Under Heathrow flight path: emissions, noise and stowaway

The two millions of Londoners living under the Heathrow flight paths are subject to noise, emissions and tragically bodies falling from planes in their final approach.

It happens every 2-4 years as it did this morning > Telegraph: Police discovered stowaway's legs 'sticking out' of roof


This illustration from the Telegraph is obviously wrong as the planes were landing on the South runway that morning, which is aligned with Richmond.

Update: another one on the 14/12/20. 


Related posts:

• Stowaway death is a chilling reminder that the Heathrow runways point directly over London and 2 millions Londoners
• Heathrow is not safe: chilling crash map
• Heathrow is just dangerous where it is
• Stating the obvious: Heathrow expansion will pollute more
• Heathrow is dangerous and should not be expanded, here's why

How often do plane stowaways fall from the sky?

The Beeb wakes up after under-reporting past cases with this article: BBC News - How often do plane stowaways fall from the sky? Interestingly enough, they don't answer the question.  I've done the maths though: it's one every four years. Just on Richmond borough.

List of reported stowaways reported on Heathrow-bound planes
Year	Provenance	Airline	Number	Condition	Impact/Retrival	Source
2010	Austria	Dubai royal family private jet	1	Alive	LHR	link
1996	India		2	Dead	Sainsbury's building site?	link
2012	South Africa	BA	1	Dead	LHR	link
2001	Bahrein	BA	1	Dead	Homebase car park, Richmond	link
2012			1	Dead	Portman avenue, East Sheen	link
2002	Ghana	Ghana Airways	2	Dead	LHR	link
2002	Ghana	BA		Dead		link
2000			1	Dead	Broadstone farm, Rudwick, Sussex?	link
2002	Uganda	DAS Air Cargo	1	Dead	LHR	link
2007					LHR

See my previous post on the subject:

• Stowaway death is a chilling reminder that the Heathrow runways point directly over London and 2 millions Londoners

Stowaway death is a chilling reminder that the Heathrow runways point directly over London and 2 millions Londoners

A stowaway fell on a Sheen road on Sunday:
UPDATE: 'I heard a monstrous bang', says woman after body found in street (From Richmond and Twickenham Times)

In 2001, a man fell from a British Airways Boeing 777 which was heading towards Heathrow and landed in a Homebase car park in Richmond.

Heathrow is in the wrong place, it's only a question of time before someone (or worse, a plane) falls on a house:
http://richmondtransits.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/heathrow-is-not-safe-chilling-crash-map.html

Lobbies and lazy journalism

Here's a great example of lobbies taking over column inches, in this case on a subject that's close to my heart:
David Cameron told: Act now to save Heathrow Airport - Transport - News - Evening Standard

Prime example of lazy "journalism", writing up a quick piece straight off the press pack from BAA. Any proper newspaper article would have tried to show both sides of the story, with counterpoints.

I hope Jonathan and Lucy enjoyed a really nice lunch paid for by Ferrovial (BAA's Spanish owner) and a few nice gifts too.

Just a reminder to set the record straight, London has FIVE international airport (actually, now SEVEN if you count Manston and Southend), totalling seven runways (not including the unused backup one at Gatwick), most being under-used. Heathrow is a WWII planning mistake, its flight path goes over 2m people. Those five airports handle over 130 millions passengers on their six runways, about 150% of the traffic in Paris (LHR + CDG).

It's about time we stop comparing LHR to other European cities and instead do what they've done: build a new airport with enough room for expansion. If it needs to be in the Thames estuary, so be it. 

