Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Available online 11 July 2014
The issue of future airport capacity in London is currently the subject of much political debate in the UK.
Although realistic estimates of the effects of capacity enhancement may be desirable, such estimates are
difcult. Through the use of Monte Carlo simulation, this paper quanties and compares the relative
capacity enhancements that may be afforded by the construction of a new hub airport in the Thames
Estuary, additional runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and changes to operating practices at
Heathrow. The simulations show that a new hub airport would be the most effective way to increase
capacity, although the reported nancial and environmental costs of such a development indicate a
comparatively poor rate of return. Proposed new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and the
removal of runway alternation at Heathrow provide more modest increases in capacity.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Airport capacity
Monte Carlo simulation
London
UK
1. Introduction
Debates surrounding the provision of future airport capacity in
London and the South East have had a long and controversial
pedigree with the issue polarised between those who claim connectivity is vital for economic growth and those who believe that
airport expansion creates an unacceptable social and environmental burden. At the time of writing, a UK Government-appointed
Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, has published
a shortlist of possible solutions that they are currently evaluating. It
could be argued that, given the political sensitivity of airport capacity in the South East of England, realistic estimates of the effects
of all the proposed capacity enhancements are desirable. These
capacities should be comparable and be based on hypotheses that
reect real or near-real conditions and the method of estimating
capacities should reect current trafc conditions. Nobody could
argue with that ideal. However, achieving such estimates is a time
consuming task and one which is hampered by a number of factors.
For example, if trafc is based on schedules, it would not reect the
airports at full capacity and, in reality, aircraft rarely arrive and
depart in the order they are scheduled and, for certain airports,
schedules do not include charter trafc. In addition, realistically
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: D.E.Piteld@lboro.ac.uk (D.E. Piteld).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2014.06.005
0969-6997/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1
There is no necessary Correspondence between these estimates and declared
capacities.
2
It could be argued that due to technological advances that these will lessen in
future so increasing capacity estimates.
Table 1
Trafc mix and aircraft probabilities for Heathrow.
Aircraft category
Percentage of
movements
Probability
Cumulative
probability
Light (L)
Small b (Sb)
Small c (Sc)
Lower Medium (LM)
Upper Medium (UM)
Heavy c (Hc)
Heavy d (Hd)
Super (J)
0%
0.2%
2%
60.4%
2.3%
16.15%
16.15%
2.8%
0
0.002
0.02
0.604
0.023
0.1615
0.1615
0.028
0
0.002
0.022
0.626
0.649
0.8105
0.972
1
Table 4
Example of departure simulations at Heathrow (using arrivals data presented in
Table 3).
Observation Random
A/c
Separation Runway
Enter
Exit
category
occupation runway runway
1
2
3
4
5
6
LM
Hc
LM
LM
UM
LM
0.313926
0.247403
0.570501
0.453592
0.631647
0.471327
n/a
1.33
2
1.33
1.33
1.33
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
6.22
8.22
1.66
7.05
9.05
2. Method
Monte Carlo simulation will provide the basis of the method for
this paper. It has been used before in simulating runway capacity,
most notably by Piteld and Jerrard (1999), and has proven to be
equally as suitable as precision modelling tools such as Simmod for
simulating the effect of runway conguration changes. In this case
the main aim is a comparison of the broad changes in capacity of
various proposals to give maximum potential usage and therefore
precision modelling is not necessary.
The rst step in the simulation is to dene the variables that will
be randomised, in this case the trafc mix at an airport. Inbound
and outbound aircraft must be separated according to size to enable
potentially dangerous wake vortices to dissipate. Larger aircraft
create more wake turbulence than smaller aircraft and consequently each aircraft type is assigned to a wake turbulence category
to ensure safe separation is maintained. The trafc mix at an airport
thus directly inuences its capacity. At London Heathrow, for
example, the majority of aircraft are Lower Medium or Heavy airframes (Table 1).
