Briefing: Government consultation on Heathrow expansion proposals

1. Introduction

1.1 This briefing note summarises the current operations at Heathrow and the
Governments expansion proposals for Heathrow. 5 key issues for
consideration are identified, including: economic benefits, noise, public
transport, traffic and safety. Concerns about the Governments proposals and
how they might have detrimental local impacts are highlighted.


2. Current Operations at Heathrow

2.1 Heathrow operates with 2 runways and 4 terminals - T5 is due to open
March. In 2006 there were 477,000 aircraft movements which is just less than
the 480,000 movement limit that was imposed as part of the T5 planning
permission. In the same year, there were 67 million passengers, most of
whom used the airport to connect between flights (34%). Of the remaining
passengers, 27% travelled on business; 22% were visiting family/friends and
18% were on holiday.

2.2 There is an average of about 1,300 aircraft movements every day.
Currently the 1
st
arrival is scheduled for 4.50 am and 1
st
departure 6.00 am.
The last arrival is scheduled for 11.05 pm and last departure for 10.30 pm.
Due to favourable weather conditions or delays, flights can sometimes arrive
earlier or depart later than they are scheduled to. This means that people may
notice aircraft flying outside of these times.


3. Current Runway Use

3.1 For operational reasons, aircraft take off and land into the wind. At
Heathrow the wind mostly blows from the west/south west, meaning that
planes usually fly over London and LBHF when landing. This is referred to as
westerly operations or westerlies. A system of westerly preference is also
operated at the airport which means even in low easterly winds, aircraft will
continue to operate as if there is a westerly wind (to limit departures to the
east). On average through a typical year, aircraft fly over LBHF to land at
Heathrow about 75% of the time (although it varies from month to month /
year to year).

3.2 For the rest of the time (25%) aircraft land at the airport by making their
final approach from the west and fly over the Windsor area. This is referred to
as easterly operations or easterlies.

3.3 Normally 1 runway is used for arrivals and the other for departures,
keeping operations separate this is sometimes referred to as segregated
mode.

3.4 When there is a westerly wind or westerly preference is in use and aircraft
are flying over London on their final approach to Heathrow, runway use is also
alternated so that from 6.00 am to 3.00 pm, one runway is used for landing
aircraft and the other for departures. At 3.00 pm, the runway usage alternates
so that the arrivals runway is used for departures and the departures runway
is used for arrivals. This remains in place until the last flight of the evening.

3.5 Diagram 1 illustrates how the runways are normally used with 1 runway
used for landings (in this case the northern runway) and 1 used for departures
(southern runway).

Diagram 1 Current Runway Use


Usual wind direction



4. The Governments proposals for expansion

4.1 The Government is currently consulting on its proposals to expand
Heathrow airport, including a 3
rd
runway, a 6
th
Terminal and the increased use
of the existing 2 runways. If implemented in full, the proposals would increase
Heathrows capacity to 122 million passengers and 702,000 flights a year by
2030. This represents an increase of 80% on current passenger numbers and
a 47% increase in the number of flights.

4.2 When it initially looked at the possibilities of expanding airport capacity in
London and the South East in the 2003 Aviation White Paper, the
Government said it would only expand Heathrow if it could meet noise and air
quality targets.

4.3 Although the planned expansion is the equivalent of building a new airport
the size of Gatwick next door to Heathrow, the Government says that
expansion is possible without causing unacceptable environmental impacts.


5. Expansion Proposal: Use of Mixed Mode

5.1 Before a 3
rd
runway is built, capacity at Heathrow could be increased by
greater use of the existing 2 runways by introducing mixed mode. This is
where instead of only using 1 runway at a time for arrivals and departures as
is the case at the moment (most of the time), both runways would be used at
the same time for landings and take-offs.

5.2 There are 3 options for introducing mixed mode: (1) introduce full mixed
mode, all day, every day to provide capacity for an extra 60,000 movements a
year to a total of 540,000; (2) introduce partial mixed mode for certain hours of
the day e.g. 6am to midday to increase capacity but not to the same level as
full mixed mode; (3) introduce mixed mode without increasing the 480,000
movement limit in order to allow some additional movements at peak hours.
This final option would also allow increased use of the runways in the event of
recovering from delays caused by bad weather etc.

5.3 Diagram 2 shows how the runways would be used in a system of mixed
mode. Instead of keeping departures and arrivals on separate runways, both
runways would be used for departing and arriving aircraft. Mixed mode on 2
runways is a new concept for UK airspace, but it is in use at other airports
around the world, including Sydney, Dallas and Atlanta.

