expanding airport capacity in the uk
TRANSCRIPT
1
Expanding Airport Capacity in the UK
Ian Baldwin
Dec. 2012
2
Abstract
The UKs demand for air travel is continually increasing, with the majority of the
demand coming from London. There is little spare capacity at London airports to deal
with future increases in demand; Heathrow is already operating at 99% capacity.
London needs to either expand one existing airport or construct a new one so that it
becomes a hub airport taking the majority of the demand from London. Heathrow,
Gatwick and Stansted all have the potential to fulfil this role be expanded to three or
four runways, whilst Cliffe is a possible site for an entirely new airport by the Thames
estuary. Noise and air pollution, limited accessibility and cost are all factors that
require consideration when selecting the best solution.
Heathrow’s more urban location and current pedigree as a hub airport make it stand
out as the way forward with one new runway, this is despite the vast amount of noise
pollution it creates. Gatwick would be competing too directly with Heathrow rather
than establish itself as the main London airport. Whilst environmentally better
options, Stansted and Cliffe would both have been much more expensive due to the
large amount of supporting infrastructure required to service them.
3
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 5
2. The Present Situation 6
2.1. Current Demand
2.2. Spare Capacity
2.3. Projected Demand
2.4. The Need for Expansion
2.5. Competition
2.6. The Davies Commission
3. Heathrow 11
3.1. Short Term Capacity Expansion
3.2. A Third Runway
3.3. Costs-Benefits Analysis
3.4. Noise Pollution
3.5. Air Pollution
4. Expanding Gatwick 14
4.1. A No Construction Agreement
4.2. Two Runways at Gatwick
4.3. Three Runways at Gatwick
4.4. Capacity Increases
4.5. Noise Pollution
4.6. Air Pollution
5. Expanding Stansted 18
5.1. Current Spare Capacity
5.2. Two Runways at Stansted
5.3. Four Runways at Stansted
5.4. Capacity Increases
5.5. Pollution
5.6. Accessibility
4
6. The Hoo Peninsula, Cliffe and a Thames Hub 21
6.1. A New London Airport
6.2. Costs-Benefits Analysis
6.3. Capacity Increases
6.4. Noise Pollution
6.5. Accessibility
7. Conclusions 25
5
1. INTRODUCTION
In the UK there is limited airport capacity at most of its major airports, specifically
the ones situated in the London area; Heathrow for one is operating at 99%
capacity. This report aims to evaluate several different options to create enough
capacity to serve the UK until at least 2050, whilst remaining accessible to
students with limited knowledge in the aviation industry.
Chapter two presents the current situation and the need for extra capacity in
deeper and explains the need for a single large ‘hub’ airport. Chapters three to
five, look at several different options for creating more capacity at existing
airports. This is from short term options such as operating Heathrow in ‘mixed-
mode’ to expanding Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted to three or four runways. It
also recognises than a combination of short and long term solutions may need to
be implemented together to keep up with the continual increase in demand.
Chapter six then looks at building an entirely new four runway airport by the
Thames Estuary that would significantly shift focus away from Heathrow.
For the options presented, added capacity; cost; noise and air pollution; land
covered and infrastructure requirements are considered. As this is a literature
review, with no independent research performed, it was not possible to gather
data on all the criteria for each option, thus some comparisons are incomplete. In
the conclusions, the aim is to deliver a final judgement using comparisons that
are available on how the UK should proceed with its aviation policy.
6
2. THE PRESENT SITUATION
2.1. Current Demand
Demand for air travel in the UK has been continually increasing almost without
exception since the end of the Second World War. However, demand peaked
recently, when in 2007 UK airports served a total of 240 million passengers per
annum (mppa) (Civil Aviation Authority - CAA, 2011a). The fall in demand since
can be attributed to the global economic downturn and should not be seen as
indicative of a new trend in the aviation market. In 2011 passenger numbers rose
for the first time since 2007 as the UK saw demand for 219mppa.
Demand for air travel in the UK is not evenly distributed with respect to population
with 134mppa, or 62% of UK’s total passengers, using airports within the London
area (CAA, 2011b). Table 2.1 (Adapted from CAA, 2011b) breaks this down
further, showing Heathrow to be the dominant airport with 69mppa, whilst Figure
2.1 (Adapted from Google, 2012a and Google, 2012b) shows the location of the 5
major London airports, as well as a potentially new site called Cliffe.
