Aircraft noise
If noise pollution were visible, it would be tightly restricted
I recently made a submission to a Senate Committee looking at noise associated with the operation of Brisbane Airport. My submission is here
The summary follows
Findings
* The economic losses associated with dis-amenity from aircraft noise in Brisbane are substantial, and at the margin, exceed the benefits of additional capacity at the airport
* A large body of international literature shows that the disamenity of aircraft noise is capitalized into land values. Based on international estimates, each additional dB of noise reduces land values by between 0.5 and 0.9 per cent
* For an impact of 10 decibels, the implied reduction in property vales ranges from $4–7 billion. This may be compared to the cost of constructing the second runway, estimated in the range $1.1-1.3 billion. For a discount rate of 7 per cent and a noise increase of 10db, the implied annual disamenity ranges from $300 million to $500 million, equal to between $1800 and $3000 per person in the affected area, and between $15 and $25 per passenger using the airport.
* In denying the significance of these effects, Brisbane Airport Corporation relies on low-quality unreviewed consultant reports which contradict the findings of a large body of Australian and international research
* The additional consumer welfare associated with a 10 per cent increase in flights to and from Brisbane Airport is of the order of $10 million per year
* The social costs of late-night international departures exceed the convenience benefits to airlines and passengers by a ratio of around 1000 to 1.
* Projections of massive growth in passenger numbers, making the second runway an unavoidable necessity were clearly over-optimistic even before the Covid 19 pandemic. There has been essentially zero growth in passenger numbers since 2012-13, rendering the economic case for the second runway largely invalid. The BAC projection of 50 million passengers by 2035 is unrealistic and undesirable.
* Aircraft noise is a major public health problem, contributing to a substantial increase in the risk of heart attacks, including fatalities, in areas with high noise exposure, as well as many other adverse effects
* The International Civil Aviation Organisation and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority pay little or no attention to these predictable health and mortality effecs, focusing instead on tiny reductions in the already minuscule risk of airline crashes.
A visualisation of noise from Dallas Fort Worth Airport. Haven’t found one for Brisbane
Recommendations
* Brisbane Airport should be subject to a curfew from 10pm to 6am
* Air travel to and from Brisbane airport should be subject to a charge representing the costs of aircraft noise. The proceeds should be used to fund private and public noise mitigation projects in affected areas.
* Flights should be capped at 2018-19 levels until a substantial reduction in disruption due to aircraft noise is achieved.
* CASA should be required to take account of WHO findings on the health and safety impacts of noise pollution in setting rules for airport operation
Read my newsletter
Would not a time of day charge (or, better, a measured decibel charge) make the other recommendations unnecessary?
Social costs are almost never included in government analysis of projects. Blinded by the revenue potential of a project, most governments either, ignore, or, underplay social costs. This is best seen in the Badgery’s Creek project and is most blatantly. The people living next to that airport will not like the predictions implied by John Quiggin’s analysis. A 24 hour a day, 7 day a week, airport wil be a noise factory par excellent. The nearby resident may need to soundproof their homes but can forget about backyard activities like BBQs. The economics of freight transport means that the only winner will be the company that runs the new airport.
In the past a firmer large Australian transport company, TNT, tried to use airfreight to give it a competitive advantage. They flew lobsters over from Perth to eastern markets. So impressed with their own genius were the board of TNT back then, they took this marketing method into the US markets. But this upset some very large IS transport companies. One company retaliated and entered the Australian air freight market. They all but wiped out TNTs profit margins. It was the beginning of the end for a transport company that had its WORLD HEADQUARTERS at Redfern. I actually met Ken Thomas back in the 1970s, he told me that the secret of his success was to keep it local. Those who took over his company forgot this golden rule. They took on the big boys and got squashed.
Australian businesses try to upsize at some point in their business lifecycle. But the Australian markets are not large by international standards. The east coast has a consumer market of about sixteen million people scattered over the coastal land from just north of Brisbane to the west of Melbourne. But outside that part of Australia, there is some eight million people scattered far and wide. Markets in the centre are very small. Parts of Western Australia have the smallest markets in Australia. Even in Tasmania, markets are small. For airports to be highly profitable they must have high volumes of traffic most of the year with very few slow periods. But if they upsize their capacity to cover peak periods only, their fixed costs will pull down their profits margins.
Australia’s air freight market must compete with passenger markets for terminal space. Only at Badgery’s Creek will they get preferential treatment. To expect anything else is to face squeezed margins.
Least cost analysis suggests that only by minimising airfreight costs can Australian companies meet profit expectations of stakeholders. But when social costs are added in to the mix, the likelihood of any net benefit to social welfare from increased air freight usage is most likely minimal.
So why do politicians jump on board to any airport development project?
My Mum lived among politicians. She said that they can never think small but must always have big budget projects to feed their ego. They rarely, if ever, consider the social consequences of big budget projects. Only in election periods do they even give social costs any sort of consideration.