Diagram 2 Mixed mode



5.4 The National Air Traffic Services have assessed the options and say that
it is feasible to introduce mixed mode safely and the Civil Aviation Authority
considers mixed mode as acceptable in principle. However, more work would
be required on the departure routes and arrivals procedures before any mixed
mode option could be implemented.


6. Expansion Proposal: 3
rd
Runway and 6
th
Terminal

6.1 The main proposal by the government is the construction of a 3
rd
runway
and 6
th
terminal to the north of the existing airport boundary. The new runway
will be 2,500m (1.6 miles) in length, shorter than the existing 2 runways but
still capable of handling a range of aircraft types, though not the largest (A380
/ B747). The new runway would be used for both landings and take-offs
(mixed mode).

6.2 Terminal 6 would cater for about 35 million passengers a year (a similar
capacity to T5). Transport links would be extended to the new terminal
building, although a detailed surface access strategy has not been developed
as part of the consultation this would be for BAA to develop at a later date.

6.3 The Government has set air quality and noise targets that any expansion
plans would have to comply with. These targets mean that a 3
rd
runway and
6
th
terminal could be added by 2020, but operated at less than full capacity to
begin with (605,000 movements) to stay within the air quality and noise limits.
By 2030, the airport could have a capacity of 702,000 aircraft movements and
122 million passengers a year.

6.4 The costs associated with building new infrastructure and environmental
impacts are expected to be about 13 billion. The benefits in terms of reduced
travel costs, improved services for passengers and other areas such as
Government tax benefits from Air Passenger Duty are expected to be in the
region of 18 billion. Therefore, the Governments assessment is that a 3
rd

runway and 6
th
terminal would provide a total net benefit of about 5 billion to
the UK economy for the period 2010-2080.


7. Key Issues and Concerns

Issue: Economic benefits
7.1 The consultation document explains the importance of aviation to the UK
economy with Heathrow acting as the main gateway to the global economy.
The airport supports significant benefits in terms of jobs and access to
overseas markets for British exports as well as encouraging international
business investment in the UK.

7.2 The Government is concerned that Heathrows runways are now full and
that the number of routes it serves is shrinking. If capacity is not increased
there will be fewer routes and delays will get worse. Other European airports
are able to offer more runways and more destinations and the Government
says that if we do not try to compete with airports such as Amsterdam
Schipol, this will damage UK interests.

Concerns
7.3 The Governments main argument for expansion is mainly based on the
benefits it would bring to businesses and the UK economy. The economic
studies which the Government relies on have, in most cases, been paid for by
the aviation industry and there is concern that the economic benefits of
expansion have been over-stated.

7.4Expanding Heathrow might make good business sense for BAA, but that is
not the same as being good for the London or UK economy. For example, a
large proportion of passengers using the airport - 34% - are transferring from
one flight to another, making a limited contribution to the local economy as
they never leave the airport.

7.5 There are also concerns that the true climate change and other
environmental impact costs have been underestimated and if these costs
increase significantly, this reduces the Governments economic justification
for expansion. A full independent study of the costs and benefits should be
carried out.


Issue: Noise
7.6 The consultation document states that levels of aircraft noise have been
steadily reducing at Heathrow over time as aircraft designs have improved
and more modern aircraft have replaced older models. In the 2003 Aviation
White Paper, the noise impacts at Heathrow were identified as one of the
main issues that would need to be dealt with if expansion was to go ahead.

7.7 The Government measures the impact of aircraft noise by setting an
average noise level (57 decibels (dB)) which it considers to be the level above
which people begin to get annoyed by aircraft noise. If the area around
Heathrow where aircraft noise levels were 57dB or higher could be limited to
127km
2
(the 2002 impact), then this was deemed by the Government to be an
acceptable condition to limit the noise impacts of any future expansion.
(Further details on how aircraft noise is measured is provided in the
Appendix).

7.8 The Governments noise impact assessments for the proposed
expansion, both through the use of mixed mode and a 3
rd
runway, show that
the capacity can be increased in stages up to 702,000 aircraft movements a
year by 2030 without increasing the area affected by the 57dB average noise
levels beyond the 127 km
2
limit.

Concerns
7.9 Aircraft noise is one of the main local impacts for LBHF. Increasing the
capacity on the existing runways and building a 3rd runway will allow annual
aircraft movements to grow by more than 200,000 by 2030. There will be
increased numbers of arrivals over Fulham, a new arrivals flightpath over
Hammersmith as shown in Diagram 3 and new departure flight paths over
Shepherd's Bush.