Table 2.1: Airport Usage 2011(Adapted from CAA, 2011b)
Airport Passengers (mppa)
Heathrow 69.4
Gatwick 33.6
Stansted 18.0
Luton 9.5
London City 3.0
TOTAL LONDON 133.6
Regional airports 85.7
TOTAL UK 219.3
7
Figure 2.1: Locations of: 1) Heathrow; 2) Gatwick; 3) Stansted; 4) Luton; 5) London City; 6) Cliffe (Adapted from Google, 2012a and Google, 2012b)
2.2. Spare Capacity
As record passenger numbers in 2007 demonstrated, there is obviously spare
capacity within the UK’s aviation industry, but it is limited. For measuring current
annual airport capacity, the number of Air Traffic Movements (ATMs), where one
ATM is a take-off or a landing, is a more suitable metric than the total number of
passengers, as they represent physical limitations of runways (Department for
Transport – DfT, 20011). Unofficial passenger capacity estimates can
unrealistically optimise the number of passengers per ATM by assuming the
largest possible aircraft are used and passenger numbers within each of these
aircraft are maximised. With regards to this metric, if all regional single runway
airports were run to levels comparable to Gatwick, the busiest single runway
airport in the world, the UK has a theoretical annual capacity of 5,790,000 ATMs
(DfT, 2011). This is far greater than the 2,116,000 ATMs recorded in 2011 (CAA,
2011b).
Spare capacity in London is much scarcer, where the 5 major airports ran at an
average 83.2% capacity utilisation in 2009, with the majority of spare capacity at
Stansted, as shown in Figure 2.2 (Greater London Authority – GLA, 2011a: p.35).
4
1
3
5
2
6
8
Capacity at the UKs two busiest airports is almost entirely utilised, with Heathrow
working at 99% of maximum capacity and Gatwick at 95%.
Figure 2.2 Potential for Increasing the Runway Capacity at London’s Airports
(Greater London Authority – GLA, 2011a: p.35).
2.3. Projected Demand
The DfT (2011) has forecasted air travel to return to its pattern of continual
growth as UK and World GDP returns to growth with 345mppa by 2030 and
520mppa by 2050 as their central forecast. A high forecast projects 400mppa by
2030 and 700mppa by 2050, whilst a low forecast projects 305mppa and
400mppa respectively. Even this conservative forecast means an increase in
passenger numbers by 65mppa from the 2007 peak by 2030 and by 160mppa by
the year 2050. From sensitivity tests in the DfT’s forecasting, the low forecast
appears more realistic, with high oil prices and lower relative GDP both
contributing significantly to this.
2.4. The Need For Expansion
Demand at Heathrow has created a market where pairs of landing and take-off
slots are traded for up to £30m (GLA 2011a); yet such markets barely exist at
Stansted or any of the UK’s regional airports, where there are slots readily
available for extra ATMs. This market exists at Heathrow due to extremely high
demand that can be explained for two reasons; it is very well connected to
London and the south east and it takes advantage of its hub airport status (GLA
2011a).
9
Being close to London is a vital factor, as it has a large population to draw from,
which also has a high propensity to fly (GLA 2011a). Furthermore as the
dominant tourist destination in the UK, London is the final destination for 14.2m
people each year, with a further 4.3m visiting the south east of England (Visit
England 2010). For tourists, a land connection from a regional destination is not
viable due to extra costs and additional time spent in transit, making a London
airport the only option.
Hub Airports serve as a stop-off for domestic passengers connecting to a large
number of international destinations as well as for international passengers
merely passing through them. As the UK’s only hub airport, 35% of passengers
passing through Heathrow are transfer passengers who neither start nor end their
air travel at Heathrow (GLA 2011a). To be a successful hub, an airport must
frequently serve a wide variety of long-haul destinations and have good domestic
connectivity which requires such a number of ATMs that is beyond the scope of a
single runway airport (GLA 2011b). So a spare capacity of 3.7m ATMs across
many single runway airports is moot if you look at hub capacity. The current
market for runway slots is indicative of Heathrow’s importance as the UK’s only
hub airport and with passenger demand rising and Heathrow already 99%
capacity, there is a definite need to expand the UK’s hub capacity.
