Transport for London March 2016 Noise modelling: Alternative Future Baseline Technical Note This paper sets out the assumptions and methodology used by Transport for London to undertaken noise modelling of an Alternative Future Baseline scenario for a three-runway Heathrow. The “Do Minimum” scenario modelled by the Airports Commission (AC) failed to adopt assumptions and operating practices that are unconnected to a third runway at Heathrow but were assumed within its “Do Something” scenarios. The AC “Do Minimum” is therefore an inappropriate baseline from which to assess the AC “Do Something” scenarios. TfL therefore set about developing an Alternative Future Baseline that is more appropriate, being directly comparable to the AC’s 2050 North West Runway (NWR) Minimise Total scenario. Detailed below are the Alternative Future Baseline input parameters and assumptions instructed to the CAA to model using ANCON. Additionally this note sets out the results of the ANCON modelling. ANCON Inputs Number of runways 2 – The same number and location as that assumed by the AC for their “Do Minimum” scheme Aircraft fleet The same as that assumed by the AC for the “Do Minimum” scheme in 2050 carbon capped scenario, see Appendix Number of movements The same as that assumed by the AC for the “Do Minimum” scheme in 2050 carbon capped scenario, see Appendix Departure routes As closely aligned to those assumed by the AC for Heathrow’s NWR scheme in 2050 taking account of only having 2 runways and still being able to depart in any direction from either runway, see Figure 1 Allocation of departure traffic to SIDs The same as that assumed by the AC for Heathrow’s NWR scheme in 2050, see Appendix Arrival routes As closely aligned to those assumed by the AC for Heathrow’s NWR scheme in 2050 taking account of only having 2 runways and still being able to arrive from any direction to either runway, see Figure 2 Allocation of arrival traffic to approach routes and runways The same as that assumed by the AC for Heathrow’s NWR scheme in 2050, with the exception that traffic that had been allocated to arrive on the NWR was re-distributed to either of the remaining runways pro-rata to available capacity Glide slope 3.2º, the same as that assumed by the AC for all of their core “Do Something” scenarios Runway thresholds Displaced as proposed by Heathrow Airport in their NWR scheme 1
12
Embed
Noise Modelling: Alternative Future ... - Transport for London
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Transport for London March 2016
Noise modelling: Alternative Future Baseline Technical Note
This paper sets out the assumptions and methodology used by Transport for London to undertaken noise modelling of an Alternative Future Baseline scenario for a three-runway Heathrow.
The “Do Minimum” scenario modelled by the Airports Commission (AC) failed to adopt assumptions and operating practices that are unconnected to a third runway at Heathrow but were assumed within its “Do Something” scenarios. The AC “Do Minimum” is therefore an inappropriate baseline from which to assess the AC “Do Something” scenarios. TfL therefore set about developing an Alternative Future Baseline that is more appropriate, being directly comparable to the AC’s 2050 North West Runway (NWR) Minimise Total scenario.
Detailed below are the Alternative Future Baseline input parameters and assumptions instructed to the CAA to model using ANCON. Additionally this note sets out the results of the ANCON modelling.
ANCON Inputs
Number of runways
2 – The same number and location as that assumed by the AC for their “Do Minimum” scheme
Aircraft fleet The same as that assumed by the AC for the “Do Minimum” scheme in 2050 carbon capped scenario, see Appendix
Number of movements
The same as that assumed by the AC for the “Do Minimum” scheme in 2050 carbon capped scenario, see Appendix
Departure routes As closely aligned to those assumed by the AC for Heathrow’s NWR scheme in 2050 taking account of only having 2 runways and still being able to depart in any direction from either runway, see Figure 1
Allocation of departure traffic to SIDs
The same as that assumed by the AC for Heathrow’s NWR scheme in 2050, see Appendix
Arrival routes As closely aligned to those assumed by the AC for Heathrow’s NWR scheme in 2050 taking account of only having 2 runways and still being able to arrive from any direction to either runway, see Figure 2
Allocation of arrival traffic to approach routes and runways
The same as that assumed by the AC for Heathrow’s NWR scheme in 2050, with the exception that traffic that had been allocated to arrive on the NWR was re-distributed to either of the remaining runways pro-rata to available capacity
Glide slope 3.2º, the same as that assumed by the AC for all of their core “Do Something” scenarios
Runway thresholds Displaced as proposed by Heathrow Airport in their NWR scheme
1
Flight paths modelled
Figure 1: Departure flight paths for Alternative Future Baseline
Figure 2: Arrival flight paths for Alternative Future Baseline
2
Figure 3: Variations from AC 2050 Heathrow NWR Minimise Total flight paths
In Figure 3 above those lines shown in light blue are the only changes, in the form of additions, made to the flight paths assumed by the AC within their 2050 Heathrow NWR Minimise Total scheme. All the flight paths to or from the NWR have been removed as the Alternative Future Baseline does not include the NWR.
Results
The following tables and figures present the results produced by the CAA for this Alternative Future Baseline scenario.
Table 1: Summer average, 16hr daytime LAeq
Contour Level dB Area (km2) Population Households Schools Hospitals