Brussels Options for a New Airport How to foster a growth-environment for airline traffic
January 19th, 2015
Contents
1. Introduction page 2 2. Goals and Specifications page 4
S pecifications 3. Main european airport configurations page 5 4. Runway requirements page 6 5. Configurations page 7
New Options 6. Hub map page 8 7. - Veltem page 9 8. - Beauvechain page 12 9. - Zoersel page 15 10. - Eksaarde page 18 11. - Chièvres page 21 12. - Ursel page 23 13. - Charleroi Airport page 25 14. - Liège-BiersetAirport page 27
Budgets 15. Main expenses page 29 16. Budget summary page 31 17. Financing page 33 18. Compensation programs page 34 19. Schedules and intermediate steps page 36
Zaventem Options 20. Potential evolutions at Zaventem page 38 21. - New runway 25R page 30 22. - New runway 25L page 40 23. - New runway 02 page 42 24. - New runway 27 page 44 25. - New set of twin runways 27 page 47 26. Budgets for Zaventem options page 49
Synthesis 27. Overall ratings page 51 28. Summary tables page 53 29. Best options summary page 56 30. Short-term decisions page 57 31. Conclusion page 58
Appendixes Selected international airport maps page 59 Selected airport flight corridor examples page 60
The Coeur-Europe Task Force Speaker Jean-Noël Lebrun Avenue Albert Jonnart 41 1200 Woluwe Saint Lambert [email protected] +32 471 316 915 1 1. Introduction
Brussels Airport has grown organically over the last few years, with political decision-makers left scrambling to find a way to accommodate traffic growth.
Now is the time to make the right choices for our future. This White Paper evaluates the different options which will drive economic growth while respecting our environmental rights.
- In order to bring transparency to the decision-making process we disclose the true costs of new runways and terminals, both east of Zaventem and in new locations.
- We also disclose the tremendous benefits which Brussels Airport may enjoy through the progressive closure and resale of the Zaventem runways (700 hectares).
This major infrastructure project is a key employement opportunity for many years to come.
Let's make it right.
A. Following the forthcoming removal of the 2014 Wathelet plan a single plane from the Zaventem airport will still fly over 5.5 times more inhabitants than an average plane from the top 30 European airports during its first 10 kilometers of flight.
The numbers of inhabitants severly hit by the noise of a singe take-off are as follows :
5 airports hit less than 5,000 inhabitants per take-off - Munich - Copenhagen - Gatwick - Dublin – Barcelone. 4 airports hit between 5,000 to 10,000 inhabitants per take-off - Madrid Barajas - Palma de Mallorca - Oslo Gardemoen – Vienne. 3 airports hit between 10,000 to 20,000 inhabitants per take-off - Rome Fumicino - Manchester - Domodedovo Moscou. 9 airports hit between 20,000 to 40,000 inhabitants per take-off - Paris CDG - Schiphol Sheremetyevo Moscou - Paris Orly - Antalya - Stockholm - Istanbul SG - Milan Malpensa – Helsinki. 4 airports hit between 40,000 to 60,000 inhabitants per take-off - London Heathrow - Dusseldorf - Istanbul A. - London Stanstead. 2 airports hit between 60,000 to 80,000 inhabitants per take-off - Frankfort – Zurich. 2 airports hit between 80,000 to 120,000 inhabitants per take-off - Lisbonne - Berlin Tegel. One one airport hits more than 120,000 inhabitants per take-off Zaventem after 'moratoire': 175,000 - Zaventem during the Wathelet plan: 255,000 Detailed calculations are made using a single methodology to support direct comparisons between airports, based on the number of inhabitants under the first 10 kilometers of flight:
http://www.coeur-europe.be/images/Comparatif/Comparatif-nuisances-avions-top-30.pdf
Apart from Berlin Tegel and Lisbon Airports, no European Airport supporting over 10 million visitors per year is located within its main city boundaries.
The complete closing of Berlin Tegel is already scheduled for 2018, following the transfer of all flights to Berlin Schönefeld, 26 kilometers further.
In Lisbon, the Portuguese government has decided in 2011 to convert into a low-cost airport a former military airstrip located on the south-side of the Tage river.
In Germany, two new commercial airports have been launched since the 1992 construction of the new Munich airport: Francfort Hahn and Düsseldorf Weeze. Both airports are former military bases located over 40 km away from the nearest town.
2 B. The growing levels of noise pollution and risk generated by the Zaventem airports raise more and more protests from Brussels inhabitants. Such situation is not sustainable.
In particular, the two flight corridors of the canal and of Koekelberg cross Brussels from side to side 7 days a week including at night. Such situation is judged to be a shame by all parties, including Eurocontrol and the Airport Top Management.
As a comparison, the London City Airport supports 70,000 aircraft movements per year versus over 200,000 at Zaventem. The airport also closes on weekends.
C. In contrast to everything happening elsewhere across Europe, the sales & marketing strategy of Brussels Airport increases the level of stress imposed upon local inhabitants, as explained by our recent study dated september 15th 2014 :
http://www.coeur-europe.be/images/Comparatif/LesMauvaisChoixEconomiquesDeZaventem.pdf For example, Brussels Airport offers discounts of up to 50% to arlines opening new routes from Zaventem, raising unfair competition to Brussels Airlines.
Such artifical growth is done mainly at the expense of local inhabitants who are burdened by increased pollution levels without benefitig from any compensation plan as implemented almost anyhere else in europe.
At the same time, British, French, and German governments do levy airport taxes amounting to 20% of airport revenues (apart from ATC charges).
The lack of similar government taxes at Zaventem represents a straight loss of over 85 million € a year for Belgium.
Our 2014 study also details in-flight cargo accidents for the last 10 years across the top 30 European airports. Zaventem and Copenhagen alone, the two single airports of the Macquarie Group, concentrate 38% of such accidents.
It is therefore fair to state that Zaventem's commercial development has been made without paying much attention to systemic risk levels nor the age of airline fleets.
D. As a result, we wish to open a debate and offer clear alteratives to the existing Zaventem/Steenokkerzeel airport set-up.
Such alternatives are mandatory to foster growth within the respect of legitimate environmental requests.
Withing each industry, whenever existing facilities become obsolete, one must question their replacement.
The best options for future growth should be promoted, whatever the amount of past investment on legacy systems.
E. Our initiative is consistent with the current reflexion around the optimization of flight corridors around the current airport, and provides key new data.
- Forbidding night flights around Brussels means finding new take-off and landing runways for cargo and charter flights. The best solutions are listed page 56.
- Reducing noise pollution to avoid that the Europan capital remains Europe's noise garbage can will require either setting-up new runways (and terminals) further east or setting-up a new airport with flight corridors further away from key populated areas.
- A new airline hub paying more attention to its environment and the lives of european citizen will foster growth and employment.
All NIMBY proposals backed by selected associations tend to serve the interests of very few. These proposals only add noise in the quest for a lasting solution and should be dismissed.
Let's now take the right decisions for Belgium, for our families, and for future generations.
3 2. Goals and Specifications
This white paper reviews 13 options in order to :
(i) Set-up an international airport hub near Brussels. (ii) Facilitate jobs & economic growth without compromising the local resident living conditions.
The airport specifications are set to meet the following requirements :
- Ease of integration within its local environment. - Minimum capacity of two 3,800 meter long runways and one taxiway. - Reduced level of noise pollution. - Ease of access for both Flemish and Walloon communities. - Ease of transfer for part of Zaventem activities and staff.
These specifications will allow to increase airport capacity while respecting the rights of local residents.
Eight different sites have been selected for further analysis, after eliminatation of several other non-complying sites (i.e. Ostende, too distant) :
- Four sites are located in Flandre (Veltem, Zoersel, Eksaarde and Ursel) - Three sites are close to the language divide (Beauvechain, Liège-Bierset and Chièvres) - Another site is located in Wallonie (Charleroi)
The order of presentation is based on the distance to the existing airport. The white paper provides for each site :
- a site map with runways, terminals, and technical areas. - a plan for land acquisition and land expropriation steps. - a map for take-off and landing flight corridors. - a detailed analysis of noise pollution over 20 km for landings*. - a detailed analysis of noise pollution over 10 km for take-offs*. - an analysis of connections to road and train networks. - detailed cost analysis in chapters 15, 16, ad 26. - detailed implementation schedules in chapter 19.
* Noise pollution is often felt well above 20 kilometers away from the runways, both for landing and departing planes.
* The figures presented in the white paper calculate the number of overflown residents in a way which preserves the value of comparison between options.
This comprehensive study also analyses, as suggested by the airport management, various options for extending or adding new runways further east of the existing airport.
Building a new airport is a high priority project for Belgium : It will contribute effectively to the economic, cultural, and political growth of our country.
4 3. Main European airport configurations
The configurations of the top 30 european airports are as follows :
- 3 airports with a single main runway : - Dublin, London Stansted, Lisbonne - 18 airports with two main runways : - 15 airports with parrallel runways : London Heathrow, Munich, London Gatwick, Moscou Sheremetyevo, Oslo, Palma, Düsseldorf, Manchester, Berlin Tegel, Istanbul SG, Milan, Paris CDG, Barcelone, Moscou Domodedovo, Copenhagen - 2 airports with near parrallel runways: Paris Orly, Zürich - 1 airport with non parrallel runways : Vienne - 6 airports with three main runways : - 1 airport with three parallel runways: Antalya - 5 airports with two parallel runways:Francfort, Istanbul Atatürck, Stockholm, Zaventem, Helsinki - 2 airports with four main runways : - Madrid, Rome Fumicino. - 1 airports with five main runways : - Schiphol.
Londond Heathrow, the largest European airport, operates with only two parrallel runways respectively 3 902 m and 3 658 m long.
At the same time, London Heathrow 's meteo conditions are tougher than Brussel's :
Wind rose chart HEATHROW Wind rose chart BRUSSELS
5 4. Runway requirements
Modern commercial airplanes benefit from flight characteristics set well above the capabilities of smaller general aviation airplanes.
The wind norms used for landings and take-offs have often been presented in a partisan way in order to favor specific runways for vote-catching purposes around Zaventem.
We shall therefore outline thereafter the specific constraints of modern commercial airplanes for both landing and take-off.
These constraints vary as a function of the characteristics and payload of each aircraft. They may be summarized as follows :
- no limit for head wind. - 35 knots of side wind. - 10+ knots of tail wind.
Under standard meteorological conditions (no water saturated runway, no ice) minimum runway lengths for secure landings and take-offs of fully loaded aircrafts are as follows :
Aircraft type landing Take-off minimum strip (m) minimum strip (m)
Boeing 777-300ER 2.469 3.414 Boeing 747-400ER 2.100 3.090 Boeing 737-800 1.372 2.494
Airbus A380-800 1.524 2.749 Airbus A340-600 2.063 3.100 Airbus A330-300 1.750 2.500 Airbus A321 1.540 1.707 Airbus A320 1.540 1.707 Airbus A319 1.540 1.950
Embraer 195 1.282 2.179 Embraer 190 1.323 2.056 Embraer 175 1.304 2.244 Embraer 170 1.274 1.644
Düsseldorf is the 20th largest european airport and the length of its two main runways do not exceed 3,000 m.
The 3,800 m runway length we have listed for new runways is therefore quite sufficient.
6 5. Configurations
As it is difficult to find in Belgium large free and isolated strips of land we use compact airport configurations close to Nice-Cote d'Azur's :
(i) two parrallel runways, each 3800 m long. (ii) 310 m between runway axes. (iii) a 600 m width for the twin runways and their associated taxiway. (iv) a 300m width for each terminal and its associated aircraft parking.
Our configuration also is fairly close to Düsseldorf Airport and its two main runways.
Three sites presented in this white paper may support over time the construction of two sets of two twin runways, and a forth site will support three parrallel runways.
The existing Charleroi and Liège airports are fairly imbricated in their urban tissue and are not able to support any additional runway.
As a reference point, a new terminal requires about 5 ha per million passenger /year when aircraft parking areas are taken into account.
7 6. Hub map
The main international hubs (Schiphol, Düsseldorf, Francfort, and Paris-CDG) are colored in black on the map.
The eight selected sites (Veltem, Beauvechain, Zoersel, Eksaarde, Chièvres, Knesselare, Charleroi et Liège-Bierset) are colored in red/grey.
Legend
- Full black: existing international hubs - Black circles: point to point regional airports - Red/grey: white paper sites
Three hubs on the north side of the map, Schiphol, Düsseldorf and Frankfort, are about 220 kilometers away from each other. The Paris-CDG hub is almost 500 kilometers away.
Half-way between these hubs, Belgium has a unique card to play to nurture a fifth major hub.
But in order to reach its full potential, a fifth hub must be able to fully respect the environmental rights of its local citizen.
