Report from Policy Exchange shows how poor air quality is in much of London, and near Heathrow

A new report by the Policy Exchange, called “Up in the Air” looks at London’s air pollution, and shows that over 12% of London’s area was in breach of NO2 limits in 2010, with the most affected areas being Central London, the area around Heathrow airport, and other major transport routes.  The report says: “Aviation currently makes up 7% of total NOx emissions in Greater London, but this could increase to 14% by 2025.  Aviation emissions are forecast to increase due to a growth in air [craft] movements, whilst at the same time emissions from other sectors are decreasing …..Importantly, this does not yet factor in the impact of possible airport expansion around London.” It says if there was a 3rd Heathrow runway the number of passengers would rise steeply. Their analysis only goes to 2025 but for there to be another runway, and for air quality not to deteriorate “… the acceptability of Heathrow expansion in air quality terms rests not only on the extent to which air quality impacts at Heathrow can be mitigated, but also on the level of progress on air pollution in the rest of London. If pollution levels are brought within legal limits across the rest of London, then this could undermine the case for Heathrow expansion on air quality grounds.”
.
Tweet

 

“Up in the Air” – How to Solve London’s Air Quality Crisis: Part 1

by Richard Howard. (Policy Exchange)

Nearly 25% of all school children in London and 44% of the Capital’s workforce are exposed to levels of air pollution that exceed legal and healthy limits.

A new report, Up in the Air, by Policy Exchange’s Capital City Foundation and King’s College London, analyses data from over 100 air quality monitoring sites across London. It shows the most polluted parts of the Capital currently have levels of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂) nearly four times the legal limit. The research finds that 12.5% of the total area of the Capital currently exceeds the legal limit for NO₂, and that deprived parts of London are more likely to be affected.

The report highlights some startling numbers:

• 328,000 school children and 3.8million workers in London are exposed to unhealthy levels of Nitrogen Dioxide which is linked to asthma and respiratory infections.
• 979 out of a total of 3,161 schools in London are over the limit for NO₂. The data includes primary and secondary schools, including independent schools.
• Children attending schools in Inner London boroughs such as Westminster, Tower Hamlets, Southwark and Camden are particularly at risk to harmful levels of NO₂ pollution.

The report says that while many good initiatives have been put in place to combat poor air quality in the Capital, London’s air pollution problem is still far from being solved.

It puts the failure to control NO₂ emissions down to the growth in the number of diesel vehicles, including buses, taxis and diesel cars.

• Diesel cars have systematically failed to match up to emissions standards due to illegal and legal cheating of emissions tests.
• The ongoing growth in decentralised energy across London could also pose a threat to air quality. Gas combustion in buildings could be responsible for 48% of NO_x emissions by 2025 in Central London.

New analysis reveals that if improvements in NO₂ levels are delivered in full by 2025, then this could lead to an improvement in life expectancy of around six months. However this is in doubt given the slow progress on NO2 pollution to date.

 

Figure showing Aviation contributed 2% of PM10 particles to the air in Greater London in 2010

---

 

The Policy Exchange Synopsis:

Up In the Air: How to solve London’s air quality crisis – Part 1

Monday, 30 November 2015

Nearly 25% of all school children in London and 44% of the Capital’s workforce are exposed to levels of air pollution that exceed legal and healthy limits.

A new report, Up in the Air, by Policy Exchange’s Capital City Foundation and King’s College London, analyses data from over 100 air quality monitoring sites across London. It shows the most polluted parts of the Capital currently have levels of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂) nearly four times the legal limit. The research finds that 12.5% of the total area of the Capital currently exceeds the legal limit for NO₂, and that deprived parts of London are more likely to be affected.

The report highlights some startling numbers:

• 328,000 school children and 3.8million workers in London are exposed to unhealthy levels of Nitrogen Dioxide which is linked to asthma and respiratory infections.
• 979 out of a total of 3,161 schools in London are over the limit for NO₂. The data includes primary and secondary schools, including independent schools.
• Children attending schools in Inner London boroughs such as Westminster, Tower Hamlets, Southwark and Camden are particularly at risk to harmful levels of NO₂ pollution.

The report says that while many good initiatives have been put in place to combat poor air quality in the Capital, London’s air pollution problem is still far from being solved.

It puts the failure to control NO₂ emissions down to the growth in the number of diesel vehicles, including buses, taxis and diesel cars.

• Diesel cars have systematically failed to match up to emissions standards due to illegal and legal cheating of emissions tests.
• The ongoing growth in decentralised energy across London could also pose a threat to air quality. Gas combustion in buildings could be responsible for 48% of NO_x emissions by 2025 in Central London.

New analysis reveals that if improvements in NO₂ levels are delivered in full by 2025, then this could lead to an improvement in life expectancy of around six months. However this is in doubt given the slow progress on NO2 pollution to date.

http://ift.tt/1Nmb582

.

---

 

Policy Exchange report. “Up in the Air”

Below are a few extracts from the report, relating to Heathrow and its air pollution problem.

“In 2012, Policy Exchange produced a report, “Something in the Air”, on the problem
of air pollution. The report highlighted the significant health effects and economic
costs associated with air pollution. It recommended a range of policies to improve
air quality, as follows, several of which have since been taken forward:

….. many things including ………

• Introducing a Low Emission Zone around Heathrow airport

.
“London’s air pollution problem is still far from solved. Progress has been made on some pollutants, for example levels of carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide in London have dropped by 80% since 1996. There has been some progress in reducing PM and NO2 pollution, but levels still remain high. Analysis by Policy Exchange of data from air quality monitoring sites shows that the most polluted parts of London have levels of NO2 nearly four times the legal limit. It is also estimated that over 12% of London’s area was in breach of NO2 limits in 2010, with the most affected areas being Central London, the area around Heathrow airport, and other major transport routes.”

.
“The air pollution problem in London is geographically concentrated in certain areas. As shown in Figure 2.4, the annual NO2 concentration limit of 40µg/m3 is exceeded in most of Central London, as well as around Heathrow and major roads around London.”

.

“Another important trend is the growth in aviation related NOx emissions in London. Aviation currently makes up 7% of total NOx emissions in Greater London, but this could increase to 14% by 2025.  Aviation emissions are forecast to increase due to a growth in air movements, whilst at the same time emissions from other sectors are decreasing.

“Importantly, this does not yet factor in the impact of possible airport expansion around London. Although the Government has not yet made a decision on new airport capacity, the independent Davies Commission recommended the expansion of Heathrow airport to include a third runway.  This would increase the number of passengers from 70 million per year in 2011, to 104–129 million passengers per year in 2030.  It is beyond the scope of this report to consider the impact of Heathrow expansion on air quality in any detail (indeed our analysis
only looks to 2025, whilst new airport capacity is expected by 2030). However the Davies Commission report recognised that Heathrow expansion presents “particular air quality challenges.”  The Commission recommended that new capacity should only be released “when it is clear that air quality around the airport will not delay compliance with EU limits.”

“On this basis, the acceptability of Heathrow expansion in air quality terms rests not only on the extent to which air quality impacts at Heathrow can be mitigated, but also on the level of progress on air pollution in the rest of London. If pollution levels are brought within legal
limits across the rest of London, then this could undermine the case for Heathrow
expansion on air quality grounds.”

.

•  “NO2 levels remain above legal limits across 12.5% of the Greater London area,
in particular in Central London, and close to Heathrow and major roads.”

.

---

 

Evening Standard reported:

Revealed: The inner London schools where children breathe toxic air

By NICHOLAS CECIL (Evening Standard)

30.11.2015

…. extracts …..
Nearly one in four school children in London are being forced to breathe air so filthy that it breaches EU legal limits, a shock report warned today.

In findings which will alarm many parents, it was revealed that 328,000 pupils were at schools where nitrogen dioxide levels were above the annual permitted level.

They included more than 30,000 children in Westminster, 29,000 in Tower Hamlets, 28,800 in Southwark, 26,300 in Camden, 24,000 in Kensington and Chelsea, 23,700 in Lambeth and 20,100 in Hackney.

…..

58% of pupils in inner London boroughs are in schools in areas with harmfully high nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels, according to the report which emphasised the “very clear moral case” for tackling air pollution.

While the problem in outer London is not as bad, tens of thousands of pupils are still breathing toxic air, significantly blamed on diesel fumes, which scientists say will shorten many of their lives.

For Barnet the figure was 5,300, Hounslow 4,400, Enfield 3,200, Kingston 2,400 and Richmond 2,300.
…..

