air pollution will get worse, if Heathrow is allowed a 3rd runway. Their investigations indicate that government has not assessed this properly, and has ignored relevant available information from other airports. TAG say that according to Heathrow, emissions from planes do not contribute notably to emissions once the plane is above 1,000ft. The Airports Commission and DfT and its advisors set a study area of just 2 kilometres from the expanded airport boundary. There is much evidence to indicate that is wrong. Planes emit significant amounts of NO2 and particulates, which find their way down to the ground (and by definition into humans and living creatures as well as vegetation). The DfT deny this but the empirical evidence does not support the DfT. Studies between 2014 and 2016 at Los Angeles, Atlanta and Schiphol, Amsterdam, strongly suggest otherwise. Mobile monitors set up under the inward flight paths show that particulates and NO2 are transmitted by the wind up to some 20 kilometres down wind. See full article for details.

.

FLIGHT PATH CONSULTATION, EMISSIONS AND EXPANSION OF HEATHROW

TAG (Teddington Action Group) blog

Noise will be an absolute key area of the flight path consultation and our responses. However, what about air quality and emissions? Will an extra 25,000 flights with the existing two runways bring about any deterioration in air quality?

First some facts and rules:

NO2 (Nitrogen dioxide) is harmful to humans. According to a UK Government study in 2015 “Studies of long-term exposure to NO2 report associations with all-cause, respiratory and cardiovascular mortality, children’s respiratory symptoms and lung function”.

NOx is a generic term for NO and NO2. NO is relatively unstable and will convert to NO2 if exposed to oxygen.

Particulates are harmful to humans. Particulates are tiny particles. Sometimes they are carbon, but they can be tiny particles of metal. Particles are often put into three sizes:

PM10 – these are particles up to 10 micrometres (10 millionths of a metre) in diameter. These are often called course particles. These are legally defined as particulate matter which passes through a size-selective inlet as defined in the reference method for the sampling and measurement of PM10

PM2.5 – these are particles up to 2.5 micrometres in diameter and are often called fine particles. These are legally defined as particulate matter which passes through a size-selective inlet as defined in the reference method for the sampling and measurement of PM2.5. Diesel engines emit a significant amount of PM2.5s

Ultra-Fine Particles (UFP) do not have a specific legal definition, but scientists consider these to have a diameter of up to 0.1 micrometres or 100 nanometres. They do however come within the legal definition of PM2.5s since they will pass through a PM2.5 inlet or filter. Ultra-Fine Particles are particularly harmful as when emitted there are so many of them and they have a large total area. They are known to get into the blood stream and in recent research by Queen Mary’s University Hospital have been found in the placentas of pregnant women.

Dr Miyashita of the Hospital said: “We’ve known for a while that air pollution affects foetal development and can continue to affect babies after birth and throughout their lives. We were interested to see if these effects could be due to pollution particles moving from the mother’s lungs to the placenta. Until now, there has been very little evidence that inhaled particles get into the blood from the lung.”

.

The EU passed legislation in 2008 requiring air quality to be of a certain standard. This was EU Directive 2008/50. This EU legislation was then adopted by the UK into The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010. These regulations lay down certain requirements:

  • The Government must have ensured that by 2010 with a long-stop date of 2015 that NO2 is limited to 40 micrograms per cubic metre average in a year, PM10s are limited to 40 micrograms per cubic metre average in a year and PM2.5s are limited to 25 micrograms per cubic metre average in a year. In addition:
  • The Government must “ensure that all necessary measures not entailing disproportionate costs are taken to ensure that concentrations of PM2.5…..do not exceed the target values specified”. Those target values are reduced from 25 micrograms per cubic metre under a specific duty upon the Government to reduce the national exposure to PM2.5s. That reduction is to 20 micrograms per cubic metre by 2015 and thereafter until 2020 to reach a series of levels depending on pollution concentrations to between 20 and 8.5 micrograms per cubic metre. When the target reduction gets to 8.5 micrograms, the target reduction is zero. In other words the object is to rid the country of these particulates

According to the Kings College air quality group LondonAir, the PM concentrations in all London Boroughs in 2016 failed to meet the reduction requirements. The projection is that the boroughs of Richmond, Wandsworth, Hounslow and Hillingdon will improve but all be above 13 micrograms per cubic metre of PM2.5s in 2020 rather than the target of 8.5 micrograms.

NO2 is no better. In 2013, updated in 2016, Hillingdon had substantial breaches. By 2020 Heathrow and its surrounding areas are still forecast to breach. Heathrow itself is forecast to still be in breach of the NO2 limit in 2030 – and that is with 2 runways. Heathrow has stated in the past that it does not consider that it is bound by the air quality targets within the airport boundary as it is private land.

So; will a third runway detract from the steady improvement in air quality?

According to Heathrow, emissions from planes do not contribute notably to emissions once the plane is above 1,000ft.  They have produced an illustration for their modelling to both members of the Community Noise Forum and to Parliament in evidence to the Transport Committee illustrated as follows:

The view of Heathrow is supported by the Government. Sir Howard Davies and the Airports Commission’s advisors, Jacobs, set a study area of just 2 kilometres from the expanded airport boundary. The Government Appraisal of Sustainability carried out by WSP of Exeter expressly followed the study area of Jacobs keeping it to 2 kilometres from the boundary.