8 7. Veltem
Located 8 km north-east of Zaventem, this site frees Brussels from today's noise pollution and offers excellent growth potential.
Ground map - Veltem
The site spreads between the north-western part of Herent, the most northern section of Kortenberg, and the south-eastern tip of Kampenhout.
The two villages of Kortenberg and Kampenhout are more than 2 km away from the runways sides and no landing nor take-off plane flies over them.
A first set of two runways and a taxiway is planned on the south side, with two terminals closer to Brussels on the west side and a technical area further east.
This set-up requires moving and indemnifying thirty families, as well as modifying the Buken/Veltem road to drive around the new airport.
A second set of runways further north is almost symmetrical to the first one and requires moving about twenty families.
The four runways together would double the maximum theoretical capacity of Zaventem, without being hindered by any significant noise pollution restrictions.
The first set of runways requires acquiring 630 hectares : 500 hectares for two runways and their taxiway, 60 hectares for two terminals, and 70 hectares for the technical area. Flight corridors - Veltem
9 While close to Brussels, the flight corridor set-up is quite favorable compared to Zaventem.
Landing approaches are made overwhelmingly above the countryside.
After take-off, all aircrafts benefit from 5 km of ascend before reaching the old Zaventem runways. Pilots can climb high enough before making a right or left turn.
As an example, The Flemish town of Kampenhout is no longer flown over.
Communities under the flight corridors:
Landings Western winds (south runways) 19,546 - 1 km Winksele Delle (450 ? maisons) 1,800 - 3 km Elst 4,000
- 5 km Wijgmaal 3,519 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wijgmaal
- 9 km Wezemaal 3,657 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wezemaal
- 13 km Nieuwrode 2,570 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nieuwrode
- 18 km Rillaar 4,000 estimation
Landings Eastern winds (south runways) 151,211 - 10 km Diegem 5,001 - 11 km Haren 4,300 - 16 km Laeken 45,688 - 17 km Jette 49,411 - 19 km Ganshoren 23,836 - 20 km Sint Agatha 22,975
Take-offs (towards north & West) 25,961
- 1 km Erps-Kwerps 5,879 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erps-Kwerps
- 4 km Steenokkerzeel 6,333 http://code-postal.fr.mapawi.com/belgique/15/vlaams-brabant/1/10/steenokkerzeel/1820/130/ - 9 km Machelen 13,749
Take-offs (towards South) 22,212
- 1 km Erps-Kwerps 5,879 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erps-Kwerps
- 4 km Steenokkerzeel 6,333 http://code-postal.fr.mapawi.com/belgique/15/vlaams-brabant/1/10/steenokkerzeel/1820/130/
- 6 km Nossegem 6,000 estimation
- 8 km Sterrebeek 4,000 estimation
10 Road access - Veltem
Road access from Brussels runs through the N2 and the N21, or through a future access road built on existing 25L Zaventem runway.
Road access from Leuven or Anvers runs preferentially through the N26 on the East side, and road access from the south runs through the R0 East Ring.
Rail access – Veltem
As a first step, the access to the train network is made : - for Brussels & Leuven via the Kortenberg and Erps-Kwerps stations, 3 km away. - for Anvers & Leuven via the Hambos/Tildonk station, 3 km away from the runways.
As a second step, a new line could be built on the axis Hambos-Winksele-Terminals-Nossegem. Such 15 km line could link Anvers, Leuven, and Brussels at a cost of 250 M€.
Additional benefits - Veltem
Transfering a majority of the Zaventem staff to Veltem facilitates the full closing and the reconversion of the Zaventem site.
The conversion of the Zaventem runways is a terrific real-estate opportunity, both from an economic, residential, commercial, industrial, or leasure stand point.
Similar case - Veltem
Creating a new airport in Veltem, fairly close to Zaventem, is a project that shares many similarities with the set-up of the Paris-CDG airport on the Roissy plateau, only a few kilometers away from the Bourget airport.
While their axes are different, the end of the Bourget runways is indeed only 7 kilometers away from the Paris CDG runways.
Strengths & weaknesses
Veltem is a good choice for a new airport:
- The proximity of Zaventem facilitates le transfer of staff and activities. - Some investments may be reused: aircraft hangars, technical areas. - Zaventem access roads may be easily extended.
On the negative, the set-up we have presented is very bad under strong eastern winds as each plane landing from the west side will hurt above 150,000 residents.
At least one runway should be oriented along the east-west axis in order to avoid flying over Brussels.
The Veltem choice also implies a strict respect of the zoning maps in order to avoid finding 40 years from now a situation similar to Zaventem today.
11 8. Beauvechain
This site 30 km East-south-east from Brussels lends itself to the reconversion of a military base, currently used and underused for pilot training.
Ground map - Beauvechain
The site is based mostly on the premises of the military airport, almost entirely within the Beauvechain municipality.
A first set of two runways and one taxiway is built by lengthening on both ends the existing 04/22 runway, 3 079 m long, by transforming the adjascent taxiway into a second runway further east, and by adding a taxiway on the west side.
The local north-south traffic east of the airport is shifted 400 m from the avenue des combattants to the rue de Wahenge.
Adding a third runway and its taxiway on the north-west side also requires adding a runway underpass on the N91, just like with Zaventem's N227.
The first set of new runways requires adding 116 hectares to the current airport.
12 - 30 hectares to extend runways further south. - 40 hectares for their extension further north. - 6 hectares for the technical area on the east side. - 40 hectares for two terminals on the north-west side.
Flight corridors - Beauvechain
The main landing flight corridor (east runway) runs over inhabited areas except for 5 farms within 500 m of the runway start. Another 200 houses are built on the east side of current runway.
After take-off, only the Biez commmunity (part of Grez-Doiceau) is directly under the flight corridor, about 3,5 km from the runway. Such configuration exists since the airport inception.
Further away, 8km after take-off, the second village of Chaumont Gistoux may be by-passed either on the east or the west side, depending on the planes final destination.
Landings Western winds 6,362
- 4 km Meldert 2,081 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meldert_%28Limbourg%29
- 6 km Willebringen 581 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willebringen
- 8 km Roosbeek 1,300 estimation - 9 km Breisem 400
- 12 km Groenendries 400 estimation
- 13 km Wever 600 estimation
- 15 km Attenrode 600 estimation
- 16 km Rode 400 estimation
Landings Eastern winds 10,662 over 20 km Take-off Western winds 5,162 over 10 km
- 1 km Pietrebais 1,045 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi%C3%A9trebais
- 3 km Biez 994 www.grezentransition.be/IMG/pdf/i_rapport_socio-eco.pdf
- 6 km Bonlez 1,062 http://fr.calameo.com/read/0002721618a010c8a3b74
- 8 km Gistoux 2,061 http://fr.calameo.com/read/0002721618a010c8a3b74 - 15 km Mont Saint Guibert Village 5,500
Road access - Beauvechain
The airport is located 25 km away from Zaventem, with easy access from the north and the west through the A40 and 10 km on the N25. The reasonable distance against the main traffic flow facilitates the commute between the two sites.
Customers from the south side of Brussels (Waterloo, Braine-L'Alleud) will almost drive the same distance to Beauvechain compared to Zaventem.
13 Access from Leuven, Liège and Namur is facilitated by an interchange 8 km away on the A40.
As the Flemish region is only 2 km away from the runways, the sharing of jobs will be easier to split between the Flemish and Walloon regions : The Leuven city center is only 13 km away from the terminals.
Railroad access – Beauvechain
As a first step, public transportation is ensured through the Sint Joris Weert station south of Leuven, 9 km away from the airport terminals.
Later on, we could build a 7 kilometer line to link the terminals to the Leuven-Liège LGV line south-east of Bierbeek, at the cost of 160 M€.
Similar case - Beauvechain
The transformation of the Beauvechain military airport into a commercial airport is a project similar to the transformation of Milan-Malpensa, a former military airport converted in 1998 to replace Milan-Linate which was too close to the city center.
Milan-Malpensa was financed by a 200 million euros loan from the European Union.
Additional benefits - Beauvechain
The closing of the Beauvechain military airport has been publicly discussed since November 17th 2014. The conversion into a commercial airport is an excellent opportunity for the local community. http://www.lalibre.be/regions/brabant/la-fermeture-de-la-base-de-beauvechain-aurait-un-cout-546badda3570243a9f356554
Strengths & weaknesses
Beauvechain is an excellent solution in many respects:
- reconverting an existing airport facilitates the administrative procedures. - the land acquisition program has a limited scope. - the current airport has two runways and is close to a LGV line. - the site requires only moderate investments which can be staged progressively. - suppliers may quickly transfer some of their cargo activities.
While Beauvechain is located in Wallonia, we should remember that :
- the language divide is only two kilometers away from the runways. - the closest and main labor market remains Leuven - economic players will remain Flemish.
14 9. Zoersel
This site 24 km East of Anvers is an old military base currently used by a flying club. The immediate proximity to the E34 freeway facilitates access from the Netherlands and Germany.
Ground map - Zoersel
The site is mainly built on the current airport and almost entirely within the Malle municipality, four kilometers further north.
The villages of Malle and Zoersel on the north-west side as well as Wechelderzande and Lille on the east and south-east sides are not disturbed by landing nor departing flights.
In order to establish two commercial runways and a taxiway, the existing 05/23 runway long of 2 980 m and its adjascent taxiway are lengthened on their south side, and a second runway is created 300 meters further south.
15 Building the new airport requires moving and compensating 125 families from the Einhoven et Drengel hamlets on the south-west airport side.
The south runway is close to the small 22ha nature reserve of De Kluis-Blommerschot which could be secured and enlarged towards the south-east, as the Blommerschot area has already suffered from the installation of many illegal forest houses over time.
Enlarging the airport requires an additional 470 hectares : 40 ha along the runway axis, 240 ha on the north-west, and 190 ha on the south-east.
Flight corridors - Zoersel
The main landing corridor flies over Beerse, 6 kilometers before the runway.
By eastern winds the town of Zandhoven lies 4.5 kilometers before the runway along the N14, right under the landing corridor.
In order to minimize flying over inhabited areas, planes may after take-off :
- towards north, follow the E34 and turn right over the N12 between Schilde and Halle. - towards west, follow the E34 on 12 km and continue towards Mortsel south of Anvers. - towards sud, follow the E34 on 12 km before heading towards Beauvechain. - towards east, initiate a sharp left turn towards Kleine Brogel right after take-off .
Landings Western winds 21,683 - 5-8 km Beerse 17,395 - 11-16 km Merksplas (Edge, 50%) 4,288 - 18 km Weelde airport -
Landings Eastern winds 27,000 - 5 km Zandhoven town 6,000 - 12 km Broechem town 6,000 - 18 km Zevenbergen/Lier 15,000
Take-offs towards north (15%)
- 7 km South of Halle 4,000
Take-offs towards west (20%)
- 10 km Oelegem 4,783 http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oelegem
16 Take-offs towards south (50%) - no village for 10 km. 0
Take-offs towards east (15%) - 2 km Zomerbos 300 - 4-10 km Vorselaar 7,649
Take-offs (average) 2,750
Road access - Zoersel
Access from Anvers is easy through the A13/E34, as well as from Gand through the A14/E17. An access road already exists less than 2 km away from the future terminal.
Access from Brussels 51 kilometers away is made by using first the E19 towards Anvers then the E34 from the Anvers ring. A more direct, slower, option is using the N14 from Mechelen to the future terminal.
The E34 also facilitates direct access from the Netherlands and Germany.
Rail access – Zoersel
Today, public transportation is limited to the two 417 and 429 bus lines from Anvers.
The nearest train station is Nijlen 10 kilometers away, which reaches Anvers Central within 28 minutes.
Long term, Anvers Central could be linked to the airport terminals through a 22 kilometer train line along the E34, at a cost close to 400 M€.
Similar case - Zoersel
The transformation of the Zoersel military airport into a commercial airport is a project similar to the transformation of Milan-Malpensa, a former military airport converted in 1998 to replace Milan-Linate which was too close to the city center.
The Milan project was financed at the time by a loan of 200 million euros of the European Union.
Strengths & weaknesses
Zoersel is a good solution in many respects:
- proximity to Anvers, the Netherlands, and Germany through the E34. - reconverting an existing airport facilitates the administrative procedures. - the land acquisition program has a limited scope. - the current airport already has one runway and a taxiway. - the site requires only moderate investments, specially for cargo/charter use.
Negatives include the obligation to move 120 families, the unability to add a third runway, and high connection costs to th train network.
Zoersel is more suited to the set-up of a cargo/charter airport than the establishment of a new international hub.
17 10. Eksaarde
The site is set between Gand and Anvers, 48 km north-west of Brussels and east of the Arcelor Mittal facilities. Its location in the middle of an alluvial and agricultural plain is ideal, as it bears little environmental impact to the neighbouring villages.