Scientists say children are more vulnerable than adults to dangerous air pollution, partly as their lungs are less developed. Richard Howard, author of the report, said: “The case for tackling air pollution in London is clear. London’s air is unhealthy to breathe. Children are particularly vulnerable to unsafe levels of air pollution.”

The study measured average NO2 concentration 100 metres around a point in schools’ grounds. For very small schools it may have picked up areas immediately outside but these were included as pupils were likely to have been exposed to this air on their way to school.

Many schools have good air filtration systems inside buildings, particularly modern ones, but pupils are still likely to be at risk from pollution during break time, as they make their way between buildings and on their journeys to and from school.

The study also found that 3.8 million people, or 44% of the workforce, are employed in areas of London with NO2 pollution breaking EU rules.

The worst areas are Westminster, 687,000, Camden, 368,000 and the City, 360,000. In Oxford Street, one of the capital’s pollution blackspots, the average NO2 concentration in the year to August was more than 150 micrograms per cubic metre, nearly four times the legal limit, the report said.

…..

In outer London, the air was dirtier in some more deprived communities than affluent neighbourhoods.

The death toll from filthy air in London has been officially put at more than 9,000 a year and was responsible for 3,400 hospital admissions annually.

The report states that if current and planned policies are implemented by the Mayor and Government then the average life expectancy in London could increase by six months.

http://ift.tt/1Tg0Sue

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1Nmb3NB

Read more ...

50,000 take part London Climate March – with a highly visible “No Runway” bloc

On the day before the start of the COP21 climate talks in Paris, there were some 2,500 climate marches and events around the world.  Unfortunately, the Paris authorities did not allow a march, due to security concerns. However, in London about 50,000 people braved gales and rain as they marched through London to Whitehall to demand that world leaders take urgent action.  It was the biggest demonstration of its kind the UK has ever seen.  There was a determined aviation bloc – marching with the “No 3rd Runway” fabric plane. Braving gusts of wind of around 40mph, those opposing a Heathrow runway put in a highly visible presence, even if the chants of “No Ifs. No Buts. No 3rd  Runway” sometimes got drowned out by the Hari Krishna music system in the same part of the march. Caroline Lucas briefly helped carry the “No New Runways” banner, and so did John McDonnell. Addressing the crowds alongside a host of other speakers, Jeremy Corbyn said: “The issues facing the world in Paris this week are pollution, climate change, inequality, environmental refugees, war refugees and resources wars. If we are to make a real difference in Paris, all these issues have got to be thought about and addressed.” International aviation and shipping are not getting proper carbon emissions reduction targets in the Paris negotiations.
.
Tweet

 

29th November 2015

Caroline Lucas MP helps carry the banner.

John McDonnell, Shadow Chancellor and MP for Hayes & Harlington, helped carry the banner in Whitehall

World leaders from more than 50 countries are meeting in Paris for United Nations’ talks to secure strong deals to curb rising temperatures and shift the world to 100 per cent renewable energy.

50,000 marched – perhaps the biggest ever London climate event

Finally at the end of the march, having survived the gales, in front of Parliament

 

The march in the capital was one of 80 in the UK and almost 2,500 around the world as demonstrators issued a rallying call for action to combat global warming.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn also attended and told the crowds gathered in central London for a march against climate change that they had a message for the politicians gathering in Paris for talks next week – ‘Do what you are sent there to do.’

Dame Vivienne Westwood stressed the devastating impact of global warming while Jeremy Corbyn also urged politicians to act now.

Oscar-winner Emma Thompson called on world leaders to grab the ‘historic’ opportunity to reach a deal on tackling climate change as she joined thousands of environmental protesters in London on Sunday.

Thousands of people set out on a march through the capital from Hyde Park to Whitehall in an effort to persuade world leaders to reach agreements on global warming.

A march in Paris that was called off after the terror attacks two weeks ago was carried out symbolically when thousands of pairs of shoes were placed in the Place de la Republique, including pairs from the Pope and United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-moon.

 

 

Link to Daily Mail story, with lots of good photos

In London Sunday, just one day before the Paris Climate Conference begins on November 30th. Thousands of protesters demanding that world leaders enforce stricter climate-protecting guidelines have already lined the streets of Paris, and similar marches were orchestrated Sunday in cities like Madrid, Rome and the British capital, where an estimated 50,000 people, including the Radiohead singer, gathered ahead of COP21.

Paris conference asking for “an ambitious commitment to climate action, starting now, that will limit future global warming to below 2.0°C (3.6 °F) relative to pre-industrial levels,” among other recommended efforts to prevent further exacerbating climate change.

“We are deeply concerned that our global economic and industrial systems are accelerating rates of extinction, desertification and soil depletion, degrading ecosystems, acidifying and littering our rivers and oceans, and resulting in a relentless rise in greenhouse gas emissions driving irreversible climate change,” the petition stated. “In short, we are overwhelming the planet’s life support systems.”

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1HzGp2O

Read more ...

Heathrow not willing to accept a ban on night flights, saying it constrains links to regional airports

John Holland-Kaye is hugely confident that he will get a new runway, saying he was now “80%” sure that David Cameron’s decision would be for Heathrow.  The Airports Commission suggested a condition that there would be a complete ban on flights between 11.30pm and 6am due to the unacceptable noise of night flights. Mr Holland-Kaye says night flights were not something to “throw away lightly”. Heathrow currently is allowed 5,800 night flights per year, meaning an average of 16 arriving each morning, typically between 4.30am and 6am. British Airways wants to keep night flights, and is Heathrow’s largest airline. Last week Mr Holland-Kaye said shifting night flights to later slots would damage connections to the rest of the UK. “If I talk to regional airports, they all want to see early morning arrivals into Heathrow. They want a flight that comes in from their airport before 8 o’clock in the morning so people can do a full day’s work, can do business in London or can connect to the first wave of long-haul flights going out. You are very quickly going to use up all of the first two hours of the morning if we have a curfew before 6 o’clock, particularly as we then have to move the 16 flights. That really constrains the ability of UK regions to get the benefits from an expanded hub. So it is not something we should throw away lightly.”
.
Tweet

 

Heathrow boss wants night flights

John Holland-Kaye, Heathrow’s chief executive, gave his strongest indication yet that it would challenge a curfew

25.11.2015 (Times)
By Graeme Paton Transport Correspondent

….. Extracts ….

Heathrow was accused of trying to “rewrite the rule book” on a third runway last night after suggesting that it might fight a proposed ban on night flights.

John Holland-Kaye, Heathrow’s chief executive, gave his strongest indication yet that it would challenge a curfew, claiming that the move would “constrain” the airport’s links with the rest of the UK.

He also said he was “80 per cent confident” that the government decision on a new runway in the southeast — expected in weeks — would favour Heathrow over Gatwick.

Full Times article at

http://ift.tt/21eM70D

---

 

Senior Conservative party sources told The Daily Telegraph that the move was expected to be announced unless it was delayed by the political controversy over whether to bomb Isis in Syria.

The sub-community is thought to have added new restrictions on noise and pollution – along with a pledge not to allow a fourth runway – in a bid to soften the blow on those campaigning against the expansion of Heathrow.

.

.
Below are some extracts from comments below the article:

A third runway at Heathrow will give a short boost for job opportunities in the area but before it is finished even with full scale night flights the whole process will start again with the planning for another runway.
.
A worrying indication of what is to come, and a perfect example of the disgusting attitude of Heathrow’s management: they expect to be able to dictate terms, and hang anyone who doesn’t support their “vision” or questions their duplicitous statements.
.
The management at Heathrow cannot be trusted one millimetre. Nothing that they have ‘agreed’ can be assumed to take place, any more than Cameron’s assertions can be taken as policy. The two together could railroad an agreement and then produce the worst scenario for everyone concerned (including passengers), simply on the basis of cost.

Based on the current plans, I could be a net winner; and less sceptical people in my position would vote for them. However, the real plan (realignment of the runway; night flights; more immigrants taking work at the airport and demanding housing etc in the most densely populated part of the world) could be a disaster in the making.

.