Previous posts on the same subject:

• Some Heathrow news...
• Essential reading: 2M Group on Heathrow Expansion
• Monday -my letter to the MP's against Heathrow Expansion
• Glad I managed to land... (and Heathrow expansion lies)
• BA can spam you but you can't spam BA!
• BAA caught lying... again.
• Stanstead and City granted expansion: what does it mean for Heathrow?
• And yet another broken promise by DfT and BAA...
• Is Heathrow really out of capacity?
• More on Heathrow
• Is sustainability sacrificed on the Heathrow altar?
• Transported logic
• Heathrow is not safe: chilling crash map
• Happy new year and more foul play from the DfT on Heathrow Expansion
• BAA wakes up to the sound of locomotives?
• Stating the obvious: Heathrow expansion will pollute more
• Heathrow is just dangerous where it is
• Hoon's farce as Heathrow expansion is announced
• Economic case for Heathrow expansion 'flawed'
• Finally, high speed train gets national coverage
• Just a reminder: London has FIVE airports, all competing against Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris
• More on Manor road and Heathrow
• Environmental perversity...
• Why is the governement pushing to increase number of night flights?
• Heathrow is dangerous and should not be expanded, here's why
• T5 opens, shows BAA-Government hypocrisy and collusion
• Lyon-Paris vs. Manchester-London (from Euroblog by Jon Worth)
• Airplanes noise common sense?
• Politics and GreenWash
• I dreamt about doing this!!!!

Cyclists living in fear

Seen on the BBC Helmet cameras capture bad driving: a cyclist is wearing a camera to record evidence of dangerous driving -in this case a quite graphic example of a van driver cutting off a cyclist and then abusing him.


IMHO, a consequence of lax policing (speed cameras don't do much for cyclists safety) and bad cycle lanes design.

See related posts:

• Sustainable transportation in Richmond?
• Cyclists to be given the right to ride the wrong way
• Waterloo: more Boris Bikes but still no sign of life for the Eurostar old platforms
• TfL still has little ideas about cycling lanes...
• Cycle superhighways: an expensive joke?
• When are we going to see this in London?
• Reversing the burden of the proof would encourage cyclingss
• Kingston worst for bike thefts
• Some hope for London cyclists?
• Cycling in London: it's about time to do something!

cycle, cyclelane, cycling, DfT, London, richmondtransits.blog, TfL, transportation, UK,

Waterloo: more Boris Bikes but still no sign of life for the Eurostar old platforms

Two good posts this week on Londonist.

• The first one is on the continuing mystery of the old Eurostar platforms and why they cost £4.1 to keep in mothball state -quite a good example for a pathetic failure on behalf of people in charge of the nation's rail infrastructure. It's especially enraging when you're waiting on the approach to the station in a commuter train for a platform...  I've blogged before about this, see links below.
  
• And it looks like TfL has heard about my winging on Boris Bike stations being located far away from stations: Huge New Cycle Hire Station For Waterloo.  Shame common sense did not prevail in the first place, I still wonder why they looked at Montreal rather than Paris for municipal cycle hire best practices...
  

See my previous posts on those subjects:

• Waterloo plans mean no end of misery for commuters
• Londonist: What Next For Waterloo?
• The Boris bike vs. the French vélib -unfair comparison?s

borisbike, cycle, DfT, London, richmondtransits.blog, transportation, travel, UK, velib, London, rail, railways, richmondtransits.blog, TfL, transportation, tube, waterloocity, trains, rail

TfL still has little ideas about cycling lanes...

A sobering read in today's Evening Standard on the Elephant & Castle roundabout redesign. It is described as a cycling blackspot where a a fitness instructor died on her bike last year.

Yet, the proposal design still doesn't show segregated cycle lanes.

Will they ever learn from best practices? All it takes is a trip to Rotterdam!

The Boris bike vs. the French vélib -unfair comparison?

I've meant to post on this for quite a while, being a bit of a pedal addict and a huge propoenent of common-sense-commuting, i.e. not taking the car when possible (unfortunately, I'm most often defeated by our antiquated transport system).

Anyway, having tried the parisian Vélib' (and in passing got lost in Paris and almost missed my Eurostar), I thought I'd give a go to the Boris Bike. Nada, the scheme is closed and you need a key. Yep, a physical key that's sent to your house. By Royal Mail that is. Antiquated meets modern I suppose: who on earth at Tfail thought about this?

So I've registered and will tell you in a while which is a better ride. On the looks, some have already claimed Boris Bikes to be prettier (a nice chick riding one helps I suppose?). Others have pointed out that Boris Bikes lack a basket and a lock...

