Evaluating New London Airport in the Thames Estuary - Case Study Example

LTA230037 Assessment of data and criteria needed for full evaluation of New London Airport in the Thames estuary by the minister of Transport Boris Johnson, The London Mayor, is looking for viability of a new airport in Thames estuary. The 24-hour airport would be a four runway expandable to six runways to replace both Heathrow and Gatwick in due course. The environmental agency and European Union both have criticised the idea of a third runway in Heathrow on account of noise pollution and global warming (Murray 2008; Katz 2008). The cost and attractiveness of such schemes depends heavily on the nature of the site, its distance from centres of demand and the airport capacity available elsewhere in the system (Halcrow group 2003) Aviation has the highest growth rates of all modes of transport. In UK the latest government forecasts predict a 239% change on 1995 by 2015 of the terminal passenger numbers. I t shows a requirement equivalent of an extra 3 -4 airports the size of Heathrow. The country needs to follow the sustainable development policy of its own and of EU. The required framework of aviation should reduce impact, increase growth and protect environment. (DETR 1997 as cited inWhitelegg 2000). A few recommendation suggested are: putting an environment charge based on emissions, ending of all subsidies and tax exemptions and more stringent noise and emission standards.(Whitelegg 2000) Environmental data and criteria: The London mayor is particularly optimistic about environmental safety by moving airport into the Thames estuary. It would cut noise since planes could approach the airport over the North Sea. Moreover, the Heathrow expansion would put pressure on the dense west London while there is alternative to the east. The noise has been the complaint of many residents and the levels of global warming emission gases have gone beyond EU and Environmental Agency norms (Katz 2008). Ben Stewart of Greenpeace argues that increase in number of flights from a four runway would negate the environmental benefits. He feels that new runways are new runways and we should rather think about bringing emission down by funding for railways and other low carbon emission transports. (Murray 2008). Unite, Britain's biggest union feels that Thames is not the best place due to tidal and storm surges, which can increase sea level by several metres. The noise would not be solved when airport is moved, it will only shift to another area. The resort towns of North Kent and South Essex would suffer the noise pollution instead of the population of west London. The area is also a bird sanctuary raising the worries of bird strikes causing aircraft engines and windscreens to fail (PR News, 2008). The environmental data must clearly indicate levels of CO, SO2, NOX, O3, Particulate Matter and Lead generated and their effects on coastal resources, fish and wild life, wading birds. The scientific study must also provide data on light emission and visual impacts on people around airport (Halcrow group 2003). In the light of these suggestions and protests the data needed by the minister for environment are : NOISE: The noise damages health and quality of life. It can cause sleep disturbances, psychological and mental disturbances, annoyance and can make one hearing impaired ( WHO 1993 as cited in Whitelegg 2000). The idea of new airport into Thames estuary is attractive to some planners because planes could fly over the North Sea, alleviating concerns about noise pollution and allowing it to operate 24 hours a day (Katz 2008). How many are already living in the 57Decibel or higher (for a restful life it is upto 55dB) contour of noise and how many more would be added in coming years. This aspect seems in favour of Thames estuary airport as zero population would be added by 2015. While expansion of Heathrow may add another 107000, Stansted 3000 and at Gatwick a further addition of 9000, who would be living in this noise contour if further expansion of the later three airports is allowed . Expansion of Heathrow alone means a plane, every 90 second flying over the people (stopheathowexpansion 2008). Local air quality: The emission of CO2, CO, SO2, NOX, O3, PM cause headache, nausea, respiratory and lung troubles, asthma (cited in Whitelegg 2000). It is clamed that no one would be exposed to pollutants in excess of EU norms if airport in Thames is built. The population is low and pollutants concentrate into the northeast due to wind direction. On the other hand, expansion of Heathrow would bring much more people in increased air emission beyond 13% which is already alarming (Stop Heathrow Expansion, 2008) Land Take: If no existing land is taken for the proposed airport, construction at Thames airport would avoid any impact on loss of green belt, residential and recreational land, heritage sites, ecological and commercial property. The climate change and urbanisation impacts are expected to remain same as in the onshore airports. The estuarine airport may generate some environmental impacts different or more intense than onshore airports, these are: The airport site and dredging may affect tidal flow such that marine ecology is disturbed. The greater risk from birdsrike for e.g. 1 in 102 to 1 in 297 years at estuarine compared to 1 in 304 to 1 in 1210 yr. at onshore airport. It is also estimated that compensation of a new flow area equivalent to the area of airport would be required to avoid floods. Social data and criteria: The estuarine airport is likely to reduce air travel time and waiting time by having better links to the continent. The new airports links to the Channel Tunnel could help cut numbers of short haul connecting flights to the continent by providing passengers with fast links to Northern Europe. It would also solve southeast England's air transport problems, caused primarily by overcrowding at London's aging Heathrow Airport (Katz 2008; Murray 2008). The new airport ,on the other hand, would seriously jeopardise the local economy around West London, along with over 