Is this right though?

Empirical evidence would suggest that it is not right and that planes emit significant amounts of NO2 and particulates, which find their way down to the ground (and by definition into humans and living creatures as well as vegetation). The DfT deny this but the empirical evidence does not support the DfT.

Studies between 2014 and 2016 at Los Angeles, Atlanta and Schiphol, Amsterdam, strongly suggest otherwise. Mobile monitors set up under the inward flight paths show that particulates and NO2 are transmitted by the wind up to some 20 kilometres down wind.

Illustrations in the 2014 research paper of Los Angeles show the elevated levels taken which follow the wind direction:

Layout of Los Angeles Airport

Particulates measured by the mobile monitor having travelled downwind

Particulates shown downwind in various directions

NO2 measured well beyond 2 kilometres from the airport boundary

The text of the Los Angeles research states, amongst other things, that:

“The size of the impacted areas with high PN concentration increases was remarkable. At 16 km downwind, a 2-fold increase in PN concentration over baseline concentrations was measured across 6.5 km. Assuming a trapezoidal shaped plume with parallel edges of length 1.5 and 6.5 km, PN concentrations were at least doubled over an area of 60 km2. Eight km downwind, a 5-fold increase in PN concentrations over baseline concentrations extended across 3 km and covered a total area of 24 km2. (Concentrations in this large area exceeded 71,000 particles/cm3, the average concentration on Los Angeles freeways.14) Within 3 km of the airport boundary, concentrations were elevated nearly 10- fold, exceeding 100,000 particles/cm3, with concentrations of 150,000 particles/cm3 occurring over a several km2 area.”

We know from the recent news the terrible impact of poor air quality upon vulnerable people like asthma suffers. Should we have increases in pollution from planes – not to mention the land vehicles that will be going to and from an expanded airport?

Do the Government know of this research? The Air Quality Expert Group reporting to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2018 state that:

“More recently, Riley et al. (2016) measured downwind of two large airports in the USA: LAX and Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport (ATL – Atlanta, GA), using a mobile monitoring platform. Riley et al. (2016) found a 3–5-fold increase in UFP concentrations in transects under the landing approach path to both airports, relative to surrounding urban areas with similar ground traffic characteristics. The measurements therefore suggest that aircraft plumes mix downwards to a sufficient extent to be detected at ground-level at concentrations similar in magnitude to road vehicle sources. The implications of this work are potentially important for exposure to UFP concentrations. For example, a location such as Heathrow Airport, where aircraft tend to approach the airport from the east (flying over the London conurbation), there is potential for considerable exposure to UFP from aircraft”.

The short answer is that the Government do know of this research.

The record of the Government in bringing air quality up to standard is atrocious. Mr Justice Cranston said, when giving judgment in the third ClientEarth case on whether the Government had produced a satisfactory Air Quality Program:

“It is now eight years since compliance with the 2008 Directive should have been achieved. This is the third, unsuccessful, attempt the Government has made at devising an AQP [Air Quality Program] which complies with the Directive and the domestic Regulations. Each successful challenge has been mounted by a small charity, for which the costs of such litigation constitute a significant challenge. In the meanwhile, UK citizens have been exposed to significant health risks.”

 

References

Hudda et al. Emissions from an International Airport Increase Particle Number Concentrations 4‑fold at 10 km Downwind – study at Los Angeles 2014 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4215878/

Keuken et al. Total and size-resolved particle number and black carbon concentrations in urban areas near Schiphol airport (the Netherlands) 2016 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231015000175

Riley et al. Ultrafine particle size as a tracer for aircraft turbine emissions 2016. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223101630348X

Defra Air Quality Expert Group, Ultrafine Particles (UFP) in the UK 2018 https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1807261113_180703_UFP_Report_FINAL_for_publication.pdf

.

Flight Path Consultation, Emissions and expansion of Heathrow

 

Read more »

Alistair Osborne of the Times: Heathrow expansion shows Gove’s air pollution strategy is hot air

In a blog by Alistair Osborne, of the Times, he says on air pollution: “No government minister ever got anywhere without being able to think two contradictory ideas at once. So why should Michael Gove be different? The environment secretary’s just published his Clean Air Strategy, complete with the rallying cry: “We must take strong, urgent action.” And what sort of action has the government he represents got in mind? That’s right: building a £14 billion 3rd runway at Heathrow. Yes, the same one that transport secretary Chris Grayling admits may well cause more pollution. Or, as last year’s Airports National Policy Statement put it: “Increases in emissions of pollutants during the construction or operational phases of the scheme could result in the worsening of local air quality.” Bizarrely, the H-word doesn’t get a mention in Mr Gove’s 109-page document. But maybe he didn’t want to draw attention to one awkward fact: that air quality around the airport is already in breach of EU limits for nitrogen dioxide emissions.  Read the whole article  …..

.

