Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
chains to be reassessed, this time via the market mechanism of the increased costs of
current operations being absorbed directly by those responsible for generating the
external costs in the first place and compensating those affected.
Visions of the future (3) - relocation of the noise burden
As has been seen from the case studies, the integrators under discussion have already
had to move airports and it is likely that more relocations will be required. In fact, they
have a long history of moving between airports, with an average stay of around five to
seven years at any one site in the UK. They have also been remarkably reluctant to
commit capital in the form of sinking their own funds into infrastructure. (This partly
explains why DHL's decision to invest its own capital in a new sortation hub at East
Midlands took the industry by surprise.) No doubt, the search will continue to find
new intermodal hubs for their operations at an airport and a local community that will
tolerate the downside of these types of operation. Indeed, there continue to be airports
- often ex-military airfields such as Alconbury (north of London) and Finningley (in
south Yorkshire)
-
that indicate that they would welcome night flights. However, such
locations are becoming fewer as every year passes and, by definition, are relatively
remote from the population and business centres whom they aim to serve.
In such circumstances, and given such uncertainties about their ability to sus-
tain their operations, the impacts on integrators' network robustness and schedule
designs become increasingly sub-optimal and operating costs rise. Every move typi-
cally involves increased road transport distances and, hence, increases the cost (and
time taken) of the services offered. In addition, as shown by the East Midlands Air-
port case study, while the welcome may initially be warm for the job opportunities
offered and the economic activity created, local communities quickly become dis-
enchanted when their sleep is disturbed as night-time operations intensify.
Visions of the future (4) - managing the local community
interface
Given the absence of either direct regulatory intervention and control over night-time
flights or the use of market mechanisms to compensate those directly affected, it is
hardly surprising to find that local communities are beginning to question why they
have to put up with the actions of those who are directly responsible - in this case,
the integrators. After all, it is they who fly their aircraft into and out of local airports,
intensively at night, and using typically 'older' and noisier aircraft than those that fly
during the day. On a network-wide basis, but particularly at the busiest network
points such as East Midlands and Brussels, there is a growing need for integrators to
work directly with both the airport and the local community to manage relations
more effectively than hitherto.
Until now, those operating aircraft have tended to assume that it is the airport
owners' responsibility to maintain 'good neighbour' relationships. Several European
airports such as Manchester have consistently demonstrated 'good practice' in this
area over a long period, prioritizing environmental mitigation, and signing up to
environmental targets agreed and set in close partnership with the surrounding com-
munity (Pedoe, Raper and Holden, 1996; Caves and Gosling, 1999).
