Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Expansion of Airport Capacity at Heathrow
Expansion of Airport Capacity at Heathrow
Expansion of Airport Capacity at Heathrow
Civil aviation has been confronted with the problem of matching its
capacity to growing demand long term. This has been a particularly
important issue at some large European and U.S. airports where increasing operational, economic, and, particularly, environmental constraints
have affected expansion and development. The long-term matching of
capacity to demand at London Heathrow Airport in England is discussed.
This analysis includes predicting airport demand relative to annual number of aircraft movements and number of passengers, designing solutions
for providing capacity, and generating scenarios for long-term matching of capacity to demand. The results indicate that until the year 2020
the airport will permanently struggle with congestion both airside and
landside.
Civil aviation has been one of the fastest growing sectors of the
worlds economy. During the period 19912001, passenger and
freight demand increased by an annual average rate of 4.5% and 5.7%,
respectively (1). Despite disruptive events such as economic and
political crises; the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United
States; regional wars (Iraq); and the recent appearance of the severe
acute respiratory syndrome virus in Southeast Asia, which have temporary undermined expected growth, air transport planners continue
to believe in the systems long-term recovery. Some predictions for
the next two decades indicate that the worlds air passenger and
freight demand, as well as that in Europe, will grow by an average
annual rate of 4% to 5% and 5.5% to 6.5%, respectively (24).
Currently, busy European and U.S. airports with different operational, economic, and environmental constraints are particularly perceived to affect the expected growth (5). The long-term matching of
capacity to growing demand at these airports appears to be a crucial
planning and policy issue.
Different scenarios and prospective solutions are presented for
the long-term matching of airport capacity to demand at London
Heathrow Airport (England) as one of the busiest airports in Europe
and the world (6).
Operational Capacity
The airport operational capacity mainly depends on operational factors such as safety constraints, constant demand for service, and
average delay per unit of the served demand (14). For operational
purposes, capacity is usually determined for 1 h, including an average
delay per operation. For planning purposes, capacity is determined for
a period of 1 year (8, 12, 13).
Economic Capacity
Airport economic capacity is mainly dictated by short- and longterm economic constraints. In the short term, these are charges of
airport services during peak and off-peak periods, which regulate
demand access, cover the cost of airport services, and reflect the
types of users and their willingness to pay for services (10, 15, 16).
As well, charges should be compatible with International Civil Aviation Organization recommendations and bilateral airspace agreements. In the long term, the availability of investment for airport
infrastructure expansion usually determines the economic conditions
and thus the capacity (10).
AIRPORT SYSTEM
An airport consists of landside and airside areas. The landside area
encompasses the surface-access systems connecting the airport to its
catchment area and the passenger (and freight) terminal system. The
Environmental Capacity
Environmental capacity takes into account the environmental constraints of noise and air pollution intended to protect local people
from the damaging effects of airport operations. In the short term,
environmental capacity is expressed similarly to operational capacity but relative to given types of constraints. In the long term, constraints on land use may compromise airport expansion, capacity,
and growth (6, 10, 17, 18).
OTB Research Institute for the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology,
Jaffalaan 9, 2628 BX, Delft, Netherlands.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 1888, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 714.
Establishing a Scenario
Assumptions
Janic
New runway
North runway
Only one type of operations
Terminal 3
Terminal 1
Terminal 5
Terminal 2
South runway
Only one type of operations
Terminal 4
- Airside area
FIGURE 1
- New runway(s)
- Existing runways
- Landside area
Simplified layout of existing and prospective airside and landside areas at London Heathrow Airport (22).
10
1000
800
1 - London City
2 - Luton
3 - Stansted
4 - Gatwick
5 - Heathrow
Total 1-5
600
400
200
0
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Year
1998
2000
2002
Year
1998
2000
2002
Year
(a)
120
100
80
1 - London City
2 - Luton
3 - Stansted
4 - Gatwick
5 - Heathrow
Total 1-5
60
40
20
0
1990
1992
1994
1996
(b)
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
1990
1992
1994
1996
(c)
FIGURE 2 Development of air transport demand at Heathrow and other four London
airports: (a) ATMs, (b) terminal passengers, and (c) average number of passengers per
ATM (25).