Looks aside, from my humble point of view, the key points are pricing, availability and useability.

• On useability of the scheme, the Parisian Vélib' is dead easy: you can subscribe with their equivalent of the Oyster card (the "pass Navigo") or just plonk your credit card in there. As for the London version, see above -you need a key! Paris 1-London 0.
• Availability: I hears complaints in Paris and they surely had teething problems at the start but they seem to have the situation under control now, despite heavy vandalism (in two years, they've had to fix 3/4 of the bikes in circulation and over 15% have gone missing). And Paris being hillier than London, they've had to give some free credit to those dropping off bikes on top of the Montmartre hill. I'm not sure about London, the scheme being closed for now, but one thing is irking: they've put the bike stations at least 300 m away from any rail station. And they've also under-estimated the necessary shuffling to replenish deserted locations: BBC - Mind The Gap: 'White Van Man' haunts re-distribution of Boris bikes. Overall though, Boris Bikes are no match for the Velib': there are 750 stations in Paris (1750 with the suburbs), stocked with 20,000 cycles versus 315 and 5,000. Paris 2-London 0.
• On pricing, it would not be massively different with each getting the first 30 mn free and then the first hour is EUR1 and GBP1, the first two hours are EUR7 and GBP6. What's different though is that you need to pay an access charge of £1 per 24 hours in London. That just makes it less intuitive, so I'm afraid London has to loose the last set as well. While we're on the subject of money, Paris did not invest taxpayer's money while Londoners forked £140... Who's more Socialist, Boris or Bertrand? Paris 3-London 0.

What about you, what do you think?


NB: check also the comparison on Pink Sauce, there's a nice table on that post.

Cycle superhighways: an expensive joke?

Read this today:
BBC News - Testing a London 'Cycle Superhighway'

This sems to me a bit like a joke: there's still the same space sharing with cars issues as a normal cycle path, why did they bother?
And I bet they also stop where they're most needed, i.e. narrow roads, junctions and bus stops.

Anything short than a segregated bicycle route can hardly be considered as a improvement on the patchy terracota "cycle lanes" that typically stop where one needs them most: at junctions, bus stops, etc....

The current state of cycling infrastructures is simply pathetic when compares to most European countries and an those blue lanes are nothing short of expensive joke.

The government taxes very heavily motorists, mostly because they can and justifying itself on environmental values. Apart from the fact it's both wrong (CO2 is not a pollutant) and unfair (housing and industry are biggest polluters), the most frustrating is that little of this hoard goes back towards improving the infrastrucure and public transport.

Park Tax

As I was writing earlier (here Sign the petition to keep Richmond park free and there Another petition, for Bushy park) it seems that there will be another place (after it was imposed that it would no longer be free to park in Richmond on Sundays) where you can't escape the Parking tax:

London Royal Parks parking fees approved (on freetopark.co.uk)
I hope Susan Kramer will keep on the fight.

Some think it's a good thing, I view this as NIMBY (see my comment on the post): Parking charges approved for Royal Parks :-).
But overal parking charges in the park are hugely impopular. An unwanted impact is that the Borough will inevitably extend the Sheen CPZ to cover Fife road as it will be used by park-goers instead of the Sheen Gate car park. That's parking tax contagion!

See also my previous posts: Kingston hospital parking and Blatant hypocrisy over parking spaces

richmond, park, parking, richmondtransits.blog

Integrated transport anyone?

One of the most frustrating aspects of the transport system in London, apart from its high-cost (busses went from 70p to an eye watering £2 in just a few years) and unreliablility, is the lack of integration. There are many examples -just look at a tube map to see where rail stations don't connect with the tube, like in Putney for instance: that one is quite frustrating as both lines actually intersect but instead of building an interchange above the train line, commuters have get out of the station and walk 200 feet. Or, why is the Waterloo & City line not extended to Moorgate and then through using National Rail tracks? And South?

Some things are improving though: from yesterday, the Oyster card is accepted on National Rail (except to Heathrow, etc). At last you may say...

