1.1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORT DIRECTORATE F - Air Transport Study of Aircraft Noise Exposure at and around Community Airports : Evaluation of the Effect of Measures to Reduce Noise Final Report Tender N° TREN/F3/15-2006 October 2007 Submitted by: M P D Group Limited In Association with : Environmental Resources Management and CE Delft MPD Group Ltd Study of aircraft noise exposure at and around Community airports : Evaluation of the effect of measures to reduce noise – Final Report CONTENTS Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................1 1.1 OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH..............................................................................................1 1.2 NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES IN FORCE AND PLANNED....................................................1 1.3 GROWTH IN TRAFFIC AND THE USE OF MARGINALLY-COMPLIANT AIRCRAFT......................3 1.4 CHANGE IN THE NOISE CLIMATE IN EUROPE.......................................................................3 1.5 POLICY OPTIONS...............................................................................................................4 1.6 CHANGES TO THE DIRECTIVE.............................................................................................5 2 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................6 2.1 OBJECTIVES......................................................................................................................6 2.2 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT............................................................................................6 2.3 OUR APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY................................................................................7 2.4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE ASSISTANCE OF EUROCONTROL........................................7 2.5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE CO-OPERATION OF AIRPORTS.................................................7 2.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE CO-OPERATION OF ANOTEC................................................7 3 BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................8 3.1 ANOTEC STUDY..............................................................................................................8 3.2 AIRPORTS STUDIED...........................................................................................................9 3.3 MARGINAL CHAPTER 3 AIRCRAFT....................................................................................12 4 EVOLUTION OF EUROPEAN AIR TRANSPORT 2002/3 – 2006....................................16 4.1 MOVEMENT GROWTH, DAY/NIGHT ANALYSIS, AIRCRAFT TYPES CHANGES.........................16 4.2 MARGINALITY COMPLIANCE LISTING OF AIRCRAFT TYPES.................................................17 4.3 MOVEMENT CHANGES BY NOISE CHARACTERISTICS...........................................................20 4.4 CHAPTER 3 AND MARGINAL AIRCRAFT.............................................................................24 5 AIRPORT INTERVIEW FINDINGS...................................................................................32 5.1 APPLICATION, INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL EFFECTS OF DIRECTIVE.............................32 5.2 RESTRICTIONS INTRODUCED............................................................................................35 5.3 OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES.............................................................................................40 5.4 LAND USE.......................................................................................................................41 5.5 INSULATION....................................................................................................................42 5.6 ACQUISITION...................................................................................................................43 5.7 MARKET-BASED INSTRUMENTS........................................................................................44 5.8 QUALITATIVE FINDINGS...................................................................................................48 5.9 POLICY ISSUES RAISED BY AIRPORTS................................................................................53 5.10 OVERVIEW OF MEASURES IN ACTION AND MEASURES PLANNED.........................................58 6 INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE AND CONSULTATION.......................................................60 6.1 CONTEXT........................................................................................................................60 6.2 STUDY FOCUS.................................................................................................................60 6.3 INDUSTRY BUSINESS MODELS..........................................................................................61 6.4 CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................64 7 AIRCRAFT MOVEMENT FORECASTS TO 2010 AND 2015 : BASE CASE..................65 7.