Heathrow expansion shows Gove’s strategy is hot air

he Times)

No government minister ever got anywhere without being able to think two contradictory ideas at once. So why should Michael Gove be different?

The environment secretary’s just published his Clean Air Strategy, complete with the rallying cry: “We must take strong, urgent action.” And what sort of action has the government he represents got in mind? That’s right: building a £14 billion third runway at Heathrow. Yes, the same one that transport secretary Chris Grayling admits may well cause more pollution. Or, as last year’s Airports National Policy Statement put it: “Increases in emissions of pollutants during the construction or operational phases of the scheme could result in the worsening of local air quality.”

Bizarrely, the H-word doesn’t get a mention in Mr Gove’s 109-page document. But maybe he didn’t want to draw attention to one awkward fact: that air quality around the airport is already in breach of EU limits for nitrogen dioxide emissions. True, Heathrow’s not the main culprit: the key cause is the cars on the adjacent M4, M25 and A40. The airport reckons it directly contributes only 16 per cent of emissions at two key monitoring sites. Even so, the government is yet to spell out how things will be improved by adding 260,000 flights and 50 million passengers a year.

Hence air quality’s star billing in the judicial review due to start in March: a joint effort from, among others, local authorities, the London mayor and environmental groups. The pre-trial hearing takes place today. And in the view of Friends of the Earth’s Laura MacKenzie: “The government should never have entertained the idea of a climate-wrecking third runway, with Heathrow already the UK’s single biggest source of [carbon] emissions.”

So here’s the key quandary: how to convince a judge that an airport already in breach of legal air quality limits will be less in breach after a vast expansion project. True, post-Brexit (should that ever happen), the government could simply ignore the EU’s pesky limits. But that hardly squares with Mr Gove’s latest plan. So what are the other options?

Well, Heathrow’s proposed low-emission zone within the perimeter fence will help, but the main problem is outside the fence. And even if you’re daft enough to believe its claims that it can handle an extra 50 million passengers without any rise in cars to and from the airport, what about the traffic going past?

Airports create business, £61 billion of benefits from the third runway apparently, [in fact, when the costs are subtracted from possible benefits, the net figure is somewhere between +£3 billion and about – £1.5 billion – DfT’s own figures – AW comment] which in turn creates traffic.

And even if passengers will have the option of the (delayed) Crossrail, what about the freight? Volumes are meant to be doubling. Is that also coming by public transport?

As Mr Gove reiterated yesterday, the government’s big idea is to end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040. But it’s years away: far too late for this year’s judicial review over a runway due to be in service by 2026.

Will a judge really allow that to go ahead on a government promise that things may be better 14 years after it starts operations, not least a promise from this government?

In fact, that’s the problem with Mr Gove’s latest effort: it’s mainly hot air. Not mentioning Heathrow tells you that.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gove-s-strategy-is-a-load-of-hot-air-vc3nct8p3?shareToken=098980aead1e32c53210ebbeb1961b2d

,

,

 

Read more »

New study by London TravelWatch shows more airline passengers using cars or cabs to get to Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton

A new report has been produced by London TravelWatch. “Way to go: Improving public transport access to London’s airports“. It gives comprehensive details about the various components of surface access transport, with information on what works well and what does not for each airport, and current state of any improvements.  The report indicates that airline passengers are more likely to travel by car or taxi to catch flights from Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton than they were 7 years ago, in a trend they say is “concerning”. Despite major investment in rail and coach links to the three airports, the proportion of passengers using public transport actually fell slightly between 2012 and 2016. But at Stansted, with accessibility improved by new coach connections, the use of public transport had improved. The proportion using public transport fell from 41% to 39.1% at Heathrow, 44% to 43.6% at Gatwick and 33% to 31.4% at Luton. Failings of public transport and the growth of taxi apps like Uber cited as reasons. Numbers using public transport rose at Stansted from 51% to 54.7% and at London City from 50% to 50.9%. Heathrow continues to encourage car parking, from which it earns huge revenues.
.

More passengers ‘shun public transport and use cars or cabs to get to airports’

by JONATHAN PRYNN  (Evening Standard)

18.1.2019

Airline passengers are more likely to travel by car or cab to catch flights from Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton than they were seven years ago, in a trend described as “concerning” by a new report.

Despite major investment in rail and coach links to the three airports, the proportion of passengers using public transport actually fell slightly between 2012 and 2016, the survey found.

The major exception to the trend was Stansted, with accessibility improved by new coach connections directly to Underground stations such as Stratford, Paddington and Golders Green. The report, from the London TravelWatch group, said the drop in passengers using public transport “is a concerning trend if the objectives of the airports and the Mayor of London are to be met.”

The proportion using public transport fell from 41 per cent to 39.1 per cent at Heathrow, 44 per cent to 43.6 per cent at Gatwick and 33 per cent to 31.4 per cent at Luton, with public transport failings and cab apps like Uber cited as reasons. It rose at Stansted from 51 per cent to 54.7 per cent and at London City from 50 to 50.9 per cent.