Ground map - Eksaarde
The site is split between the southern tips of the Moerbeke (east) and Wachtebeke (west) villages.
The first two runways and their associated taxiway are planned on the south-eastern part of the site. Additional runways could be added further west, near the river.
None of the villages of Wachtebeke, Moerbeke, and Eksaarde is hindered by any landing or departing flight from any of the first two runways.
Most of the houses belonging to local residents are at least one kilometer away on the runway sides.
Soil type is similar to Rome Fumicino Airport and therefore soil stabilization works will require careful study and planning. Both sites are located between 4 et 5 meters above sea-level.
The set-up of the first two runways, taxiway, two terminals, and the technical areas on the east side will require the acquisition of 650 hectares.
18 Flight corridors- Eksaarde
The main landing flight corridor of the south runway has been selected to fly over a very small amount of people during its last 15 kilometers.
Take-off corridors fly over the Arcelor Mittal facilities, several kilometers away.
Communities under the flight corridors:
Landings Western winds 32,360 - 4 km 40 houses Hameau Cadzandstr. 160 - 9 km Sint Pauwels 2,500 - 12 km Hoogeinde 1,200 - 16 km Vrasene 3,000 - 17 km Mosselbank 500 - 20 km Beveren (town) 25,000
Landings Eastern winds 30,966 - 3 km 200 Houses Golf Puyenbroeck 800
- 5 km Zaffelare 3,800 http://www.lenomdivin.info/mondialement/belgie/zaffelare.htm
- 10 km Desteldonk 897 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desteldonk - 15 km Evergem 16,000
- 20 km Lovendegem 9,469 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovendegem
Take-offs towards West 5,497 - 3 km 200 Houses Golf Puyenbroeck 800
- 5 km Zaffelare 3,800 http://www.lenomdivin.info/mondialement/belgie/zaffelare.htm
- 10 km Desteldonk 897 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desteldonk
Road access - Eksaarde
The E17/A14 is 9 km away and provides access from Gand (18 km) and Anvers (33 km).
The N9 and N49 further north provide direct access from Brugges (48 km).
Brussels remains 40 km away through the ring and the N47. The distance is equivalent to Zaventem-Anvers.
Through the E17 the airport is also only 75 km away from the Lille/Roubaix/Troucoing megalopolis and able to attract a share of northern France passengers.
19 Rail access – Eksaarde
The Lockeren station 8 km away is directly linked to both Brussels, Anvers, and Gand.
Long term, a new 8 km line built through the fields west of Lokeren will connect the new terminals to the Anvers-Gand and Brussels-Gand train lines for a cost under 160 M€.
Additional benefits - Eksaarde
Eksaarde may also host the flights currently hold at the Anvers General Airport, another airport too close to its city center.
Similar case - Eksaarde
The Eksaarde project is fairly similar to the Rome Fumicino project, where the airport is built close to the sea level on an alluvial plain.
The Rome Fumicino project was first discussed in 1952, approved in 1958 and brought live on August 1960 after only 21 months of construction work.
Strengths & weaknesses
Eksaarde represents an excellent solution :
- the site is large enough t support an Heathrow-class airport. - the location between Anvers-Brugge-Brussels-Gand is excellent. - it offers fine road and train access.
As this option will require at least 12 years to be fully implemented, complementary intermediate steps will be required elsewhere in te meantime to ease the burden of Zaventem.
The ability to transform agricultural land into runway strips in the Stekense Vaart should also be checked for difficulties not detected in this White Paper.
20 11. Chièvres
This site 48 kilometer south-west of Brussels has been discussed for many years.
It is only 3 kilometers away from the high-speed Brussels-Lille TGV line, but 90 kilometers away from Anvers.
Gound map - Chièvres
The site is located mostly on the existing military airbase.
The western half of the airport is built in Chièvres and its eastern half is shared between the municipalities of Lens (south) et Brugelette (north). None of these villages will be subject to any disturbances from landing nor departing flights.
The project requires lengthening and strengthening the existing 8/26 runway towards the east, as well as creating a second runway on its south side and a taxiway on its north side.
A new 5-kilometer bypass for the N56, a 2-kilometer bypass for the rue de la Croix (east side), and the displacement of 8 homes in Bauffe (south side) are also required.
The set-up will require the acquisition of 150 hectares : 60 ha east of N56, 40 ha on the west side, et 50 ha on the south side to extend the technical area.
If required, more runways could be added on the south side.
21 Flight corridors - Chièvres
Take-off and landing corridors draw few remarks. A very small number of isolated houses are built at the end of the runways.
Landings Western winds 19,300 - 3 km Cambron Saint-Vincent 600 - 4 km Hembise 300
- 8 km Louvignies 400 estimation - 19 km Braine le Comte Ville 18,000
Landings Eastern winds 3,396
- 3 km Ladeuze 814 Commune de Ladeuze - RootsWeb: Freepages
- 5 km Huissignies 1,114 Commune de Husseignies - Freepages
- 10 km Elignies Saint-Anne 868 Commune de Ellignies -Ste- Anne - Freepages
- 16 km Braffe 600 estimation
Take-offs Western winds 2,796
- 3 km Ladeuze 814 Commune de Ladeuze - RootsWeb: Freepages
- 5 km Huissignies 1,114 Commune de Husseignies - Freepages
- 10 km Elignies Saint-Anne 868 Commune de Ellignies -Ste- Anne - Freepages
Road access - Chièvres
The 10 km away A8 and the 15 km away E42 provide direct access to the Belgian towns further north. But Brussels is too far away to support daily commutes of Zaventem staff.
Railroad access - Chièvres
The TGV line runs 3 km north west of the main terminal, which facilitates public transportation from both Brussels, Anvers, Liège, Aix La Chapelle, and Lille provided a new TGV station is added at the cost of 32 million €.
Strengths & weaknesses
Chièvres is a very interesting solution in many ways:
- reconverting an existing airport facilitates the administrative procedures. - surroundings consist of cheap land, sparsely populated. - the overall investment level is moderate. - road and TGV connections are excellent. - the linguistic frontier is only 13 kilometers away.
But Chièvres remains too far away from Anvers to be the right alternative to Zaventem.
22 12. Ursel
This site is located on the municipality of Knesselare between Brugges and Gand, 71 kilometers away from Brussels.
Ground map - Ursel
The site is set on a former military airbase, still property of the Belgian Army, and on the wooden area on the north side. It is operated by the two flying clubs of Ursel and Brugges.
The project requires lengthening by 600 meters to the east and 250 meters to the west the existing 7/25 runway as well as creating a second runway and a taxiway on the north side.
The runway extension requires moving the Blakkeveld communal road as well as 25 families living close to the technical areas, the terminas, and the runway ends.
The project requires acquiring 510 hectares : 150 ha for the new runways, 70 ha on the west, 40 ha on the east, et 250 ha for terminals and technical areas.
Fight corridors – Ursel
The landing corridor crosses the south side of Eeklo and runs north of Oostwinkel.
The take-off corridor runs close to the south side of Knesselare. Planes flying towards the south and the east will easily turn left over the fields but the ones flying towards the north may have difficulties avoiding densely populated areas. 23 Communities under the flight corridors :
Landings Western winds 15,551 - 1 km Oostwinkel 500
- 6 km Eeklo (30%) 6,140 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eeklo
- 9 km Warande 1,700 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaprijke
- 13 km Oosteeklo 2,711 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oosteeklo - 18 km Assenede 4,500 Landings Eastern winds 17,508 - 2 km Knesselare 8,241 - 5 km Sint Joris 1,794 - 6 km Beernem 5,798
- 12 km Hertsberge 1,675 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertsberge Take-offs Western winds 15,833
- 2 km Knesselare 8,241 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knesselare
- 5 km Sint Joris 1,794 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beernem
- 6 km Beernem 5,798 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beernem
Road access - Ursel A 3 kilometer interchange to the N44 allows to reach :
- the E34 towards Anvers through Maldegem on the north. - the A10 towards Brugge through Kast Erige on the south west. - the A10 towards Gand and Brussels through Aalet on the south east.
Rail access - Ursel
Both Maria-Alter and Alter train stations, each 6 km away on the Brugge/Gand line, offer direct access to Brussels and Anvers. Connecting the train network to the terminal will cost 100 M€.
Strengths & weaknesses
Ursel is an excellent growth opportunity for the Flemish region : - it is located in the Anvers-Brugge-Gand triangle. - it is already equiped with a 3,000 meter long runway. - it may reach over 20 years a traffic close to Düsseldorf.
The number of days when the airport is filled with fog should be checked. 24 13. Charleroi
The Charleroi airport is close to a freeway interconnection node in the northern suburbs of Charleroi. It is 50 km away from Brussels center and 93 km away from Anvers center.
Ground map - Charleroi
Charleroi airport has a unique 2 555 m long runway, which could be extended to 3 800 m without encroaching on nearby buildings. The city council has already recently decided to increase its length to 3 600 m.
The Ransart and Saint-Ghislain villages make it impossible to add an additional runway on the south side.
Adding a taxiway and a second runway on the north side woud require the destruction of the castle and the existing terminal, as well as the complete reshuffle of the commercial and indutrial area of Petit Piersoulxin to build a new terminal.
The villages of Gosselies (west) and Heppignies (east) don't leave enough space to build a second runway further north.
These constraints means it is impossible to add a second runway and turn Charleroi into an international hub.
25 Flight corridors - Charleroi
Existing flight corridors avoid Charleroi's most densely populated areas without offering the same level of environmental protection as other options already presented in this white paper.
Landings Western winds 26,196 - 1 km Wangenies included in Fleurus
- 4 km Fleurus 22,324 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleurus
- 10 km Boignée 1,200 - 11 km Tongrinne 500 - 13 km Bothey 400 - 15 km Al Vau 400 - 18 km Ferooz 400
- 20 km Lonzée (50%) 972 http://www.lonzee.be/index.php?pid=presentation
Take-offs Western winds 49,924
- 1 km Jumet 24,271 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumet
- 4 km Roux 8,899 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roux_%28Charleroi%29 - 8 km Forchies la Marche included in Fontaine
- 9 km Fontaine l 'évêque 16,754 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fontaine-l%27%C3%89v%C3%AAque
Road and rail access - Charleroi
Charleroi airport is established at the junction of two main Belgian freeways (A15 & A54) and integrates extremely well into the road network.
Both Fleurus and Courcelles train stations are only 5 kilometers away from the terminal.
Strengths & weaknesses
An excellent single-runway airport, Charleroi is not structured to turn into an international hub even if it may receive more cargo & low-cost traffic.
26 14. Liège Bierset
The Liège-Bierset airport is located near a key highway & railroad interconnection node, about 80 km away from Brussels and 95 km away from Anvers.
Ground map – Liège
The site is located in the Grâce Hollogne municipality. The Grâce Hollogne village runs parrallel to the runways, on the other side of the E42 freeway.
Set in the north-west suburbs ofLiège, the Liège-Bierset airport features two parrallel runways of respectively 3 690 and 2340 meters which give him a much higher growth potential than Charleroi airport.
Both runways could easily be lengthened to 3 800 m on their northern tip. The acquisition of 20 hectares is required to displace to the north about one kilometer of the N637 and to lengthen the shortest runway. This work will also require building a new runway bridge over the railroad tracks which are already burried in a trench.
There is also space for building two additional terminals on the airport north-west side.
27 Flight corridors – Liège
Existing flight corridors avoid Lièges most densely populated areas without offering the same level of environmental protection as other options already presented in this white paper.
Landings Western winds 28,523
- 1 km Awans 3,904 http://www.awans.be/commune
- 3 km Loncin 7,000 estimation
- 4 km Alleur 7,000 estimation - 6 km Lantin included in Juprelle
- 8 km Juprelle 8,619 http://www.annuaire-mairie.fr/ville-juprelle.html - 11 km Fexhe Slin included in Juprelle
- 14 km Houtain Saint Siméon 2,000 estimation
Take-offs Western winds 24,362
- 0 km Fontaine 100 estimation
- 1 km Hozémont/Rouvroy 1,000 estimation
- 3 km Awirs/Warfusee/Gleixhe 2,869 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awirs
- 5 km Saint Georges sur Meuse 6,532 http://www.uvcw.be/communes/infos-com-1011-commune-de-saint-georges-sur-meuse.htm
- 10 km Amay 13,861 http://www.uvcw.be/communes/infos-com-801-commune-d-amay.htm
Road and rail access – Liège
The Liège airport offers excellent freeway connections, right at the crossing of the two main Belgian freeways (E40 et E42). The E313 freeway is also quite close.