Each aircraft in the simulation is assigned a random number
which is married to the cumulative probability column in Table 1 to
assign a wake turbulence category. This process is then repeated to
simulate peak hour ows. A separation time for each aircraft is
dened according to international metrics (Table 2). It is noted that
the peak hour trafc mix may vary slightly from the overall trafc
mix (e.g. cargo airlines may use larger aircraft and avoid the peak
hour), however with the data that is available, and the peak hour
being a theoretical rather than actual time period, the overall trafc
mixes are broadly appropriate.
All the aircraft in the simulation are then also assigned a runway
occupation time (see Section 3.4). In this exercise, arrivals are
simulated before departures as inbound aircraft have priority.
The simulation starts at 0 min and it is assumed the rst arrival
crosses the runway threshold at this time. The next aircraft is
assumed to be following the rst at minimum separation. Thus if
the required separation between the aircraft is 1.11 min, the next
aircraft is 1.11 min away from crossing runway threshold when the
rst aircraft is at the threshold. Table 3 illustrates simulated aircraft
arrivals and shows how separation distances determine the time in
the simulation at which they enter the runway. The runway occupancy times for arriving aircraft are required to calculate departures. The process continues until the simulation reaches 60 min
at which point the arrivals are stopped and counted.
Simulating departures similarly requires aircraft category, separation time and runway occupancy time to be calculated. Suitable
gaps must then be found in the sequence of arriving trafc in which
to slot in departures. A departure requires both the minimum
separation time from the preceding departure and a gap to the next
arrival that is greater than its own runway occupation time
(Table 4).
This process is repeated for 60 min. The simulation is then
stopped and the departures are counted. Any aircraft that has
begun its take-off roll but which has not left the runway within
these 60 min is not counted. The arrivals and departures are then
Table 2
Separation times for arriving aircraft (in minutes).
Following aircraft
Preceding
Aircraft
Super (J)
Heavy (H)
Upper Medium (UM)
Lower medium (LM)
Small (S)
Light (L)
Super (J)
1.78
1.78
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
HeavyD (Hd)
2.34
1.56
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
HeavyC (Hc)
2.67
1.78
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
SmallC (Sc)
3.21
2.75
1.83
1.37
1.37
1.15
SmallD (Sd)
3.65
3.13
2.09
1.57
1.57
1.30
Light (L)
4.53
3.96
3.40
2.83
2.26
1.42
Table 3
Example of arrival simulations at Heathrow.
Aircraft
Random
Aircraft category
Separation (mins)
Runway occupation
time (mins)
Enter runway
(mins)
Exit runway
(mins)
Unoccupied
duration (mins)
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.666653
0.568444
0.43141
0.307736
0.597959
0.661426
Hd
LM
LM
LM
Hc
Hc
0
2.22
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
0.83
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.83
0
2.22
3.33
4.44
5.55
7.17
0.83
2.89
4.00
5.11
6.22
8.00
1.39
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.95
1.39
Table 5
Separation times for aircraft wake turbulence categories, in minutes.
Following aircraft
Preceding
aircraft
Super (J)
Heavy (H)
Upper Medium (UM)
Lower medium (LM)
Small (S)
Light (L)
Super (J)
HeavyD (Hd)
HeavyC (Hc)
SmallC (Sc)
SmallD (Sd)
Light (L)
1.78
1.78
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
2.34
1.56
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
2.67
1.78
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
3.07
2.19
1.31
1.09
1.09
1.09
3.11
2.22
1.78
1.11
1.11
1.11
3.21
2.75
1.83
1.37
1.37
1.15
3.65
3.13
2.09
1.57
1.57
1.30
4.53
3.96
3.40
2.83
2.26
1.42
Table 6
Trafc as percentages of each wake vortex category.
Category
Heathrow
Gatwick
Stansted
Super (J)
Heavy (H)
Upper Medium (UM)
Lower Medium (LM)
Small (S)
Light (L)
0.7%
34.4%
2.3%
60.4%
2.2%
0%
0%
9.35%
4%
75.5%
11%
0.15%
0%
4.3%
0.6%
91.9%
2.6%
0.6%
3
London Luton was also simulated to provide an all London airport total. It
included the assumption that new taxiways are developed.
