Recently in Airports Category

View imageYou know, soot and stuff like that. The sort of thing that is an issue at and around airports. It hasn't been quite as thoroughly researched during a period when the focus has been on less visible and more damaging things like NOX and CO2. But it's a problem - and for airport planners and their regulators, local air quality is becoming a very big deal - just ask everyone concerned with the Heathrow expansion debate.

Anyway, you can now arm yourself with the finest stats available in the field courtesy of the US Transportation Research Board's Airport Cooperative Research Program. They've just published the results of a heavyweight study of the phenonemon using several real aircraft with engines covering about 70% of the US fleet. Landmark stuff.

Here's a flavour of it, but there's much, much more...

The following conclusions were drawn when emissions were sampled at the exhaust nozzle:

- The measured PM parameters for each engine type (i.e., JT8D, CFM56, CF6, RB211, etc.)

are unique. For example, in the case of the RB211, JT8D, and PW4158, the mass-based

emission indices measured as a function of fuel flow ranged from 0.04 to 0.70, <0.01 to 0.32,

and <0.01 to 0.18 g/kg-fuel respectively.

- The measured PM parameters for engine subtypes are also unique. For example, for the

CFM56-3B versus -7B engines, the ratio of their mass-based emission indices at takeoff was

found to be 4:1 (-3B:-7B).

- Credible inventories based on nozzle emission rates will require engine-specific data like

that measured in these studies.

- Black carbon PM (i.e., non-volatile particles) constitutes more than 80% of the mass of PM

emissions at all thrust conditions. At takeoff thrusts, more than 95% of the total PM mass

is black carbon PM.

Interesting goings-on in Los Angeles where Shangri-La Construction has been showing off the first example of the type of 'green' hangar that it hopes to sell to aviation operators - starting with local business aviation FBO Maguire Aviation.

The demonstration unit is at Bob Hope Airport in Burbank, and Maguire is in talks to commission the same sort of thing for its operation at Van Nuys Airport where it is the major tenant.

We're talking, for example, solar panels to power lighting and electrical vehicles.

Press release here. And explanatory movie below.

 

A few speakers rely heavily on their data slides which I'll try to update when they're released over the next week or so. One of those is Nikolas Hill, a senior consultant with AEA, but he is also the one speaker to speculate - in response to a question - about where the UK Conservatives got their figures. Notably the one that says high-speed rail is 70X cleaner than air travel.

One of the day's most interesting speakers is not actually on the agenda, but Michel Leboeuf of the Systra consultancy arm of French rail operator SNCF gets plenty of attention when he speaks from the floor.

Michael Hayes, managing consultant for Atkins Transport Planning, puts out the question: "Is Heathrow important to the business case for high-speed rail?" And he continues: "If you are going to build this very expensive piece of kit, which markets do you want to serve?"

He points out the complexities of trying to serve the markets for Birmingham and also for Liverpool further north, and he suggests that only Scottish traffic would experience a "significant" shift from air to rail. It might lead, he suggests, to a solution with better conventional long-distance rail services with "occasional" high-speed trains on the longer routes.

"This comes across as saying there is not case for high-speed rail," he frets. "I think there is a case, but it has got to be part of a bigger solution."

Prof Robert Cochrane of Imperial College London, who was heavily involved in the the landmark Eddington study of UK transportation, also bemoans the inadequate data - particularly on non-aviation travel, and especially the roads.

Next up is Stuart Condie, BAA planning services director and the man whose show it is.

I'm just back from a small but perfectly formed conference in London organised by BAA and designed to help them, and anyone else, understand how Heathrow and the national rail system should be linked - or not. With particular emphasis on the case for high-speed rail. BAA plans to come out with its own proposals in summer 2009.

All of a sudden this has become a big deal after the UK opposition Conservative party announced, to the astonishment of just about everyone, that they would not go ahead with building the third Heathrow runway and would instead invest in high-speed rail. Their leader David Cameron personally put his name to this idea. As the Conservatives have at least an evens chance of being the next government, this is not a trivial matter.

At the conference, where there are something like 100 attendees from business, academia, consultancies etc, there is general bafflement at what the Conservatives are doing and where they sourced their supporting data.

It's kicked off by chairman Tony Travers, director of the Greater London Group at the London School of Economics. Drily noting that Heathrow is "a national treasure" - a very British, and decidedly two-edged description - he says: "High speed rail could make Heathrow easier to access and greener but, and there is a paradox here, easier to expand."

It's the annual conference of the Conservative Party in the UK. Regardless of how thrilling or otherwise you may find this, the fact is that they are very publicly committing to actions that stand an excellent choice of forming the manifesto of the next national government.

And a huge commitment they made today was to confirm beyond any doubt that they do not intend to go ahead with approving a third London Heathrow runway. That came from shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers. Their leader David Cameron said as much before, and so did London's Conservative mayor Boris Johnson (although he has his own unique wrinkle on the argument). Now there's no going back.

They'll be spending the money on high-speed rail from major northern cities and London instead.

The declaration has had predictably but decidedly mixed receptions as reported here in The Guardian and here by the BBC. This of course is not a debate that lends itself to neat conclusions - but the "false choice" between air and rail argument does seem relevant.

In the reasonably plausible event of the next election ending with a Conservative victory but a 'hung' parliament, the Tories could count on the Liberal Democrats for support on this issue.

At one point it looked as if the war was won over the proposed third Heathrow runway. The UK Labour government was onside and supporters were cautiously confident. But one way or another the whole debate is up for grabs again - particularly since the Conservatives took everyone by surprise and said they won't support it if they get in. So today BAA, through the Future Heathrow grouping, turned up the pressure with the backing of 100 entities of various sorts, but overwhelmingly from the business community, and in large part from the financially muscular end of the sector.

At time of writing it has to be said that this Monday press release wasn't actually getting a lot of traction - but the names are actually pretty impressive and will certainly give the Conservatives food for thought.