The Bierset train station which lies on the Liège-Brussels and Liège-Anvers railroad lines is located less than 4 km away from the terminal.
The TGV train station which connects to Köln, Lille and Paris is located 7 km away from the terminal.
Strengths & weaknesses
The Liège airport may be developped as an interesting alternative to Zaventem, in particular to catch a larger share of the cargo and German market, but its distance to the largest Flemish towns will remain a strong marketing & political deterrent.
28 15. Main expenses
The white paper favors a stagged approach, i.e. the ability to set-up a new airport through several successive steps, both for the main runways, the taxiways, the terminals, the technical areas and its connections to the road and railroad networks.
Such modular development should allow to avoid the mistakes made at Berlin Schönefeld, where the initial 2 billion € budget (for 27 million passengers/year) has more than doubled over time.
You will find on the following three pages the detailed costs to set-up a new airport complete with two runways, control tower, and a terminal for 10 million passengers/year.
These costs have been reviewed with international experts specialized in airport construction.
Before dwelling into detailed costs, here are some key data points to keep in mind:
1. The full cost of a new PTP (point to point) international airport with two main runways, one taxiway, a control tower, and one terminal with a capacity of 6 million passengers/year represents an investment of 600 million euros.
The contruction cost for the new Nantes airport has been evaluated at 450 million euros by VINCI, its main contractor. This amount includes the construction of two 2,900 meter long runways, one taxiway, one control tower, and one terminal for four million passengers per year:
http://www.vinci-concessions.fr/2011/05/1829/
2. Investments required to increase the capacity of a terminal range from 10 to 50 million euros per million passengers/year, as a function of:
- the architectural gesture. - the terminal status: low-cost, PTP, Hub. - the equipment level: covered parking space, etc. - the required service level (C is the IATA minimum recommended level).
As an example, at Beauvais Airport (which is the worst rated across Europe) airport capacity has been doubled doubled with a new 6,000 m2 terminal costing only 12 M€.
http://www.yves-rome.fr/2010/12/03/airport-de-beauvais-tille-ouverture-de-la-nouvelle-aerogare-t2/
As another example, the second Nice Cote d'Azur terminal spreads across 57,800 m2 for a capacity of 8,5 million passengers. The 37,000 m2 second part of this terminal did cost 149 M€ in 2002, i.e. 7,000 m2 per million passenger, and 4 K€ per m2.
http://www.webtimemedias.com/article/nice-un-milliard-de-francs-sur-trois-ans-pour-lairport
3. Interconnection costs do vary a lot as a function of selected options.
The average cost for one kilometer of freeway is 6.2 M€, including a reasonable share of civil engineering structures (bridges, etc.)
http://www.journaldunet.com/economie/magazine/enquete/argent-public-combien-coute-a-l-etat/combien-coute-un-kilometre-d-autoroute-6-2-millions.shtml
The average cost for one kilometer of LGV railroad track in Belgium is 16.5 M€. Such cost is lower for a standard railroad track.
The cost elements are presented on the next page.
29 A. Land - Purchase of agricultural land Initial values : 2 €/m2 Chièvres, 4 €/m2 Veltem and Beauvechain, 5 €/m2 Eksaarde and Ursel, 10 €/m2 Liège. - Expropriations An average of 250 K€ to 325 K€ per house. - Management costs 10% of acquisition costs.
B. Ground infrastructure - Runways 10 M€ /km (Zaventem flexible runway type) 25% savings for retrofitting work on military runways - Taxiways 5.2 M€/km, 7 km standard length for new airport. - Lights 3 M€/runway et 250 K€/taxiway km - Other costs (beacons, etc.) 6 M€ for category III - Parking areas 2 M€/ha with rigid pavement
C. Control tower - Building 15 M€ - Ground radar 10 M€ - Computing equipment 15 M€
D. Buildings - Fully equipped termina 136,000 m2 for 10 million Pax and 3 K€ /m2 The cost includes interior decoration and air conditioning. - Technical buildings 30,000 m2 for 10,000 staff in two shifts, 1.5 K€/m2
E. Tools - Gateways 18 gateways for 10 Mpax, 500 K€ each - Luggage management 20 M€ for 10 MPax - Defrost system 700 K€ per unit
F. Security - Fences 200 K€/km - Perimeter road 600 K€/km - Video monitoring system 1.2 M€
G. Road access - Terminal frontage roads 10 Mpax : 9.5 M€ for 2 levels with approach viaduc - Access roads 2x2 3 M€/km - Roads 2 lanes 1.8 M€/km - Bridge 2x2 lanes 1.5 M€/unit - Roundabout 0.2 M€/unit
H. Parkings - LT parking lots 240 €/space - ST parkings garage 15 K€/space - Staff parking spaces 50% of staff (each shift) drives to work
G. Railroad access - Railroad track 12 M€/km including standard engineering structures - Terminal 20 M€ when planned in the initial layout. - TGV Train station 32 M€
J. Project Management - Pre-studies Variable. - Management costs 10% of building & 7% of infrastructure budgets - Design phase 56% of management costs - Implementation phase 44% of management cost - Marketing costs Variable.
K. Compensation programs - for overflown inhabitants Based on 4 K€ sound insulation per resident.
30 16. Budget Summary
Here are some key cost figures to remember :
1. A new airport for 10 millions passengers/year (10 Mpax)
- costs between 843 M€ and 910 M€ except for Charleroi & Liège - where upgrades cost a maximum of 485 M€ and 677 M€.
2. A new cargo airport
- costs between 155 M€ and 238 M€ except for Charleroi & Liège - where upgrades cost a maximum of 54 M€ and 45 M€ (runway extensions, parking areas, etc.)
3. A new airport dedicated to low-cost flights for 5 Mpax
- costs between 285 M€ and 346 M€ except for Charleroi & Liège - where upgrades cost a maximum of 90 M€ and 95 M€.
4. A new airport dedicated to cargo and low-cost flights on a single runway
- costs between 312 M€ and 373 M€ except for Charleroi & Liège - where upgrades cost a maximum of 107 M€ and 122 M€.
5. The costs of compensation programs to indemnify local residents
- their amount is variable and much inferior to the effort level required at Zaventem, - detailed budgets are presented page 34.
6. The rail network connecting costs
- they vary a lot based on the local site and its topography - are under 100 M€ for Chièvres and Ursel - are about 160 M€ for Beauvechain and Eksaarde - are close to 400 M€ for Zoersel.
Figures to be adjusted based on results of soil analyses and quality of military runways. Beauvechain costs may be overstated.
Detailed costs for each site are listed on the following page
31 Costs befre taxes Veltem Beauvechain Zoersel Eskaarde Chièvres Ursel Charleroi Liège
Capacity (passengers/year)
initial runway capacity 20.000.000 20.000.000 20.000.000 20.000.000 20.000.000 20.000.000 20.000.000 20.000.000 initial terminal capacity 10.000.000 10.000.000 10.000.000 10.000.000 10.000.000 10.000.000 10.000.000 10.000.000
Purchase of land and expropriation costs 38.445.000 € 9.504.000 € 68.750.000 € 35.750.000 € 5.500.000 € 36.300.000 € 0 € 2.200.000 €
Purchased surface (ha) 630 216 470 650 150 510 0 20 Houses to buy back 30 0 120 0 8 25 0 0
Runway set-up 176.150.000 € 168.452.500 € 168.700.000 € 176.150.000 € 171.150.000 € 168.775.000 € 59.125.000 € 115.850.000 €
Runway 1 extension (m) 3.800 721 820 3.800 1.800 850 1.245 110 Runway 1 upgrade (m) 0 3.079 2.980 0 2.000 2.950 0 0 Runway 2 extension (m) 3.800 3.800 3.800 3.800 3.800 3.800 1.460 Runway 2 upgrade (m) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taxiway length (m) 7.000 7.000 7.000 7.000 7.000 7.000 1.500 7.000 New aircraft parking areas (ha) 25 25 25 25 25 25 16 25
Control tower 40.000.000 € 40.000.000 € 40.000.000 € 40.000.000 € 40.000.000 € 40.000.000 € 0 0
Construction 15.000.000 € 15.000.000 € 15.000.000 € 15.000.000 € 15.000.000 € 15.000.000 € Airport radar system 10.000.000 € 10.000.000 € 10.000.000 € 10.000.000 € 10.000.000 € 10.000.000 € Computer systems 15.000.000 € 15.000.000 € 15.000.000 € 15.000.000 € 15.000.000 € 15.000.000 €
Buildings (fully equipped) 454.931.507 € 454.931.507 € 454.931.507 € 454.931.507 € 454.931.507 € 454.931.507 € 311.455.479 € 413.938.356 €
Annual passenger capacity 10.000.000 10.000.000 10.000.000 10.000.000 10.000.000 10.000.000 6.500.000 9.000.000 Support staff 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.000 Max passenger throughput per hour 4.110 4.110 4.110 4.110 4.110 4.110 2.671 3.699
Total new terminal area (m2) 136.644 136.644 136.644 136.644 136.644 136.644 88.818 122.979 Total staff and technical buildings (m2) 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000 30.000
Terminal construction costs 409.931.507 € 409.931.507 € 409.931.507 € 409.931.507 € 409.931.507 € 409.931.507 € 266.455.479 € 368.938.356 € Technical building construction costs 45.000.000 € 45.000.000 € 45.000.000 € 45.000.000 € 45.000.000 € 45.000.000 € 45.000.000 € 45.000.000 € DETAIL : Equipement de suivi/gestion des passagers3.362.135 inclus dans € les coûts aérogare0 € 0 € 0 € 0 € 0 € 0 € 0 € Plane access 9.000.000 € 9.000.000 € 9.000.000 € 9.000.000 € 9.000.000 € 9.000.000 € 6.000.000 € 8.000.000 €
Luggage systems 20.000.000 € 20.000.000 € 20.000.000 € 20.000.000 € 20.000.000 € 20.000.000 € 20.000.000 € 20.000.000 €
Plane equipment systems 700.000 € 700.000 € 700.000 € 700.000 € 700.000 € 700.000 € 0 € 0 €
Security 11.600.000 € 8.800.000 € 11.600.000 € 11.600.000 € 11.600.000 € 11.600.000 € 1.200.000 € 3.800.000 €
New perimeter road (km) 12 8 12 12 12 12 0 3 New fence (km) 16 14 16 16 16 16 0 4
Cost of fences 3.200.000 € 2.800.000 € 3.200.000 € 3.200.000 € 3.200.000 € 3.200.000 € 0 € 800.000 € Cost of perimeter road 7.200.000 € 4.800.000 € 7.200.000 € 7.200.000 € 7.200.000 € 7.200.000 € 0 € 1.800.000 € Cost of video monitoring system 1.200.000 € 1.200.000 € 1.200.000 € 1.200.000 € 1.200.000 € 1.200.000 € 1.200.000 € 1.200.000 €
Road access 49.920.000 € 35.520.000 € 21.720.000 € 39.720.000 € 29.220.000 € 17.220.000 € 9.220.000 € 18.720.000 €
Sidewalk cost, per meter Terminal sidewalk length (m) 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 Cost of sidewalks 320.000 € 320.000 € 320.000 € 320.000 € 320.000 € 320.000 € 320.000 € 320.000 € Access viaduc, two levels 9.500.000 € 9.500.000 € 9.500.000 € 9.500.000 € 9.500.000 € 9.500.000 € 0 € 9.500.000 €
Length of access roads 2x2 lanes (km) 8 3 2 7 1 1 1 1 Length of access roads, 2 lanes (km) 6 8 2 2 7 2 2 2 Number of roundabouts 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Number of bridges 3 1 1 3 2 0 1 1
Road costs 40.100.000 € 25.700.000 € 11.900.000 € 29.900.000 € 19.400.000 € 7.400.000 € 8.900.000 € 8.900.000 €
Car parks 35.760.000 € 35.760.000 € 35.760.000 € 35.760.000 € 35.760.000 € 35.760.000 € 35.760.000 € 35.760.000 €
Amount of LT parking lot spaces 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 2.400 Amount of ST parking garage spaces 1.600 1.600 1.600 1.600 1.600 1.600 1.600 1.600 Amount of staff parking lot spaces 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500
Project management 73.280.251 € 71.933.426 € 75.224.751 € 77.006.251 € 74.637.251 € 74.915.001 € 42.460.898 € 58.506.936 €
Pre-studies 2.568.000 € 1.284.000 € 2.568.000 € 2.568.000 € 1.284.000 € 2.568.000 € 1.284.000 € 1.284.000 € Design phase 39.598.860 € 38.622.878 € 38.201.380 € 39.199.020 € 38.591.420 € 38.027.920 € 22.588.663 € 31.104.044 € Implementation phase 31.113.390 € 30.346.547 € 30.015.370 € 30.799.230 € 30.321.830 € 29.879.080 € 17.748.235 € 24.438.892 € Sales & Marketing costs 0 € 1.680.000 € 4.440.000 € 4.440.000 € 4.440.000 € 4.440.000 € 840.000 € 1.680.000 €
TOTAL INVESTMENT (10 Mpax) 909.786.758 € 854.601.433 € 906.386.258 € 900.617.758 € 852.498.758 € 869.201.508 € 485.221.377 € 676.775.292 €
INVESTMENT CARGO ONLY (1 runway) 237.681.150 € 164.127.925 € 187.424.550 € 225.419.650 € 192.425.650 € 193.728.400 € 53.746.564 € 44.846.451 €
INVESTMENT CHARTER (5 Mpax, 1 runway) 346.514.657 € 295.716.812 € 346.061.357 € 335.855.257 € 291.183.857 € 308.963.007 € 89.949.747 € 95.483.238 €
COMBI CARGO + CHARTER 373.264.657 € 322.466.812 € 372.811.357 € 362.605.257 € 317.933.857 € 335.713.007 € 107.337.247 € 122.233.238 €
Rail network conneting costs 250.000.000 € 160.000.000 € 400.000.000 € 160.000.000 € 100.000.000 € 100.000.000 €
Sound insulation programs 160.248.000 € 57.712.000 € 80.580.000 € 32.628.000 € 15.984.000 € 83.332.000 € 0 € 0 €
Amount of residents overflown 40.062 14.428 20.145 8.157 3.996 20.833 Program cost 160.248.000 € 57.712.000 € 80.580.000 € 32.628.000 € 15.984.000 € 83.332.000 € 0 € 0 €
32 17. Financing
It is likely that the European Union will finance part of the project.