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................65 7.2 LIMITATIONS AND APPROACH..........................................................................................65 MPD Group Ltd i October 2007 MPD Group Ltd Study of aircraft noise exposure at and around Community airports : Evaluation of the effect of measures to reduce noise – Final Report 8 NOISE CONTOUR MODELLING AT CASE STUDY AIRPORTS..................................70 8.1 CASE STUDY SELECTION..................................................................................................70 8.2 MODELLING METHODOLOGY............................................................................................71 8.3 GLASGOW AIRPORT.........................................................................................................72 8.4 LISBON AIRPORT.............................................................................................................74 8.5 TOULOUSE AIRPORT........................................................................................................76 8.6 WARSAW AIRPORT..........................................................................................................78 8.7 AMSTERDAM AIRPORT.....................................................................................................79 8.8 NOISE CONTOUR TRENDS AT LARGE AIRPORTS................................................................80 9 ESTIMATION OF POPULATION NOISE EXPOSURE ACROSS ALL AIRPORTS......81 9.1 METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................81 9.2 RESULTS FOR 51 AIRPORTS..............................................................................................82 9.3 OTHER AIRPORTS............................................................................................................84 10 POTENTIAL NATURAL CHANGES IN FLEET MIX......................................................86 10.1 DEFINITION.....................................................................................................................86 10.2 EVOLUTION.....................................................................................................................86 10.3 GENERIC CLASSIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT..........................................................................87 10.4 AIRCRAFT NOISE CHARACTERISTICS................................................................................87 10.5 AIRCRAFT DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS..............................................................................89 10.6 AIRBUS AND BOEING FLEET FORECASTS...........................................................................92 10.7 IMPLICATIONS OF FLEET MIX FOR THE NOISE CLIMATE.....................................................94 10.8 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................100 11 ALTERNATIVES...............................................................................................................102 11.1 ALTERNATIVES BASED ON THE BALANCED APPROACH.....................................................102 11.2 MARKET BASED INSTRUMENTS.......................................................................................105 12 POLICY ISSUES................................................................................................................115 12.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................115 12.2 ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS FROM CASE STUDY AIRPORTS......................................................115 12.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE DIRECTIVE......................................................................................117 12.4 DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES......................................................................................120 12.5 OTHER POLICY ISSUES....................................................................................................121 13 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................124 13.1 NOISE CLIMATE.............................................................................................................124 13.2 EXPERIENCES WITH THE DIRECTIVE................................................................................124 13.3 REVISION OF THE DIRECTIVE..........................................................................................125 13.4 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................126 MPD Group Ltd ii October 2007 MPD Group Ltd Study of aircraft noise exposure at and around Community airports : Evaluation of the effect of measures to reduce noise – Final Report APPENDIX A PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS.............................................................................A-1 APPENDIX B PRO FORMA QUESTIONNAIRE USED FOR INTERVIEWS.........................B-1 APPENDIX C 2002/3 AND 2006 JET AND TOTAL MOVEMENTS AT AIRPORTS...............C-1 APPENDIX D PERCENTAGE GROWTH IN MOVEMENTS AT EUROPEAN AIRPORTS..D-1 APPENDIX E NIGHT MOVEMENTS AS A PROPORTION OF TOTAL MOVEMENTS......E-1 APPENDIX F FORECASTING METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH....................................F-1 1. SOURCES AND THEIR USES..............................................................................................F-2 2 CENTRAL FORECASTS : OVERVIEW.................................................................................F-3 3 SOURCE DETAILS............................................................................................................F-4 4 METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................F-6 5 COUNTRY FORECASTS....................................................................................................F-7 6 APPLICATION OF COUNTRY FORECASTS TO AIRPORTS......................................................F-9 7 AIRPORT TIME BANDS..................................................................................................F-13 APPENDIX G PREVALENCE OF NOISY FLIGHTS AT STUDIED AIRPORTS....................G-1 APPENDIX H BONUS LIST FOR LESS NOISY AIRCRAFT IN GERMANY..........................H-1 APPENDIX I NOISE QUOTA COUNT SYSTEM IN UK...........................................................I-1 MPD Group Limited 8 Duncannon Street London WC2N 4JF Tel: +44 20 7484 5029 Fax +44 20 7691 7319 e-mail: [email protected] www.mpdgroup.com MPD Group Ltd iii October 2007 MPD Group Ltd Study of aircraft noise exposure