Table 7
Heathrow current situation simulations.
Simulation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average
Table 9
Stansted Current situation simulations.
27L
arrivals
27L
departures
27R
arrivals
27R
departures
Total
42
40
44
41
41
42
41
42
38
41
41.2
13
15
12
15
14
12
14
11
18
13
13.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
40
38
40
40
41
40
42
40
41
40.2
95
95
94
96
95
95
95
95
96
95
95.1
Table 8
Gatwick Current situation simulations.
Simulation
Arrivals
Departures
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average
48
49
48
47
46
48
46
47
47
44
47
12
6
10
10
11
11
10
9
9
14
10.2
60
55
58
57
57
59
56
56
56
58
57.2
Simulation
Arrivals
Departures
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average
54
53
51
52
50
50
51
52
50
51
51.4
0
2
4
2
5
5
4
3
4
3
3.2
54
55
55
54
55
55
55
55
54
54
54.6
Table 10
Total hourly capacity for London airports in current situation.
Airport
Arrivals
Departures
Total
movements
Airport's
declared
capacity
Difference
Heathrow
Gatwick
Stansted
All London
Airportsa
41.2
47.0
51.4
191.6
53.9
10.2
3.2
71
95.1
57.2
54.6
262.6
96
53
50
232
0.9
4.2
4.6
30.6
Includes Luton.
Table 14
Comparison between Heathrow Third Runway and Current Situation simulations.
Aircraft category
Percentage at
Heathrow
Percentage at new
hub airport
Super (J)
Heavy d (Hd)
Heavy (Hc)
Upper Medium (UM)
Lower Medium (LM)
Small c (Sc)
Small b (Sb)
Light (L)
2.8%
16.15%
16.15%
2.3%
60.4%
2.0%
0.2%
0%
2.8%
16.15%
16.15%
2.3%
50.4%
7.0%
5.2%
0%
Heathrow
All London
airports
Current
situation
capacity
Heathrow
third runway
capacity
Difference
Percentage
change
95.1
262.6
149.9
317.4
54.8
54.8
57.6%
20.9%
Table 13 shows the simulations for the two current runways and
also the simulations for the third runway. The new total peak hour
capacity is just under 150 movements. Compared to the current
situation, this option represents an increase in total capacity of
57.6% and an overall increase in the capacity of London airports of
20.9% (Table 14).
Table 12
Simulations for Thames Estuary airport.
Simulation
R1 arrivals
R1 Dep's
R2 arrivals
R2 Dep's
R3 arrivals
R3 Dep's
R4 arrivals
R4 Dep's
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average
39
37
42
38
37
38
37
41
39
38
38.6
16
15
11
15
18
18
18
12
16
18
15.7
40
40
41
40
40
39
38
45
38
41
40.2
15
13
14
13
14
15
14
10
17
13
13.8
41
40
38
39
37
38
39
41
38
38
38.9
14
15
14
18
16
16
15
13
16
17
15.4
39
41
40
42
39
40
43
40
41
41
40.6
14
15
13
13
16
13
10
16
12
13
13.5
218
216
213
218
217
217
214
218
217
219
216.7
Table 13
Simulations for Heathrow with third runway.
Simulation
27L arrivals
27L departures
27R arrivals
27R departures
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average
42
40
44
41
41
42
41
42
38
41
41.2
13
15
12
15
14
12
14
11
18
13
13.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
40
38
40
40
41
40
42
40
41
40.2
44
41
40
42
41
41
37
45
44
43
41.8
11
14
14
13
13
15
19
9
11
11
13
150
150
148
151
149
151
151
149
151
149
149.9
Table 15
Simulation results for Heathrow Runway Extension.
Table 17
Output of simulations for Heathrow westward expansion.