There's some more scope for improvement though. For instance, this Evening Standard column suggests using the Thames a proper highway.

In under three years, and for an initial outlay of just £30 million, we can create a new, waterborne Tube line, with a frequent service of high-speed boats at 20 piers from Putney to Woolwich. That is about a quarter of the time, and less than a hundredth of the money, that a similar project would need on land.

Would Boris dare?

London, transportation, rail, railways, Waterlooandcity, tube, thames, richmondtransits.blog, TfL

Cyclists to be given the right to ride the wrong way

Read in the Times of this morning:
Cyclists will be given green light to ignore one-way signs - Times Online

At long last, it seems that common sense is prevailing and that the DfT is recognising that road rules made for cars are not appropriate for the poor souls plodding the street with no armour and taking little space.

The main advantage is to allow cycles to use quieter roads, moving them off busy and dangerous main roads in many cases. It is also a good traffic calming measure for one way streets, where cars tend to go too fast.

It's a small step in the right direction towards better ways to share the space between users of the roads. We just have to get proper cycle lanes now (post series on the subjet coming soon on this blog!)

cycle, cycling, bikelane, cyclelane, transportation, UK, London, DfT, richmondtransits.blog

Moonsoon halts London transport system

Says a lot on the state of our transport infrastructure...

I mean I understand (well not really but) that we can be un-prepared for meterological events that occur once every 5 years in average, like for instance snow. But rain, even when it's a lot?

But I can't comprehend how or why rain can still flood Richmond tube station (it's not underground!) or the M4 (elevated section).

The Department of Transport has a Dad's Army approach to infrastructure engineering: it's so bad it becomes farcical!

Heathrow is not safe: chilling crash map

Just found the web site of the Friends of the Earth on LHR T5 -a must read, there's also a chilling map by Hacan of possible crashes on Heathrow flight paths.

Stricken jumbo flew over West London (also there)

Campaigners against the expansion of Heathrow have long predicted that a disaster will eventually happen because more than 500 flights a day pass over Central London as they approach the airport.


The Government has proposed building a third runway at the airport, which would add 1,000 more flights a week over the capital. Most other big cities have positioned their airports in places that do not require planes to approach over the centre."


FOE comment. Heathrow is by far the most dangerous airport in the country for those on the ground. This is because there are far more planes flying over far more people than anywhere else. This fact is largely ignored by the government, which takes into account only 'individual risk' as opposed to 'societal risk'.

The AIB report is here (direct link to PDF).

See map of potential crash sites.

Update: Seems  Friends of the Earth moved to a proper website but did not migrate all files, this link doesn't work anymore. Fortunately,
Waybackmachine had an archived copy... Here's another link to the document, just in case.

Check also this post:Heathrow is just dangerous where it is

24/5/12 update: removed/changed dead hyperlinks.

Bring on High Speed Two, not more runways

Regular readers will know I think high-speed rail is a necessity. Today, on BBC.com there was an interesting statistic in this news article: Cities urge high-speed rail lin

Over 60 years, it is estimated that the line could save 30 million tonnes (29.5m tons) of CO2 worth £3.2bn by diverting passengers from air travel to rail.

Although 60 years can seem a very long time, rail infrastructure is ammortised over long periods. The real saving could be that a proper high-speed rail (HSR) network could avoid building more runways around London. I'm sure BAA thinks differently, but it worked just like that in France where TGV has displaced air travel on routes such as Paris to Nantes, Lyons, and even Marseilles.

Will this happen in the UK? I'm sceptical it will happen quickly, mostly because of the lack of proper planning, decentralised decision making and short-term focus.

UK, transportation, rail, railways, airlines, pollution, environment, train, richmondtransits.blog, HSR

BAA caught lying... again.

The list of BAA lies is very very long, Terminal 4 was going to be the last one, then it was Terminal 5 to be the last expansion, the planes noise data is based on theoritical levels and future emissions calculations are based on planes that don't exist.

The Advertising Standards Authority has caught them for the last one:
BBC NEWS | England | London | Heathrow noise claim 'misleading'

According to BAA, the Government said that a third runway would "would have to result in a Heathrow noise footprint no larger than with two runways in 2002, and that concentrations of nitrogen dioxide around Heathrow would have to be within the future EU limit."