It is noted that the European Community previously financed through a 200 million euros loan the new infrastructure required to convert the Malpensa military airport into Milan's main airport, as a replacement for Linate which was too close to the city center.
Transfering part or all of the activity of the Zaventem runways to a new site will free a considerable amount of land on the two municipalities of Zaventem and Steenokkerzeel :
- about 220 hectares for the runway 07R/25L, - about 100 hectares for the middle section of runway 02/30,
- about 320 hectares for the runway 07L/25R, - about 30 hectares for the eastern aircraft parking area, - more than 30 hectares for the north-western aircraft parking area.
This area amouts to 700 hectares without including any reconversion of existing buildings (terminals and technical buildings) for which many business, commercial, administrative, and cultural uses will be found.
Current prices for building land in the Brussels area are as follows :
- 151 €/m2 for Steenokkerzeel - 221 €/m2 for Grimberen - 232 €/m2 for Vilvoorde - 255 €/2 for Tervuren - 309 €/m2 for Zaventem - 667 €/m2 for Woluwe Saint Pierre - 728 €/m2 for Schaerbeek - 797 €/m2 for à Evere - 1024 €/m2 for Woluwe Saint Lambert
source: http://statbel.fgov.be/fr/statistiques/chiffres/economie/construction_industrie/immo/prix_moyen_terrains/
Assuming that 65% of the land sells as building land over time, 455 hectares sold at an average of 350 €/m2 will fetch a minimum of 1.6 billion euros.
Most of the new airport costs may therefore be financed through the progressive and orderly resale of the land freed at Zaventem.
In many cases (Paris with Orly & Roissy, Berlin with Tegel & Schönefeld) the same holding company manages both airports. Such configuration allows to optimize the financial and operational synergies and facilitates the activity transfert.
In addition, land value in Steenokkerzeel, currently the lowest in the Brussels region, will significantly increase upon the airport transfer.
Based on its new economic potential, land value around the new airport site will also increase well above its current agricultural value.
33 18. The Sword of Damoclès : Compensation Programs
Two types of compensation programs are usually implemented across Europe. They focus on resolving noise pollution problems without taking into account other systemic risks linked to public health and potential accidents.
A. Noise insulation programs
Zaventem Airport is one of the last major european airports which does not offer any noise insulation program today.
Program subsidies vary between 5 K€ and 20 K€ per overflown housing :
- 5 K€ per housing for Nice Côte d'Azur Airport. - 5 K€ per housing for Bonn/Cologne Airport. - 12 K€ per housing for Paris-CDG Airport.
www.infobruit.com/articles/aide_insonorisation_adp.pdf Based on an average subsidy 4 K€ per overflown resident, compensation costs for 500,000 residents would today reach 2 billion €.
Even after concentrating planes on a smaller amount of flight corridors and the less populated areas, the number of local residents subject to indemnification will remain close to 200,000. The corresponding budget will then reach 800 million euros, an amount equal to the cost of a new 10 Mpax airport. Considering the population density around Zaventem, moving the runways is a much better investment... which may explain why such program has not been undertaken until now.
B. Housing buy-back programs
As similar programs have already been implemented in Belgium for the Liège and Charleroi airports, the airport management reminded us not to forget such programs in our study.
- Some residents near the Zaventem 01 landing runway estimate that a similar buy-back program for houses under their corridor will amount to 2 billion euros. They suggest financing such program through a special 10 € fee added to flight tickets for a period of 10 years.
- Land use plans under the 25R and 25L landing runways forbid new constructions and houses recently constructed have been made at their owners' risks.
- Nothing has yet been suggested for the departing routes of 25R and 25L runways. The least expensive solution would concentrate all flights above the least populated corridor and would expropriate residents up to 8 km away from the runway, 1 km on each side.
The map next page positions the post-moratorium flight corridors above the populated areas and helps understand the costs associated with various options.
1. The canal route which runs through Brussels flies over a large number of residents and must be suppressed almost immediately. It cannot support a buy-back program. 2. A corridor not used towards the west runs straight towards Tour & Taxis before turning right 80° towards the Planétarium, above the Laeken Palace. The amount of population (> 60,000) on the corridor sides makes the option too costly. 3. The corridor consisting of a right turn towards Merchtem above Machelen flies over 35,000 inhabitants wihtin 8 kilometers, leading to a 2 billion euros buy-back program.
34 4. Two additional corridors running north-west towards Meise and Grimberen fly over fairly similar population densities, leading to similar buy-back program costs.
Instructing all flights to follow the same route may seem rigid, but such decision is applied without soul-searching in Germany : All planes from Berlin Tegel start flying west for 10 kilometers until they are out of the city before turning towards their final destination.
As a conclusion, minimum buy-back programs for the airport current configuration run north of 4 billion euros, with half the money spent for a unique take-off corridor under runway 25R, and the other half spent under runway 01 landings.
The prohibitive cost of such legitimate programs leaves ony two options:
(i) moving the airport. (ii) moving the airport runways further east and restraining them to day use.
C. Evolution of European legislation
It is likely that European legislation will take over time additional steps towards sustainable development and a better protection of individuals (as already made for many animal species).
In that case, a complete ban on low-altitude major cities overflights will become quite likely, in particular when other alternative options do exist.
35 19. Schedules and intermediate steps
Here are the main steps for each project : 1. Pre-project Lasting 4 to 12 months, the pre-project allows to: - define optimal flight corridors. - define airport access. - define the land use plan. - define passenger flows. - itemize the budget. 2. Public hearings and financing Lasting 6 to 12 months, the step allows to: - prepare and publish the public consultation folder. - set-up local workgroups. - bring together stakeholder comments. - rework the project if necessary. In parallel : - the pre-project is further detailed on specific points (security, etc). - the call for tenders for next steps are prepared. - the project financing is detailed and finalized. - necessary geologic tests are performed. 3. Appeals A 12 to 30 month buffer is added to manage the cursus of potential appeals. 4. Calls for tender (engineering, architecture, earthworks) Prepared in advance, this 2 to 3 months step allows to finalize the selection process for architectural design, technical design, and earth moving tasks. 5. Land purchases This step spreads across 6 to 12 months depending on task complexity. Structural design and road access design are also completed, and suppliers for runway construction are selected. 6. Clearing and earthworks The task duration should be : - 3 months for a simple runway extension. - 12 months for a new runway on an existing airport. - 18 months for a runway on a new site. Building design is also completed, and calls for tender are issued. 7. Building runways Provided construction teams are strong and experienced enough, the task will last : - 6 months for a simple runway extension. - 15 months for building multiple runways. Technical equipements are also selected and ordered. 8. Building terminal and access roads
The task duration should be : - 15 months for building new terminals. - 9 months only when terminals are added to an existing infrastructure. - 12 months for building the control tower, when necessary - 6 to 12 months for the new technical areas. - 12 to 18 months for the access roads. 9. Equipment installation, delivery, and test - 6 months are scheduled for this step. 36 10. Buffers and delays Buffers are defined as a function of the complexity level for each project. Buffers are shorter for improvements to existing airports. Project Schedules
Veltem Beauvechain Zoersel Eskaarde Chièvres Ursel Charleroi Liège
Pre-project (A) 12 6 6 12 6 12 N/A 4 Public hearings (B1) 12 8 12 12 8 8 N/A 6 Appeals (B2) 24 18 30 30 12 18 N/A 12 Calls for tender (C) 3 3 3 3 3 3 N/A 2 Land purchases (D) 12 6 18 12 6 12 N/A 0 Clearing and earth works (E) 12 6 6 18 6 12 N/A 3 Building runways (F) 12 8 12 12 12 12 N/A 4 Building Terminals (G) 15 15 15 15 15 15 N/A 9 Building Technical areas (H) 8 10 10 12 10 10 N/A 6 Building control tower (I) 12 12 12 12 ? 12 N/A 0 Building access roads (J) 12 12 6 18 12 12 N/A 0 Equipements (K) 6 6 6 6 6 6 N/A 6 Buffers (L) 25% 15% 15% 25% 15% 20% N/A 10%
Total (months) 135 87 124 153 85 117 N/A 50 A+B+C+D+E+F+(G-J)+K+L 11 years 7 years 10 years 13 years 7 years 10 years 4 ans
These long schedules mean indermediate steps are required :
- Pure cargo flights may be transferred quickly to Beauvechain with the ongoing support of Zaventem suppliers. - Pure cargo activities could also be transferred to Liège provided there is an agreement to migrate part of the suppliers' work there. - If a low-cost terminal is quickly built in Ursel, Zaventem charter flights may migrate to Ursel using the existing runway and taxiway. - The same step may be implemented in Beauvechain as well, using first the shorter runway as taxiway during the construction of the final taxiway, and then extending each runway while the other is being used. - A similar process is available in Chièvres as well, bulding first the taxiway and a new terminal before using the north runway while the south runway is built. - Charter flights may be temporarily moved to Charleroi or Liège during the time necessary to the new site set-up, while improving bus connections between airports. Upgrading or building a new runway dedicated to cargo & charter flights in order to accomodate all night trafic at Zaventem may happen much faster : 4 years are sufficient for the Beauvechain option.
Veltem Beauvechain Zoersel Eskaarde Chièvres Ursel Charleroi Liège
Pre-project (A) 9 6 6 12 6 6 3 3 Public hearings (B1) 9 6 12 12 6 6 6 6 Appeals (B2) 12 6 15 20 6 6 0 0 Calls for tender (C) 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 Land purchases (D) 6 6 6 6 6 6 0 0 Clearing and earth works (E) 6 3 3 9 3 6 2 2 Building runways (F1) 8 4 8 8 4 4 0 0 Building plane parkings (F2) 6 4 4 6 4 4 3 3 Building Terminals (G) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Building Technical areas (H) 8 6 10 12 8 8 3 3 Building control tower (I) 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 Building access roads (J) 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 Equipements (K) 6 3 6 6 6 6 3 3 Buffers (L) 20% 10% 12% 20% 12% 15% 5% 5%
Total (months) 82 51 77 105 56 60 23 23 A+B+C+D+E+F+(G-J)+K+L 7 years 4 years 6 years 9 years 5 years 5 years 2 years 2 years
37 20. Potential evolutions at Zaventem
We also study several new runway options at Zaventem, which may help to reduce noise pollution and systemic risks: - moving back runway 25R three kilometers east. - moving back runway 25L three kilometers east. - moving runway 02 further east. - creating a new runway 27 further east. - creating a new set of two runways 27 and their terminal further east. Each option is analyzed based on the following criteria : - decrease of noise pollution at night (in particular relative to cargo flights). - removal of flight corridors running through the city. - removal of landing corridors above densely populated areas. - schedules and costs. - impact on the airport capacity and growth potential. - impact on the effectiveness of business partners.