Simulation
Extended
runway
arrivals
Extended
runway
departures
Old runway
arrivals
Old runway
departures
Total
Total (all
Runway#2 Runway#3 Runway#4
Simulation Runway#1
Wide-Body departures departures Narrow-Body runways)
arrivals
arrivals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average
39
40
42
42
42
41
43
41
43
41
41.4
40
39
40
40
41
40
40
40
39
39
39.8
42
40
44
41
41
42
41
42
38
41
41.2
13
15
12
15
14
12
14
11
18
13
13.7
134
134
138
138
138
135
138
134
138
134
136.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average
this is that the extended runway still only allows one aircraft to
arrive and one to depart at a time.
5.1.3. Heathrow westward expansion
Another option that has been proposed is to expand Heathrow
westwards by building two new parallel runways to the west of the
existing pair along the same alignment (Leunig, 2012). The main
suggested advantages of this scheme are that it would permit a
signicant increase in capacity, would not require the destruction
of local villages and would reduce the number of people adversely
affected by aircraft noise. This is because the approach path would
be moved a few kilometres to the west meaning aircraft should be
signicantly higher (and quieter) to the east of the airport. The
simulations show that this layout can accommodate around 164
peak hour movements (Table 17).
Table 18 shows how the outputs of the simulations compare
with the two proposals already simulated; the plan to build a third
northern runway at Heathrow and the plan to construct a new hub
airport in the Thames Estuary.
The westward expansion proposal increases the total runway
capacity of London by a little over 26%. However, this compares
unfavourably with the replacement of Heathrow with a new hub in
the Thames Estuary which would provide nearly double the capacity, even though the number of runways is exactly the same.
Indeed, the westward expansion only provides around a 5%
improvement on the capacity a third runway at Heathrow would
provide. The reason for this is simply that the runways in the
westward expansion plan can only accommodate either arriving or
departing trafc, and not both types, as the other proposals do.
5.2. 2nd Runway at Gatwick
Although a local agreement prevents the construction of a second runway at Gatwick before 2019, a second runway has been
proposed as a way of alleviating some of the existing capacity
constraints at London airports. Under plans outlined in the Airports
Commission's Interim Report, the new runway would be located to
the south of the existing one, with a new terminal located between
Table 16
Comparison between
simulations.
Heathrow
All London
Airports
Heathrow
runway
extension
and
current
situation
Current
situation
capacity
Heathrow
runway extension
capacity
Difference
Percentage
change
95.1
262.6
136.1
303.6
41.0
41.0
43.11%
15.65%
34
36
34
37
37
36
36
35
36
36
35.7
38
40
39
40
38
40
38
37
38
39
38.7
40
41
40
38
41
39
41
40
41
40
40.1
51
48
52
50
49
50
50
50
51
48
49.9
163
165
165
165
165
165
165
162
166
163
164.4
the two. Table 19 shows that the new runway roughly doubles the
airport's capacity. Interestingly, it also suggests that Gatwick with
two runways would be able to handle 9 extra movements per hour
than Heathrow's two runways (with no runway use restrictions)
and nearly 5 more per hour than Stansted with two runways (see
Section 4.4).
Table 20 shows that building a second runway at Gatwick almost
doubles the airport's capacity and increases the capacity of London
airports by 22%.
5.3. 2nd Runway at Stansted
Stansted's location in rural Essex means that it is theoretically
the easiest to expand, although it has been rejected from the Airports Commission's shortlist. The airport's 2006 interim master
plan (Stansted Airport, 2006), indicated that a new runway could be
built to the south east of the existing runway and it is this conguration which we use for simulation. It is assumed that the new
runway has identical dimensions and can support the same trafc
mix as the existing runway. Table 21 shows the results of the
simulations for Stansted with the second runway.
Table 22 shows how the Stansted second runway plans would
change the capacity of Stansted and the London airports as a whole.
This shows that the increase in capacity is very similar to that of a
Heathrow third runway, which is potentially signicant since
expanding Stansted may be cheaper and more politically acceptable than developing Heathrow.
