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

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

Earth day: NOx, electric cars and diesel

I was listening to Robert Evans from Cenex, a company developping fuel-cell and "low carbon" (whatever that really means) technologies in this podcast on guardian.co.uk.

He suggests electric cars are THE solution (he would says that, would he not?) as they cut pullution. The interviewer doesn't buy this and questions if it's not just moving the pollution to coal fired plants (in the UK between 60% and 33% of the electricity is generated from coal and the 74% from fossil (can't seem to cross-reference 2 sources), 49% of electricity is made burning coal in the US, while in France 78.1% comes from nuclear in 2006).

Evans answered that moving the CO2 emission from tailpipes up to a power station chimney reduces NOx emissions. Which brings the whole issue I've been raising about diesel.

The goverment has been focussing solely on CO2 emissions, via car tax bands linked to emissions for instance (note that airlines and ships are exempt of fuel duty), which had the effect to favour diesel cars: oil burners registrations have grown from 13.8% in 1999 to 43.6% in 2008!

The problem is while diesel engines emit less CO2 (about 20-30%), they emit much more NOx and particulates, about 24 times more according to this source. While CO2 is not an actual pollutant, NOX and particulates are and are harmful to anyone in the vincinity of traffic -in particular children in urban environments.

Just another proof that the government is using CO2 as an excuse to tax with no proven ecological reasons.

UK, pollution, environment, diesel, automobile, globalwarming, richmondtransits.blog

Monday -my letter to the MP's against Heathrow Expansion

I've bought in Greenpeace's airplot, genius idea, and still thanks to them, I've sent the following letter to the 57 MP's who have opposed Heathrow Expansion and will vote on this issue on Wednesday.

But as Gordon Brown, our un-elected Prime Minister, doesn't give a toss about democracy, this vote will be non-binding. It's important though to signal to the Labour party that this is a subject on which they will lose seats at the next general election: click here to act now.


Dear Sir,

As you will know, there is a debate and vote next Wednesday on the government’s plans to expand Heathrow with a third runway and a sixth terminal. You have already spoken out against Heathrow expansion, and now I urge you to vote with your conscience on Wednesday. I believe this goes beyond constituency matters and your vote will reflect how seriously our politicians are about tackling climate change.

The government has tried to dress this up as a ‘green’ runway, but nothing can change the fact that with a third runway, Heathrow would become the single biggest source of carbon emissions in the UK.

At the same time, the aviation industry doesn't pay any duty on kerosene -a flagrant injustice compared to the car owners who are taxed by every possible mean. House holders also receive no substantial grants or encouragements to "super-insulate" their homes.
Similarly, little is done to renew our coal power plants -the biggest source of greenhouse gasses by far- and invest in cleaner technologies.

The third runway decision severely threatens the government’s commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. It will worsen the already high pollution levels around the airport, and will provide little or no substantial economic benefit to Britain. With the challenges of climate change becoming more pressing, the government’s support for Heathrow expansion leaves its green credentials in tatters.

Opposition to the new runway grows rapidly. A recent poll of 6 Labour constituencies in west London showed that four would lose their seats and two would have their majority halved over the Heathrow issue. If the results were extrapolated across the entire area affected by expansion, Labour would lose many more seats.

Given the urgency of reducing our emissions and the challenge of realising it, I will be watching closely how you vote next Wednesday. The government’s response to tackling climate change is an important issue for me and one that will influence how I vote in the next election. I hope that your vote will be one for strong leadership on the green agenda, and against the third runway.


Tags:UK, politics, pollution, green, greenshouse, LHR, Heathrow, HeathrowExpansion, BAA, DfT, richmondtransits.blog

Essential reading: 2M Group on Heathrow Expansion

The 2M Group
has an excellent summary on the economics of Heathrow. No need to add much:

Current airport

• Fewer than 26% of users of Heathrow are travelling on Business(1).

•
35% of people travelling to Heathrow are interchange passengers – they
never leave the airport. Therefore they contribute little to the UK
economy outside of the aviation industry.

• 100,000 flights
a year, nearly a fifth of all flights, are to destinations in the UK or
near-Europe where there is already a viable rail alternative. There are
60 flights per day to Paris – more than any other destination. 36
flights a day go to Manchester, more than to Hong Kong or Chicago.

•
London’s airports handle 128 million passengers a year – that is more
than use the airports serving Paris and Frankfurt combined.

•
Ferrovial, the Spanish owners of Heathrow, make a substantial profit
from passengers using the airport. In the year since Ferrovial bought BAA (the operators of Heathrow) – capital investment fell by 15% but revenue grew from £1.077 billion to £1.232 billion.

