5. The suggested environmental benefits of the Runway Extension are highly questionable.
Birmingham International Airport (BIA) Ltd claims that the the proposed Runway Extension will mostly benefit the environment, but this claim does not stand up to scrutiny.
The 'claw-back' argument
Extending the runway, it is argued, will enable BIA to satisfy a greater proportion of the regional demand for air travel where that demand arises. Midlands air passengers currently travelling long-distance by car to start air journeys at other airports will be wooed back to their 'local' airport by the more comprehensive range of air service that will be available from Birmingham with the Runway Extension in place. This 'clawing back' of the regional air travel market will, it is claimed, reduce carbon dioxide emissions from surface transport and relieve traffic congestion in other regions by allowing Midlands air travellers to begin their journeys closer to home.
The 2003 Department for Transport (DfT) White Paper 'The Future of Air Transport' endorses the role of regional airports in, amongst other things, relieving congestion in the South East by 'clawing back' passengers who currently travel to Heathrow, Stansted or Gatwick. [1] (It's a pity the DfT did not explore the potential for reducing road congestion of not expanding traffic-generating airports.) In its 2007 Master Plan BIA Ltd estimates that less than 40 per cent of the Midlands' demand for air travel was served within the region in 2006, with 34 per cent relying on the South-East airports, an 'unsustainable situation that creates large numbers of unnecessary surface access trips and contributes to congestion in other areas.' [2] Birmingham's share of the Midlands' regional air travel market is currently estimated at 36 per cent, and this is forecast to rise to 57 per cent by 2030 as a result of BIA's expansion.[3]
There are several flaws in this 'claw-back' argument.
First, it is not necessarily the case that as an airport grows it will reap a greater share of the local market for air travel. According to the Economic Impact Assessment of the Runway Extension carried out for BIA Ltd by York Aviation, Birmingham's share of the total passenger traffic handled by UK regional airports fell from 11.4 per cent to 9.2 per cent between 2001 and 2006, despite passenger traffic at BIA having grown by 17.4 per cent over the same period. In this respect BIA is not unusual. All three of the largest UK regional airports - Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow - have experienced a fall in market share as a result of the rapid growth of low-cost airlines at smaller regional airports such as Liverpool, Bristol and East Midlands. [4]
Secondly, although there will undoubtedly be some 'claw back', most of BIA's future growth will arise from an increase in demand for flights within the airport's regional catchment area, not from a greater retention of passengers currently travelling to airports outside the region. The Runway Extension will itself stimulate demand locally and generate many more new passengers than are likely to be displaced from other airports as a result of BIA expanding its range of services.
York Aviation's Economic Impact Assessment assumes that air passengers who switch to flying from BIA as a result of the expansion represent additional passengers in the overall air travel market. This means that any passengers 'clawed back' to Birmingham from other airports will be replaced by new passengers at those airports.
'The proposed runway extension and the consequent increase in the number of passengers handled by BHX [Birmingham International Airport] will generate environmental costs in terms of increased carbon dioxide emissions. In line with our approach to Government revenues and producer benefits, we have assumed that all additional flights out of BHX with the proposed runway extension will be additional to the UK market as a whole. In other words, the flights from other airports from which the additional passengers using BHX are drawn will continue to operate and hence there is no decrease in emissions elsewhere to offset the increase at BHX.' (emphasis added) [5]
In terms of emissions from airport-related surface transport journeys, the same assumption holds: Midlands air travellers who switch to BIA will no longer be making long car journeys to non-Midlands airports, for sure, but those car journeys will be replaced at other airports by the car journeys of new passengers stimulated by the growth of those airports, and 'there will be additional emissions associated with this group [newly stimulated passengers] as they travel to the alternative UK airports.' [6]
Saving a penny, emitting a pound
An Environmental Impact Assessment of the Runway Extension was undertaken for BIA Ltd by Ove Arup and Partners (Arup), and the results are summarised in an Environmental Statement, according to which Arup found that although operating a longer runway at BIA will result in a small saving in terms of carbon dioxide emissions from airport-related road traffic, this small saving is purchased at the cost of a far greater increase in carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft.
For the Traffic Assessment, Arup collected data on the potential annual vehicle distance and carbon dioxide emissions savings likely to accrue as a direct result of the Runway Extension 'clawing back' West Midlands air passengers (and their cars) to Birmingham from Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Manchester and Luton Airports. We can compare these figures with Arup's forecasts of emissions growth under an alternative scenario in which the airport continues to grow but does not build the Runway Extension.