London TravelWatch wants improved interchanges, Oyster/contactless extended on national rail services and more use of contactless bank cards on local buses outside Greater London.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/more-passengers-shun-public-transport-and-use-cars-or-cabs-to-get-to-airports-a4042941.html

.


The report by London Travel Watch is at 

http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/documents/get_lob?id=4693&field=file

It has a lot on transport to and from Heathrow from Page 35 to Page 41.

And a lot of Gatwick from Page 41 to Page 46.

Then details on Stansted Page 47 to Page 49

and Luton on Page 50 to 52

and  London City airport Page 52

 

 

 

Read more »

Study identifies heavy metals in high concentrations of potentially harmful airborne nanoparticles around Trudeau airport.

A recent study by scientists at Montreal’s McGill university has found unusually high concentrations of potentially harmful airborne aerosols containing nanoparticles around Montreal’s Trudeau airport. Some contained chromium and arsenic. The study, published in December 2018 in the prestigious journal “Environmental Pollution” found these observations were statistically higher than corresponding measurements in downtown Montreal and at major highways during rush hour. The airport is thus a hotspot for nanoparticles containing “emerging contaminants” (substances produced by human activities that have, or are suspected to have, adverse ecological and/or human health effects.) The study found trends in levels of nanoparticles during the day showed concentrations that exhibited peaks during times with many flights, also showing correlations with pollutants (CO, NOx, and O3) – confirming the  anthropogenic source of the aerosols. The nanoparticles, especially containing heavy metals, are potentially a matter of public health. The study detected up to 2 million particles per cubic centimetre of air, which is more than the amount found so far at other airports.  More studies need to be carried out, as health is at stake. 
.

 

 

SERIOUS AIR POLLUTION AT TRUDEAU AIRPORT

15.1.2019

A recent McGill study found unusually high concentrations of potentially harmful airborne nanoparticles around the airport. It is interesting to note that citizens on the streets ask for more studies on the subject.

‘There is some hope that people become more aware of the dangers of aircraft emissions,’ says Pierre Lachapelle from Les Pollués de Montréal-Trudeau, affiliated with UECNA, in the interview below.  At  the link below:

https://www.uecna.eu/serious-air-pollution-at-trudeau-airport/

It is a matter of public health. The new study found a high concentration of particles around the airport. Some contain heavy metals, like Chromium and Arsenic. The study published in December in the journal Environmental Pollution detected up to 2 million particles per cubic centimetre. This is more than the amount found so far in any measurement at any other airport.  People near the airport report black spots on garden furniture, probably from the airport. It is better to get as many studies as possible on this, for health. Residents agree more studies should be done.

.


Most of the airborne particles are considered benign, but some nanoparticles include heavy metals that could be hazardous to your health.

Although Dr. Parisa Ariya, who conducted the study, said these particles won’t kill you, the fact that there is a high concentration of certain nanoparticles means that more research will need to be done.

Since Dr. Ariya’s study was only a physical and chemical one, she said it will require public health research.

“It definitely reccommends a concentrated, integrated study,” Ariya said.

President of citizen’s group ‘Les Pollués de Montréal-Trudeau,’ Pierre Lachapelle said he agrees that more needs to be done in terms of public health.

“Now I think it’s time to see what is the public health concern,” he said.

Concerns have already been raised, as Lachapelle’s neighbors have dealth with airborne pollution from jets leaving the airport left on their laundry.

“There are black spots on their laundry at the end of the day,” Lachapelle said.

He said he’s unsure of what that is, and Ariya said there are still many ‘unknowns’ out there.

But for Ariya, what is known for certain is that it has to be looked at a little closer before jumping to any conclusions.

“We have to do the research studies, with the collaborator from health sciences as well, then we would be able to see if the concern is valid,” Ariya said.

.


.

Physicochemical studies of aerosols at Montreal Trudeau Airport: The importance of airborne nanoparticles containing metal contaminants

Highlights

Airborne particles at the Montreal International Airport were studied systematically.

Total number density of aerosols reached a maximum of 2 × 106 cm−3.

Correlations with pollutants (CO, NOx, and O3) confirm anthropogenic source of aerosols.

Presence of metal/metal oxide emerging nanoparticles was detected.

Airport pollutants can reach neighbouring populated areas, causing health concerns.

Abstract

Airborne particles, specifically nanoparticles, are identified health hazards and a key research domain in air pollution and climate change. We performed a systematic airport study to characterize real-time size and number density distribution, chemical composition and morphology of the aerosols (∼10 nm–10 μm) using complementary cutting-edge and novel techniques, namely optical aerosol analyzers, triple quad ICP-MS/MS and high-resolution STEM imaging. The total number density of aerosols, predominantly composed of nanoparticles, reached a maximum of 2 × 106 cm−3 and is higher than reported values from any other international airport. We also provide evidence for a wide range of metal in aerosols, and emerging metals in nanoparticles (e.g., Zn and Ni). The geometric mean, median and 99th and 1st percentile values of observed nanoparticle number densities at the apron were 1.0 × 105, 9.0 × 104, 1.2 × 106 and 9.3 × 103 cm−3, respectively. These observations were statistically higher than corresponding measurements in downtown Montreal and at major highways during rush hour. This airport is thus a hotspot for nanoparticles containing emerging contaminants. The diurnal trends in concentrations exhibit peaks during flight and rush hours, showing correlations with pollutants such as CO. The HR-TEM-EDS provided evidence for nano-sized particles produced in combustion engines. Implications of our results for air pollution and health are discussed.

