| Description | Koning, M., Verkade, E., and Hakfoort, J. (2002) Gevolgen van uitbreiding Schiphol; Een kengetallen kosten-batenanalyse, Centraal Planbureau, April 2002
http://www.cpb.nl/nl/pub/cpbreeksen/bijzonder/42/bijz42.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2010
In 2003 the 5P-runway configuration will become operational for the Amsterdam airport Schiphol, which allows the airport to accommodate air traffic demand for the coming years. After the 5P-configuration will have reached its capacity limit, three limited extension options are open: an additional North-South runway (6P-configuration), an additional East-West runway (6PK) or a combination of the two (7PK). On request of the Research Program on Airport Infrastructure in The Netherlands (abbreviated in Dutch as ONL) CPB has been asked to draw up a preliminary cost benefit analysis (pcba) for these three extension options. The pcba leads to the following conclusions:
- Physical capacity is the binding constraint for the size of air traffic via Schiphol for both the 5Prunway configuration as for any of the extension configurations. Capacity restrains due to noise regulation are considerably less important than the physical capacity restraints.
- The direct effects of the extension of Schiphol will yield a positive welfare contribution for The Netherlands. The major benefits will go to the large group of (Dutch) private and business passengers, who use Schiphol airport.
- Not only the airport, but also the Dutch airlines will benefit from the extension. Although for the airlines extension could initially mean a loss of potential excessive scarcity rents, on the long run extensions are required to avoid a strong fall back in competitive position.
- Extensions will have a negative impact on the Schiphol surrounding area. Motorways and waterways will have to be diverted, congestion on the motorways around Schiphol will increase during rush hours, while the noise inconvenience will increase compared to the 5Pconfiguration. However, on balance these effects remain rather modest compared to the benefits mentioned above.
- In a situation of high economic growth, extensions with only one North-South runway or one East-West runway will not be sufficient to fully accommodate the growing demand for air traffic. Therefore, extension with a consecutive construction of both runways will offer the largest welfare benefits for The Netherlands.
- The pcba does not give a clear picture of which runway is most preferable. Construction of an additional East-West runway will offer the most benefits for the aviation sector. Although this runway will be more expensive than an additional North-South runway and will offer less additional capacity, it will prevent a fall back in capacity in case of strong west winds, which occur during about 40 days a year. For the aviation sector, an additional North-South runway will bear the risk of a strong fall back in capacity, which can lead to large operational costs. For the environment, an additional North South runway will offer the least disadvantages. In that case the diversion costs will be lower and more flights over the densely populated Amsterdam area can be avoided.
- To be able to exploit the welfare benefits fully, spatial reservations have to be made. This means that the construction of new houses or labour intensive industrial areas have to be blocked within certain areas. In practice this means a rather small extension of the current so called "vrijwaringszone" related to areas, where no new houses have been planned. Construction of an additional East West runway means that an industrial area has to be shifted a few hundred metres. On balance, the costs seem to be modest. Given the potential benefits and the modest costs, spatial reservations seem to be a no regret-option.
Uncertainty exists to which extent the Total Risk Weight (TRW), a rule preventing houses from demolition, will lead to restrictions on airport capacity. After a statistical-causal model for external safety will be ready, at the earliest in 2005, the effects of specific measures on external safety can be evaluated. In case the risk level of the existing model will be maintained, the additional runways will offer no additional capacity compared to the 5P configuration. One may expect that under such circumstances the aviation sector will not construct any extra runway anymore. When comparing the benefits of runway extensions to the number of houses saved from demolition due to the TRW rule, it becomes clear that the TRW rule generates a far larger loss of welfare than the value that people attribute to their houses on the housing market. Therefore demolition of a limited number of houses is more efficient than maintaining this TRW rule.
|