Heathrow Expansion

• Only 1% of members of the Institute of Directors think airport expansion is a priority(2).

• 78% of London firms are against expansion at Heathrow(3).

• Fewer than a sixth of London firms would even consider leaving London if the airport did not expand(4).

Aviation generally

• £9 billion a year in tax subsidies is given to the aviation industry (It is zero-rated for VAT. It does not pay on fuel).

• Aviation fuel costs 26p a litre whereas petrol for cars is about £1 a litre.

•
£9 billion would pay for 22 new hospitals(5) – it cost £400 million to
build London’s University College Hospital – or 450,000 nurses (current
nursing positions advertised at £20,000(6).

• 89% of the general public think that businesses that create pollution should be more heavily taxed(7).

• 63% of the general public would be prepared to sacrifice one foreign holiday a year to save the planet(8).

• Only 17% of the general public are opposed to constraining growth in air-travel(9).

•
Tourists visiting the UK spend at least £15 billion pounds less per
year than UK tourists going on holiday overseas. Expanding aviation
simply means increasing the trade deficit for UK tourism.

LHR, BAA, HeathrowExpansion, richmondtransits.blog, ai, airlines, transportation

Just a reminder: London has FIVE airports, all competing against Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris

Read this
The Impossible Airport Dream? (Londonist)
and saw that
Frankfurt ready to fill Heathrow's shoes



(BBC)
this morning.

I find disappointing to see many mainstream media and blogs, relaying the main argument for Heathrow expansion: that, without it, Heathrow would be unable to compete against other European airports.

This is an easy argument to peddle, calls into National Pride and prevents the media from focussing on the fact the business case for the airport is tenuous at best.

As I've written many times in (before):

the DfT, BAA and BA are in collusion to preserve their own interests and not that of Londoners or the country

when they talk about Heathrow not being competitive compared to other European capitals, they conveniently forget that only London has FIVE international airports and that many other capitals have successfully relocated their airport"

Otherwise, it's good to see the Climate Sufragettes in action -watch this space.

BA, BAA, Heatrow, LHR, HeathrowExpansion, DfT, UK, politics, transportation, air, airlines, richmondtransits.blog, pollution

Hoon's farce as Heathrow expansion is announced

Geoff Hoon gave in the lobbies arguments and gave the Government's Go-ahead for new Heathrow runway.

His arguments are farcical for a lack of better words to describe their implausibility and the inadequacy of measures aimed at alleviating the impact of a third runway:

• The languge about the "the possibility of new high-speed rail links from the airport" means it's unlikely to happen. Same goes for the idea of "set[tting] up a company to look into creating a high speed rail line between London and Scotland - adding there was a "strong case" for a new high speed rail hub at Heathrow": it's just there to appease opponents.
  
• The 125,000 flights cap probably won't meet EU emissions regulations (thanks god to the European Union for making rules to protect citizens from their own government), even with his fictional "green planes"
  
• More passengers means more car traffic. The government's answer is to use hard shoulders. Brilliant, except anyone who's travelled on the M4 at peak hours knows that any little incident already causes a major congestion.
  

The only good news for Richmond residents was the concession to keep the "mixed mode" use of runways (plane noise only half of the day), however nothing on night fligts. But those living further West will be exposes to more takeoff noise thanks to the end of the Cranford agreement.

BAA and the DfT conveniently forget to state that there are FOUR other airports around London when making the case to expand Heathrow. An estuary airport would have been cheaper that T5 + T6 + a 4rd runway.

Finally, the economic case for LHR is based on un-proven assumptions.

Most major European countries have in the last 20 years:

• relocated their main airport
• invested in high-speed rail
• created multimodal nodes (air+rail)

During this time, British ones sat on their bottoms... (read also What if those who govern us had a long term view about strategic infrastructures?)

Here's the Decision text in full.

rail, trains, air, airways, BA, BAA, DfT, LHR, Heathrow, HeathrowExpansion, UK, politics, transportation, richmondtransits.blog

Happy new year and more foul play from the DfT on Heathrow Expansion

Grim news this morning as the impact of the proposed Heathrow Expansion is worse than planned:
New flight paths for Heathrow will bring jets’ roar to millions - Times Online

As I wrote before, there are alternatives but it requires planning for the future (20 years ahead), something that the Government seems incapable of:

• BAA wakes up to the sound of locomotives?
• Some Heathrow news...