Here is the geographic environment east of the airport :
Here is the number of residents in today's landing strips, 20 kilometer long and 2 kilometer wide:
- For landings on runway 25 right : 22,000 inhabitants - For landings on runway 25 left : 19,000 inhabitants - For landings on runway 01 & eastern winds : 37,000 inhabitants
Here is the number of residents in hypothetical take-off strips, 10 kilometer long and 2 kilometer wide, which would target the smallest amount of residents :
- For take-offs on runway 25 right, towards north : 30,000 inhabitants - For take-offs on runway 25 right, towards west : 65,000 inhabitants - For take-offs on runway 25 left, towards south-east : 70,000 inhabitants
These figures are established only for comparison purposes. Noise pollution is felt over much more extensive areas, sometimes 35 kilometers away from the airport.
38 21. Moving back runway 25R
The runway is moved back by 3 kilometers and its angle is slightly changed in order to avoid most densely populated areas.
The new configuration allows the flights towards the south and the east to avoid flying over Brussels. It requires moving about 120 families from Steenokkerzeel and is not a good solution for the following reasons :
- Kraainem, Wezembeek-Oppem and Tervuren are hit by flights to the south & east. - Jette, Ganshoren et Laeken are hit if the runway is used for east facing landings. - the configuration offers no solution for cargo & night flights.
We shall not detail the configuration any further.
39 22. Moving back runway 25L
The runway is moved back by 3 kilometers and extended to 3,800 m on the east side. Only 200 m of the existing runway are maintained.
Ground map
The configuration requires selected land acquisitions and road network modifications :
- purchasing 180 hectares of agricultural land (non-building land). - expropriating 65 families : 50 in Erps, 10 in Kuregem, and 5 in Humelgem. - displacing the Erps cemetery. - extenting the runway bridge over N227. - closing-down the vicinal road between Steenokkerzeel and Kortenberg. - moving 1.3 km of the Nederokkerzeel to Kwerps-Vissegat road by 400 m eastwards.
Part of the expropriations might be avoided by optimizing the runway direction.
Flight corridors
The configuration allows to avoid densely populated areas when flying towards the south and the east. It also provides 5 more kilometers to reach higher altitudes before reaching populated areas when flying towards the north and the west. 40 As the runway has been moved back, planes from the new 25L going north may turn and cross runway 25R high enough to avoid conflicts with other aircrafts landing on 25R, including when they initiate a go-around.
The option also removes current nuisances affecting Erps-Kwerps residents, as they no longer remain under the landing path. At the same time many residents are still overflown and the issues of night flights and landings in strong eastern winds are not solved.
Take-offs (30% towards north) 31,749 - 4 km Zaventem – Nord 15,000 - 8 km Machelen 13,749 - 10 km Vilvoorde Kassei 3,000 Take-offs (30% towards west) 31 ,270 - 4 km Zaventem – Nord 15,000 - 5 km Diegem 5,001 - 8 km Brussels – Haren 4,269 - 10 km Brussels – Neder Over Heembeek 7,000 Take-offs (40% towards south) 30,149 - 2 km Nossegem 3,100 - 4 km Sterrebeek 8,000 - 6 km Wezembeek Oppem 13,849 - 8-10 km Vossem 5,200 Average residents per route up to 10 km 30,960
Ground set-up
- Moving back runway 25L requires aircrafts to run an additional 4 to 5 kilometers on the taxiway befre take-off, 8 to 10 minutes at 30 km/h. Such delay is comparable to average taxi- times at Paris-CDG. Taxi-times after landing remain unchanged.
Strengths & weaknesses
The option eases the life of Brussels east-side while moving the south fligth corridor 3 km towards east, a location where many residents are still found.
We do not recommend this option which does not solve the issues of night flights, of eastern wind landings, and of jumbos flying in straight line over Schaerbeek. 41 23. Moving runway 02 further east
Moving runway 02/20 towards east responds to three objectives : - reduce the number of residents overflown by landings under strong eastern winds. - allow for take-offs directly towards southern diirections without flying over Brussels. - allow for night cargo take-offs directly over Brussels eastern ring.
Groud map
The planned runway is 3,800 m long to support jumbo carriers. Its direction is optimized to direct planes over Brussels eastern ring.
The configuration requires selected land acquisitions and road network modifications : - purchasing 210 hectares of land and expropriating 5 farmers in Laar, - expropriating 20 families : 15 in Boogstock (Negenhoek) and 5 in Humelgem - extenting the runway bridge over N227. - closing-down the vicinal road between Steenokkerzeel and Kortenberg
Flight corridors
Take-offs on the new runway 20 requires landings to take place on runway 25R.
42 Similarly, runway 25R is used for east-bound take-offs to reduce flight path crossings.
T ake-offs & Landings in runway axis 24,949 - 1 km Nossegem 3,100 - 3 km Sterrebeek 8,000 - 5 km Wezembeek Oppem 13,849 - 7-20 km East Ring -
T ake-offs towards south (40%) 19,504 - 1 km Nossegem 3,100 - 3 km Sterrebeek 8,000 - 6 km Tervuren-Leopold II 5,200
- 8 km Tervuren-Duisburg 3,204 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duisburg_%28Belgique%29
De jour, l'utilisation de la nouvelle piste 20 pour les départs vers le sud nécessite d'utiliser la piste 25L pour tous les départs vers l'ouest et le nord. On a alors :
T ake-offs from 25L towards west (30%) 31,270 - 4 km Zaventem – Nord 15,000 - 5 km Diegem 5,001 - 8 km Brussels – Haren 4,269 - 10 km Brussels – Neder Over Heembeek 7,000
Take-offs from 25L towards north (30%) 69,754 - 1 km Zaventem – Nord 15,000 - 5 km Machelen 13,749 - 7 km Vilvoorde 41,005
Average residents per route up to 10 km 38,108
Night take-offs are made towards Brussels east ring on the new runway 20. Aircrafts with a northern of western final destination must by-pass Brussels to the south.
The total amount of local residents overflown by airplanes within 10 kilometers of the airport remains close to 130,000.
Ground set-up
The new runway 02 requires aircrafts to run an extra 4 kilometers on the taxiways, about 8 minutes, which is comparable to Paris-CDG.
Strengths & weaknesses
The configuration solves several issues : - no more flights above Brussels' center and east side. - fewer night disturbances provided all aircrafts by-pass Brussels by the south. - no more flights above Kraainem and Stockel during west-bound landings.
But the configuration has several drawbacks : - it does not ease much of the disturbances on the north side of Brussels. - low altitude night flights keep disturbing another 25,000 residents. - disturbances are increased in Sterrebeek, Wezembeek-Oppem, and Tervuren. - additional time is spent on taxiways.
Overall, the configuration reduces by a third the amount of residents hit through the 02 runways while transferring nuisances to other municipalities nearby. We cannot recommend it.
43 24. Creating a new runway 27 further east
The new runway has one primary objective: to reduce night nuisances.
All pure cargo and low-cost flights can be pulled together on the new runway without loosing the full benefit of other Zaventem services.
The new runway prevents west-bound aircrafts from flying over Brussels at low altitude. It is linked through a 3 km taxiway to the main facilities.
With additional investments to the airport infrastructure, the runway may be used for all flights bound to the west and the south and therefore significantly reduce the airport noise footprint.
The configuration requires selected land acquisitions and road network modifications : - purchasing 250 hectares of agricultural land and forest. - expropriating 20 families : 5 in Silsembos, 10 in Wad, an 5 in Humelgem. - extenting the runway bridge over N227. - closing-down the vicinal road between Steenokkerzeel and Kortenberg. - closing-down three vicinal roads between Nederokkerzeel and Kwerps.
Flight corridors
44 With the new runway, landing now occurs on runways 25L and 27 instead of 25R as usual. The airport potential capacity is slightly improved.
The new runway 27 may be used for :
- by default for all night take-offs. - for all south-bound flights, flight paths crossing over runway 27L. - for north-bound flights, without interferring with runway 27R landings. - for some west-bound landings, as a complement to runway 25L. - for east-bound landings, with take-offs on runway 07R.
List of communities under the flight corridors of the new 09/27 runway :
Landings with western winds (20 km) 15,000 - 4 km Elst 4,000 - 6 km Langeweld 1,500 - 8 km Putkapel 4,000 - 9 km Attenhoven 2,000 - 10 km Holsbeek Centre 2,000 - 19 km Sint-Joris Winge (30%) 1,500
Landings with eastern winds (20 km) 42,848 * - 2 km Steenokkerzeel 6,333 - 8 km Machelen Ville 9,000 - 10 km Kassei (Vilvoorde) 3,000 - 13 km Strombeek Bever 11,515 - 17 km Wemmel 13,000
* This amount is slightly above today's figures for runway 01 but with western winds (the most frequent set-up) these communities are overflow less frequently and at higher altitude.
Take-offs (10 km, 30% north-bound) 16,333 - 2 km Steenokkerzeel 6,333 - 7 km Peutie (Vilvoorde) 5,000 - 7 km Houtem (Vilvoorde) 5,000 Take-offs (10 km, 30% west-bound) 18 ,333 - 2 km Steenokkerzeel 6,333 - 8 km Machelen Ville 9,000 - 10 km Kassei (Vilvoorde) 3,000 Take-offs (10 km, 40% south-bound) 16,333
- 2 km Steenokkerzeel 6,333
- 7 km Nossegem 6,000 - 9 km Sterrebeek 4,000
Average take-offs up to 10 km 16,933
It is noted that today a north-bound aircraft from runway 25R flies on the average above 108,847 residents, and that west-bound aircrafts fly over many more residents.
In order to really reduce the airport noise footprint, the new runway 27 should be used at least for all west and south-bound flights which represent 70% of all departures.
The average amount of overflown residents would then drop from 175,000 to 46,000 per flight.
If the new runway is also used for north-bound departures the average amount of overflown residents will drop to an average of 20,000 per flight and to 60,000 total.
45 Ground set-up
The new runway 27 will impact the ground organization :
Cargo flights
- They must use runway 27 for both landing and take-off.
- A parking area must be set-up nearby in order for aircrafts to avoid additional taxiway (5 kilometers upon landing and 8 kilometers before take-off).
- Loading trucks will drive the other way around, an acceptable burden.
Low-cost charter flights
- They must use runway 27 for both landing and take-off. - They stay near runway 27 during their rotation, helping reduce taxiway noise levels.
- Passengers are brought to/from the planes by 10 minutes of bus.
- About 25 buses are required to support 30 planes at peak hours, based on an average of 2.5 buses of 60 seats each per plane and 15 to 25 minutes rotations.
- As a second step, a low-cost terminal could be added next to the new runway to faciliate passenger boarding and unboarding.
Commercial flights
- Planes using the existing runways and terminals for flight arrivals would need to head 8 kilometers further east on the taxiways to reach the start-zone for runway 27 departures. The corresponding 16 minutes delay is not acceptable as such.
- There are two solutions to go around this issue:
1. Build a new terminal in between the 25L and 27 runways in order to split the 16 mn taxiway delay between into 8 mn upon arrival and another 8 mn before departure.
2. Double the new runway 27 with a twin runway further north, dedicated to arrivals, and add a terminal between the two new runways. Taxi time drops to nominal delays and the configuration is similar to Heathrow's.
The next chapter will detail the last solution.
Strengths & weaknesses
Building east of the existing airport a new east-west runway 27 allows to move there all cargo and charter flights and to ensure that night flights disturb much fewer residents than today.
But the number of residents overflown during strong eastern wind landings increases slightly.
The new runway will help reduce the overall airport noise pollution if a new terminal is added to enable all departing flights to use the runway.
A twin runway could also be used to improve capacity. The overall cost would then reach the cost of establishing a new airport in a better location.
46 25. Creating a set of twin runways 27
Creating a set of two runways further east allows to reduce overall noise pollution around Brussels, as well as to solve the issue of night flights.
The new configuration allows to move progressively all flights from the historic runways to the new ones while leveraging the synergies with the existing infrastructure and staff.
- The new southern runway 27 is dedicated to west-facing take-offs. - The new northern runway 27 is dedicated to west-facing landings. - Both runways are used in the opposite direction when strong eastern winds prevail. - A taxiway and the terminals are added on their southern side. - A new perimeter road is added and links to the old airport.
The new configuration requires:
- purchasing 420 hectares of agricultural land and forest. - expropriating 65 families : 10 in Nederokkerzeel, 5 in Silsembos, 10 south of Kiekenbeemden, 15 near Duivenstraat, 10 in Wad, 10 in Broekhoven, 5 in Humelgem. - extenting the runway bridge over N227. - closing-down several vicinal roads.
Flight corridors
47 The corridors are similar to the ones described in the previous chapter, except for the ability to allocate all flights to the two new runways.
Each flight from runway 27 hits on average 16,933 residents during its first 10 km of flight.