    This paper has been recommended for acceptance by Prof. Wen-Xiong Wang.

     

    Read more »

    Richmond Council condemns latest Heathrow consultation – for unacceptable increases in noise and air pollution

    Heathrow has a consultation, closing on 4th March, on its future airspace, both for the existing 2 runways and with a possible 3rd runway. Heathrow claim they will take the responses and view of residents etc into account. However, Cllr Gareth Roberts, Leader of Richmond Council, has condemned the latest consultation – claiming 25,000 extra flights would be disastrous for the borough. He, said: “We have always said that Heathrow needs to be better and not bigger. But clearly size is everything to the airport. Heathrow are proposing the biggest changes to its flight path since it opened. People living in Richmond and other areas of West London will find their respite from overhead noise cut under these proposals. Not to mention the additional 25,000 more flights a year – which will no doubt be crammed into the early morning schedules, delivering more misery for our residents. Let’s not forget, these extra flights will still require Planning consent.” He said it was a bad case of the government “putting the cart before the horse” in having got a parliamentary vote in favour of the runway (many votes by MPs who very little indeed about it) before details of flight paths and other impacts were known.
    .

     

     

    Richmond Council condemns latest Heathrow consultation

    9th January 2019

    By Amar Mehta @amarmehta94
    Reporter – Richmond & Wandsworth Guardian

    The airport is asking for local communities to help shape the airport’s plans for its future airspace, both for the existing runways and as part of the proposed expansion.

    The consultation will run until March 4 and focus on three key areas: Airspace change for an expanded Heathrow, airspace change to make better use of the current runways and future operations for an expanded Heathrow.

    There will be over 30 consultation events across local boroughs throughout the consultation period, where members of the public will be able to ask questions and provide their feedback.

    A full list of dates, times and locations can be found at : http://afo.heathrowconsultation.com The nearest local event is in Twickenham on the 13 February 2019 from 2-8pm in York House.

    Emma Gilthorpe, Heathrow’s Executive Director for Expansion, invites local people to participate in the consultation, she said: “Expansion at Heathrow is a unique opportunity to build a long term, sustainable legacy for those closest to the airport as well as for Britain.

    “We want to work in partnership with our local communities to ensure we make the most of the opportunity that expansion brings, including the creation of thousands of new jobs and apprenticeships.

    “We are committed to delivering expansion responsibly and putting the needs of local communities at the heart of our growth plans. This stage of open and transparent consultation is critical to developing the best outcomes from Heathrow’s future airspace and operations, and we encourage you to take part and help shape our plan for a fairer, future Heathrow.”

    However, Cllr Gareth Roberts, Leader of Richmond Council, has condemned the latest consultation – claiming 25,000 extra flights would be disastrous for the borough.

    Cllr Roberts, said: “We have always said that Heathrow needs to be better and not bigger. But clearly size is everything to the airport.

    “Heathrow are proposing the biggest changes to its flight path since it opened. People living in Richmond and other areas of West London will find their respite from overhead noise cut under these proposals.

    “Not to mention the additional 25,000 more flights a year – which will no doubt be crammed into the early morning schedules, delivering more misery for our residents. Let’s not forget, these extra flights will still require Planning consent.

    “This kind of expansion would see an unacceptable rise in noise and air pollution, damaging the environment and posing a risk to people’s health – and all at a potential cost to tax payers of billions of pounds.

    “It is extremely disappointing that only now we are seeing the proposed areas affected by additional planes, seven months after the Government made its decision to expand the airport.

    “Making a decision before understanding the full impact of expansion is putting cart before horse… . again!”

    Richmond Council is part of a coalition of councils and others – including the London Boroughs of Hillingdon, Wandsworth, Windsor and Maidenhead, and Hammersmith and Fulham, as well as the Mayor of London and Greenpeace – that are seeking a judicial review of the Government’s decision to give policy support in the Airports National Policy Statement (“NPS”) for a third Heathrow runway.

    https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/17346056.richmond-council-condemns-latest-heathrow-consultation/

    .

    .

    .

     

    Read more »

    No 3rd Runway Coalition comment on DfT’s Aviation Strategy: IT UNDERMINES GOVERNMENT CREDIBILITY ON ENVIRONMENT

    The Aviation Strategy Green Paper published today is seeking to deliver sustainable growth of the aviation sector to 2050. It fails to set out how continued aviation growth is compatible with existing environmental commitments, with the Government appearing content to let action on CO2 to be delivered at an international level This attitude is in stark contrast to the advice from the Committee on Climate Change, which the DfT has ignored, warning recently as June 2018 that that higher levels of aviation emissions in 2050 “must not be planned for” and raised a series of concerns about how one additional runway would be compatible with efforts to reduce emissions, let alone two. They also warned that expansion of Heathrow will require significant operational restrictions on all other UK airports. The paper will also consult on the decision-making process for delivering a further runway in the UK by 2050. The DfT claims that the need for exploring another runway is due to higher growth than was predicted in the 2015 forecasts.  Paul McGuinness, Chair of the No 3rd Runway Coalition said: “The Green Paper simply contains no strategy, either for delivering on existing environmental commitments or for addressing the significant negative impacts of airport operations on local communities.”