---

---

See earlier:

John Holland-Kaye again will not commit to no Heathrow night flights (11.30pm to 6am) at Environmental Audit Committee hearing

November 5, 2015

When the Airports Commission final report was published on 1st July, one of the conditions of a 3rd Heathrow was that there should be no night flights. The report stated: “Following construction of a third runway at the airport there should be a ban on all scheduled night flights in the period 11:30pm to 6:00am” and “the additional capacity from a third runway would enable airlines to re-time very early morning arrivals.” Already by its statement on 6th July, Heathrow was trying to cast doubt on the conditions, with John Holland-Kaye saying: “I’m sure there is a package in there that we can agree with our local communities, with the airlines and with Government.” Asked directly again, at the Environmental Audit Committee session on 4th November, if Heathrow would accept no night flights, he said Heathrow “we are not in a position to do that yet.”  It had not yet accepted a ban on night flights, and the airport was “confident we will be able to find a way forward”  in discussions with airlines and government, and it could “significantly reduce” night flights.  Mr Holland-Kaye instead talked of the alleged economic benefit to the UK of flights between 4.30 and 6am. He was asked by Committee members whether the government should agree to a Heathrow runway, (perhaps by December) before Heathrow firmly committed to the no night flights condition. Mr Holland-Kaye could not give an answer.

Click here to view full story…

Heathrow may oppose ban on night flights, and ban on 4th runway, as price for 3rd runway

July 25, 2015

Heathrow is to press the government to loosen the conditions attached to a 3rd runway going ahead, unwilling to agree either to a ban on night flights or on a 4th runway. These were two important conditions suggested by the Airports Commission, to make a 3rd runway acceptable to its neighbours. However, Heathrow sees the conditions as negotiable, and John Holland-Kaye brazenly said he was confident Heathrow would be given the green light to expand and that “it wouldn’t make sense” for the prime minister to oppose a new runway now. Even if Heathrow does not agree to important conditions. Holland-Kaye wants to have a “conversation” about conditions with government. It is used to trying to have “conversations” with local residents, in which the airport generally manages to get its way, with only minimal concessions. Heathrow does not want lose lucrative night flights: “We have a significant number of routes to Hong Kong and Singapore. That’s getting key trading partners into the UK to start their business. It’s very popular because it’s an important route.” Holland-Kaye said the airport would “comment later on the package of conditions as a whole”, but he noted that “we do have the ability, physically” to build a 4th runway.

Click here to view full story…

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1Xrr1MV

Read more ...

Meeting of Cabinet’s runway sub-committee expected to decide this week which to back

The Sunday Times reports that there will be a meeting next week of the Cabinet sub-committee (the Economic Affairs (Airports) Sub-Committee) working to push through a new runway.  The Times believes it will say the government backs a Heathrow runway. This is likely to be one of the government’s most difficult and contentious issues. There are 10 members of the sub-committee, and it does not include any of the vociferous opponents of Heathrow, such as Boris Johnson, Justine Greening or Theresa Villiers – or even Philip Hammond or Theresa May. It is likely that Zac Goldsmith would resign as MP for Richmond Park, requiring a by-election. John Stewart, Chair of Heathrow campaign HACAN commented that a pro-Heathrow decision would be no surprise, due to the exclusion of members opposed to it.  And that it would leave many people who are negatively impacted by Heathrow already “angry and devastated.”  There will be fury – especially in the Heathrow Villages and those living near Heathrow – that Cameron had gone back on his word. He specifically promised at the 2010 election that: “No Ifs. No Buts. No 3rd Runway.” Going back on a promise is bad enough, but people believed him, and made life-decisions about their homes etc on the strength of it. They have been betrayed, and this betrayal could be Cameron’s legacy.
.
Tweet

Looming decision on Heathrow threatens to send Tories into tailspin

Mark Hookham, Transport Correspondent (Times)

29 November 2015

MINISTERS will decide this week whether to approve controversial plans for a third runway at Heathrow — potentially plunging the Tories into a furious political row.

A crunch meeting of a 10-strong subcommittee of the cabinet is widely expected to support Heathrow’s expansion plans. Its decision — likely to be one of the most contentious of this parliament — will be announced quickly, firing the starting gun for years of bitter planning battles.

Full Sunday Times article at

http://ift.tt/1jqZyrS

.

.

---

 

See earlier

Cabinet ‘stitch-up’ on Heathrow: Cameron chairing runway sub-Committee, locking out ministers who oppose 3rd runway

July 22, 2015

On the day MPs left for their summer break on 21st July, the Cabinet Office slipped out the names of 10 senior Tories on the Economic Affairs (Airports) sub-Committee. This committee will consider what to do about a new runway. Chaired by David Cameron it includes vocal supporters of a 3rd Heathrow runway including Chancellor George Osborne and Business Secretary Sajid Javid. There are concerns that the committee’s membership deliberately excludes the Cabinet members (Justine Greening, Philip Hammond, Theresa May, Theresa Villiers, Greg Hands   – and even Boris).  Also on the Committee are:  Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin, Environment Secretary Liz Truss, Scotland Secretary David Mundell, Communities Secretary Greg Clark, Energy Secretary Amber Rudd, Cabinet Office minister Oliver Letwin and Chief Whip Mark Harper.  The make up of the Committee is seen as indicating that David Cameron is ready to over-rule concerns from ministers who oppose the runway, and suggests the final decision will not be made by the Cabinet as a whole.  John Stewart, Chair of HACAN, said:  ‘It certainly looks like a stitch-up. It could be Cameron is going for a solution he believes will work in the short-term but could backfire in the medium term because some of the Cabinet ministers who are against a third runway feel so strongly that it could be a resigning issue.’ 

http://ift.tt/1TQqZZX

.

---

 

 

Cabinet said to be ‘falling behind’ on Heathrow expansion decision (as runway sub-committee struggles)

November 11, 2015

The Standard reports that insiders (in the Cabinet?) say the Cabinet sub-Committee is having a very difficult time deciding what to do about a runway, and the schedule is slipping. It is not likely to be announced by the Autumn Statement by George Osborne on 25th November. The meetings of the Economic Affairs (Airports) Sub-Committee are secretive and Cabinet will not reveal even their dates.  However, the Standard has been told that last week an “informal” gathering of its members was briefed by Sir Howard Davies, and that David Cameron and George Osborne also had updates separately from Sir Howard. “Other ministers at the gathering raised questions but none of them were seen to pose an insurmountable challenge to another runway in west London.”  Some sort of announcement still should be made before the Commons rises on 17th December.  A second official meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee is understood to be due in the next week or two, so the DfT officials can present their analysis of the Airport Commission’s final report. It is understood that the full Cabinet would be able to discuss the sub-Committee’s decision, and this could happen in December. The Standard says: “Few Cabinet ministers are expected to defy Mr Osborne and block a 3rd runway.”

http://ift.tt/1ROR0XU

.

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1Hx2M9a

Read more ...

Despair in East London as CAA approves new concentrated flight paths – there may be a legal challenge

Many residents in East London are in despair following the CAA announcement that it will allow London City Airport to concentrate its flight paths.  Campaign group HACAN East is considering legal action against the CAA. Departure routes will be concentrated over places like Bow, parts of Leyton, Leytonstone, Wanstead, Dagenham and parts of Havering.  Areas of South London will also experience more concentrated routes. The decision follows uproar at the lack of consultation on the proposals last year.  City Airport just put a technical document on its website and informed the Consultative Committee.  It was left to HACAN East to hold public meetings in the areas which would be affected.  The airport argued it only had to carry out a minimal consultation. Local people, backed by many local authorities, MPs and members of the GLA, said that a full consultation should have been carried out as some areas would get 30% more planes than now. The CAA was inundated with letters calling for a fresh consultation, but the new announcement means it has ruled this out. For those who barely had planes over them in recent years, facing living under a concentrated flight path indefinitely is a miserable prospect. The CAA is not fit for purpose, and being funded largely by the airlines, it should not make these decisions.
.
Tweet

 

Despair in East London as CAA approves new concentrated flight paths – Campaigners may mount legal challenge

27.11.2015  (Hacan East)

Many residents in East London are in despair following yesterday’s announcement by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) that it will allow London City Airport to concentrate its flight paths.  Campaign group HACAN East is considering legal action against the CAA.

Departure routes will be concentrated over places like Bow, parts of Leyton, Leytonstone, Wanstead, Dagenham and parts of Havering.  Areas of South London will also experience more concentrated routes.

The decision follows uproar at the lack of consultation on the proposals last year.

City Airport just put a technical document on its website and informed the Consultative Committee.  It was left to HACAN East to hold public meetings in the areas which would be affected.  The airport argued that, because the change was largely replicating what was already happening, it was only required by the CAA to carry out a minimal consultation.