Diagram 3 New Arrivals Flightpath for the 3
rd
Runway



7.10 Currently, LBHF is more affected by noise from landing aircraft on their
final approach to the airport than departing aircraft. This is mainly due to the
fact that landing aircraft are at heights of around 2,500ft as they pass over the
borough, a lower altitude than aircraft on their departure track 10 miles from
the airport. Complaints about aircraft noise in LBHF are not limited to
residents living in the area affected by 57dB or higher levels of aircraft noise
and it is clear that people are affected by lower levels of noise such as 50-
54dB. The Government recently published a report showing that people are
disturbed at lower levels, but they intend to stick with the 57dB levels as the
indicator of when people are disturbed.

7.11 It is also clear that the number of times someone is being overflown by
aircraft, even if they might be less noisy than the aircraft of 20 years ago, is a
significant factor. The Governments method of limiting the impact of aircraft
noise takes no account of the contribution that the number of flights has in
creating annoyance. Further details on how the Government measures the
impacts of aircraft noise and why it causes concern are provided in the
Appendix.

7.12 A number of mitigation measures are in use at Heathrow to try to reduce
the impact of noise from aircraft movements. One of the main measures is the
system of runway alternation which provides some relief from aircraft noise to
those living under the landing flightpaths, including LBHF residents. Normally,
1 runway is used for landings and the other for departures for the 1
st
part of
the day and this is switched at 3pm. For example, if the northern runway is
being used for landings and the southern runway for departures, at 3pm the
runways alternate and for the rest of the day the northern runway is used for
departures and the southern runway for landings. This has the effect of
providing periods of predictable relief for people living under or close to the
arrivals flight paths. There is also a weekly alternation so that people being
overflown in the mornings one week will have aircraft overhead in the
afternoon/evenings the next week, and so on. Removing runway alternation
and implementing more intensive use of the runways through the introduction
of mixed mode would have the detrimental effect of increasing the number of
flights overhead and reducing the period of relief from aircraft noise.

7.13 Although the consultation document stresses that the current night flights
restrictions will continue to 2012, there are concerns that extra capacity could
be created beyond this date on the existing runways by allowing more night
flights between 11.30pm and 6.00am. Some airports enforce stricter curfews
during the night time period, but adding a 3
rd
runway could provide the
opportunity to increase movements at night on the new runway. Night flights
are particularly disturbing when there are very early arrivals between 4.30
5.00am. Night flights should be phased out, not expanded and if the 3
rd

runway goes ahead, using its extra capacity to move existing nightflights to
the daytime should be properly assessed.


Issue: Public Transport
7.14 Improving public transport access to the airport was a key issue
identified in the 2003 Aviation White Paper when expanding Heathrow was
first proposed. The consultation document has looked at how demand for
public transport services will be affected by increasing capacity at Heathrow
and concludes that there is potential to meet the additional demand.

7.15 The Government expects the current rail services provided by Heathrow
Express and Heathrow Connect to be improved by the introduction of
Crossrail services and also a new AirTrack train service improving access
from the south of the airport, with direct links to Reading, Guildford and
London Waterloo. Piccadilly line services are also expected to increase their
frequency and long distance coach and local bus services are expected to
grow to provide improved services. Although Crossrail will run through the
north of Hammersmith and Fulham, along the existing Great Western Main
Line, there are currently no plans for a station in the borough or interchange
with the West London Line, for which the council is lobbying.

Concerns
7.16 The Governments expansion plans are expected to almost double the
number of passengers using Heathrow from 67 million a year to 122 million.
Although the assessment of potential demand against potential capacity on
the various train services appears to show that the services could cope with
the additional passengers expected to use their services, the assessment for
the underground services is of concern.

7.17 The pressures on the underground service are well documented. There
is already a lack of capacity and overcrowding on public transport, particularly
on the District and Piccadilly lines which are key services for the borough.
The Mayor of London expects a 50% growth in demand for underground
services up to 2020, yet the PPP improvements programme anticipates
delivery of only 25% increase in capacity on the Piccadilly line by the end of
2014. At the busiest hours, demand for travel into Heathrow on the tube is
expected to increase 3-fold and for travel out of the airport it is expected to
increase 4-fold. If public transport capacity is not improved significantly,
residents could find that overcrowding will get worse, particularly at peak
times. Additional rail services such as Crossrail will add capacity for
passengers travelling to/from the airport, but this will need to be shared with
other users and LBHF residents are unlikely to benefit if these new services
pass through the borough without connecting with local stations.


Issue: Traffic
7.18 The consultation document does not identify the need for any special
measures to manage down road traffic or mitigate vehicle emissions,
although road traffic conditions in terms of vehicle numbers and speeds would
be affected by increasing Heathrows capacity.

7.19 In the 2003 Aviation White Paper, pollution levels were identified as one
of the main constraints on early expansion at Heathrow as it was thought that
EU limit values for one pollutant in particular - nitrogen dioxide (NO2) would
be breached over large areas at Heathrow in the target year of 2010 and
beyond.