    .

    AVIATION STRATEGY UNDERMINES GOVERNMENT CREDIBILITY ON ENVIRONMENT

    17.12.2018 (No 3rd Runway Coalition press release) 

    The Aviation Strategy Green Paper published today is seeking to deliver sustainable growth of the aviation sector to 2050. Yet the paper fails to set out how continued aviation growth is compatible with existing environmental commitments, with the Government appearing content to let action be delivered at an international level, thereby missing an opportunity for the UK to lead the world in delivering a low carbon economy.

    This attitude is in stark contrast to the advice from the Committee on Climate Change, who warned as recently as June 2018 that that higher levels of aviation emissions in 2050 “must not be planned for” and raised a series of concerns about how one additional runway would be compatible with efforts to reduce emissions, let alone two (1). They also warned that expansion of Heathrow will require significant operational restrictions on all other UK airports. The Government appear to have completely ignored that advice.

    The Government commits to new guidance on surface access to airports that will aim to deliver sustainable journeys rather than just focusing on mode share to meet environmental targets.

    The paper will also consult on the decision-making process for delivering a further runway in the UK by 2050. The DfT claims that the need for exploring another runway comes as a result of higher growth than was predicted in the 2015 forecasts.

    The DfT also admitted that this is only based on demand forecasts (which have historically proven unreliable) and that they have not modelled the environmental case for another runway nor considered the impact on climate targets.

    Yet it sets out no plans on how Government seek to address increased road traffic associated with airport expansion, who should pay for improvements to public transport networks, nor any commitment to new aviation taxes with revenues hypothecated for public transport projects.

    Paul McGuinness, Chair of the No 3rd Runway Coalition said:

    “It comes as no surprise that the Government appears, not only determined to push ahead with the unsustainable expansion of Heathrow, but to now dangle the carrot of growth in front of the rest the UK’s airports, with no robust plan to address the environmental damage this would cause. It makes a laughing stock of the UKs commitment to the environment.

    “The Green Paper simply contains no strategy, either for delivering on existing environmental commitments or for addressing the significant negative impacts of airport operations on local communities.”

    ENDS.

    Notes:

    1. Committee on Climate Change letter to Chris Grayling, 14 June 2018  https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/CCC-letter-to-DfT-on-Airports-National-Policy-Statement.pdf
    2. Interviews available with the No 3rd Runway Coalition on request
    3. Briefing from the No 3rd Runway Coalition attached to this email

    For more information:

    Rob Barnstone, 07806947050, robert.barnstone@outlook.com

    https://www.no3rdrunwaycoalition.co.uk/ 

    .


    See also the Coalition’s new briefing on the Aviation Strategy 

    Aviation Strategy Green Paper Briefing

    .

    .

    .

     

    Read more »

    AEF discussion paper on what – on air pollution – needs to be in UK’s forthcoming “Aviation Strategy”

    .

     

    AEF releases air quality recommendations ahead of aviation strategy consultation

    In the last of our series of discussion papers on the key environmental questions we want to see addressed by the new Aviation Strategy, AEF sets out the air quality challenges posed by UK aviation. As the UK prepares its post-Brexit Environment Act, we consider the gap between currently legislated limit values for air pollution and the evidence on health impacts, what this could mean for aviation, and how both information and regulation should be improved.

    The UK Aviation Strategy is due out for consultation by the end of this year, with a White Paper planned for next summer. The air quality policy should, we argue:

    • Clarify how airport planning decisions will help deliver air quality commitments,
    • Close the current information gaps with respect to air pollution from aviation, by
      • Setting out the evidence base in relation to aircraft air pollution outside the landing and take-off cycle,
      • Providing (a) updated mapping of air pollution levels around UK airports with respect to legal limit values and WHO recommended maximum levels for pollutant concentrations; and (b) an assessment of how any increase in aircraft emissions or airport-related emissions affects National Emissions Ceilings Directive (NECD) limit values, and
      • Setting out what approach individuals concerned about air pollution near their airport should take, and
    • Ensure the UK supports the setting of effective technology standards by assessing whether the current international standards are tough enough.

    AEF has previously published discussion papers on noise and on climate change, by way of input to the draft strategy. Our latest paper can be viewed here

    .

    Related articles

    AEF discusses how aviation strategy can effectively tackle climate change

    AEF launches noise discussion paper ahead of aviation strategy consultation

    AEF responds to Government’s call for evidence on Aviation Strategy

    .