at and around Community airports : Evaluation of the effect of measures to reduce noise – Final Report 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Objectives and Approach In 2002, the EU adopted Directive 2002/30 concerning noise-related operating restrictions at EU airports. World-wide agreement had been reached in ICAO for the banning of the older and noisier Chapter 2 and this took effect in April of that year. More recently, agreement had been reached in ICAO on Chapter 4 setting noise standards for new aircraft entering service, but no timetable was set for the phasing out of Chapter 3 aircraft. The Directive envisaged operating restrictions on aircraft that were marginally compliant with Chapter 3 being adopted at individual airports within the framework of the “Balanced Approach” set out by ICAO, and set out rules for the establishment of those restrictions. The Directive mandated the Commission to carry out a review after five years. This study is designed to help the Commission to discharge that task. In particular, the study contains: § an assessment of the changes in the total impact of aircraft noise within the European Union since the entry into force of the Directive; § an inventory of measures to mitigate that noise at and around Community airports since its entry into force; § an inventory of already planned actions to mitigate aircraft noise with respect to gradual withdrawal of marginally compliant aircraft and to night flight restrictions; § a detailed analysis of the above with a view to establishing how likely the Community is to achieve its objective of limiting aviation noise at and around Community airports under existing legislation, and to identify possible improvements to that legislation, inter alia by examining more stringent phase out options. The study has attempted to take in all 70 or so airports covered by the Directive, comprising: § obtaining facts and plans from the airports concerned – approximately three- quarters were able to co-operate fully with the study; § a comprehensive statistical analysis of aircraft movements at the airports for 2002 and 2006, thanks to the generous assistance of EUROCONTROL in providing data to the Commission; § detailed analysis of noise trends at five Case study airports selected to give a representative mix of types of airports, together with forecasts of future noise. 1.2 Noise Abatement Measures in Force and Planned Of course, most airports had noise alleviation measures in force and some had others planned before the introduction of the Directive. Thus, it is not easy to show any measures that were adopted as a result of the Directive. Indeed, many airports said they were able to adopt measures under pre-existing national law. Some even thought the Directive’s only effect was to inhibit new noise alleviation measures because of the burden of compliance with the assessment procedures. However, three or four were firmly of the view that restrictions they had introduced would have been impossible without the Directive. Others found it helpful in raising MPD Group Ltd 1 October 2007 MPD Group Ltd Study of aircraft noise exposure at and around Community airports : Evaluation of the effect of measures to reduce noise – Final Report awareness or demonstrating to stakeholders (neighbours, politicians and airlines) that they were operating within an international framework. In Section 5.2 we summarise the restrictions introduced by type, namely: • On marginally compliant Chapter 3 aircraft as defined (by 5dB or less); • On Chapter 3 aircraft that are more than marginally compliant, but not meeting Chapter 4 standards; • Night restrictions; • Noise Budgets; • Limits on movements. Naturally, at many airports, there was more than one type of restriction in force. Amongst the respondent airports, some highlights are: • Only three airports have totally banned “Minus 5” aircraft or are in the process of doing so, including one City Airport (one of the four defined in the Directive) and Paris CDG. Another four have reported partial bans, mainly at night. Bans are actively being considered at another ten. • “Minus 8” aircraft are banned at night at one airport, and three airports (two of them City Airports) are considering a move to Chapter 4 standards. In total, these bans, actual or planned, total or partial, affect about 40% of the airports for which we have information. In addition the operation of noise quotas may have the effect of limiting the use of marginally compliant aircraft. • Noise quotas are in operation at a few airports. The most notable is Amsterdam, where there is an elaborate scheme described in Chapter 8. At the main London airports, night restrictions are related to a noise Quota Count. • We identified two airports, Paris Orly and Düsseldorf with limits on the overall annual number of movements. The authorities have to balance the economic benefits to their regions of air services and the environmental impacts. As such, they are anxious that restrictions should not drive away air services. We were told of two re-locations in the 1990s and there is the more recent case of DHL’s planned move of services from Brussels to Leipzig because of night restrictions. Apart from this, airline reaction to restrictions seems to have been re-scheduling or change of aircraft, and we were only told of one instance where it was believed an air service had been lost. Of the remaining elements of the “Balanced Approach”, we note: • At virtually all airports there are mandatory operational procedures such as noise preferential routes, maximum actual noise at specified points, continuous descent approach, track keeping and ground noise. Some are backed by penalties for infringements. We only discovered five instances, all at medium- sized regional airports, where such procedures have been introduced since the Directive came into force. • Land use management – including