Janic
Capacity
The current operational capacity of two parallel runways at Heathrow
Airport operating in the segregated mode is 78 ATMs/h (28). If the
airport effectively operates at this capacity for 17 h/day for 365 days/
year, the total annual capacity will be at the level of the noise cap
of 480,000 ATMs78 ATMs/h 17 h/day 365 days/year =
480,000 ATMs/year (23, 24).
The projected airport capacity relative to annual number of
passengers (four existing terminals) is about 58 million/year. The
passenger demand reached this capacity in 1997 (22).
11
Capacity
Increasing airport capacity in the long term is analyzed, and solutions
for the two sets of scenarios are presented in the most appropriate
order of implementation. Four solutions for increasing runway capacity are presented and two solutions for increasing passenger terminal
capacity.
Runway Capacity
Four solutions for providing runway capacity are as follows:
Solution 0 (doing nothing) assumes that independent of growing demand, the cap on the ATM annual number, which already
accounts for all existing and prospective environmental constraints,
is likely to stay in place (i.e., 480,000 ATMs). In particular, the cap
includes changes in type of operation (arrival or departure) between
the north and south runways at 3 p.m. every day to further reduce
local noise.
Solution 1 (extending airport daily operating time) assumes that
two parallel runways will continue to operate in the segregated mode
with an hourly capacity of 78 ATMs over an extended daily operating time of 18.5 h. If the airport operates 365 days/year, the runway
capacity will increase to about 10%, from the current 480,000 to
526,695 ATMs/year (i.e., 78 ATMs/h 18.5 h/day 365 days/year =
526,695 ATMs/year). However, this solution needs to be negotiated
because the existing cap is rescinded and noise is increased during the
late night and early morning.
Solution 2 (changing runway operating mode and extending
airport daily operating time) includes changing the runway operating mode from segregated to mixed, along with an extension of airport daily operating time. The mixed mode implies that each runway
with a capacity of 48 ATMs/h will be used independently for arrivals
and departures and gives a total hourly capacity of 96 ATMs and an
annual capacity of 648,240 ATMs (8, 13). This is about 35% and
23% higher than the present cap and Solution 1, respectively (2
48 ATMs/h 18.5 h/day 365 days/year = 648,240 ATMs/year).
Nevertheless, despite being operationally straightforward and easy
to implement, this solution implies modification to the present cap
again (19).
Solution 3 (building new runway and extending airport daily
operating time) assumes building a new parallel runway to the north
of the existing two runways (Figure 1) (6). The new runway will
operate in the mixed mode and the existing two parallel runways in
the segregated mode during daily 18.5-h operations, similar to Solutions 1 and 2. Such a three-runway system will provide an hourly
capacity of 126 ATMs (78 + 48 ATMs/h) and an annual capacity of
12
Runway Capacity
Solution 0 (do nothing)480,000 ATMs,
Solution 1 (extend operating hours)527,000 ATMs,
Solution 2 (mixed mode and extended operating hours)
648,000 ATMs, and
Solution 3 (new runway and extended operating hours)
851,000 ATMs.
Scenario 3
Pessimistic traffic demand,
ATM Solution 2 (mixed mode and extended operating hours),
and
Passenger Number Solution 2 (build T6).
Scenario 4
Optimistic traffic demand,
ATM Solution 1 (extend operating hours), and
Passenger Number Solution 1 (open T5).
Scenario 5
Optimistic traffic demand,
ATM Solution 2 (mixed mode and extended operating hours),
and
Passenger Number Solution 1 (open T5).
Scenario 6
Optimistic traffic demand,
ATM Solution 3 (new runway and extended operating hours),
and
Passenger Number Solution 2 (build T6).
The scenario characteristics, including their implementation year,
are shown in Figure 3. Despite appearing as independent, the scenarios actually are interdependent, because each new scenario originates
from the previous one.
Scenario 1
Figure 3a indicates that if nothing changes from the present, the
runway system capacity relative to ATMs will be saturated in 2003
and 2005, according to the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios of
growing demand, respectively.