A report by the British Chambers of Commerce (2009) calculated that over 60
years, the total economic benefits to the UK of a 3-runway hub airport with good
connections to London would be between £28.6bn and £32.8bn. These benefits
include direct productivity gains as well as wider economic benefits such as extra
local employment and were calculated on the basis of building a third runway at
Heathrow. Though any changes in this figure if another airport was to be
expanded or if an entirely new hub airport was to be built, were regarded to be
negligible. This would be a substantial addition to the UK’s economy and should
be recognised as such by a government looking for growth in the current
economic climate.
10
2.5. Competition
In Europe other hub airports are posing a real threat to Heathrow’s International
reputation as a hub airport. The GLA (2011b) says Paris CDG, Frankfurt,
Amsterdam and Madrid are all intrinsically more flexible in their operations as
they each have at least 4 runways running at typically 70 – 75% capacity. With
more ATMs available on their extra runways, airlines can experiment more with
routes to less well regarded destinations such as mainland China and South
America that have potential for rapid growth. Furthermore 25% spare capacity
gives much more flexibility in day-to-day running of the airports, to handle delays
more effectively than Heathrow, which has to taxi aeroplanes for up to 40%
longer than its European counterparts (GLA 2011b). If emerging international
airlines establish strong European bases at any of these hubs whilst the UK waits
for extra hub capacity, it could result in permanently lost business for the UK.
2.6 The Davies Commission
On the 2nd November 2012 an Airports Commission, often referred to as the
Davies Commission after its chairman Sir Howard Davies, was announced
(Parliament Publications, 2012). The commission aims to report in 2013 on
immediate actions that can increase capacity where needed for the following five
years, without major construction being undertaken. It will then submit a final
report in 2015, which will make recommendations to the government on its
medium to long term policy on airport infrastructure. With the first report acting as
a stop gap until 2018, it is highly unlikely that any major runway construction will
be undertaken before then.
11
3. Expanding Heathrow
3.1. Short Term Capacity Expansion
In the short term, the DfT (2007) has outlined an opportunity to increase
Heathrow’s capacity without any new construction by altering the way landings
and take-offs are managed. Currently Heathrow operates a ‘segregated-mode’
policy whereby one runway is solely responsible for take-offs and the other for
landings, and the two runways alternate these responsibilities every six hours.
This is done to give local residents predictable periods of less noise pollution. If
the airport were to undertake a ‘mixed-mode’ policy, aircraft could land or take off
from either runway.
Entering mixed-mode operation would raise ATM capacity from 480,000 to
540,000, giving Heathrow an extra 12.5% capacity almost instantaneously. In
terms of passenger numbers, assuming improvements in fleet capacity, this could
translate to 90mppa, an increase of 20.6mppa from 2011 levels. This extra
capacity would only meet about third of the UK increase in passenger numbers
by 2030. So even with regional single runway airports absorbing some of that
requirement, it is perceivable that a new runway would still be required.
3.2 A Third Runway
Looking further ahead, proposals for a third runway at Heathrow are shown in
Figure 3.1 (DfT, 2003a: p.124) as a shorter third runway that runs parallel to the
current two and situated north of the airport. The runway would cover the area
where the town of Sipson and Imperial College’s Harlington Sports Ground are
currently located.
12
Figure 3.1 Heathrow’s New Runway (DfT, 2003a: p.124)
Since 2003 the proposal has altered slightly to extend the length of a new runway
from 2km to 2.5km (DfT, 2007) although local altitude restrictions will limit its
operational length in either direction to 2.2km. The space between the North
Runway and the proposed third runway will need to house a new terminal, T6.
The space to the west of the airport would be required to improve its road links
following the assumed increase in passenger numbers. This extension of
Heathrow would allow it to operate 702,000 ATMs per annum, which could see
up to 135mppa using the airport by 2030 (DfT, 2007). This increase of 68mppa
meets the DfT (2011) low forecast for the UK by itself for 2030 and 40% of extra
demand for 2050, possibly enough if the London market slows.