Local people, backed by many local authorities, MPs and members of the Greater London Authority, said that a full consultation should have been carried out as some areas would get 30% more planes than they do at present.  The CAA was inundated with letters calling for a fresh consultation.  Yesterday’s announcement means that the CAA has ruled out a new consultation.

HACAN East chair John Stewart said, “Many people will be in utter despair of the decision.  It means that residents who were hardly overflown at all by planes from London City a few years back face  the prospect of living under a concentrated flight path for the rest of their lives.  It is a terrible prospect.”  More of the history of the issue.

Stewart added, “The CAA is already under fire for its attitude towards residents around Heathrow and Gatwick.  It is simply wrong that a body largely funded by the aviation industry should be taking these decisions.  In our view it is not fit for purpose to have these responsibilities.  We are discussing a possible legal challenge with our lawyers.”

 

For more background http://ift.tt/1Ndn8A5

 .

---

See also

 

CAA approve various airspace changes, but review of the airspace change process is under way

November 26, 2015

The CAA has the ultimate ability to approve changes to airspace and flight paths. There is a long process through which proposed changes have to go, including development of the proposal, the preparation of the public consultation, collating and analysing the responses, modifying the airspace design if necessary, providing feedback to consultees, decision by the CAA, implementation of the change, and then operational review a year after its introduction. There is currently a review under way, by the aviation consultancy, Helios, of the CAA’s process for changing use of airspace. It is looking at strengths/weaknesses in the process, possible improvements, including better transparency and accountability. Before any reform of the airspace change process is implemented, the CAA will hold a public consultation – expected before spring 2016. Meanwhile, the CAA has approved some airspace changes, covering eastern and southern England. They say these “will enable aircraft to fly more efficiently, help reduce the number of low-level flights and reduce the environmental impact of aviation.” The aim is to save money/fuel for airlines, and thus reduce CO2 emissions. The intention is also, where possible, to slightly reduce noise exposure.

Click here to view full story…

Also

City Airport wants to press ahead with controversial flight changes despite only 3% support in recent consultation

February 16, 2015

London City Airport wants to press ahead with controversial plans to concentrate flight paths despite only 3% of people backing them in the recent consultation. Its consultation ended in November 2014, and the airport produced a report report on the consultation on 13th February. The report now goes to the CAA for approval. London City Airport’s consultation was widely criticized in 2014. The airport had refused to leaflet or hold meetings in the areas that would be worst affected by the new concentrated flight paths. It justified its minimal consultation on the grounds that the changes it was proposing were not significant. Despite criticism from MPs, local authorities, residents’ groups and members of the Greater London Authority, London City has defended its consultation in its report to the CAA. It is also refusing to withdraw or modify its original plans. Residents’ organisation HACAN East, which coordinated much of the opposition to the changes, believes the airport has been typically arrogant and unresponsive – and not given any consideration to the possibility of respite for various areas, at different times of day. London City Airport expresses very little concern for its neighbouring communities. HACAN East say the fight by residents will continue, and they will be pressing the CAA to order the airport to carry out a fresh consultation.

Click here to view full story…

HACAN East’s official response to London City Airport’s flight path consultation

November 26, 2014

London City Airport has a public consultation on changes to its flight paths, which ends on 27th November. The consultation has been widely regarded as inadequate, as there is insufficient detail, and among those criticising the consultation are several councils. The community group representing people under London City Airport flight paths, HACAN East have published their consultation response. It says concentration of flight paths, without respite, is inequitable and will subject thousands to significantly more noise. They say this concentration without respite is contrary to Government policy, as the CAA itself states: “When seeking opportunities to provide respite for those already affected by aircraft noise it is important that decisions about respite should always be made after considering the specific local circumstances and through engagement with the local community.” HACAN East also complains that the quality of the consultation has been poor. The airport did not directly tell local authorities, MPs, GLA or local residents, and refused to hold public meetings in, or leaflet, the affected areas. They are unimpressed at the claims flight path changes would contribute much in savings of carbon emissions.

Click here to view full story…

Packed public meeting in Wanstead calls on London City airport to reconsult over flight path changes

November 4, 2014

There is growing anger in areas affected by London City Airport flight paths, because of the inadequate consultation they have launched – it ends on 27th November. On 3rd November, there was a packed meeting in Wanstead, which called on the airport to re-consult. Over 200 people crammed into Wanstead Library and gave London City Airport a very tough time over its failure to consult local people, and even their local councillors, over its plans. The airport wants to concentrate departing flights in a narrow band over Bow, Leyton, Leytonstone, Wanstead, Collier Row and Havering. Planes arriving over South London will also be concentrated. Most councillors knew nothing about the plans until contacted by HACAN East. The plans are on the airport website, but the airport has not put out leaflets or held any public information sessions. Roger Evans, the GLA member for Redbridge and Havering said, “The decent thing to do is to re-run this consultation.” The CAA has been criticised for allowing this poor consultation. People have been encouraged to write to the CAA and the Government calling for a fresh consultation, and sign a petition against concentrated flight paths.

Click here to view full story…

People in Waltham Forest have criticised London City Airport for not informing residents on proposed flight path changes

October 17, 2014

London City Airport has a current consultation on the use of high-tech satellite navigations (RNAV) in planes, which would result in a narrower flightpath over Wansted, Leytonstone, Leyton and Barking. Under the plans, most planes travelling to and from the airport would use a ‘flight corridor’ over Waltham Forest and Redbridge, leading to concerns over noise disturbance. Campaign Group HACAN East called on the CAA to stop the process, which it says has not directly consulted people living in either area. Now the deputy leader of Waltham Forest council has written to the head of City Airport and urged him to contact residents. The airport is claiming there is hardly any change, as it is just that planes will follow routes more accurately. The reality is that they will be concentrated along a narrow line, at the centre of the previously wide path swathe. HACAN East is organising a public meeting on 3rd November in Wanstead, as the airport has neither leafleted affected areas, nor arranged a meeting.

Click here to view full story…

---

Open letter to London City Airport asking that they consult properly on flight path changes, and treat people fairly

October 12, 2014

London City Airport is proposing to concentrate flight paths, in the same way that other airports have been doing recently. This is how air traffic controllers, NATS and the CAA want airspace to be used in future, in order to fit more aircraft into our already very crowded skies. However, London City Airport decided not go give any prior notice to anyone about the changes, except their Consultative Committee, or any warning about the substantial increase in aircraft noise for those unlucky enough to be under one of the new concentrated routes. It seems even local councils were not notified. Local community group, HACAN East, have now written an open letter to the airport, to complain. HACAN East says the flight path proposals will have a profound effect – for the worse – on the lives of tens of thousands of Londoners. This is deeply inequitable. While the airport makes out that the proposed changes are not significant as the planned flight paths are not noticeably different from the current routes. That is incorrect. There is now a concentrated line. Thousands living in Bow, Leytonstone, Wansted, Catford, Brixton and Vauxhall are very well aware there is a significant change. And that these are seen as unfair.

Click here to view full story…

---

HACAN East suggested letter of objection to London City Airport re: its plans to concentrate flight paths

October 12, 2014

London City Airport are conducting a consultation on airspace changes, which started on 4th September. It ends on 27th November. It aims to concentrate flight paths, in line with the intentions of UK air traffic control service, NATS. Concentrating flights along narrow corridors is more efficient for air traffic control. Instead of a swathe of perhaps 2 miles wide along which planes are directed, they can now follow a 100 metre track. This means fewer people in total are overflown; but for those unlucky enough to live under the new concentrated route, the noise can be deeply unpleasant. London City airport chose not to give any warning about the changes to local councils or local residents. It is not leafleting any areas, nor holding public meetings to explain the proposals. The areas particularly affected are Bow, Leytonstone, Wanstead, Colliers Row, Dagenham, Hornchurch, Catford, Dulwich, Brixton, Stockwell and Vauxhall. It is deeply inequitable. Local campaign group, HACAN East, will be holding a public meeting. They also have a simple template letter people can send in, to express their views. The lengthy consultation document is hard for laypeople to clearly understand.

Click here to view full story…

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1Ndn8Ac

Read more ...