The total number of residents hit by landings (on 20 km) and take-offs (on 10 km) is drastically reduced :
East of the airport 15,000 - 4 km Elst 4,000 - 6 km Langeweld 1,500 - 8 km Putkapel 4,000 - 9 km Attenhoven 2,000 - 10km Holsbeek Centre 2,000 - 19 km Sint-Joris Winge (30%) 1,500
West of the airport 62,848 - 2 km Steenokkerzeel 6,333 - 7 km Peutie (Vilvoorde) 5,000 - 7 km Houtem (Vilvoorde) 5,000
- 7 km Nossegem 6,000 - 8 km Machelen Ville 9,000 - 9 km Sterrebeek 4,000 - 10 km Kassei (Vilvoorde) 3,000 - 13 km Strombeek Bever 11,515 - 17 km Wemmel 13,000
Road access
As a first step the existing airport access is maintained and the access to the new terminal is made with buses on the perimeter road.
Later on, an automated surface track could link the new terminals to the existing railroad node.
Strengths & weaknesses
Building two new and parallel east-west runways and a new terminal east of the existing airport allows to progressively transfer all of the airport traffic on the two new runways and to drastically reduce the number of residents hit by noise pollution.
The overall airport transformation cost is close to the cost of building a new airport further away even if the configuration allows to better leverage existing infrastructure and staff.
Liberating the existing runways will allow to reimburse over time all of the construction costs.
The final impact of noise pollution will remain substantially higher than the impact which can be achived on ither sites such as Beauvechain, in particular during strong eastern winds.
48 26. Budgets for new runways at Zaventem
Adding new runways at Zaventem requires the following expenses, whose costs have been validated by international experts :
1. Land purchase (4€/m2 non-building land ; 5€/m2 forest ; to be refined) - New 25L : 180 ha 7.2 M€ - New 02 : 210 ha 8.4 M€ - New 27 : 250 ha including 1/3 forest 10.8 M€ - New Twin 27s : 420 ha including 1/3 forest 18.2 M€
2. Expropriations (300 K€ average per family) - New 25L : 65 families 19.5 M€ - New 02 : 20 families 6.0 M€ - New 27 : 20 families 6.0 M€ - New Twin 27s : 65 families 19.5 M€
3. New 3,800 m runway (10 million € per kilometer) - For each of the first 3 options : 38.0 M€ - New Twin 27s : 76.0 M€
4. Taxiways (5.2 million € per kilometer) - New 25L : 5 kilometers 26.0 M€ - New 02 : 6 kilometers 31.2 M€ - New 27 : 8 kilometers 41.6 M€ - New Twin 27s : 10 kilometers 52.0 M€
5. Aircraft parking areas (2 million € per hectare) - New 27 : 10 hectares 20.0 M€ - New Twin 27s : 25 hectares 50.0 M€
6. Runway signs & lights (3 millions € per runway, 250 K€ per taxiway kilometer) - New 25L : 4.3 M€ - New 02 : 4.5 M€ - New 27 : 5.0 M€ - New Twin 27s : 8.5 M€
7. Air navigation equipment - For each of the first 3 options : 3.0 M€ - New Twin 27s : 6.0 M€ 8. Buildings and tools - For each of the first 3 options : N/A - New 27 : terminal 136,000 m2 for 10M Pax 439.0 M€
9. Bridge over N227 (to be confirmed) - For each of the 4 options : 6.0 M€
10. Perimeter road (0.6 million € per kilometer) - New 25L : 8 kilometers 4.8 M€ - New 02 : 9 kilometers 5.4 M€ - New 27 : 14 kilometers 8.4 M€ - New Twin 27s : 17 kilometers 10.2 M€
11. Fences (200 € per meter, including labor) - New 25L : 8 kilometers 1.6 M€ - New 02 : 9 kilometers 1.8 M€ - New 27 : 14 kilometers 2.8 M€ - New Twin 27s : 17 kilometers 3.4 M€
49 12. Video monitoring system - For each of the first 3 options : 0.6 M€ - New Twin 27s : 1.2 M€
13. Land acquisition program (5% of land costs) - New 25L : 1.3 M€ - New 02 : 0.7 M€ - New 27 : 0.8 M€ - New Twin 27s : : 1.9 M€
14. Design & project management (7% of infrastructure and 10% of building costs) - New 25L : 5.6 M€ - New 02 : 6.3 M€ - New 27 : 8.7 M€ - New Twin 27s : 58,8 M€
15. Experts (200-400 K€ for 4-6 years) - New 25L : 0.8 M€ - New 02 : 0.8 M€ - New 27 : 0.8 M€ - New Twin 27s : 2.4 M€
TOTAL COSTS : 1. Moving back runway 25L : 120 M€ 2. Displacing runway 02 : 115 M€ 3. New runway 27 (w/o terminal): 155 M€ New 10 Mpax terminal 439 M€ 4. Two twin runways 27 (with 10 Mpax terminal) : 755 M€
These costs should be compared to :
- the yearly 350 M€ Ebitda for the existing airport. - the yearly 200-400 M€ Ebitda increase following a significant trafic increase. * - the 1,600 M€ or more resulting from the sale of existing runway land. * - the 4,800 M€ liability for compensation programs (if nothing is done).
* among the Zaventel options, only available through a set of two new runways 27.
50 27. Overall ratings
Evaluation criteria for each option are rated the following way : Geographic position A : Brussels & Anvers < 50km B : Brussels & Anvers < 60 km B : Four towns < 75 km C : Brussels or Anvers > 80 km D : Brussels and Anvers > 80 km Quality of service A : C service level, standard taxiway time C : C service level, extended taxiway time Noise pollution A : Landing & take-off < 10,000 residents hit B : Landing & take-off < 20,000 residents hit C : Landing & take-off < 50,000 residents hit D : Landing & take-off < 80,000 residents hit E : Landing or take-off > 80,000 residents hit Noise pollution after 10 km A : no more urban areas (after take-offs) C : few urban areas left D : urban areas left Economic potential A : 4 runways (2 for C+C) and night flights OK B : 3 runways and night flights OK C : 2 runways (1 for C+C) and night flights OK D : 1 runway, night flights OK E : night flights not OK Setting-up difficulty A : On commercial airport, under 20 ha to buy B : Airport, no families expropriated C : Airport nearby, under 80 families expropriated D : Other cases Road interconnection A : Freeway < 5 km B : Freeway < 10 km C : Freeway > 10 km Rail interconnection A : TGV < 5 km B : TGV < 20 km C : No TGV, quick connections to Brussels/Anvers D : No TGV, difficult connections Project length A : < 5 years for hub, < 4 years for C+C B : < 8 years for hub, < 6 years for C+C C : < 12 years for hub, < 8 years for C+C D : > 12 years for hub, < 10 years for C+C Investment level A : < 300 M€ for hub, < 150 M€ for C+C B : < 600 M€ for hub, < 300 M€ for C+C C : < 900 M€ for hub, < 500 M€ for C+C Noise Insulation program A : Already in place or cost < 20 M€ B : Cost < 100 M€ C : Cost < 250 M€ D : Cost < 400 M€ E : Cost > 400 M€ Economic impact on Zaventem A : distance < 10 km B : distance < 30 km C : distance < 50 km D : distance < 70 km E : distance > 70 km
note : C+C = Cargo & Charter only Points are allocated as a function of ratings: A = 3, B = 2, C = 1, D = 0, et E = -1. 51 The 13 options are rated for two situations : - Set-up of an international high-performance hub on two runways. - Set-up of a Cargo/Charter node on a single runway.
Weighting factors are defined column 2 and mandatory minimum values are listed column 3.
A. New international hub
Beauvechain is rated as the best choice. Chièvres is well rated but disqualified based on its high distance to Anvers. ) r u n i o j 7 a ( i 2
h e
s o s l i L c r e d e 5 u e 7 e r e h r l q 2 l 2 2 v s f a c v e r f m r e e u a è r n e g a e e i w w w a s t s l é a è r o h e h e e e r k o i r Hub rating e C P V B Z E C U C L N N N T
Geography 2 B 3 2 2 3 1 2 1 0 3 3 3 3 Quality of service 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 3 Noise pollution W. winds 3 C 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 Nois pollution > 10 km 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 1 1 Noise pollution E. winds 2 C 1 3 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Economic potential 1 C 3 2 1 3 3 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 2 Setting-up 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 Road connections 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Rail connections 1 2 2 0 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Project length 1 1 2 1 0 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 Investment level 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 1 Noise insulation program 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 -1 -1 1 2 Zaventem Impact 1 3 2 1 1 0 -1 1 -1 3 3 3 3 ST 32 43 29 33 37 31 31 29 25 26 32 35
TOTAL 14 19 13 14 16 13 13 13 11 11 14 15
B. New Cargo/Charter Node
Beauvechain is rated as the best choice ahead of a Charleroi/Liège combination. A new runway 27 comes third. n i 7 a i 2 h e
s o s l i c L e d r e u e 7 e i r 5 r h e l v q l f 2 2 s a 2 L v c
f m e r r e e u a è n r e + e g a i e t w w w a s s l a é è h o r h e h e e e k r o r Cargo/Charter rating e i C P V B Z E C U C L C N N N T
Geography 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 1 0 1 3 3 3 Noise pollution W. winds 4 C 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 no no 2 Nois pollution > 10 km 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 1 Noise pollution E. winds 2 C 1 3 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Setting-up 2 1 2 0 0 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 Road connections 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Rail connections 1 2 2 0 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Project length 3 0 2 1 0 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 Investment level 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 Noise insulation program 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 -1 -1 1 Zaventem Impact 2 C 3 2 1 1 0 -1 1 -1 0 3 3 3 ST 32 49 31 31 38 31 41 36 40 ### ### 40
TOTAL 12 19 12 12 15 12 16 14 18 ### ### 16
As finding a solution for night fligths is a key issue, the coefficients for noise pollution, ease of setting-up and project length are increased. Distance to Zaventem should remain under 50 km to facilitate subcontractor works. Pink/grey marks are eliminatory.
52 28. Summary tables
The following three tables summarize the main characteristics of the thirteen options.