3.3 Costs-Benefits Analysis
The DfT (2009) estimates that a new runway and terminal at Heathrow would
cost £13.7bn while generating £19.2bn, a net gain of £5.5bn, even though this
figure does not include the wider economic benefits factored into the calculations
by the British Chambers of Commerce. Despite the economic benefits to
expanding Heathrow being well regarded, environmental costs, predominantly
noise and air pollution, have created the majority of the opposition.
13
3.4 Noise Pollution
The DfT (2007) assessed the effects of both mixed-mode operation and a new
Heathrow runway on pollution in the surrounding area. For noise pollution, the
standard metric is the Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq), which is the
average noise level over the 16-hour period between 7am and 11pm. The critical
Leq value at which point a person’s quality of life is adversely affected is deemed
to be 57 decibels (dBA). If mixed-mode operations are introduced 274,000 people
will be exposed to Leq levels greater than 57dBA in 2015, which is 12,100 more
than in segregated-mode forecasts, a definite but not overwhelming increase. By
2030 the mixed mode forecasts drop to around 180,000 people due to
improvements in aircraft technology, meanwhile a third runway would affect
205,700 people at this time. So although a new runway would have 25,000 more
people exposed to high noise levels than otherwise in 2030, there would still be
less people affected by noise pollution than there are now.
3.5 Air Pollution
Air pollution is also seen as a key environmental cost concerning airports, with
carbon dioxide, CO2, and nitrogen dioxide, NO2, being the main pollutants (DfT,
2007). The main effect of CO2 is its contribution to global climate change.
Additional CO2 will be produced as ATMs increase in the UK regardless of where
these ATMs occur, thus any arguments are not Heathrow specific and will not be
looked into further in this section.
Nitrogen dioxide has a more direct impact on personal health and there are EU
directives that control local air quality levels and exposure to NO2 is a key part of
this (DfT, 2007). The critical average exposure value for NO2 is 40µg/m3
according to these directives. In 2002, there were 7,336 properties in an area
where the safe NO2 levels were exceeded. The DfT forecasts, that If Heathrow
stays in segregated-mode this will fall to just 22 properties by 2015, whereas if
mixed-mode is adopted there will be 27 properties above the critical 40µg/m3
concentration. By 2020, it is predicted that greater fuel efficiency in both
aeroplanes and road traffic will mean that even with a third runway, Heathrow will
not significantly affect the air quality of any properties within its vicinity.
14
4. Expanding Gatwick
4.1 A No Construction Agreement
Before considering what the expansion options are for Gatwick, it must be taken
into account that in 1979 BAA had a legally binding agreement with West Sussex
county council not to build a second runway before 2019 (DfT, 2003a). With this
in mind, the DfT (2003b) originally omitted the option of a new runway at Gatwick
from a public consultation as 2019 was too far ahead to plan for, with expansion
needed beforehand. As there have not been any major developments since then
and the recent announcement of the Davies Commission appears to delay
construction anywhere until at least 2018, Gatwick can again be considered.
4.2 Two Runways at Gatwick
The DfT’s (2003a) primary proposal for Gatwick, as indicated by Figure 4.1 (DfT
2003a: p.127), is for one extra runway only; it would be a full length runway which
would run parallel to the existing one. As it is 1km to the south of the current
runway, it would allow both runways to operate fully. With aircraft stands being
relocated to be between the two runways taxiing time for the southern runway
could decrease. In total 300 homes would be lost due to construction in areas
both north and south of the airport.
Figure 3.2 Gatwick New Runway (DfT 2003a: p.127)
15
4.3 Three Runways at Gatwick
Another proposal was put forward in a public consultation (DfT 2003b), that would
see three full-length runways at Gatwick as shown in Figure 4.2 (DfT2003b:
p.66). This would allow it to act better as a hub airport than the two runway option
that could still need support with capacity increases elsewhere. One of the two
new runways is the same one put forward in the single runway addition; the other
would be nearly 3km north of the current runway. Three runways in this format
would lead to 430 homes being demolished, a number that is not considerably
more than having just two runways.