    National Emissions Ceilings Directive (NECD)

    Air pollution travels over long distances, affects human health, degrades buildings and other man-made structures and adversely affects the natural environment through acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone.  The European Community agreed to set emission ceilings through the National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD) to protect its citizens, its man-made structures and its diverse environments.  The revised NECD (2016/2284/EU), which entered into force on 31 December 2016, sets new emission reduction commitments for each Member State for the total emissions of NOx, SOx, NMVOC, NH3 and PM2.5 in 2020 and 2030. The new Directive repeals and replaces Directive 2001/81/EC to ensure that the emission ceilings for 2010 set in that Directive shall continue to apply until 2020.  Member States have to report their emission inventories annually to the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the European Commission in order to monitor progress and verify compliance.  The reporting requirement is closely aligned with those for the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP), which include a common scope of reporting of pollutant inventories and similar reporting timeframe.  Under the revised NECD, each Member State is required to publish by April 2019 a National Air Pollution Control Programme, setting out the measures it will put in place to reduce emissions to meet the 2020 and 2030 emission reduction commitments.

    http://naei.beis.gov.uk/about/why-we-estimate?view=necd

    .

    .


     

    Read more »

    Response by Government to PQ on Heathrow road traffic indicates a 29% increase with a 3rd runway

    In a Parliamentary Question by Andy Slaughter (MP for Hammersmith), he asked the Secretary of State for Transport, “what assessment he has made of the number of (a) light goods vehicles, (b) heavy goods vehicles and (c) private cars that access Heathrow airport on a daily basis.” The reply by Jesse Norman, Minister of State at the DfT, said the figures for goods vehicles come from the Airports Commission [now fairly out of date] and the other figures for highway and public transport trips are from an October 2017 DfT document. Heathrow has often said there would be no more vehicles on the roads with a 3rd runway than currently. But the DfT figures indicate the trips by passengers and employees, by cars and taxis,  would be around 60 million in 2030 with no new runway, and about 77 million in 2030 with a 3rd runway. The numbers would be about 66 million by 2050, with no new runway; and about 85 million with a 3rd runway.  ie. a massive rise of around 29% above the number with no new runway, both in 2030 and in 2050. Mr Norman said, to try to overcome this difficulty,  “it will be for an applicant for development consent for the Heathrow Northwest runway scheme to submit a surface access strategy to the Planning Inspectorate alongside their application.”  He did not answer the question, about the current numbers.
    .

     

     

    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2018-11-09.189624.h&s=Runway#g189624.r0

    Andrew Slaughter Labour, Hammersmith

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the number of (a) light goods vehicles, (b) heavy goods vehicles and (c) private cars that access Heathrow airport on a daily basis.

    Photo of Jesse NormanJesse Norman Minister of State (Department for Transport)

    For goods vehicles, the Department draws upon the Airports Commission’s assessment of road freight numbers as published in their Appraisal Framework Module 4 – Surface Access Freight Impacts Study.

    In October 2017, the Department published within its Updated Appraisal Report: Airport Capacity in the South East, details of the estimated surface access trips for both highway and public transport trips for each of the airport expansion options as inputs to its non-flight carbon assessment.

    Details of the estimates for annual highway trips for the Heathrow Airportoptions are set out in the following table:

    Annual highway trips (car and taxi) by passengers and employees at Heathrow, DfT17 central forecasts (millions)

    Highway vehicle trips
    2026 2030 2040 2050
    No Expansion 57.5 59.4 62.7 66.3
    LHR Extended Northern Runway 67.7 75.2 78.2 82.1
    LHR Northwest Runway 67.7 77.7 80.7 85.5

    Source: Department for TransportTable A.2 Updated Appraisal Report: Airport Capacity in the South East (October 2017)

    As specified in the Airports National Policy Statement, it will be for an applicant for development consent for the Heathrow Northwest runway scheme to submit a surface access strategy to the Planning Inspectorate alongside their application.

    .

    {Note:  this reply does not answer the question, which was about the current numbers. We do not know if the government has proper figures for these.

    If there is no proper current figure for the numbers, it would not be possible to hold Heathrow to a target of not increasing this ….   AW comment]


    See Heathrow’s claim there would be no more airport-related traffic on the roads with a 3rd runway than now

    https://your.heathrow.com/takingbritainfurther/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Transport-Fact-Sheet_FINAL2.pdf


    See earlier:

    Even with 55% of Heathrow passengers using public transport there could be 15 million more passenger trips per year by car by 2040 than now

    The government claims Heathrow can meet air quality standards in future, even with a new runway and 50% more passengers, because it will (among other changes) ensure that there are no more road vehicles than now – and by around 2031 about 55% of passengers would use public transport.  So is that likely? Looking at passengers only, not freight, and the work done by Jacobs for the Airports Commission, it seems that (2012 data) there were about 70 million passengers, about 20 million of whom were transfers (ie. they did not leave the airport). That meant slightly below 50 million passengers travelled to and from the airport, using surface transport. In 2012 about 59% of these travelled by car (ie. about 29.5 million), 41% came by public transport (28% by rail and 13% by bus or coach).  But by 2030 with a new runway, there might be around 110 million passengers, and around 33% would be international transfers. That leaves around 74 million passengers, and if 55% of them use public transport, that means about 34 million using cars. By 2040, the number using cars might be about 45 million (ie. about 15 million more per year than now).  And about 9 million using bus/coach – which is of course also on the roads. There would have to be dramatic increases in electric vehicles and improved engine technology to ensure no higher emissions in the Heathrow area.  And that is not counting freight vehicles. Or staff.  Or other increased vehicle traffic associated with the 3rd runway.    

    http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/even-with-55-of-heathrow-passengers-using-public-transport-there-could-be-15-million-more-passenger-trips-per-year-by-car-by-2040-than-now/

    .