“The Elephants in the Room” at the Paris talks: international aviation & shipping

Transport & Environment (T&E), a Brussels NGO, is calling on countries participating in COP21 to insist that the UN organisations responsible for international aviation and shipping set realistic reduction targets consistent with 2°C objective and adopt measures to implement them. The two sectors are the “Elephants in the Room” at Paris.  Though these two sectors are crucial to our global economy, they must grow in a way that does not come at the expense of the planet.  Aviation is responsible for almost 5% of all global warming and its emissions are predicted to grow by up to 300% in 2050. Such a growth rate would make the target of keeping the global temperature increase to under 2°C almost impossible to achieve. Further ambition is required, including cooperation between the UNFCCC and the ICAO. T&E have put together a briefing debunking the myths about the carbon emissions of aviation (and of shipping). Well worth reading. The industry claims that “aviation accounts for 2% of global emissions”; it claims “aviation is delivering increased efficiency gains”; that “thousands of flights already with alternative fuel, more expected”. It claims the industry “has a target of Carbon Neutral Growth from 2020”; and that it should not be a source of climate finance. Each in turn refuted by T&E.
.
Tweet

 

See the inforaphic at   http://ift.tt/21kcbHG

#ElephantsInTheRoom

The UN body dealing with aviation is the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the body for shipping is the International Maritime Organisation (IMO).

 

T&E asks:

Would it make sense to try and keep your house cool with the heating on?

International aviation is responsible for 5% of man-made global warming and shipping for almost 3% of all Greenhouse gas emissions. And their emissions are expected to increase by up to 270% if no action is taken. Therefore, limiting a temperature increase to 2°C won’t be possible if the COP Agreement does not include emission reduction obligations from international aviation and shipping.

Transport & Environment therefore calls for countries participating in COP21 to insist that the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and International Maritime Organisation (IMO) set realistic reduction targets consistent with 2°C objective and adopt measures to implement them.

These sectors are crucial to our global economy, but they must grow in a way that does not come at the expense of the planet and the world’s most vulnerable states.
International Aviation Emissions – its Flight-path to 2 Degrees

Aviation is responsible for almost 5% of all global warming and its emissions are predicted to grow by up to 300% in 2050. Such a growth rate would make the target of keeping the global temperature increase to under 1.5/2°C almost impossible to achieve. Further ambition is required, and cooperation between the UNFCCC and the International Civil Organisation is essential to achieving this.

---

Industry myths debunked

Aviation:

ICAO is nervous that the Paris Conference is being held at an airport lest aviation’s climate record be scrutinised.

Industry claims that “aviation accounts for 2% of global emissions”. (ATAG, October 2015)

The reality is that industry always plays down the climate impact from aviation. In reality it is responsible for 4.9% of man-induced global warming. (13)

.
Industry claims that “aviation is delivering increased efficiency gains”. (ATAG, October 2015)

The reality is that a 2015 report by the ICCT has found that aviation is 12 years off the efficiency target set by ICAO. The sector is still not bound by an efficiency standard, and the one currently being developed by ICAO risks having minimal or no impact on CO2 emissions from new aircraft. There is little transparency in this area. ICAO refuses to disclose the current state of fleet-wide efficiency gains. (14)

.

Industry claims that “thousands of flights already with alternative fuel, more expected”.

The reality is that the current usage of alternative fuels for aviation is very low. And any increased use of alternative fuel used must be fully sustainable and have full transparency. That’s why we need clear standards and robust transparency provisions in any policies which support alternative fuel.

.

Industry claims that “industry has a target of CNG from 2020”.

The reality is that this target is a weak contribution to the shared global objective of limiting a temperature increase to 2 degrees. It is a start but industry will also argue it is the endpoint. With projected growth rates up of to 300% by 2050, aviation could account for up to 15% of all global emissions under a 2 degree scenario (15). The ICAO Assembly is due to agree the measure to achieve CNG from 2020 but the process is now marked by fundamental disagreements over legal and equity issues involving developing countries. Should an agreement be reached, it will rely entirely on offsetting – other sectors will be paid to make the emission reductions that aviation won’t.

.

Industry claims that industry has adopted its own target of a 50% reduction on 2005 levels by 2050.(15)

The reality is that Industry has opposed any efforts to make this target operational, rejecting any obligation in the Paris Agreement to increase their ambition. Meanwhile ICAO has failed to follow its 2013 Assembly Resolution which called for work to begin on a post-2020 target.

.

Industry claims that “aviation should not be a source of climate finance”.

The reality is that airlines pay no tax on fuel used for international aviation, a subsidy which amounts to €60 billion per annum. International aviation is largely the preserve of the world’s wealthiest, while climate change will disproportionality affect the world’s poorest. Climate finance is a key element in achieving an ambitious climate agreement – aviation’s tax-free status must end and flyers start contributing (16).

.

Absolute reductions in aviation GHG emissions are possible and necessary to keep warming below 1.5/2 degrees. Paris must send a strong signal to ICAO and the aviation industry that ambitious targets and measures, not PR campaigns, are required.

References for the points above here.

(13)  http://ift.tt/1MVYchq

(14) http://ift.tt/21kcbHH

(15) http://ift.tt/1MVYchr

(16) http://ift.tt/1RPl0SZ

---

Industry myths debunked

Shipping

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) have made a number of claims about their performance in tackling climate change that are contradicted by the facts.

They say that “world leaders might be tempted to consider specific measures aimed at reducing shipping’s overall contribution of CO2 emissions, such as an overall cap. Such measures would artificially limit the ability of shipping to meet the demand created by the world economy, or would unbalance the level playing field that the shipping industry needs for efficient operation, and therefore must be avoided.” (IMO Secretary-General Sekimizu, September 2015)
The reality is that the Parties included in Annex I shall pursue limitation or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol from aviation and marine bunker fuels, working through the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Organization, respectively. (Kyoto Protocl 2.2 1997)

His call is not just a danger to the planet, but as the research points out, also to the shipping industry’s future prosperity, and therefore the future stability of world trade.” (Marshall Islands Foreign Ministry, Oct 2015)
They say that the shipping industry is delivering carbon neutral growth. (1)

The reality is that ship GHG emissions are up 70% since 1990 and according to the current best available science (Third IMO GHG Study) are expected to grow a further 50-250% by 2050. (2)

.

They say that IMO measures reduced ship GHG emissions from 2.8% to 2.2% of total between 2008 and 2012. (3)

The reality is that since the implementation date for the IMO’s first regulations on energy efficiency is 2013, there can be no attribution of these measures to the observed trend. It is true, this change has occurred, and is because shipping GHG underwent a small absolute reduction, whilst the total emissions from other sectors increased. The absolute emission reduction is due to a reduction in shipping demand growth due to the Global Financial Crisis and fleet overcapacity resulting in energy-saving slow steaming.

.

They say that slow steaming and the CO2 savings it produces are hard wired into the fleet (4) and here to stay. (5)

The reality is that there is no economic development or regulation that has occurred since publication of the Third IMO GHG Study that has ‘hard wired’ slow steaming into shipping. Referring to the fact that a large explanation for shipping’s CO2 reduction is slow steaming, a phenomenon recognised to be a function of market conditions, the Third IMO GHG Study says “…All three [oil tankers, container ships and bulk carriers] contain latent emissions increases (suppressed by slow steaming and historically low cartivity and productivity) that could return… if the market dynamics that informed those trends revert to their previous levels…”.

.

They say that ships built after 2025 will be 30% more fuel efficient.(6)

The reality is that it is only true if compared with a period of historically low design efficiency; design efficiency deteriorated 10% between 1990 and 2010.(7)

.

They say that a cap on global ship emissions is a cap on world trade.(8)

The reality is that between 2007 and 2012 trade increased and emissions fell by 10% (9), and numerous studies have shown that further emission reductions are feasible (10).  The real threat to world shipping comes from delay. The world’s diminishing carbon budget means that a delay in reducing shipping emissions will require steeper emission reductions from this sector in later years, presenting a far bigger challenge to the industry which may in fact damage world trade.

.

They say that shipping is part of the solution to climate change.(11)

The reality is that if all other countries and sectors achieve decarbonisation pathways consistent with a 2 degree stabilisation, under current policy shipping will be responsible for up to ~17% of global CO2 emissions by 205012. Even further policy at IMO that constrains shipping to carbon-neutral growth would lead shipping to be ~6% of global CO2 emissions by 2050. Either scenario would make shipping an increasing part of the problem, and a risk for the achievement of climate stabilisation targets.

.

Absolute reductions in international shipping’s GHG emissions are possible and necessary to keep warming below 1.5/2 degrees, but to make this happen the Paris Agreement must send a strong signal to the IMO that targets and measures to achieve that end are required.

References for the points above here.

.

.

 

“We need to include the aviation and shipping sectors in the final agreement to be reached in Paris. The climate impact of international aviation and shipping are equal to that of Germany and South Korea respectively, yet both sectors may be exempted from the emission targets to be set in Paris.”