Figure 4.2 Gatwick Layout Two New Runways (DfT2003b: p.66)
4.4 Capacity Increases
Both proposals will greatly increase Gatwick’s current capacity of 40mppa and
260,000 ATMs (DfT, 2003b). A second runway would expand capacity to 83mppa
and 486,000 ATMs and a third runway would lead to a capacity of 115mppa and
16
675,000 ATMs, these numbers represent expansions of 43mppa and 75mppa
respectively. With one extra runway, Gatwick would be able to serve the majority
of the low passenger forecast for 2030 and it could be assumed that regional
airports would take the rest of the extra 65mppa by utilising their spare capacity
and maintaining their share of the UK market. However the UK would then be in a
situation of two hub airports running at full capacity whilst struggling to serve
emerging destinations adequately. It would also still need to plan for demand
beyond the 2030 time frame. A three runway Gatwick would be able to
accommodate almost half of the UK’s extra demand to 2050 and it would be
much more competitive as a hub airport in Europe than Heathrow will be without
expansion. In this situation, by 2050, regional airports as well as other London
airports, mainly Stansted and Luton, will be able to utilise their spare capacity to
make up the rest of the demand.
4.5 Noise Pollution
The DfT (2003b) consultation also made predictions for noise and air pollution
resulting from each of proposals. Noise pollution from Gatwick will increase
substantially under both proposals, from the 4,000 people already experiencing
Leq levels greater than 57 dBA (DfT, 2003b). With a second runway, it is
predicted in 2030 a total of 23,000 people will be adversely affected by noise
pollution, whilst a third runway would affect 31,000 people. As mentioned
previously, Heathrow will be affect 180,000 in 2030 even without expanding, so
although any extra pollution has a negative effect on the environment it is not
great in this context. Furthermore, the 27,000 new people affected by two new
runways at Gatwick is only marginally greater than the 25,700 further people
affect by one new small runway at Heathrow, but they will provide more new
capacity.
4.6 Air Pollution
While the DfT was fairly consistent with noise pollution predictions for Heathrow
between 2003 and predictions from a later consultation (DfT, 2007), nitrogen
17
dioxide predictions for Heathrow have changed drastically for between these two
papers. The DfT (2003b) predicted 14,000 people would be exposed to unsafe
levels of NO2 by 2015, though as stated earlier, that number has since been
revised down to a maximum of 27 people. Furthermore, monitoring by Reigate
and Banstead Borough Council & Gatwick Airport Ltd (2011) has not record an
N02 level of 40µg/m3 at any of their monitoring sites since 2007. Thus models
from the DfT (2003b) that predicted 600 people near Gatwick would be exposed
to this level of NO2 in 2015 without construction and the models of the two
proposals must be disregarded. As such the air pollutant effects of two or three
runways at Gatwick are beyond the scope of this report.
18
5. Expanding Stansted
5.1 Current Spare Capacity
In 2008, authorities allowed Stansted to expand operations by permitting it to
perform 264,000 ATMs per year on its single runway (GLA, 2011a); it was
previously legislated to only perform 185,000 ATMs (DfT, 2003a). With these
extra ATMs Stansted has a maximum passenger capacity of 35mppa (GLA,
2011a) but as Table 2.1 (Adapted from CAA, 2011b) shows, only 18mppa used
Stansted in 2011. Full utilisation of this spare capacity is likely to happen in the
run up to 2030 as UK-wide demand rises. It may however prove to be very useful
in the period to 2018 whilst waiting for the recommendations of the Davies
Commission to be acted upon.
5.2 Two Runways at Stansted
The main proposal for a new runway at Stansted, as shown in Figure 5.1 (DfT,
2003a: p.117), is for it to be 2,450m long and run parallel 3km to the east of the
current runway (DfT, 2003b). In this scenario around 100 homes would be
demolished to make way for the expansion and 700ha of farmland would be
paved over.
Figure 5.1: Stansted One New Runway (DfT, 2003a: p.117)
19
5.3 Four Runways at Stansted
Meanwhile another proposal, as shown in Figure 5.2 (DfT, 2003b: p.80), is to
make Stansted into a four runway hub airport, whereby two extra runways are
each placed a few hundred metres apart from a runway from the first proposal.