Veltem Beauvechain Zoersel Eksaarde
Geographical position A B B A Region Flandre Wallonie Flandre Flandre Other region Wallonie 13 km Flandre 2 km N o N o Nearest metropolis Leuven 11 km Leuven 13 km Anvers 24 Gent 18 km Employment area Flandre Wallonie/Flandre Flandre Flandre Distance Bruxelles Center 16 km 30 km 51 km 46 km Distance Anvers Center 38 km 58 km 24 km 33 km Distance Gand Center 69 km 81 km 74 km 18 km Distance Brugge Center 101 km 119 km 104 km 49 km
Noise Pollution (Western Winds) C A B B Landings over 20 km (per flight) 19.546 6.362 21.683 32.360 Tak-offs over 10 km (per flight) 24.086 5.162 2.750 5.497
Noise Pollution after 10 km C A D A Urban areas overflown Limited N o Yes N o
Noise Pollution (Eastern Winds) C A C B Landings over 20 km (per flight) TBD 10.662 27.000 30.966 Tak-offs over 10 km (per flight) 19.546 5.362 17.395 2.660
Economic potential A B C A Maximum runway number 4 3 2 4 Number of main taxiways 2 2 1 2
Ease of Setting-up C B D D Current use Agriculture & Forest Training Airport Flying Club Agriculture Land to purchase (ha) 630 116 470 650 Displacements phase I 30 families N o 120 families N o Displacements phase II 20 familles N o N/A N o
Road interconnections B B A C Road network very good (N2-N26) good excellent good Freeway network Ring Brussels at 9 km A40 at 8 km E34 at 2 km E17-A14 at 9 km Freeway interchange N/A 2 at 10 km 1 at 2 km 2 at 12-15 km
Rail interconnections B B D C Existing train stations Kortenberg St Joris Nijlen Lockeren Distance to terminal 3km 9 km 10 km 8 km Connection cost to Bruxelles/Anvers 250 M€ 160 M€ 400 M€ 160 M€ TGV Network 20 km 7 km N o N o
Project Length D/E B C D number of months 135 87 124 153
Investment level 10 Mpax D D D D Existing runways 0 2 1 0 Cost estimate for 10 millions Pax 910 M€ 845 M€ 906 M€ 901 M€
Investment level Cargo/Charter C C C C Cost estimate 373 M€ 312 M€ 373 M€ 362 M€
Noise Insulation Program Cost C B B B 160 M€ 58 M€ 81 M€ 33 M€
Economic impact on Zaventem A B C C Transfer of aerial activities Full Part or Full Part or Full Part or Full Transfer of staff Easy 7 km Fair 28 km Partiall 44 km Partial 50 km Impact on cargo subcontractors OK OK OK OK Impact on other subcontractors OK OK OK OK Land resale Free Free Free Free
Similar Business Case Paris CDG Milan Malpensa Milan Malpensa Rome Fumicino vs Le Bourget vs Linate vs Linate
OVERALL RATING (Hub) 16/20 19/20 14/20 17/20 OVERALL RATING (Cargo + Charter) 13/20 19/20 13/20 13/20
53 Chièvres Ursel Charleroi Liège
Geographical position C B C D Region Wallonie Flandre Wallonie Wallonie Other region No No No Flandre 8 km Nearest metropolis Mons 18 km Brugge 19 km Charleroi Liège 7 km Employment area Wallonie Brugge/Gand Wallonie Wallonie Distance Bruxelles Center 48 km 71 km 43 km 80 km Distance Anvers Center 90 km 67 km 87 km 95 km Distance Gand Center 54 km 21 km 85 km 127 km Distance Brugge Center 80 km 19 km 115 km 167 km
Noise Pollution (Western Winds) B B C C Landings over 20 km (per flight) 19.300 15.551 26.196 28.523 Tak-offs over 10 km (per flight) 2.796 15.833 49.924 24.362
Noise Pollution after 10 km A A A A Urban areas overflown No No No No
Noise Pollution (Eastern Winds) A B C C Landings over 20 km (per flight) 3.396 17.508 49.924 24.362 Tak-offs over 10 km (per flight) 1.300 19.645 26.196 28.523
Economic potential A C D C Maximum runway number 4 2 1 2 Number of main taxiways 2 1 1 1
Ease of Setting-up C C A A Current use OTAN Airport Flying Club Commercial Airport Commercial Airport Land to purchase (ha) 150 510 N/A 0 Displacements phase I 8 families 25 families No No Displacements phase II 375 residents N/A N/A N/A
Road interconnections C B A A Road network Good Good (N44) Very Good Very Good Freeway network A8 at 12 km A10 & E34 at 7 km A15, A54 E40, E42 & E313 Freeway interchange 1 at 12 km 3 at 8-9 km several nearby several nearby
Rail interconnections A C C B Existing train stations Ath Aalter/Maria-Aalter Fleurus & Courcelles Bierset Distance to terminal 4 km 6 km 5 km 4 km Connection cost to Bruxelles/Anvers 100 M€ 100 M€ TGV Network TGV at 3km No No TGV Station at 7 km
Project Length B C A A number of months 85 117 50 50
Investment level 10 Mpax D D B C Existing runways 1 1 1 2 Cost estimate for 10 millions Pax 852 M€ 869 M€ 485 M€ 677 M€
Investment level Cargo/Charter C C A A Cost estimate 318 M€ 336 M€ 107 M€ 122 M€
Noise Insulation Program Cost A B A A 16 M€ 83 M€ 0 M€ 0 M€
Economic impact on Zaventem D E C E Transfer of aerial activities Partial or Full Partial or Full Partial or Full Partial or Full Transfer of staff Difficult 56 km Difficult 75 km Difficult 48 km Difficult 75 km Impact on cargo subcontractors Strong OK Strong Strong Impact on other subcontractors Strong OK Strong Strong Land resale Free Free Partially free Partially free
Similar Business Case Milan Malpensa Francfort Hahn Lisbonne Dusseldorf vs Linate
OVERALL RATING (Hub) 18/20 13/20 15/20 14/20
54 Recul 25L Déplacement 02 Nouvelle 27 Tranche 27 Day Airport Geographical position A A A A Region Flandre Flandre Flandre Flandre Other region Wallonie 13 km Wallonie 13 km Wallonie 13 km Wallonie 13 km Nearest metropolis Leuven 11 km Leuven 11 km Leuven 11 km Leuven 11 km Employment area Flandre Flandre Flandre Flandre Distance Bruxelles Center 16 km 16 km 16 km 16 km Distance Anvers Center 38 km 38 km 38 km 38 km Distance Gand Center 69 km 69 km 69 km 69 km Distance Brugge Center 101 km 101 km 101 km 101 km
Noise Pollution (Western Winds) C C E / B B Landings over 20 km (per flight new runway) Non 24.000 15 000 ** 15.000 Tak-offs over 10 km (per flight new runway) 31.000 16.000 18 000 ** 18.000 Landings over 20 km (per flight average) 22.000 22.000 19.000 13.500 Tak-offs over 10 km (per flight average)) 31.000 38 000 * 175 000 18.000
* with new runway 02/20 used for all night take-offs and all take-offs to the south & east ** cargo & charter flights only on new runway, no new terminal
Noise Pollution after 10 km D D C C Urban areas overflown Yes Yes Limited Limited
Noise Pollution (Eastern Winds) C C C C Landings over 20 km (per flight) 39.784 24.949 42.848 42.848 Tak-offs over 10 km (per flight) 20.500 20.500 20.500 13.500
Economic potential E B B C Maximum runway number 3 3 3 ou 2 2 Number of main taxiways 2 3 3 ou 2 1 Non Yes on 02 Yes on 27 Yes
Ease of Setting-up C C C C Current use Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture & Forest Agriculture & Forest Land to purchase (ha) 180 210 250 420 Displacements 65 families 20 families 20 families 65 families
Road interconnections A A A A Road network excellent excellent excellent excellent Freeway network excellent excellent excellent excellent Freeway interchange excellent excellent excellent excellent
Rail interconnections B B B B Existing train stations Yes Yes Yes Yes Distance to terminal 0 0 6 km 6 km Connection cost to Bruxelles/Anvers 0 0 TGV Network Gare TGV at 13 km Gare TGV at 13 km Gare TGV at 17 km Gare TGV at 17 km
Project Length B B B B number of months 72 72 72 By Steps
Investment level 10 Mpax A A B C Existing runways New Runway New Runway New Runway New Runways Cost estimate for 10 millions Pax 120 M€ 115 M€ 595 M€ 755 M€
Investment level Cargo/Charter N/A A B B Cost estimate N/A 115 M€ 155 M€ 155 M€
Noise Insulation Program Cost E E C C 150.000 130.000 60.000 60.000 600 M€ 520 M€ 240 M€ 240 M€
Economic impact on Zaventem A A A A Transfer of aerial activities OK OK OK OK Transfer of staff OK OK OK OK Impact on cargo subcontractors OK OK OK OK Impact on other subcontractors OK OK OK OK Land resale Not freed Not freed Not freed Partially freed
Similar Business Case Schiphol
55 29. Summary of best options
We recommend a several-steps implementation :
1. Three good options allow to eliminate night flights over Brussels by moving pure cargo and charter activities to a new location : (i) Moving cargo and charter fligths to Liège and Charleroi airports. Cost: below 135 M€. This option is quick to set-up but does not fit well into a hub strategy and complicates the work of subcontractors. (ii) Transforming Beauvechain into a cargo & charter airport. Cost : under 155 M€ for cargo and 160 M€ more for charter flights. Noise pollution levels are minimum and the 28 kilometers to Zaventem remain (iii) Adding a new 09/27 runway east of Zaventem. Cost : 155 M€. Cargo et charter flight nuisances are moved to least populated areas. The new runway may also be used for strong eastern winds landings. acceptable for both suppliers, carriers, and customers.
2. Four sites enjoy a growth potential much greater than the historical airport as well as a much smaller noise pollution impact : Beauvechain, Chièvres, Eksaarde et Veltem.
With Chièvres disqualified because of its distance to Anvers, four remaining options allow to establish a new international hub with a 10 Mpax terminal : (i) A new international hub in Beauvechain. Cost : 530 M€ on top of the 1-ii investment, including the TGV connection. (ii) Two twin 09/27 runways and a new terminal east of Zaventem. Cost : 600 M€ on top of the 1-iii investment. (iii) A new international hub in Eksaarde. Cost : 1,060 M€ including the rail connection. (iv) A new international hub in Veltem. Cost : 1,060 M€ including the rail connection.
The best rated option overall is Beauvechain.
3. Going fowards, any continuous use of Zaventem runways would induce high expenses : - A tax on all airline tickets to pay for a house repurchase program. - 800 M€ minimum for the airport to finance a standard housing insulation program.
4. Adding a second terminal on the new hub will allow to transfer all aerial activities from Zaventem and to avoid related liabilities. The construction of the new terminal will be financed by part of the Zaventem land resale which is estimated at more than 1.6 billion €.
This major infrastructure project will be able to benefit from subsidies and loans from the European Community.
The project will foster key economic growth in Belgium, both during the construction work and during the new airport operational life.
56 30. Short-term actions
The implementation of the structural solutions will require several years. In the meantime, the following eight decisions should be taken without delay:
1. Align airport governmental taxes on tax levels in France, Germany, and UK. This means 85 M€ more each year for the government.
2. Do not accept in Zaventem old, noisy, poorly maintained, and less secure aircrafts as is often the case today.
US Airways which flies to Brussels is known as one of the worst US airlines. The company uses old planes and flight incidents have been recently publicized.
http://www.rtbf.be/info/regions/detail_un-avion-us-airways-contraint-de-tourner-au-dessus-de-l-airport-de-zaventem?id=8385148
3. Ensure that all aircrafts use a fast-descend procedure and a 3% slope instead of 1,5% as already implemented at several airports. And forbid access as soon as August 2015 to non-complying planes & airlines.
4. Ensure that all aircrafts use a fast-ascend procedure and a 5% slope instead of 3% as already implemented at many airports. And forbid access as soon as August 2015 to non-complying planes & airlines.
5. Collect without delay the fines due to the non-compliance with the Gossuin law and forbid from access to Zaventem airport: - For a period of six months, any pilot who has violated the Gossuin law. (major companies have a large pool of pilots) - For a period of six months, any plane tagged with 2 violations in 2 months. (major companies have several planes at their disposal) - Any carrier which is over 90 days late for the payment of its Gossuin fines. (contested fines should be paid without delay)
Today, Turkish Airlines planes fly systematically very low upon take-off.
6. Do not accept any take-offs & landings between 10PM- 7AM (except urgencies) - starting with 2016 flight plans, except for pure cargo flights. - starting with 2017-2018 flight plans for pure cargo flights.
It should be noted that during the 2014 summer, Ryan Air serviced : - 31 destinations from Eindhoven, never before 8 AM, - 8 destinations from Maastricht, never before 8.50 AM, - 11 destinations from Zaventem, as soon as 6.25 AM.
A shorter operating range will therefore not penalize consumers, nor carriers, nor employment. It will be beneficial to most parties.
7. Start thinking about a partial airport closure on weekends, as already in place at London City Airport.
8. Progressively reduce the annual amount of authorized plane movements to 120,000 movements per year in 2020, about 60 % of 2013 movements.
Such decision will favor better airplane filling ratios.
57 31. Conclusion
We hope that this white paper has helped you better understand the issues and options related to the evolution of our airport infrastructure, which is long overdue.
The noise pollution levels, the impact on public health, the security risks, and the compensation plan liabilities due to Zaventem's poor location at the heart of Europe cannot be overlooked anymore.
Over more than 20 years, main political decisions have been to push the burden from one municipality to the others without setting-up a compensation plan as anywhere else in Europe.
The liability of such program is very high for Zaventem, much higher than the cost of constructing a new airport.
We now need to have the courage to take the only clear political decisions which stands out in the interest of ALL parties, of our children, and of future generations :
Moving the airport activities & runways, as already done in Paris, Rome, Milano, London, Munich, Berlin, and Olso.
Only the move will support the growth of our airport activities and will transform a point to point activity into an international hub established within a peaceful environment.
This major infrastructure project is a key employement opportunity for many years to come and it will attract key financing from the European Community.
In addition, resale of the Zaventem land will generate huge capital gains for the airport, well over one billion euros.
We have analyzed and calculated the costs for many different options. We have presented the best options as well as our short-term recommendations in the two preceeding pages.
Stakeholders need to select the option which provides the broadest consensus.
The Coeur-Europe Task Force
Speaker :
Jean-Noël Lebrun Avenue Albert Jonnart 41 1200 Woluwe Saint Lambert [email protected] 0471 316 915
58 Appendix 1 : Selected international airport maps
Frankfurt
Frankfurt is a top european airport with four runways, including three parallel runways (the third smaller one is on the north-west side).
You can compare the optimization of land space with Zaventem.
Heathrow
London Heathrowis the largest european airport.
It has only two runways which can be used in both directions.
You will also notice on the left the Royal Windsor castle which is located on the runway axis and benefits from no privileges to avoid aircrafts.
59 Appendix 2 : Selected airport flight corridor examples
Here are two examples to show how major airports (Berlin Tegel et Zürich) organize themselves to minimise noise impact :
Berlin Tegel (to be close in 2018)
All departing flights start flying 10 kilometers to the west, even when their final destination is to the south or the east. All airlines comply with such regulation.
Zürich Kloten
Some planes perfom a sharp 270° turn right after take-off to to avoid flying over Zürich further south. The radius is 2 kilometers even for transatlantic flights such as the US Airways 767 Boeing above.
60