Comment by Matthias Groote, Member of the European Parliament, S&D (Socialists & Democrats) Spokesperson on climate and part of the EP delegation to COP21

—

“Without ambitious mitigation action in these areas, it will therefore be even more difficult to achieve the internationally agreed goal of keeping the average global temperature rise below 2°C.”

Comment by the New Climate Economy

.

---

 

T&E is holding an event, on Thursday, December 3rd 2015 (10:30 to 12:00) . At the EU pavilion, room Brussels.   The event will bring together leading experts from industry, academia and civil society to discuss what is being and can be done, and what role UNFCCC and the COP Agreement must play towards the objective of reducing emissions from the sector.

Organised by Transport & Environment and the Centre for Biological Diversity

SPEAKERS

Prof Alice Bows-Larkin, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Kassie Siegel, Senior Counsel, Centre for Biological Diversity
Andreas Hardeman, Assistant Director Environment Policy, International Air Transport Association
Lucas Chancel, Coordinator – World Inequality Report, Paris School of Economics
Introductory remarks and moderation by Claude Turmes MEP (Greens/EFA)

.

 

.

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/21kccLw

Read more ...

Gatwick Express: Passengers in danger of missing flights as airport train service is halved

Gatwick is keen on saying how it would be “road & rail ready” for a 2nd runway by 2021, and that everyone will have easier and faster journeys, with no more congestion – even with more than twice as many passengers as today. And that sort of thing. However, its train links are a very real problem. Now Simon Calder says there have been cuts to trains between London and Gatwick. There are 13,000 fewer seats per day, as 38 Gatwick Express services per day are being cancelled, meaning passengers will have to wait up to 30 minutes, rather than 15 minutes. “The latest cunning plan for dealing with rising passenger numbers on the London-Brighton line: halve the number of Gatwick Express trains, and delay some other services.”  In addition, 20 Thameslink services a day between London and Brighton have been cancelled or are terminating at Gatwick. Some of the surviving trains will make additional stops, adding to journey times. For how long?  Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) is telling passengers: “The aim of the changes is to help reduce congestion on the network, so that a more reliable service can be provided.” But the lower number of trains will lead to more over-crowding. With the fast trains from London to Brighton having to have an extended stop at Gatwick, they will be delayed by 5 minutes.Passengers prefer the direct London-Gatwick line, the Gatwick Express, rather than trains going to or from Brighton.
.
Tweet

 

 

Gatwick Express: Passengers in danger of missing flights as airport train service is halved

Exclusive: The cuts mean there are 13,000 fewer seats a day between central London and Britain’s second-busiest airport

By Simon Calder, Travel Correspondent (Independent)

26.11.2015

Thirty-eight Gatwick Express services a day are being cancelled, meaning passengers will have to wait up to 30 minutes.

The latest cunning plan for dealing with rising passenger numbers on the London-Brighton line: halve the number of Gatwick Express trains, and delay some other services.

The train operator that brought commuters Britain’s most chronically delayed train believes the route to a better service is running fewer trains. Passengers in a hurry to travel from central London to Gatwick airport on Friday, and over the next two weeks, are likely to find that half the daytime and evening express trains have been cancelled.

Thirty-eight Gatwick Express services a day are being cancelled, leaving passengers – who pay £19.90 one-way for the 28-mile journey – potentially waiting for 30 minutes, rather than the previous quarter-hour. The cuts mean there are 13,000 fewer seats a day between central London and Britain’s second-busiest airport.

Stefan Rousseau, a Press Association photographer, blamed the cuts for missing his flight from Gatwick to Malta where he was due to be working at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. He tweeted: “Missed flight to @chogm2015mt this morning after @GatwickExpress cancelled two trains without warning or explanation. Thanks chaps.”

In addition, 20 Thameslink services a day between London and Brighton have been cancelled or are terminating at Gatwick. Some of the surviving trains will make additional stops, adding to journey times.

A parody Twitter account, BadSouthernRail, tweeted: “Just so you know, Thameslink are rubbish at trains in the day. So they’ve given up.”

Southern Railway faced criticism earlier this year when it was revealed that the 7.29am from Brighton to London Victoria ran late every day in 2014. It is now part of Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR), which also runs Gatwick Express and Thameslink services on the line.

The train operator denied that the aim of the cuts is to massage punctuality statistics or to save money. It insisted the decision was taken in response to “poor punctuality during autumn and the very busy nature of our service”.

GTR is telling passengers: “The aim of the changes is to help reduce congestion on the network, so that a more reliable service can be provided.”

A railway insider told The Independent: “This is basically a flawed timetable with not enough resilience built in. The main question is: why change it now? It may be that they’re trying to blame the leaf-fall season.”

Martin Abrams, public transport campaigner for the Campaign for Better Transport, told The Independent: “Cancelling and running fewer train services is not the answer to sorting out the problem of poor performance and punctuality.

“Running fewer trains will lead to more overcrowding with passengers forced to stand in cramped conditions. Having paid a lot of money for their ticket, they should get the service they deserve: an affordable and reliable rail service.”

A new timetable is due to be introduced next month, which will turn the clock back 31 years. Before 1984, when the Gatwick Express was launched as Britain’s first dedicated airport train, the Sussex airport was served by normal trains to and from the coast. That pattern will return, with fast trains from Brighton stopping at Gatwick.

The arrangement will slow down the Brighton-London journey by around five minutes, because of a prolonged stop at the airport, and inconvenience airline passengers. The principle of the dedicated Gatwick Express service was that there would always be one waiting on the platform, reducing stress for those with lots of luggage.

Between Christmas Eve and 4 January next year, the main line from London to Gatwick and Brighton will be severed, with passengers facing a tripling of journey times from half an hour to 90 minutes.

http://ift.tt/1NeBTXU

.

.

---

See also

Road and rail chaos, with congestion and over-crowding, predicted if new Gatwick runway built

October 22, 2014

A new research paper prepared by author and environmental expert Jeremy Early, on Surface access to Gatwick Airport predicts that a new runway at Gatwick would bring road and rail chaos. He points out that the existing road structure is nearly full, with serious delays occurring on many routes, especially on the M23 and A23 into London. Planned improvements will only be sufficient to deal with the forecast growth in traffic  – without a new runway. A new runway, operating at full capacity of 95 million passengers a year, would mean an a massive increase in road traffic movements each day.  It would probably reduce the M25 and M23 to a standstill – all day not just occasionally. On rail,  the report shows that  already between 2010 and 2014 rail journeys in the South-East increased more than 20%. The extra trains that Gatwick airport boasts of are in reality already just to cope with the expected increase in demand – with no new runway. With a new runway Gatwick predict a three-fold increase in the number of air passengers using Gatwick station. It could be standing room only, with no spare capacity on parts of the network. 

http://ift.tt/1XjIPJK

.

.

and

Gatwick claims that with better public transport it will be “road & rail ready” for 2nd runway by 2021

June 3, 2014

Gatwick has produced a glossy document setting out how it will have fantastic road and rail links in place by 2021, that there will be no road or rail congestion, and everyone will have smoother and easier journeys. And at no cost to anyone. There are some stunning omissions.  Most things that are inconvenient are just left out. They say “Gatwick will increase the cost efficiency in the rail industry by filling off-peak trains as well as providing passengers for trains operating in the opposite direction to peak commuter services. While it is estimated that, on the busiest trains, only 5% of travellers will be air passengers, the overall benefit they will bring will be around £3 billion in additional fare income.”  Gatwick says: “Junction 9 of the M23 … will need to be upgraded to cater for expansion. Gatwick has committed to funding a doubling of this motorway junction capacity.” The only thing Gatwick has said it will pay for.  Also: “we have re-designed the local road network to be no busier than it is today, even after a general increase in demand, which will lessen local noise and air quality effects of background traffic, benefit economic activity and the quality of life of those using and living along the affected roads.”  Really?  Who writes this stuff?

http://ift.tt/1T8FtTs

.

.

.

 

 

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1XjIPJQ

Read more ...