The extra land required for these runways would be result in a further 100 homes
and a further 500ha of farmland on top of the losses incurred from the second
runway (DfT, 2003b).
Figure 5.2: Stansted Layout Three New Runways (DfT, 2003b: p.80)
5.4 Capacity Increases
In terms of passenger numbers these developments will have broadly similar
results as the two Gatwick proposals (DfT, 2003b). One new runway would
increse maximum capacity at stansted from 35mppa to 82mppa; compare
Gatwick’s 83mppa. Four runways at Stansted in this two plus two formation
20
would raise capacity to 129mppa across 756,000 ATMs, 14mppa more than
Gatwick would achieve with three runways, yet less than Heathrow would
achieve with three longer, more spaced out runways. This represents an increase
in capacity of 94mppa at Stansted, which is more than the entire UK demand in
the low forcecast for 2030 and 59% of the low forecast for 2050, enough to cover
London’s proportion, leaving regional airports to continue their expansion. For a
four runway hub airport to suceed at Stansted, a major carrier or alliance would
have to establish a main base there, probably moving from Heathrow.
5.5 Pollution
The DfT (2003b) forecasts that if the single runway were to run at maximum
capacity, 5,000 people would be subject to noise Leq levels greater than 57dBA.
Two runways by 2030 would disrupt 14,000 people and four would disrupt 28,000
people with high average noise levels. This is 3,000 people less than a three
runway Gatwick would disrupt, despite its extra capacity. As the NO2 predictions
from the consultation by the DfT (2003b) have since been shown to be unreliable
for Heathrow and Gatwick, they will also be disregarded for Stansted and as
such, NO2 predictios for Stansted are beyind the scope of this report.
5.6 Accessibility
Whilst being in a sparsely populated area has its benefits in reducing disruption
from noise, it means Stansted is relatively poorly connected to road and rail
infrastructure (DfT, 2003b). If it were to become a hub aiport, extra rail lines
would need to be laid northwards to Cambridge and the midlands and eastwards
to Ipswich. Rail Services to London would need to increase capacity dramatically
too, possibly by creating a link to Crossrail from Stratford, this could also serve to
reduce travelling time as well. The consultation (DfT, 2003b) also revealed
several sections of the M11 and the M25 would need widening along with local A-
roads.
21
6. The Hoo Peninsula, Cliffe and a Thames Hub
6.1 A New London Airport
Instead of adapting existing airports, there has been talk of building new airport
on the Hoo Peninsula in the Thames estuary, ever since Cliffe Marshes was
proposed in 1967 (Commission on the Third London Airport, 1971). Recently
(DfT, 2003b) a four runway airport, with a fifth non-parallel runway for use in
crosswinds, was proposed at Cliffe, as shown in Figure 6.1 (DfT, 2003b: p.100).
Figure 6.1: Cliffe Layout (DfT, 2003b: p.100)
Since then Foster + Partners et al. (2011), have designed a four runway hub, with
an integrated high speed rail line, further east along the Hoo Peninsula at the Isle
of Grain. There would be some additional land reclamation from the Thames
Estuary and this design is displayed in Figure 6.2 (Foster + Partners et al. 2011:
p.19). This design is predominantly in this report to add completeness, because
22
the Mayor of London Boris Johnson backs it in principle, but information on costs,
benefits, capacity and noise and air pollution all come from this group of
commercial partners who have a vested interest in the project. Therefore the
focus of this section will be on an airport at Cliffe.
Figure 6.2: Isle of Grain Layout (Foster + Partners et al. 2011: p.19)
6.2 Costs-Benefits Analysis
A costs-benefits analysis of several possible airports was undertaken by Halcrow
(2003) for a DfT consultation, it calculated the airport would cost £13.9bn,
approximately £18bn now after adjusting for inflation. This is not much more than
the cost of one new runway and terminal at Heathrow and so this number is
being taken with caution. Although there is still room for this cost to increase and
stay below the benefits of £28.6bn that the British Chambers of Commerce
(2009) outline for a hub airport near London.