170,000 Heathrow jobs being lost, as feared by UNITE, England's biggest workers' union. TE Moreover the impact of airport on children's well being, minority and low income communities is to be estimated. The relocation of businesses and population would require community infrastructure and regulation of increased traffic. It is to be weighed against the expansion of Heathrow which would require demolition of schools, shops and about 750 household to provide land. The community would be disturbed and it is far from truth that only transient communities are living at the proposed site (Stopheathrowexpansion 2008). The government needs to know: The extent to which community would be disturbed including dislocation of households, impact on heritage sites etc. Economic data and criteria: The ambitious plan would see the new airport connected to the existing Eurostar high speed rail links that provide passenger and freight service between London and continental Europe. Paul Marston, the chief spokesman for British Airways commented that estuarine airport requires to build not only the whole airport from scratch but also the rail and road connections into London. He further said that it is not only the expenditure of huge sums of money, we have to wait 20 or 30 years for this to happen. The need for more runway space is urgent. Around 40 billion to 70 billion pounds (US$73 billion to US$128 billion) are to be spent on a new facility. (Katz 2008). The infrastructure needed to support the Thames estuary airport would be too difficult to provide. The Mayor is proposing a linking line from the high speed rail network as the main method of shipping passengers. Businesses are already complaining that Stansted is too far from the city to be a viable alternative to Heathrow. Proposed new airport is even further away. Heathrow handles 56% of all UK airfreight, which is carried in the belly hold of passenger aircraft making long haul flights economic. Without this, long haul flights become very expensive and could result in many more cargo-only flights taking place. (PR News 2008). The cost and benefit to cost ratio for Sheppey is 9.1bn and 2.1:1 while for Cliffe it is 13.9 bn and 1.8:1. On the other hand, constructing one more runway at each of the existing three major airports show same data as Heathrow +1, Gatwick +1, Stansted +1 9.0 and 3.7:1. There would be additional cost for platform building in estuarine airports and construction cost can not be estimated with the same certainty as for the onshore airports (Halcrow group 2003). Moreover the airlines may need to be coerced by the government to use the new airport else the passenger density may remain too less to be feasible for new airport. Though the increase in aviation does create jobs and enhances peripheral business (cited inWhitelegg 2000) but the argument is that aviation industry is heavily subsidised and jobs could be created by other means in more cost-effective manner. Moreover the government's own report Transport and Economy 1999 reports doubt about aviation expansions. It has stated that UK already has well developed transport system and further expansion would not have much effect on economy (As cited in stopheathrowexpansion 2008). The quantitative data are needed to: Fully assess the cost of airport including the filling and platform construction on the landfill and also providing for delay in construction Link it with adequate rail and road transport Know viability of such construction through willingness of air service providers to relocate to new airport IMPORTANT CRITERIA: Based on the above discussion the three important criteria to assess feasibility are as given below. The criterion have been chosen as these have multiple effects 1. COST: The primary assessment or assumptions state the cost to benefit ratio more in favour of building one more runway at each of the three major London airports rather than building an altogether new airport in Thames estuary. To this estimate there has to be further consideration of platform building in the landfill region which can not be estimated with certainty and cost would only be realised once the construction begins. The road and rail links and whether the airlines would use the new airport on their own or they need to be coerced by the government else the low passenger density would affect the economy. Merely the cost of construction can not be a criterion. 2. Environmental impact: The noise, air pollution, land take, risk to marine life are important environmental impacts to be studied. Most of which go in favour of the new airport except for risk to marine life. A completely offshore airport may reduce the birdstrike such is the assumption. 3. Since the social impact of estuarine airport is mostly environment related hence the third criterion is taken, a study of the other estuarine airports to assess safety functional and structural aspects. Kansai airport in Japan is an example of why building an airport on a man made island may not be a good idea after all . At Kansai the airport sank over 13 metres into the sea after it was opened 14 years ago and despite millions being spent on shoring it up it is still an economic disaster (PR News 2008) REFERENCES: Halcrow Group Ltd , 2003, 'Development of Airport Capacity in the Thames Estuary', Available at dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/.../docs/developmentofairportcapacity5669 Katz, G. 2008, 'London mayor studies new 'island' airport plan', September 22 ,Available at http://www.wtop.com/nid=383&sid=1482754 Murray, J. 2008, 'Will "Boris Island" airport provide a greener alternative to Heathrow' BusinessGreen, 23 Sep 2008, Available at http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2226736/boris-island-airport-provide PR Newswire Europe (via COMTEX), 2008. ' Boris' Madcap Plan to Move Britain's Busiest Airport',LONDON, Nov 06, 2008 Stop Heathrow Expansion, 2008. Available at http://www.stopheathrowexpansion.com/why Whitelegg, J. 2000. 'AVIATION: the social, economic and environmental impact of flying. Available at:www.areco.org/air10.pdf Read More