Arup concluded:
- In the 'no runway extension' scenario carbon dioxide emissions from road traffic journeys to and from BIA are forecast to grow from 0.040 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (MtCO2) in 2006 to 0.10 MtCO2 in 2030. [7]
- In the 'with runway extension' scenario, in which the Runway Extension begins operating early in 2012, carbon dioxide emissions from road traffic journeys rise from 0.056 Mt CO2 in 2012 to 0.116 MtCO2 by 2030.[8]
- In the 'with runway extension' scenario, the estimated annual saving in road traffic carbon dioxide emissions savings starts at 0.004 MtCO2 in 2012, rising to 0.017 MtCO2 in 2030. [9]
Subtracting the figure for road traffic emissions savings in 2030 from the total road traffic emissions for that year under the 'with runway extension' scenario gives a net increase in emissions from road trips to and from BIA of 0.099 MtCO2.
0.116 MtCO2 - 0.017 MtCO2 = 0.099 MtCO2
Subtracting this figure from the figure for road traffic emissions in the 'no runway extension' scenario gives a net saving in surface transport emissions directly attributable to the Runway Extension in 2030 of just 1000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.
0.10 MtCO2 - 0.099 MtCO2 = 0.001 MtCO2
This small saving is dwarfed by the forecast extra 0.56 MtCO2 of aircraft emissions BIA will generating in 2030 under the 'with runway extension' scenario compared with the 'no runway extension' scenario. [10]
The same calculation performed with the data for 2012 and 2022 yields broadly similar results. The forecast net saving in surface transport emissions directly attributable to the Runway Extension is 0.0014 MtCO2 in 2012 and 0.002 MtCO2 in 2022. The figures for the forecast additional carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft in the 'with runway extension' scenario compared with the 'no runway extension' scenario are 0.034 MtCO2 and 0.30 MtCO2 in 2012 and 2022 respectively.[11]
Thus, throughout the period from 2012 to 2030, the Runway Extension makes possible a small reduction in surface transport carbon dioxide emissions but only at the cost of a far greater increase in carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft movements.
A Heathrow in every region?
Finally, we must also consider that while regional airports generally serve local demand, the larger ones like Birmingham and Manchester also attract passengers from a wider area.[12] How many air travellers from outside the Midlands can we expect to start making 'unnecessary' car journeys to our congested city to take advantage of the extra services offered by BIA? Will other airports cite expansion at Birmingham as a reason why they too must expand in order to 'claw back' a greater share of the market for themselves? And then what? A second runway? A Heathrow in every region?
References
[1] 'The Future of Air Transport' White Paper, HM Department for Transport, December 2003, para.4.35, p54.
www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/whitepapers/air/thefutureofairtransportwhite5694
[2] Birmingham International Airport Ltd., 'Towards 2030: planning a sustainable future for air transport in the Midlands', November 2007, para.1.2, p7. www.bhx.co.uk/Planning/351.pdf
[3] Ibid., para.5.8, p20.
[4] York Aviation, Birmingham International Airport Proposed Runway Extension - Economic Impact Assessment Final Report, December 2007, para.2.5, p4. http://tinyurl.com/2ggjew
[5] Ibid., para.4.23, p38.
[6] Ibid., para.4.25, p39.
[7] Ove Arup & Partners, 'Birmingham International Airport Proposed Runway Extension - Environmental Statement', January 2008, Table 5.1 CO2 Emissions for ‘Without Runway Extension’: 2006 to 2030 (Mt CO2), p51.
[8] Ibid., Table 5.2: CO2 Emissions with the proposed runway extension: 2006 to 2030 (Mt CO2), p52.
[9] Ibid., Table 5.3 CO2 emissions savings from vehicle travel with the proposed runway extension: 2012 to 2030 (Mt CO2), p52.
[10] Ibid. The figure of 0.56 MtCO2 is derived by subtracting the emissions from aircraft movements in 2030 under the 'no runway extension' scenario (1.41 MtCO2, Table 5.1) from the equivalent figure under the 'no runway extension' scenario (1.97 MtCO2, Table 5,2).
[11] Ibid. The figures for the forecast additional carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft under the 'with runway extension' scenario compared with the 'no runway extension' scenario are derived as per note 10, above.
[12] HM Department for Transport, op. cit., para.4.31, p52.