Any solution that entails a physical expansion of El Prat airport, either with a fourth runway over the sea or with an extension of the third runway on land, will require the declassification of the protected natural areas that would be affected and an express authorization from the community authorities to carry it out, as well as cover the technical and air safety requirements necessary to promote long-haul flights. These two routes affect areas of special protection for birds (ZEPA); They are enclaves integrated into the European Natura 2000 network; and, therefore, a modification or reduction of its limits would require the light of the EU. Be that as it may, the future of the airport depends, in the event that it bets on its expansion, on a political agreement that will have to consider both the aforementioned environmental conditions and those referring to airport operations. At the bottom of the debate on El Prat is the model of economic and social development that is chosen for Barcelona and Catalonia. Ecologists, environmental specialists and engineers analyze the main alternatives that have focused the public debate up to now, with their pros and cons.
The marine option enters the fray for the first time
in favor of studying it
The environmentalist Claudio Racionero stresses that “the option of a marine expansion deserves to be studied and should not be ruled out from the outset”, although he recalls that this space is part of the Natura 2000 Network of European protected areas (it is a special protection area for birds, ZEPA). Therefore, its environmental viability “will depend on detailed studies” of the impact on the coastal migratory corridor and in the marine feeding area of ??certain nesting birds in the delta. “In any case, it is necessary to clarify how these compensatory measures are adopted, and if all this can be done at sea. It is a political question, ”he sums up. Racionero points out that gaining ground from the sea is already what the port did by advancing 1.5 km offshore. Other specialists point out that the seabed on which the third track in the sea would settle is muddy and sandy, with banal fauna. There are no meadows of phanerogamous plants (Posidonia oceanica or Cymodocea nodosa ) in the area, which should be protected. The proposal foresees covering the concrete pylons with carbonated and porous material, which would facilitate the installation of organisms typical of the coral shields.
The questions of growing up in the sea
A path with opposition
Lluís Toldrà, environmental lawyer and Depana partner, is convinced that the proposed solution (pylons on the seabed) is “technically, economically and geologically unfeasible”, since the delta area is affected by subsidence (compaction and collapse of the river sediments). The ornithologist Pep Arcos believes that the effect of a runway of these characteristics on seabirds “could be important, since in the entire mouth of the Llobregat there is a mixture of waters of a certain productivity and that attracts terns or gulls, including vulnerable species.” , such as Audouin’s gull or the Balearic shearwater, in critical danger”.
Fourth track of 3,400 meters
Increased capacity, but technical limitations
Building a new runway over the sea, as proposed by a group of engineers and economists led by Joaquim Coello and Andreu Mas-Colell, would solve the current operational problems. Planes of any size could land and take off at El Prat and it would even allow for an increase in the 90 operations per hour that the airport aspires to recover. However, it would lead to other problems, comments César Trapote, professor at the Castelldefels-UPC School of Telecommunications and Aerospace Engineering. One of the main ones, the shooting time. That is, how long it takes for the plane to cover the distance from when the passengers board until the aircraft reaches the head of the takeoff runway. With a track over the sea one mile from the coast, this time would increase considerably, which would also affect the rest of the operation. “Any change that is carried out at the airport must serve to make it more competitive, and increasing the taxi time is less attractive for airlines, especially if we want to promote those that operate long-haul flights, to settle there,” argues Trapote. .
Extension of the track to the north (La Ricarda)
Slaughter with environmental compensations
The ornithologist and naturalist Jordi Sargatal endorses the idea of ??extending the third track towards La Ricarda. “To touch Ricarda a bit, but without destroying it,” he says. He proposes extending the third track, but affecting only “Ricarda, and not touching Remolar (to the south), because Ricarda is worse ecologically than Remolar.” His idea is that this possible action should serve to achieve an ecological restoration of Ricarda (improving its water flows). “It is necessary to make an ecological improvement, but not ornithological, because if there are more birds, they would have to be scared so that there would be no impact with the planes.” He argues that “lengthening the runway a little does not necessarily mean extending the concrete runway, but rather increasing the area of ??the operational part of aircraft, the clear part and the part with beacons”. All this must be compensated with a new inland wetland, in Viladecans, for migratory birds in the Llobregat delta, “because Europe asks us to optimize the management of natural areas.”
ground extension
Extend the third runway by 500 meters or 350 meters is enough?
“Extending the third runway by 500 meters would be the bare minimum so that large planes –those that fly distances greater than 7,000 kilometers– can take off from it in any environmental condition. It would even be more operative to extend the runway by 800 meters and operate independent runways” says Trapote. This option “would make airport operations more robust.” According to his analysis, an extension of 350 meters “would not completely solve the operational problems because the long runway would be necessary for some heavy takeoffs, but it is better adapted to fit the gaps.” The professor of Transport at the UPC, Francesc Robusté, for his part, defends a minor extension, “of between 200 and 300 meters” distributed to the east and west, further optimizing operations, encouraging the return of part of the low cost flights to Reus and Girona with a good tariff and connection policy with Barcelona. This, he maintains, would allow the airport to be decongested and only a small part of the long-haul flights would need to use the inner runway. It would require building a new satellite terminal “and a significant investment by Aena to soundproof homes in neighboring towns”, thus mitigating the acoustic impact.
Environmental offsets on land, where?
legal problem
The land extension of the current track towards Remolar or Ricarda clashes with the fact that these are “partial natural reserves protected by the Law of Natural Spaces of Catalonia”, according to Claudio Racionero. In addition, they are protected by the EU as areas for birds (ZEPA). The expansion of the airport in these reserves “cannot be done because it presents serious, insurmountable legal problems,” says Toldrà, Depana’s lawyer. The lack of protection and declassification of these areas for birds with the express authorization of the European institutions is “impossible”, according to Toldrà, since “the compensatory measures agreed upon in the previous enlargement (20 years ago), included in the declaration of environmental impact and promised to the EU”. For this reason, faced with this requirement, the Generalitat promotes an expansion of the ZEPAs in the area, promised by the EU but not yet approved. Supporters of this extension have not specified where these environmental compensations would take place, taking into account that they should not overlap with those that the Generalitat has already promised in its response to the EU file.