    .

     

     

    Read more »

    Cabbies say Heathrow does not care about air pollution, as they announce sky high taxi electric charging price

    Heathrow has to try and get air pollution levels down, as they are already breaching legal limits. With a 3rd runway, they would only get worse. Heathrow has pledged, and tried to persuade the government, that it will do all it can to keep pollution levels down, and there will be (very, very hard to believe …) “no more” vehicles on the roads round Heathrow, associated with the airport, than now. One of the things Heathrow hopes will help is use of more electric vehicles, lowering local pollution. So one might have thought they would be keen to encourage taxis to use electricity as much as possible, to make their air pollution figures look better. Sure enough, there are now many electric charging points. But belatedly Heathrow has now announced that they will charge a very high price (31p per kW) for this charging. This is far higher than plug-in on street Polar for as little as 0.09p per KW, or even dedicated Transport for London taxi chargers at 22p per KW. Taxi drivers are saying they will not pay the 31p, and will instead use the petrol option on their hybrids for the trip back into London. By contrast, Gatwick has 8 charging points in short stay car parks, with free electricity, and free parking for up to 4 hours for this.
    .

     

    “Heathrow don’t care about lowering emissions” says cabbie as sky high electric charging price announced

    2 Nov 2018 (Taxi point)

    Taxi drivers in London are angry at sky-high electric charging prices announced by Europe’s biggest airport Heathrow.

    The airport have revealed the cost to charge an electric taxis at the feeder park rank will be a whopping 31p per KW.

    Currently it is possible to plug-in on street with competitors Polar for as little as 0.09p per KW. Dedicated Transport for London taxi chargers charge 22p per KW respectively.

    The price now makes Heathrow more expensive than the notoriously inflated motorway fuelling options.

    Cliff Mahoney, a London Taxi driver who has purchased the new LEVC TX electric taxi and works from Heathrow said “Heathrow don’t care about lowering emissions”

    He went on to say “Having know the price for months it appears they have left the announcement to within days of the implementation.

    “This will make it not cost effective to charge these expensive Zero Emissions capable vehicles at the airport whilst going through the taxi feeder park. The general census of opinion is that drivers will not use the chargers at that price. This means that these iconic vehicles will be leaving the airport on range extender petrol engines rather than clean electric they were designed to use.

    “Heathrow say these prices are cost and set by the CAA however Gatwick Airport who seem committed to lowering their emissions offer drivers not only free charging but up to 4 hours free parking.”

    https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/single-post/2018/11/02/%E2%80%9CHeathrow-dont-care-about-lowering-emissions%E2%80%9D-says-cabbie-as-sky-high-charging-price-announced?fbclid=IwAR3YVWr48jiLik3QivyYBI4e_I7MS52e7XhoN2z6Wg6_b6r_6t69X_BacqI

    .


    The Heathrow website on electric charging points (nothing made at all clear) is at

    https://www.heathrow.com/company/community-and-environment/heathrow-2-0/partnerships/clean-vehicles-partnership/taking-action/electric-vehicles/charging-infrastructure

    .

    and on electric vehicles, with application forms etc etc

    https://www.heathrow.com/company/community-and-environment/heathrow-2-0/partnerships/clean-vehicles-partnership/taking-action/electric-vehicles

    There is no mention anywhere of the cost.


    It seems there are some free charging points for electric vehicles in Heathrow short stay car parks, but the parking has to be paid for. No charging points, as far as we can work out, in long stay carparks.  https://www.zap-map.com/pts/0j46o5r/  



    The Gatwick airport website says:

    Gatwick is working towards the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 50% before 2020.

    To help towards our goal and to support greener methods of transport, we’ve installed eight charging points for electric vehicles. All of these are located in our short stay car parks where you can re-charge your vehicle free of charge and stay free for up to four hours*.

    How to use the charging points

    It’s very easy:

    1. Download the POD Point Open Charge app and register for a free account – it only takes a few seconds.
    2. Roll up, take your parking ticket and plug in your vehicle at one of our eight charging points. These are located in car park 3 (orange car park), level 1 in the South Terminal and in car park 5, level 3 in the North Terminal.
    3. Use the Open Charge app to find the correct charging point and confirm your charge within 15 minutes.
    4. Please go to the customer services office before you exit the car park. Show the Open Charge app and your car park ticket then drive away!
    5. You can check live availability of our charging points with POD Point, but no pre-booking is necessary.

    * Parking is only free for four hours, after that time the rate will be charged at the normal hourly rate.

    https://www.gatwickairport.com/parking/other-parking-options/electric-charging-points/


    .

     

     

    Read more »