5.4. Optimising Heathrow
The nal option we consider here is the proposal to permanently
adopt mixed mode operations at Heathrow. The advantage of this
proposal is that it would not require any expensive or disruptive
construction but it would impose an additional noise burden on
airport residents.
The current runway alternation agreement provides for one
runway to be used by landing aircraft from 06:00 until 15:00 and
the other runway to be used from 15:00 until after the last departure (Heathrow Airport, 2013). What this means is that, while one
runway can be freely used for arrivals and departures, the other
runway can be used for departures only. While in an off-peak ow,
having one runway designated primarily for arrivals and one for
departures may be ne, during peak periods commercial and
operational imperatives dictate that the runways should be used to
their maximum capacity. At present, therefore, Heathrow is not
operating at its maximum capacity. The simulations that examine
the effect of removing runway segregation adopt the same assumptions as for the current situation simulations. The simulations
Table 18
Comparing the results of the westward expansion simulations with similar proposals.
Expansion proposal
Difference
Percentage change
Estimated cost
262.6
262.6
262.6
317.2
384
332
54.6
121.4
69.4
20.79%
46.23%
26.43%
10bn
50bn
10bn
Table 19
Simulations for Gatwick Airport with the new runway.
Simulation
2nd Runway
departures
Total movements
Average runway
crossing delay
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average
48
49
48
47
46
48
46
47
47
44
47
12
6
10
10
11
11
10
9
9
14
10.2
49
46
47
47
49
50
44
49
43
47
47.1
9
9
11
9
9
7
12
9
14
9
9.8
118
110
116
113
115
116
112
114
113
114
114.1
1.45
0.36
0.70
0.46
0.64
0.74
0.40
0.54
0.50
0.57
0.64
for runway 27L will be kept as the variables are unchanged. The
simulations for runway 27R will be run as if the runway alternation
agreement did not exist.
Table 23 details the outputs of these simulations. The unrestricted runway can handle around 54 movements per hour (40
Table 20
Comparing the capacity of Gatwick Airport. New runway simulations versus the
current situation.
Gatwick
All London
Airports
Current situation
capacity
Difference
Change
57.2
262.6
114.1
319.5
56.9
56.9
99.5%
21.7%
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
arrivals, 14 departures). The simulations with the runway alternation agreement in the current situation section showed just under
40 departures were possible. Therefore removing the runway
alternation agreement would raise Heathrow's maximum capacity
by around 14 movements per hour.
Table 24 shows the capacity of London and Heathrow with and
without the runway alternation agreement. It can be seen that
removal of this agreement would increase Heathrow's capacity by
15% and London overall by over 5%.
Signicantly, this proposal affords a 14.6% capacity increase at
the airport at minimal cost.
6. Discussion
The results of existing airport capacity simulations were presented in Section 3 and the results of simulations into ve proposed
capacity options were presented in Section 4. This section
Table 21
Simulations for Stansted second runway.
Simulation
1st Runway
arrivals
1st Runway
departures
1st Runway
arrivals
2nd Runway
departures
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average
54
53
51
52
50
50
51
52
50
51
51.4
0
2
4
2
5
5
4
3
4
3
3.2
51
51
50
49
51
51
51
50
48
52
50.4
4
3
5
7
5
5
5
6
7
2
4.9
109
109
110
110
111
111
111
111
109
108
109.9
Table 22
Comparison between Stansted expansion capacity and current situation capacity.
Stansted
All London
Airports
Current
situation
capacity
Capacity with
Stansted expansion
Difference
54.6
262.6
109.9
317.9
55.3
55.3
Percentage
change
101.3%
21.1%
Table 23
Simulations for Heathrow without runway alternation restrictions.
Simulation 27L arrivals 27L departures 27R arrivals 27R departures Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Average
42
40
44
41
41
42
41
42
38
41
41.2
13
15
12
15
14
12
14
11
18
13
13.7
39
43
41
40
39
39
38
42
40
37
39.8
15
12
14
14
15
14
16
12
15
16
14.3
109
110
111
110
109
107
109
107
111
107
109
Table 24
Comparison of Heathrow capacity with and without runway alternation.