Figure 3b indicates that the oversaturation of the current passenger terminal capacity in 2003 will reach 13% and 11%, according to the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios of growing demand,
respectively. In 2005, oversaturation will increase to 23% and 17%,
respectively. T5 implementation in 2007 and 2008 will relieve oversaturation by 33% and 31% for the given scenarios of growing
demand, respectively.
However, if the ATM cap remains, the number of passengers will
be constrained to 65 million, and the terminal capacity of 85 million
passengers (five terminals) will equal 76%. This situation will preserve service quality for the accommodated passengers but will cause
spillage of demand toward other London, British, and close European
competitive airports. In such case, Heathrow growth will cease.
Scenario 2
For the pessimistic scenario of growing demand relative to ATMs,
an extension of the airports daily operational time in 2005 will
increase airport capacity, which will relieve the current saturation and
postpone the next runway system saturation until 2011 (Figure 3a).
At that time, T5 will be in place to accommodate, along with the
other four terminals, the passenger demand of the pessimistic scenario
with a utilization level of about 96% (Figure 3b).
Scenario 3
Changing the runway operating mode and extending airport daily
operating time can take place in 2011 after the capacity gains from
Janic
13
840
740
Solution 3
851K ATM
Solution 2
648K ATM
640
Solution 1
527K ATM
540
440
340
1990
Solution 0
480K ATM
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Year
(a)
135
Solution 2
Terminal 6: 125M
115
95
Solution 1
Terminal 5: 85M
75
55
Solution 0
Terminals 1-4: 58M
35
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Year
(b)
FIGURE 3 Scenarios for matching capacity to demand at Heathrow Airport: (a) ATMs and
(b) passengers (25).
the airport capacity and relieve the current saturation and postpone the
next saturation of the runway system until 2007 (Figure 3a).
At that time or one year later, T5 will be operational, which will
immediately relieve the passenger congestion by about 33% according to the optimistic scenario. The passenger terminal capacity will
be at about 90%. However, this new capacity will be saturated again
in 2010 (Figure 3b).
Scenario 4
Scenario 5
14
Scenario 6
To relieve the congestion in Scenario 5, the new runway needs to be
operational in 2015. With regard to current public inquiries, this date
seems to be realistic. Relative to the optimistic scenario of growing
demand as far as ATMs, the new runway will provide sufficient
capacity until 2025 (Figure 3a).
In 2015, the new passenger terminal needs to be operational to
relieve the oversaturation of about 27% according to the optimistic
scenario of growing passenger demand. The new capacity will be
able to relieve the current saturation immediately and postpone the
next saturation until 2019. Actually, implementation of this scenario
will mean incorporating the new, fully developed single runway into
the present airport layout (Figure 3b).
CONCLUSIONS
Two scenarios for developing demand and four solutions for increasing airport capacity relative to ATMs and number of passengers were
designed and combined into six scenarios for matching capacity to
demand. The scenarios made presumptions about demand growth and
ways to provide adequate capacity airside and landside. Such development has implied the removal of existing constraints related to maximum number of ATMs and land use. The scenarios have indicated
that the airport will continue to confront persistent congestion during the next 20 years. The periods of saturation and relieving capacity demand will follow each other, depending on the scenarios of
growing demand and implementation of particular capacity scenarios.
The choice of realistic matching scenarios will be clearer after a
national discussion based on the British governments 2002 documentation from economic, social, and environmental perspectives.
REFERENCES
1. Forbes, P. A. Airport PrivatizationHow Should Airport Operators
and Investors React to Changing Market Conditions. In Proc., Association of European Transport 2002 Conference, Cambridge, England,
Sept. 2002, p. 20.
2. ACI Europe. ACI Traffic Forecasts: 19992020. Airport Council International, Geneva, Switzerland, 2001.
3. European Air Traffic Forecast 19852015. Air Transport Action Group,
Geneva, Switzerland, 1999.
4. Current Market Outlook. Boeing Co., Seattle, Wash., 2001.