7.20 The Governements air quality predictions conclude that pollution levels
are falling and will continue in a downward trend until they meet the EU Limit
value target in the 2015-2020 period. The improvements will be brought about
by lower emissions from road traffic and the improved environmental
perfomance of new aircraft.

Concerns
7.21 The consultation document acknowledges that existing travel patterns
are not sustainable in the long term, but doubling the passenger capacity
at Heathrow could have the effect of generating double the number of road
users at the airport. This will inevitably put pressure on the road network
around Heathrow and further afield. Even if there is a future shift towards
public transport for journeys to/from Heathrow, the large increase in
passenger capacity at the airport will still mean a significant increase in
vehicles on the road network.

7.22 Congestion levels on the borough's main roads, including the A4, are
already high and pollution levels exceed air quality targets without
encouraging large-scale growth in road traffic. Local authorities in west
London are working together to try to reduce emissions and improve air
quality, but plans to expand Heathrow will severely affect the effectiveness of
local and regional measures. The lack of consideration given to the impact on
the road network in west London is a serious omission for the consultation
document.


Issue: Safety
7.23 Air traffic control issues have been assessed to some extent in the
consultation document, focussing on how mixed mode could be introduced on
the existing runways and how a 3 runway airport could operate safely. The
airspace within the London area would require a significant re-design to
accommodate growth in traffic at Heathrow and other airports in the south
east.

7.24 The assessment by the National Air Traffic Services shows that the
expansion plans are operationally feasible and acceptable in principle to the
Civil Aviation Authority. However, further detailed design work would be
needed before any of the planned changes could be implemented.

Concerns
7.25 Take-offs and landings are the most dangerous phases of aircraft
operations. London already has some of the busiest and most complex
airspace in the world with landing and departure routes for 5 major airports in
the London region (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and City airport) as
well as overflying aircraft crossing in all directions and levels. Not only is the
airspace busy and complex, but it is above the most densely populated region
in the UK.

7.26 Increasing the number of flight paths into/out of Heathrow, as well as
increasing the number of aircraft flying over densely populated areas will
increase the risk of an accident happening in London airspace, with
potentially serious consequences for people on the ground. This could also
be the case if aircraft were targeted in a terrorist attack.



Appendix: Aircraft Noise

How the Government measures aircraft noise

There are 2 main concerns with the way the Government measures the
impact of aircraft noise at Heathrow: (i) the method of averaging aircraft
noise over long periods and (ii) the level they set as the point at which
detrimental impacts are felt by people under the flightpaths.

(i) The Governments main method for measuring and presenting the impact
of aircraft noise is the Leq system. Leq is a shorthand way of referring to
average sound levels. This is a useful method of measuring the impact of a
continuous or almost continuous noise source, but aircraft noise is made up
of a series of separate events and is not well suited to this form of
measurement.




The graph shows the noise levels of arriving aircraft as they fly over west
London from 6.00 to 7.00 am. Most of the aircraft cause individual peaks in
noise levels of around 70-75dB, but this is not a constant level as the noise
level builds up as the aircraft approaches and then dies away as its distance
from the monitoring point increases. The Leq method of measurement
averages out all of the noisiest events over the 1 hour period, providing an
average noise reading of just over 61dB, compared to actual maximum
noise levels of around 75dB.

Noise levels and annoyance

(ii) The Government considers that the 57dB contour shows the area where
people begin to get annoyed with aircraft noise, but the Governments own
research has recently suggested that lower levels of aircraft noise, as
measured by the Leq method, disturb people, perhaps even as low as 50dB
levels. The consultation document does not provide a map of the area
covered by a 50dB contour, but the 54dB contour map provides some idea
of how much of the borough is just outside the Government defined area of
impact.

Complaints to the council about aircraft noise are not restricted to the
streets covered by the 57dB contour, but come from residents across
Fulham, suggesting that the 54dB map may provide a better indication of
where people might be disturbed by aircraft noise.

To help place the noise levels in context, a decibel chart (up to 100 dB) is
shown below.


Activity
Noise
(dB)
Typical Physical Response
J et takeoff @ 500m
Train horn @ 30m
100
Can damage hearing after 2hrs
exposure per day
Busy city street
Lawn mower
90
Very annoying. 8hrs exposure
per day can damage hearing
Busy road junction
Construction site
80 Annoying
Roadside traffic
Train horn @ 500m
Noisy restaurant
70 Telephone use difficult
Light car traffic @
15m
Noisy office
Normal speech
60 Intrusive
Quiet office 50 Speech interference
Suburban area
Kitchen/bathroom
40 Quiet
Leaves rustling
Very soft music
Public library
30 Very quiet
Soft whisper @ 5m 10 J ust audible
Threshold of hearing 0 Not audible