23
6.3 Capacity Increases
Capacity forecasts by the DfT (2003b) are made not only for the final four runway
option but also an intermediate option whereby two runways are opened first,
whilst construction continues on the next two. With two runways in operation,
Cliffe would have a maximum capacity of 77mppa, all of which would be new
capacity to the UK. It would meet all extra demand for the low forecast up to
2030, and half of the capacity needed up to 2050. By the time all four runways
are complete, maximum capacity would be 113mppa. This is less than maximum
capacity for three runways at Heathrow, three at Gatwick or four at Stansted, but
it generates the most new capacity. Its new capacity is more than 70% of the low
forecast of extra demand to 2050. With this situation, it would either be operating
with spare capacity, making it better at responding to delays and peak demand or
it would take sole responsibilty as a major hub airport for the UK, taking long-haul
demand away from both Heathrow and Gatwick (DfT, 2003b). If the construction
became stuck in limbo after only two runways were constructed, London would
be in a sub-optimal situation where it had two limited hubs operating at either end
of the city.
6.4 Nosie Pollution
The primary benefit of an airport in the estuary is that aeroplanes would be
approaching and taking off over water, limiting the effects of noise pollution to the
population. At full capacity only 14,000 people would be exposed to Leq levels
greater than 57dBA (DfT, 2003b). This is half the amount of people four runways
at Stansted would disrupt, which would be the best place to expand an existing
airport in terms of noise pollution. Additionally, if this four runway hub reduces
demand at Heathrow, this is likely to significantly increase the quality of life for
the 262,000 people who are negatively affected by Heathrow’s high noise levels.
6.5 Accessibility
For a new airport at Cliffe to be viable, there must be new rail and road
infrastructure to make it accessible (DfT, 2003b). Rail access would probably
24
involve a combination of upgrading existing freight lines and connecting the
airport with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link - CTRL to St. Pancras. Halcrow (2003)
estimate this connection could cost in the region of £3.3bn in addition to the cost
of the airport. This link would vastly increase demand at St. Pancras and may
have a knock on effect to domestic services currently using it (DfT, 2003b). For
road access, the DfT (2003b) envisage the need for two new river crossings to
supersede the M25 crossing at Dartford, along with the expansion of many A-
roads on both sides of river to match.
25
7. Conclusions
Demand for air travel in the UK is almost permanently increasing, and the
majority of the demand comes from the London area. In London there is a
shortage of spare capacity, and it needs to addressed by consolidating supply at
a hub airport that can serve more passengers more frequently
In the short term, there are two available options, one is to expand capcity at
Heathrow by turning to mixed-mode operations, which would allow 60,000 extra
ATMs per annum. The other would be to leave Heathrow as it is and let Stansted
make use of its 79,000 free ATMs. Allowing Heathrow to change to mixed-mode
will help it further improve its position as a leading hub airport until the Davies
Commission recommends a coherent long-term plan. Also, increasing
Heathrow’s capacity will not prevent Stansted’s free capacity from being available
to use.
If Gatwick, Stansted or Cliffe become two runway airports, demand will be met up
until 2030, but not much further. Also London will have two hub airports
constrained in the number of destinations they can serve and also running at or
near full capacity, hampering their ability to operate as efficiently as their
European counterparts at Paris, Frankfurt and Schipol.
All four cases at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Cliffe that involve creating a
dominant three or four runway hub will have adequate supply to meet the DfT’s
low forecast until at least 2050. Heathrow’s case for being London’s main hub
airport, taking on a third runway is that it is an already established hub airport,
with proven excess demand for its ATM slots which can sell for up to £30m per
pair. Of all the options, an expanded Heathrow would be the largest single hub.
The main negative associated with Heathrow is that it is in a very densely
populated area and already 262,000 people are affected by noise pollution from
it.
