Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
their economy. In the second place, when airports are important for their region in
attracting new kinds of industries and economic activity, the opportunities also grow
for alternative sources of income with lower environmental costs than air transport.
Third, with growing economic activities, there is an increasing need for land and
competing land use for other activities of the local communities, which in the end
can lead to severe constraints on further airport development. Last, there is the wel-
fare paradox: the wealthier people get, the more they want to fly, but also the more they
want a healthy environment and, hence, the more restrictions they put on air traffic.
Only ongoing improvement in environmental performance can meet both needs.
The Schiphol case: airport development and the need for
noise capacity
Management of the noise impact around Schiphol Airport during the past 20 years
has been relatively successful. As at most airports, the total area with the same noise
impact shrank by one third. The total number of noise-impacted houses dropped
from 24,000 in 1982 to 10,000 in 2000. However, in the perception of its neigh-
bours, the situation got worse, and in 1998 affected individuals filed a record num-
ber of complaints. These complaints were related to major public events, airport
development and a major accident.
Since 1998, Schiphol has been a fully noise-coordinated airport. It has a total
noise volume budget, which is also the maximum noise capacity for the airport. The
total number of yearly slots has to fit within this budget, so the only way to grow is
to make less noise per aircraft movement. There is also a network of measuring
points within built-up areas, each with its own maximum noise limit. Fixed land-use
planning zones for noise have been designed to ensure that the number of houses
cannot rise through new-build as the noise impact has dropped. There is also an
external safety zone, defined in relation to a maximum standard for third-party risk
and a fixed number of houses. National law enforces the total noise impact of the
airport. The airport is responsible for operating within the total noise budget. The
air traffic control (ATC) for the operations (routes) and the airlines can be penalized
if the airlines (without ATC permission) do not follow prescribed routes.
The most effective way to enable growth within those noise limits is ongoing reduc-
tion of the noise at the source: all other measures are trivial compared with the effect
of phasing out the noisier aircraft. However, the phase-out of Chapter 2 aircraft is
practically complete, so at Schiphol we have to begin phasing out marginal Chapter
3 aircraft to enable growth within the fixed noise budget. This year, Schiphol started
with a dynamic surcharge and operational (night) restrictions for Chapter 3 aircraft.
Other measures, such as quieter flight procedures and preferential runway use, do
help in reducing noise hindrance but have no effect on the total noise volume budget.
This is contrary to reduced night flights, as each night flight equals ten day-flights
with respect to the noise budget. In 2003, the opening of the new fifth runway will
give important noise relief and therefore not only generate more runway capacity,
but also new noise capacity.
In 2000, total traffic demand and the required runway capacity could be roughly
handled within the available noise budget, thanks to the total phase-out of Chapter
2 aircraft. In 2003, the opening of the fifth runway will enable further growth to