CAA approves so-called “environmentally friendly” changes to Stansted Airport take-offs

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has approved changes to ensure aircraft departing from Stansted to the south-east will climb higher sooner – slightly reducing fuel burn and CO2 emissions. This is part of major airspace changes approved by the CAA, as part of the FAS (Future Airspace Strategy) which is set to modernise UK airspace by 2020. The Stansted plans, which are included in the LAMP (London Airspace Management Programme) phase 1A, were submitted to the CAA by NATS, and followed a public consultation between October 2013 and January 2014.  The FAS is the UK part of the wider European changes, under SESAR (Single European Sky), which hopes to improve airspace infrastructure to make its management more efficient, reduce fuel burn. It would also, by faster climbs and continuous descent approaches, slightly reduce the amount of aircraft noise for those over-flown. The aim, however, is it maximise use of airspace, enable more planes to fly in the same airspace, and save the airline industry time and therefore money.  The Stansted route change approved is for more departures to go via Clacton to a point off the north-east corner of Kent (over the sea).
.
Tweet

CAA approves environmentally friendly changes to Stansted Airport take-offs

26.11.2015 (Herts & East Essex Observer)

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has today (Thursday) approved changes to ensure aircraft departing from Stansted to the south-east will climb higher sooner – reducing fuel burn and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

The move is part of major airspace changes approved by the CAA making airline flights more efficient by removing 30,000 tonnes of CO2 a year.

The plans, known collectively as the London Airspace Management Programme (LAMP) phase 1a, were submitted to the CAA by NATS, the air traffic service provider, and followed consultation with the public between October 2013 and January 2014.

It is the first significant change as part of the UK’s Future Airspace Strategy (FAS), which is set to modernise airspace by 2020. This is part of a European project to improve airspace infrastructure to deliver a more efficient use of airspace and enable environmental improvements, including fuel and CO2 savings by aircraft flying more direct routes and with faster climbs and descents reducing impact on overflown householders.

In total, five changes have been approved which will see newly designed and more efficient flight paths implemented on February 4 next year, helping to improve capacity, minimise delays for air travellers and further enhancing safety.

For Stansted, the departure switch will transfer the bulk of southerly departures via Detling in Kent to the south-east of the airport via Clacton to a point off the north-east corner of Kent (over the sea).

The changes cover an area from Stansted to the Isle of Wight, including parts of Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, Kent, Sussex and Hampshire. Changes will affect commercial aircraft using London City, Stansted, Luton, Southampton, Bournemouth, Northolt and Biggin Hill airports.

Phil Roberts, head of airspace, air traffic management and aerodromes at the CAA, said: “The changes we have approved today will bring significant benefits to both air passengers and many communities currently overflown by aircraft.

“We absolutely understand that aircraft noise disturbs many people. These changes move significant numbers of flights away from populated areas and will reduce overall emissions.

“As we have done with this decision, we will continue to consider the environmental impact of all our airspace decisions and have called on the aviation industry and other decision-makers to be much more ambitious in confronting aviation’s environmental challenges.”

Each year the Future Airspace Strategy aims to

•     Save over 160,000 tonnes of fuel (with an estimate net present value to airlines of £907m to £1.17bn out to 2030);
•     Save over 1.4m minutes of airline’s time, reducing maintenance and crew costs (with an estimate net present value to airlines of £338m – £441m out to 2030);
•     Save over 1.1m minutes of passenger delay;
•     Save over 500,000 tonnes of aviation CO2 emissions;
•     Enhance safety by reducing controller and pilot workload.

A Stansted Airport spokesman said: “We recognise the importance of NATS’ (National Air Traffic Services) London Airspace Management Programme (LAMP) which aims to modernise UK’s airspace around London in order to improve efficiency and reduce environmental impacts.

“Phase 1 of the project, which incorporates airspace changes at a number of South East airports, will enable a more efficient operation at Stansted for our airlines, helping reduce delays, carbon emissions and allow continuous climb departures. A safe and effective airspace system both in the UK and overseas is an essential factor in allowing aviation to grow and reduce its environmental impacts.”

http://ift.tt/1kVJyQD

.

.

.

---

See also

CAA approve various airspace changes, but review of the airspace change process is under way

November 26, 2015

The CAA has the ultimate ability to approve changes to airspace and flight paths. There is a long process through which proposed changes have to go, including development of the proposal, the preparation of the public consultation, collating and analysing the responses, modifying the airspace design if necessary, providing feedback to consultees, decision by the CAA, implementation of the change, and then operational review a year after its introduction.  There is currently a review under way, by the aviation consultancy, Helios, of the CAA’s process for changing use of airspace. It is looking at strengths/weaknesses in the process, possible improvements, including better transparency and accountability. Before any reform of the airspace change process is implemented, the CAA will hold a public consultation – expected before spring 2016. Meanwhile, the CAA has approved some airspace changes, covering eastern and southern England. They say these “will enable aircraft to fly more efficiently, help reduce the number of low-level flights and reduce the environmental impact of aviation.” The aim is to save money/fuel for airlines, and thus reduce CO2 emissions.  The intention is also, where possible, to slightly reduce noise exposure.

http://ift.tt/1lkkJ0a

.

.

.

.

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1NRtQMO

Read more ...

CAA approve various airspace changes, but review of the airspace change process is under way

The CAA has the ultimate ability to approve changes to airspace and flight paths. There is a long process through which proposed changes have to go, including development of the proposal, the preparation of the public consultation, collating and analysing the responses, modifying the airspace design if necessary, providing feedback to consultees, decision by the CAA, implementation of the change, and then operational review a year after its introduction.  There is currently a review under way, by the aviation consultancy, Helios, of the CAA’s process for changing use of airspace. It is looking at strengths/weaknesses in the process, possible improvements, including better transparency and accountability. Before any reform of the airspace change process is implemented, the CAA will hold a public consultation – expected before spring 2016. Meanwhile, the CAA has approved some airspace changes, covering eastern and southern England. They say these “will enable aircraft to fly more efficiently, help reduce the number of low-level flights and reduce the environmental impact of aviation.” The aim is to save money/fuel for airlines, and thus reduce CO2 emissions.  The intention is also, where possible, to slightly reduce noise exposure.
.
Tweet

 

Major airspace changes approved by the CAA making airline flights more efficient

26 November 2015 (CAA press release)

• Announcement signals the first major development of the Future Airspace Strategy (FAS) project to modernise UK airspace.

• Change helps reduce aviation’s environmental impact removing 30,000 tonnes of CO2 per year.

• Aircraft flying to London City Airport will now fly over the Thames Estuary for significantly longer –  reducing noise for many.

• Aircraft departing from Stansted to the south east will climb higher, sooner – reducing fuel burn and CO2.The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has today approved a series of major airspace changes covering eastern and southern England, which will enable aircraft to fly more efficiently, help reduce the number of low-level flights and reduce the environmental impact of aviation.

The proposed plans, known collectively as the ‘London Airspace Management Programme’ (LAMP) phase 1a, were submitted to the CAA by NATS, the air traffic service provider, and followed consultation it undertook between October 2013 and January 2014.

It is the first significant change as part of the UK’s Future Airspace Strategy (FAS), which is set to modernise airspace by 2020. This is part of a European project [SESAR] to improve airspace infrastructure to deliver a more efficient use of airspace and enable environmental improvements including fuel and CO2 savings by aircraft flying more direct routes and with faster climbs and descents reducing impact on the overflown.

In total, five* changes (see below) have been approved, which will see newly designed and more efficient flight paths implemented on 4 February 2016, helping improve capacity, minimise delays for air travellers and further enhancing safety.

The most significant changes are:

• The introduction of a new Point Merge arrivals system will eliminate conventional holding patterns for many aircraft inbound to London City Airport, routeing aircraft over the Thames Estuary for as long as possible to reduce low-level flights and noise over Kent, Essex and East London. Aircraft departing London City to the south will be able to climb earlier than they do at the moment, reducing noise and CO2 emissions.

• Aircraft leaving Stansted to the south will now instead use the existing easterly route from the airport during the day. Aircraft taking off will also climb more quickly, reducing overall noise and CO2 emissions.

• There will be a reduction in noise from lower level flights in the Southampton and Bournemouth area by re-routeing arrivals away from the area around Goodwood which will keep aircraft over the Solent for longer thus reducing flight over land for these arrivals.

.

The changes cover an area from Stansted to the Isle of Wight, including parts of Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, Kent, Sussex and Hampshire. Changes will affect commercial aircraft using London City, Stansted, Luton, Southampton, Bournemouth, Northolt and Biggin Hill airports.

Commenting on today’s announcement Phil Roberts, Head of Airspace, Air Traffic Management & Aerodromes, at the CAA, said: “The changes we have approved today will bring significant benefits to both air passengers and many communities currently overflown by aircraft.

“We absolutely understand that aircraft noise disturbs many people. These changes move significant numbers of flights away from populated areas and will reduce overall emissions.

