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