controls on building in noise-affected areas, apply around about 60% of the airports responding. • Noise insulation schemes operate around about two thirds of the airports contacted, a third of those have come into force since 2002. The qualification criteria, the scope of work and the costs, vary considerably across Europe. MPD Group Ltd 2 October 2007 MPD Group Ltd Study of aircraft noise exposure at and around Community airports : Evaluation of the effect of measures to reduce noise – Final Report • Finally, though not formally part of the Balanced Approach, charges differentiated by night/day and/or noise category, apply at most airports. At about half of the airports contacted, there is differentiation by noise category. A few others are considering such charges. These are usually revenue neutral, but nine airports use the revenues to defray particular costs. Some 70% of respondents consider the charges to be effective noise-management tools. Quantification of the effects of each of these factors is not generally considered feasible, but one airport claimed a reduction of 45% in the noise contour. 1.3 Growth in Traffic and the Use of Marginally-Compliant Aircraft The study’s Base Year is the twelve months from April 2002 to March 2003 – selected as the first complete period following the phase out of Chapter 2 aircraft. It was a period which had seen widespread falls in traffic because of September 11th and the SARS epidemic. At our 70 airports, the EUROCONTROL data shows a growth in traffic of approximately 3% p.a. to reach 11mn aircraft movements (landings and take-offs) by 2006. The growth of jet aircraft as defined in the Directive averaged 3.9% p.a. with a drop in the numbers of movements by other aircraft. There was also a slightly faster increase in the standard eight-hour night period. The 70 airports comprise approximately 70% of total European traffic. However the remaining smaller airports are primarily in more lightly-populated areas, with a greater proportion of non-jet and smaller aircraft, and thus probably contribute only a small proportion of the total noise disturbance caused by civil air transport. As the Terms of Reference required an analysis of changes to the stringency level used to define marginal compliance, considerable effort was expended in the study to analyse the extent of present and likely future use of aircraft which do not meet Chapter 4 standards. Our analysis indicates a very significant drop – approximately 80% - in the number of movements by marginally compliant aircraft. There were also falls of some 20%-25% in movements by aircraft compliant by between 5dB and 10dB, with a growth of some 20% in aircraft meeting Chapter 4 standards. We analysed aircraft fleets and spent considerable effort in trying to identify the certificated levels of individual aircraft. Of the qualifying aircraft (jets over 34 tonnes or 19 seats) registered in the “Community” (EU, EEA and Switzerland) we only identified 49 aircraft that are only marginally compliant and only 600 or so that do not meet Chapter 4 standards, out of a total fleet of some 4,600 jet aircraft as defined and 11,000 aircraft in total. In addition, Community airports attract operations by aircraft based elsewhere. Overall, we estimate that at the 70 airports, only 0.4% of movements are by marginally compliant aircraft, and 88% are by aircraft meeting Chapter 4 standards. 1.4 Change in the Noise Climate in Europe In 2003, the Commission received a report from ANOTEC that modelled noise contours at 53 airports in the then EU and produced forecasts of future exposure. We have built on this work by additional analysis of the 2003 work, detailed analysis of aircraft movements at 70 airports in the enlarged EU, EEA and Switzerland, and MPD Group Ltd 3 October 2007 MPD Group Ltd Study of aircraft noise exposure at and around Community airports : Evaluation of the effect of measures to reduce noise – Final Report by detailed study of five representative airports. Our approach has been to devise a methodology which enables changes in the noise climate, with and without specific measures, to be assessed. The methodology does not permit us to make viable estimates for individual airports – Member State are required to produce those for the Commission by the end of the year. We conclude that there has been a very slight increase since 2002-03 in the level of exposure – the contour areas have expanded at some airports and declined at others. Thus, the significant increase in traffic has been approximately balanced by the decreased use of the noisiest Chapter 3 aircraft. From the Anotec work, at the 51 airports they modelled, we estimate that approximately 2.2mn people were living within the 55 Lden contour in both years. The assessment of future trends has been based on the Europe-wide forecasts produced by EUROCONTROL, applied to individual airports in the light of specific information. Overall, the assessment envisages an average growth of 3% p.a. in the number of aircraft movements. There are many factors that will determine whether the population exposed to noise around a particular airport will increase or decrease in the future to 2010, 2015 and beyond. These factors can be broadly grouped as follows, when considered in the context of this study: • the rate of overall growth in air traffic; • distribution of that growth over the day/evening/night periods; • the extent to which Chapter 3 aircraft are phased out; • the extent to which Chapter 4 aircraft are themselves replaced by quieter types; • the benefit of improved operational procedures; and • changes in population distribution (neighbouring land-uses). We have shown that Chapter 3 fleet retirements will off-set traffic growth to reduce population exposure by a few percent. Changes to the Chapter 4 compliant fleet up to 2015 will add to this. Whether or not all these off-setting factors will be enough to avoid actual year on year noise exposure increasing will, we suspect, vary greatly from airport to airport. Our conclusion is that, overall, the population exposed to noise is likely to increase across the Community. At most (although not necessarily at all) airports, there will be increases in the contour areas. This holds even if all aircraft other than those meeting Chapter 4 standards are withdrawn. 