Relocating Reykjavík Airport

Background The dispute over the location of the Reykjavík City Airport is nearly as old as the airport itself. An agreement has now been made to move it from its current location in Vatnsmýri and build a residential development in its place – but a new location for the airport is yet to be determined.

The airport debate reared its head again in the lead-up to the municipal elections this spring, with one new party, Reykjavík Besta Borgin (e. Reykjavík the Best City), basing their entire platform on the airport’s relocation. And it’s not the first time it has weighed heavily in Reykjavík elections: in 2014, the Progressive Party campaigned under the party name “Progressives and Friends of the Airport,” fighting to keep the airport’s current location.

So, should Reykjavík City Airport stay, or should it go? Location, location, location The first flight from the site that is now Reykjavík City Airport occurred on September 3, 1919, with the take-off of the first-ever aeroplane in Iceland, an Avro 504. In March 1940, Flugfélag Íslands began operating scheduled flights from the location, at a time when the airport’s runway was a mere grass surface. In October of 1940, however, construction of the first paved runway began, carried out by the British Army’s Black Watch Regiment.

Reportedly, it was the British Army that decided to build the airport in Vatnsmýri, just a stone’s throw from downtown Reykjavík. Vatnsmýri had been just one of many locations local authorities had considered, but once the war broke out, they thought it too dangerous for an airport due to the risk of air offensives or flight accidents. Despite local authorities’ protests, the British Army went ahead with construction.

In 1946, the British Royal Air Force handed operation of the airport over to the Icelandic government. Almost immediately, some voices, including that of Reykjavík Mayor Bjarni Benediktsson (grandfather of current Finance Minister of the same name), clamoured that the airport should be moved. At the time, however, the country’s road and transport infrastructure were much less developed, and having the airport so close to the city centre was thought to be convenient for domestic travel. The airport stayed put, but the dispute did not die down, often intensifying during election campaigns, or when the City of Reykjavík was drafting land-use plans.

Decades passed, Reykjavík grew and expanded, and the airport has remained in the same location, one that was not even chosen by locals in the first place. Today, flights in and out of the airport are mostly domestic, though seasonal flights to and from Greenland are also offered. Most of the

airport’s flights are operated by Icelandair’s domestic branch, though two other domestic airlines currently operate from the city airport: Norlandair and Eagle Air. Besides scheduled commercial flights, the airport is used by helicopter tour companies, private planes, and, crucially, medical and emergency flights.

Should it stay… There are many reasons that Vatnsmýri is a convenient location for the city airport. It’s across the street from the National University Hospital, which makes it an ideal landing site for medical flights. Individuals who sustain serious injuries in traffic accidents in the countryside, for example, are most often transported to Reykjavík by air to receive treatment. Relocating the airport farther away from the hospital would potentially increase risk for such patients.

When it comes to routine medical services, many specialised services are only (or primarily) provided in Reykjavík. Residents living elsewhere in the country must therefore travel to the capital to obtain such services, and relocating the airport farther from the centre would make that process less convenient and more costly. But it’s not only medical services: rural residents visit Reykjavík for all kinds of services that are not available in their own municipalities, and being able to fly directly to the centre of town for such routine trips ensures such services are accessible to all of Iceland’s residents – and minimises their cost.

Iceland’s infamous volcanic eruptions are another argument for keeping the airport in its current location: other prospective locations in the capital area are more prone to eruptions. If an emergency evacuation of residents is necessary, having a functioning airport – as opposed to one buried by molten lava – is helpful.

… or should it go? While the airport’s current location is convenient for countryside residents requiring services in the capital, moving it could provide many benefits to Reykjavík residents. As its population has grown, Reykjavík, like other cities, has experienced its share of urban sprawl. As a result, commute times have lengthened and traffic worsened across the capital area. Relocating the airport would free up a huge swath of land that, if developed, would densify the city and reduce traffic, bringing with it a positive environmental impact and improved quality of life for capital-area residents.

For decades, Reykjavík has also been plagued by a housing shortage. The area now occupied by the airport could accommodate apartments for 1015 thousand people. Building on the lot would not only create homes in a great location, it would also be much less costly than building of the outskirts of the city, which would involve laying water pipes and electricity lines already present in the airport area. Another notable benefit of moving the airport is reducing the noise pollution created by planes taking off and

“Relocating the airport would provide more space for the city centre and the University of Iceland, and in addition to that, a residential neighbourhood for 10-15,000 people could be built on the land that the airport takes up.”

Morgunblaðið newspaper, January 17, 1981.

landing directly above the city centre. It’s fair to say that the city airport debate is a “city versus country” argument.

Potential location: Hvassahraun In October 2013, representatives of the Government of Iceland and the City of Reykjavík signed an agreement to keep the Reykjavík Domestic Airport in its current location until 2022. A task force was assigned to evaluate the airport’s current location and suggest a new one. The task force published its conclusion in 2015. It reviewed several locations, including Bessastaðanes, where the presidential residence is located; Hólmsheiði, east of Kópavogur; the island of Löngusker; and Hvassahraun, outside of Hafnarfjörður, halfway between downtown Reykjavík and Keflavík International Airport. The task force chose Hvassahraun as the best option. Further research is currently being carried out on wind and weather conditions, as well as other factors, at Hvassahraun and authorities have announced that they will make a final decision on whether it is a Grounded Meanwhile, the City of Reykjavík’s 20102030 land-use plan assumes that the airport will be relocated – but the government’s 2019-2033 Transport Policy states that Reykjavík City Airport in Vatnsmýri must continue to serve domestic flights in a satisfactory manner until another equally good or better option exists. In 2020, the government presented plans for the construction of a new residential neighbourhood that would stretch over part of the current airport’s lot. The first stage of construction was scheduled for this summer, but both the airport operator and the current Transport Minister have opposed breaking ground, citing the 2019 agreement between the city and state that the airport would remain unchanged until a new location is established. City authorities have maintained that the first phase of construction would not affect the airport’s operation.

Decades of elections, agreements, reports, and city planning, and the airport debate does not seem any closer to a resolution. It’s evident that proponents of relocation will have to work even harder to convince the Vatnsmýri airport’s supporters that moving the airport is not only better for Reykjavík residents but for airport operations, flight safety, and the country as a whole.

“Does it cross any sane man’s mind that a prudent owner of this land would choose to operate an airport on it? No, hardly, and even less when there is as little air traffic as is currently the case and when traffic is decreasing – with huge operational losses to boot. It is much more cost-effective to build on this land, to construct handsome homes for tens of thousands.”

Morgunblaðið newspaper, March 8, 2001.