So BAA would buy a brand new runway but not put extra planes on? Give me a break...

Read on this article on why they get away with it: BAA's close links with the DfT.

Concerns over their influence have been heightened by the presence of Tom Kelly, formerly the official spokesman for Tony Blair when he was prime minister, who has taken charge of "all aspects of BAA's communication activity" since being appointed as group director of corporate and public affairs for the company in late 2007, when the campaign for a third runway was in full swing. Kelly heads a network that plugs BAA directly into government and Labour, several of whose senior figures are involved in the pro-runway campaign. Julia Simpson, another former adviser to Blair, left Downing Street in 2007 for BA.

On the other side of the fence is Joe Irvin, former head of corporate affairs at BAA, who has switched to Number 10 to be a key adviser to Gordon Brown. Irvin was also involved with one of the main aviation lobby groups, Freedom to Fly, which was funded by BAA and BA - as was Stephen Hardwick, a former adviser to John Prescott and ex-head of public affairs at BAA. BAA also employs financial PR company Finsbury, which is headed by Roland Rudd, a close friend of business secretary Peter Mandelson, who was in favour of the third runway.

BA has fostered close links with government for years through PR firms Brunswick, headed by Gordon Brown's friend Alan Parker, and Lexington Communications, run by Mike Craven, a former Labour press chief. Senior Labour figures, paid to help the runway lobby funded by BAA, include Lord Soley, a former chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, who has appeared in the media to promote the runway for Future Heathrow, one of the BAA-backed successors to Freedom to Fly.

The issue of Heathrow was tackled in a recent report on lobbying by the public administration select committee. After the inquiry, MPs concluded that lobbying needed to be open to public scrutiny. The report said: "There has also been widespread public concern that some areas of government policy have effectively been captured at an early stage by interest groups, usually within industry, and that public consultations have been unbalanced in the favour of these interests." It named Heathrow as an example of this.

BA, BAA, DfT, LHR, Heathrow, HeathrowExpansion, air, transportation, richmondtransits.blog

Traffic pandemonium: just a sign of things to come?

Thanks to Thames Water who shut the Northbound Clifford avenue section to replace aging water mains the A205 South Circular in Richmond (This Is Local London), combined with Transport For London who revamped Richmond Circus to add more car lanes but still no cycle lanes (I'll post again on this) plus some more water mains replacement in White Hart Lane, Richmond was totally grid locked this summer.

Great planning guys....

One of the fundamental issues is that our borough has the plight of being sectionned by a train line with only a few crossings: a bridge on the Quadrant, another one in Church lane, a level crossing in Manor Road, a bridge on Clifford avenue and then some more level crossings in Sheen Road by Mortlake train station, White Hart Lane in East Sheen/Mortlake, Vine Road in Barnes. There are then only three bridges before Putney, including on Dryburgh road -which is closed during rush hours...

I've been lobbying long to get a footbridge in North Sheen and believe level crossings are a problem in general, I'm not the only one it seems according to this BBC article:

More people die on level crossings than in derailments or train crashes, killing on average one person a month.

Network Rail says that every year 2,000 people are reported to misuse level crossings with motorists ignoring warning lights or weaving round barriers.

The National Union of Rail, Maritime, and Transport Workers Union (RMT) says that even crossings with barriers and warning systems are unsafe and should be replaced with bridges or underpasses over a period of ten years.

The bad news is that it's only going to get worse for local residents, with longer wait at crossings if BAA gets their way.

Yes, BAA, the London Heathrow airport operator who's wanting to put more planes overhead. Because they just figured out that Heathrow is poorly deserved by trains. No, not really, the truth is that they are trying to curb on car mouvements around the aiport in order to land more planes without breaching too much the European directive on air quality (thank god for the EU). Insane? Yes, but these are the facts.