1.5 Policy Options The principal objective of Directive 2002/30 EC is to “limit or reduce the number of people significantly affected by the harmful effects of noise”, while the preamble declares that sustainable development requires “reducing the noise nuisance at airports with particular noise problems”. This study concludes that with measures in force, noise exposure will in fact increase across the Community, although this may not necessarily be the case for all airports. MPD Group Ltd 4 October 2007 MPD Group Ltd Study of aircraft noise exposure at and around Community airports : Evaluation of the effect of measures to reduce noise – Final Report Of the options considered: § Entirely removing marginally compliant aircraft (“Minus 5”) will make a small difference, but these aircraft are being retired. § Banning all aircraft that do not meet Chapter 4 standards (“Minus 10”) will make some difference but not enough to contain the growth in the numbers of people affected. By 2015, it is likely that many of these aircraft will also have been retired. § Other elements of the Balanced Approach – land use management (including in rare cases a new runway or new airport), insulation, property purchase and operating procedures are already being used within the limits of national laws. Further measures in this area, with the possible exception of continuous descent approach procedures, will only help to a small extent. This implies that significant improvements will only be obtained by tackling noise at source or by further operating restrictions. Possibilities are: § Developing a “Chapter 5” reflecting the potential of current technologies. This could only have an effect in the long-term. § Defining levels of stringency which are greater than “Minus 10” § Greater use of effective and enforced noise budgets such as those applying at night at the London airports. § Sharper differentiation in airport charges according to noise. This would help to incentivise airlines to use quieter aircraft. 1.6 Changes to the Directive We recommend consideration should be given to some changes to the Directive, some of them minor: • Further clarify the Directive to make clear what exactly it permits and prohibits; • Reconsider the formulation in Article 5.1 and the requirements posed in Annex 2; • Change the definition of marginally compliant aircraft by increasing the margin by which Chapter 3 standards have to be exceeded • Consider achieving further consistency of aircraft categorisation in the long term; • Consider widening the scope of the Directive to apply to smaller aircraft types as well. Overall, we consider the effects of the Directive have been modest and will continue to be so. MPD Group Ltd 5 October 2007 MPD Group Ltd Study of aircraft noise exposure at and around Community airports : Evaluation of the effect of measures to reduce noise – Final Report 2 Introduction 2.1 Objectives This Report has been prepared for the European Commission by MPD Group Ltd in association with CE Delft and ERM Ltd, to appraise and comment on aircraft noise exposure at and around Community Airports and to evaluate the effects of measures to reduce noise. In particular the study specifications require the consultant to research and report on the five key areas noted below: - an assessment of the changes in the total impact of aircraft noise within the European Union since the entry into force of Directive 2002/30/EC; - an inventory of measures to mitigate that noise at and around Community airports, taken into accordance with the provisions of the Directive since its entry into force; - an inventory of already planned actions to mitigate aircraft noise with respect to gradual withdrawal of marginally compliant aircraft and to night flight restrictions; - the impact of the above measures on the future noise climate; - a detailed analysis of the above with a view to establishing how likely the Community is to achieve its objective of limiting aviation noise at and around Community airports under existing legislation, and to identify possible improvements to that legislation;, inter alia by examining more stringent phase out options. This Report presents our analysis, findings and conclusions in relation to the above four issues. 2.2 Background and Context The need for the study arises from Article 14 of Directive 2002/30/EC which requires that the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Directive no later than five years after its entry into force. The Commission’s report may need to make proposals for revision of the Directive. It therefore has to contain an assessment of the effectiveness of this Directive, in which context particular stress is laid upon determining whether there is a need to revise the current definition of “marginally compliant aircraft” (Chapter 3 minus a cumulative 5 EPNdB) in favour of greater stringency. This study is designed to assist the Commission in preparing that report, addressing the issues with which the Commission’s report must deal. The Directive’s objectives may be summarised as : - to ensure respect for the ICAO Balanced Approach to aircraft noise limitation; - to provide a framework of rules so that individual airport restrictions are introduced in a consistent way so as to “limit or reduce” the number of people significantly affected by (aircraft) noise; - to ensure maintenance of internal market needs; - to promote environmentally compatible airport capacity development; MPD Group Ltd 6 October 2007