“As we have done with this decision, we will continue to consider the environmental impact of all our airspace decisions and have called on the aviation industry and other decision-makers to be much more ambitious in confronting aviation’s environmental challenges.”

Airspace modernisation

The Future Airspace Strategy (FAS) aims to:

• Save over 160,000 tonnes of fuel per year (with an estimate net present value to airlines of £907m to £1.17bn out to 2030)

• Save over 1.4 million minutes of airline’s time per year, reducing maintenance and crew costs (with an estimate net present value to airlines of £338m – £441m out to 2030)  [There were about 2.1 million air transport movements at UK airports in 2014. So that is about 40 seconds per flight, on average … AW note]

• Save over 1.1 million minutes of passenger delay per year  [To put that into context, there were around 240 million air passengers using UK airports in 2014 …. just over a quarter of a second per passenger ….AW note]

• Save over 500,000 tonnes of aviation CO2 emissions per year [The total carbon emissions of UK aviation are around 35 million tonnes CO2 per year – so this is about 1.43%…. AW note]

• Enhance safety by reducing controller and pilot workload

————————————————————————————–

Notes to editors

UK airspace is a very limited and important part of our national transport infrastructure but the basic structure of the UK’s airspace was developed over forty years ago. Since then there have been huge changes, including a hundred fold increase in demand for aviation.Throughout Europe there is a move to simplify and harmonise the way airspace and air traffic control is used through the Single European Sky project. [SESAR].  In the UK and Ireland we’re meeting those and other issues through the Future Airspace Strategy, which sets out a plan to modernise airspace by 2020.

More information on UK airspace and how the CAA handles applications for airspace changes can be found at: airspace changes.
.

*The five changes approved as part of LAMP Phase 1a:

• Module A – Stansted departure switch transferring the bulk of southerly departures via Detling in Kent to the south east of the airport via Essex/Clacton (CLN) to a point off the north-east corner of Kent (over the sea).
• Module B – London City satellite navigation departures to replicate existing conventional departure routes.
• Module C- London City network proposals with a slight re-positioning of southerly departures further to the east enabling arrivals via the Thames Estuary via the new Point Merge procedure.
• Module D – Luton and Northolt departure changes which occur in the latter stages of the existing departure profiles which do not affect low altitude routes below 7000 feet.
• Module E – changes to airspace over the Solent and the Isle of Wight affecting Southampton, Bournemouth and Farnborough arrivals and departures.

http://ift.tt/1TgCjhf

.

.

---

The CAA’s airspace change process

The CAA’s website says:

If someone, usually an airport or air traffic control provider, wants to request a permanent change to the UK airspace structure they must submit an airspace change proposal to us. These go through our airspace change process which contains a number of stages to be completed before the proposal is submitted to us for a decision.

An independent review of the airspace change process is underway. 2015 review of the airspace change process : “An independent review of the airspace change process is currently being conducted on behalf of the CAA by Helios, an aviation consultancy. The review aims to identify strengths or weaknesses in the process and hence potential improvements that could be made.  The review is focused on the airspace change process but not the merits or otherwise of individual airspace decisions or operational practices.”

The stages of the airspace change process are:

Stage 1 – framework briefing

We meet with the organisation that is considering proposing an airspace change to discuss their plans, the operational, environmental and consultation requirements for proposing a change and set out the how the CAA process will run.

Stage 2 – proposal development

The organisation that is considering proposing the airspace change begins to develop design options and researches who needs to be consulted. They will also conduct an initial environmental assessment of the proposals which will need to be more detailed if, and by the time, the organisation proceeds and with its proposal and prepares for consultation. It is recommended that the organisation invites a cross section of parties who may be affected by the change to form a Focus Group to help with the development of the design options.

Stage 3 – preparing for consultation

The organisation that is considering proposing the airspace change decides on the most appropriate consultation method needed to reach all consultees. This could include a written consultation, questionnaires or surveys, using representative groups and open/public meetings. We will provide advice to the organisation on the scope and conduct of the consultation but it remains their responsibility to ensure that the appropriate level of consultation is undertaken. Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible. Consultation documents should be clear about the objectives of the proposal, what is being proposed, how the change would affect various stakeholders, the expected advantages and disadvantages of the proposals to all stakeholders, the consultation process and the scope to influence. If a single design option is being consulted upon, the document should state what other options were considered and why these were discarded.

Stage 4 – consultation and formal proposal submission

When the consultation is launched the organisation that is considering proposing the airspace change should make every effort to bring it to the attention of all interested parties. The organisation must ensure that accurate and complete records of all responses are kept. Following the consultation, the organisation collates and analyses all responses to identify the key issues and themes. . There may be airspace design modifications in light of the consultation responses which results in the need for further consultation. The organisation is required to publish feedback consultees. If the organisation decides it will submit a formal airspace change proposal to us to then its feedback document must include information on how the final decision on the option selected was reached. In addition to publishing the feedback report the organisation sends all the consultation responses to the CAA within its formal proposal submission.

Stage 5 – our decision

We undertake a detailed assessment of the proposal and may ask for clarification or supplementary information from the organisation requesting the change. Our assessment covers

1. the operational need for, objectives and feasibility of the changes proposed
2. our analysis of the anticipated environmental benefits and impacts if the change were made; and
3. an assessment of the consultation carried out by the organisation proposing the change and of the responses received to that consultation.

Our conclusions in these three areas inform our decision whether to approve or reject the proposal. When making our decision the law requires us to give priority to safety but then to balance the need for the most efficient use of airspace with the needs of operators of aircraft and the environmental effect of aviation (including noise and Co2 emissions). The means by which we assess and balance the environmental impact within our decision making process is set out in government policy which we implement. We aim to make our decision within 16 weeks of having all the information we need.

Stage 6 – implementation

If a change is approved then changes to airspace procedures and structures are timed to start on internationally specified dates which occur every 28 days. This ensures that the aviation community, as a whole, is aware of the changes and can prepare. The organisation that proposed the change should publicise the airspace change to members of the local community and other stakeholder groups who were consulted earlier in the process.

Stage 7 – operational review

Around 12 months after a change is implemented we will start a review of the change to assess whether the anticipated impacts and benefits, set out in the original airspace change proposal and decision, have been delivered and if not to ascertain why and to determine the most appropriate course of action. Once complete we will publish the review on our website.

This process is based on Ministerial Directions given by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Defence (under section 66(1) of the Transport Act 2000) dated 2001, amended 2004, the CAA’s duties set out in Section 70 of the Transport Act 2000 and environmental guidance given by the Secretary of State for Transport under section 70(2)(d) of the Transport Act 2000. The Department for Transport has published Guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority on Environmental Objectives Relating to the Exercise of its Air Navigation Functions.

Full details of the airspace change process are in the following publications

• CAP 724 Airspace Charter
• CAP 725 Airspace Change Process Guidance Document

A change to the use or classification of airspace in the UK can take many forms and may be simple and straightforward to implement with little noticeable operational or environmental impact.  Conversely, a change may be complex and involve significant alterations to existing airspace arrangements and impact upon the various airspace user groups and the general public.

http://ift.tt/1lkkHW5

.

.

---

An independent review of the airspace change process is under way. 2015 review of the airspace change process : “An independent review of the airspace change process is currently being conducted on behalf of the CAA by Helios, an aviation consultancy. The review aims to identify strengths or weaknesses in the process and hence potential improvements that could be made.  The review is focused on the airspace change process but not the merits or otherwise of individual airspace decisions or operational practices.”

In establishing this review the CAA set a number of objectives:

• to assess the CAA’s current airspace change process;
• to elicit, from external stakeholders, their views on the strengths and weaknesses of the current process (but not the merits or otherwise of individual airspace change decisions);
• to identify any material weaknesses in the process and to form hypotheses for process improvements that could address those weaknesses;
• to test some of the initial hypotheses concerning potential improvements to the process; and
• to present recommendations for improving the current process.

Options for strengthening or improving the current process would need to conform to the principles of ‘better regulation’ (transparency, proportionality, accountability, consistency and targeting). No decisions have been made yet. Before any reform of the airspace change process is implemented, the CAA will separately seek the views of interested parties through a public consultation. The CAA expects any such consultation to be launched towards the end of 2015 or early 2016 at the latest.

Helios held several workshop, including one for individuals, local community representatives, environment and noise campaign groups on 18 September 2015

.

.

 

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1lkkJ0a

Read more ...