So, if Airtrack goes ahead the trains frequency will double -from 8 to 16- with no or little benefits for local residents as it's far from certain the extra trains will stop in North Sheen for instance, while Manor Road will be continuously clogged with a traffic jam caused by the level crossing barriers being shut for 45 minutes in one hour!

This is obviously not acceptable, and this train line should be buried under street level from Putney to Richmond. Period.

Our MP Susan Kramer is running a petition: http://www.susankramer.org.uk/pages/airtrack.html. The consultation closes on 18 September.

Tags: air, BAA, Heathrow, Heathrowexpansion, LHR, rail, railways, North Sheen, level crossing, richmondtransits.blog

Is Britain about to jump on the high speed bandwagon?

Very exciting news today: BBC NEWS | Business | New high-speed rail plan unveiled

At long last, Network Rail has made a proposal for a second high speed line to link London to the Midlands and further North.
I do hope sincerely it's more than just talk, as high speed train is the best way to curb air pollution and give this country the transportation infrastructure it badly needs.
France had embarked in such a programme 25 years ago, and now train has the lion share in passenger numbers between Paris and London, Lyons, Marseilles, Nantes and even Bordeaux.

With Edinburgh only 2 hours from London, who needs to endure the hassle of flying?
And there's probably no need to expand airport capacity in London...

Unfortunately, it won't be before 2020...

UK, transportation, rail, railways, airlines, pollution, environment, train, richmondtransits.blog

Antidiots screen

On my way to work this Tuesday and on the M4, I saw no less than three minor accidents, merely some bumper to bumper action probably caused by bored distracted people and others who forgot to fill their petrol tanks? mechanical failures. That's life on a congested motorway, but more annoying are the rubbernecks kind.

They slow right down to check, ohhh nice flashing lights, ohhh creased bumper, ohhh woman standing behind safety barrier in the rain. And the re-accelerate, slowly, only to brake when they have caught up with preceding vehicles.

Nothing To Do With Arbroath "reports" that the Highways Agency is considering Giant screens at crash sites to end 'rubbernecking' danger. See the picture -doesn't need many more words.

Just that... by the time they've arrived, erected their 70 metres screen, etc... they'd have plenty of time to actually remove most, OK maybe not all, but most of the sources of distraction.

So I think this is another ill conceived idea from our DfT. What we need is not more powerless traffic wombles in their checkered green 4x4 but a fleet of rapid response plaform lorries, strategically placed along the motorway. They'd get rid of any hard-shoulder mishaps in minutes.

But that won't happen because it would be a far too sensible plan for the Department of Transport whose idea of transport is just about bulldozing houses to create more airport runways.

traffic, transportation, DfT, BAA, roads, automobile, richmondtransits.blog

A commuter's week...

This week, I'm wondering why we have to make do with third world infrastructures? Of course, we should have adequate sewage systems. Of course, we should not have level crossings in densely populated areas.

Monday: storm causes sewer discharge in Thames -900 thousand tonnes it seems.

Tuesday: the BCC pushes a reoport saying Heathrow must be expanded to add £30b to the economy. For me, I'm very sceptical of those hair raising figures pushed by the aviation lobby: "John Stewart, chairman of campaign group Hacan, argued that the report contradicted previous findings, saying the Government’s own figures suggested the benefits to the economy would be £5bn over 70 years."

Nothing about the indirect costs of course, no mention of alternatives such as shutting down 2, 3 or 4 airports around London to move them in the Estuary or developping high speed trains.

See my other posts on LHR Expansion.

Wednesday: train delayed because of incident at the White Hart Lane level crossing. Just like the one reported here:
Sheen Lane crossing most misused in Britain (From Richmond and Twickenham Times)

While I'm on about the level crossing, we may eventually get a level crossing in North Sheen -I've been campaigning for years and lobbying MP Susan Kramer. Not before 2010 it seems though....

In the meantime, schoolchildren will probably continue to jump it.

Still on about level crossings, our MP's met with Network rail, but with little results it seems.

See my previous posts on the level crossings.

UK, London, transportation, rail, railways, level, crossing, north, sheen, richmond, heathrow, heathrowexpansion, LHR, richmondtransits.blog