Heathrow
London total
Current
situation
capacity
Capacity without
runway alternation
Difference
Change
95.1
262.6
109.0
276.5
13.9
13.9
14.6%
5.29%
Table 25
The proposals compared.
Proposal
Total capacity
Change in capacity
Estimated cost
262.6
317.4
303.6
317.9
319.5
479.3
384.2
332.0
276.5
0%
20.9%
15.7%
21.1%
21.7%
82.5%
46.3%
26.43%
5.3%
0
2021
2018
2021
2021
2050
2033
2023
2015
0
10bn
10bn
2.7bn
5bn
50bn
50bn
10bn
N/A
This would offer a signicant saving over the 50bn cost of a new
hub airport whilst maintaining much of the capacity increase.
Expanding Heathrow to the west, as per Leunig's proposal,
would give a capacity increase of around 26% (only 5% more than
the Heathrow third runway proposal). However, more research
needs to be carried out to assess the true costs of such a project,
both nancially and socially.
7. Conclusion
Through the use of Monte Carlo simulation this paper has
examined ve proposals that have been advanced to address the
issue of future airport capacity in London and the South East of
England. While the exercise has provided comparable gures for
current and potential future capacity at individual airports and
across the three main London airports it does not advocate any
particular development as it is not based on realistic estimates of
absolute capacity but on simulations of relative capacity at the
peak. Indeed, we are acutely aware that any future decision about
UK airport capacity needs to consider not only the practicalities of
airport operations and optimal aireld congurations and locations
but also the myriad socio-economic and environmental implications of any development at both local and global scales.
However, with all assumptions considered, this paper has
clearly shown how the most popular proposals compare against
each other in terms of peak hour capacity. It shows that a new
unrestricted runway generally translates to around a 21% increase
in peak hour movement capacity for the London area, although
there are some small variations depending on where it is placed,
and the consequent aircraft types that would use this new runway.
This paper has also shown that removing the runway alternation
agreement that is currently in place at Heathrow could release
around 5% of extra runway capacity for London comparatively
simply, although in the wider context London's capacity issues are
unlikely to be solved without the building of new additional
runway infrastructure. The increase in capacity gures produced
through this research provides an easily comparable basis from
which the relative merits of these projects can be examined in
greater detail.
References
Airport Coordination Ltd, 2010. LGW W10 Start of Season Report. Available at:
http://www.acl-uk.org/UserFiles/File/LGW%20W10%20START%20OF%
20SEASON%20REPORT_1.pdf (accessed 03.03.13.).
Airport Coordination Ltd, 2012a. LGW S12 Start of Season Report. Available at:
http://www.acl-uk.org/UserFiles/File/LGW%20S12%20Start%20of%20season%
20report_V6.pdf (accessed 11.03.13.).
Airport Coordination Ltd, 2012b. STN S12 Start of Season Report. Available at: http://
www.acl-uk.org/UserFiles/File/STN_S12_Start_of_season_report2.pdf (accessed
16.03.13.).
BBC, 2012. New Thames Estuary Airport Proposal Unveiled. Available at: http://
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19577410 (accessed 04.04.13.).
Leunig, T., 2012. Bigger and Quieter: the right answer for aviation. Policy Exchange
available at:[. http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/bigger%
20and%20quieter.pdf (last accessed 20.08.13.).
Piteld, D.E., Jerrard, E.A., 1999. Monte Carlo comes to Rome: a note on the estimation of unconstrained runway capacity at Rome Fiumucino Airport. J. Air
Transp. Manag. 5 (4), 185e192.
Stansted Airport (BAA), 2006. Interim Masterplan. http://www.stanstedairport.
com/static/Stansted/Downloads/PDF/STN_interim_masterplan.pdf
(accessed
01.04.13.).