Three runways at Gatwick would make it a larger, more competitive hub airport
than Heathrow, Although Heathrow would continue to act as a hub. The increase
26
in the number of people affected by noise pollution by an expanded Gatwick is
comparable to that of Heathrow. On balance this makes consolidating Heathrow
a more desirable proposition as it would be a larger hub after expansion
Four runways at Stansted would increase its passenger capacity by 94mppa. If it
was to fill this, a major airline or alliance would probably have to move from
Heathrow, this would be beneficial in reducing demand and thus noise pollution
there. 23,000 more people in the Stansted area would be affected by noise
pollution, though similar to Gatwick, Stansted would balance this by alleviating
demand at Heathrow. A separate environmental factor to consider is that
Stansted would cover 1200ha of farmland. To become as accessible as
passenger demand would require, major road and rail infrastructure would have
to be put in place, inflating the cost of expansion for Stansted. This makes
expanding Heathrow an easier option as it already has the infrastructure in place,
while the net environmental advantage of Stansted is not clear cut.
An entirely new airport at Cliffe would be by far the most expensive option of
them all as it is a new site and it would also require a lot of new supporting
infrastructure to get passengers to and from the airport. In its favour, it would
create the most new capacity creating the most operational flexibility of all the
options and it would alleviate Heathrow most of its hub role. This contributes to its
claim as the best option environmentally as it will significantly reduce noise
pollution in the Heathrow area, whilst only generating low levels of noise pollution
at Cliffe.
On value, a third runway at Heathrow seems to be the best option, despite high
levels of noise pollution, as it has enough supporting infrastructure already in
place and it requires the least construction. Both of these factors keep costs
considerably lower than at Stansted or Cliffe. Also it would perform better as one
large hub than in tandem with a three runway Gatwick.
27
Reference List
British Chambers of Commerce (2009) Economic Impacts of Hub Airports. [Online] Available from:
http://www.britishchambers.org.uk/assets/downloads/policy_reports/BCC_Economic_Impacts_of_Hub
_Airports.pdf
Civil Aviation Authority (2011a) Main Outputs of Reporting Airports 1986 – 2011. [Online] Available
from:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_data/2011Annual/Table_02_1_Main_Outputs_Of_UK_Airports_
2011.pdf
Civil Aviation Authority (2011b) Summary of Activity at Reporting Airports 2011. [Online] Available
from:
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_data/2011Annual/Table_02_2_Summary_Of_Activity_at_UK_Air
ports_2011.pdf
Commission on the Third London Airport (1971) Report. London, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.
Department for Transport (2003a) The Future of Air Transport. London, TSO.
Department for Transport (2003b) The Future Development of Air Transport in the UK: South East
Consultation Document, 2nd
Edition. [Online] Available from:
http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20080306210435/http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2
002/fd/see/mc/thefuturedevelopmentofairtra1547
Department for Transport (2007) Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport: Consultation Document
[Online] Available from:
http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20080305120253/http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/165220/302152
/completecondoc.pdf
Department for Transport (2009) Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport: Impact Assessment. [Online]
Available from:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100512220056/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/heathro
wconsultations/heathrowdecision/impactassessment/ia.pdf
Department for Transport (2011) UK Aviation Forecasts. [Online] Available from:
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/uk-aviation-forecasts-2011/uk-aviation-forecasts.pdf
Foster + Partners, Halcrow & Volterra Partners (2011) Thames Hub: An Integrated Vision for Britain.
[Online] Available from: http://www.fosterandpartners.com/ThamesHub/PDF/Thames_Hub_vision.pdf
Greater London Authority (2011a) A New Airport for London – Part 1.[Online] Available from:
http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/AnewairportforLondon_part1.pdf
28
Greater London Authority (2011b) A New Airport for London – Part 2 [Online] Available from:
http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Anewairportforlondon_part2.pdf
Google (2012a) Map of the UK [Online] Available from: http://goo.gl/maps/qiC11
Google (2012b) Map of London and the South East [Online] Available from:
http://goo.gl/maps/THW6v
Reigate and Banstead Borough Council & Gatwick Airport Ltd (2011) Air Quality Monitoring [Online]
Available from: http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/ds/cttee/gat/gat280711i10.pdf
Parliament Publications (2012) Written Ministerial Statements: Airports Commission: Friday 2
November 2012 [Online] Available from:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121102/wmstext/121102m0001.htm
#12110251000012
Visit England (2010) London Tourism Statistics – Key Facts [Online] Available from:
http://www.visitengland.org/Images/London%20Tourism%20Factsheetlisaedits2_tcm30-18381.pdf