Heathrow, HeathrowExpansion, DfT, air, airways, BAA, UK, politics, transportation, rail, railways, richmondtransits.blog.uk

More on Manor road and Heathrow

Seems now the government is embarrassed:

Decision on third runway delayed(BBC.co.uk)

"Anti-Heathrow expansion campaigners claim the government is stalling"

"A decision on whether a third runway
should be built at Heathrow Airport has been put back to January 2009,
the Department for Transport has said."

And also, the impact of the Airtrack on local level crossing is making into national news:

BBC NEWS | England | London | Rail link 'may cause longer wait'


Read also my previous post: Airtrack and North Sheen Crossing

richmond, north sheen, footbridge, north, sheen, rail, railways, uk, politics, transportation, heathrow, lhr, heathrowexpansion, ba, baa, dft, richmondtransits.blog

Airtrack and North Sheen Crossing

I picked up last week a flyer from the LibDems at North Sheen station, to read that at my great pleasure Susan Kramer has obtained that the footbridge to the South side of the track will be rebuilt.

This is not only a practical issue, as with the new train schedules the level crossing in Manor road is down a a lot (read in the RTT: Level crossing bottlenecks choking Richmond, apparently it could be 75% of the time in the future!) it is also a safety issue. Indeed, I'm glad to get someone chiming in on something I've raised over two years ago:

Assembly member Caroline Pidgeon discussed safety concerns to pedestrians brought about by the delays.She said: “People get so frustrated waiting for the barriers thatsome have been tempted to go round them and run across the tracks.“Children have been seen doing this and it’s just an accident waiting to happen.”

It's also unfair for local residents: we get all the congestion but only four trains per hour at peak time. At least, we should get four trains per hour off-peak as well.

(plus, let's fine stationary cars too: Stuck at a level crossing? Turn off the engine or pay £20 fine - The Times)

What's the link with this and Airtrack, the plan to improve Heathrow's access by rail? At first sight, it looks like a good idea, and I am always supportive for better public transport.

However, it's hard to read without being suspicious of BAA's intentions, here's my take:

1. BAA and BA build a new terminal in Heathrow (despite massive local opposition, read on BBC.com: Heathrow runway debate a 'sham'), claiming it's vital for the economy (without supporting this with any proof) and despite London being served by 4 other airports...
   
2. Oh, shoot, access to Heathrow by public transport isn't that good and, as opposed to what's going on the continent, there's no high-speed rail link.
3. And, bugger, if they extend the airport, they won't meet the new EU emission criteria, even with BAA's imaginary ‘green’ jumbo (The Times).
   
4. Easy: they just improve the public transport and create a car-free zone around the airport.
   
5. Expensive? Not really, they say let's just extend the existing train lines, charge more for parking and create a road tax on the model of Red Ken's London Congestion Charge.

The snag? The train network, for not having received significant investments in the last 30 years, is completely saturated in the South East of England. And those trains to Heathrow, they will have to run somewhere. Like through Richmond...

This is why I oppose Airtrack, unless they actually invest significantly to increase rail capacity: North Sheen should be buried underground, a car park created on top to encourage people to park and take the train and we should see 8 trains an hour.

You can make your views heard on Thursday

Read my other posts on the North Sheen footbridge and those on Heathrow Expansion.

And also: MPs attack Airtrack (RTT)

Tags: heathrow, heathrowexpansion, LHR, BAA, BA, DfT, UK, politics, Richmond, North, Sheen, North Sheen, footbridge, level, crossing, richmondtransits.blog

Stating the obvious: Heathrow expansion will pollute more

Sometimes, stating the obvious helps:
BBC NEWS | England | London | Third runway will 'damage health' (06/10/08)

"If the third runway goes ahead, if we get that extra both air and
ground traffic that will arise out of that, then it is absolutely
certain that nitrogen dioxide levels will go way beyond what they ought
to be for the sake of human health."


Why is that important?

Because, as a spokesman for the Department of Health (DfT) said: "The government
has always been clear that expansion at Heathrow could not go ahead
unless strict local environmental conditions could be met."


Read also: Listen to the Heathrow expansion lobbies...

In a nutshell:

• lobbies speaking about the economicimpact of Heathrow expansion are not basing their statements on any reliable economic impact study
• the DfT, BAA and BA are in collusion to preserve their own interests and not that of Londoners or the country
• when they talk about Heathrow not being competitive compared to other European capitals, they conveniently forget that only London has FIVE international airports and that many other capitals have successfully relocated their airport
  

Tags: Heathrow, heathrowexpansion, airport, air, airlines, rail, railways, transportation, pollution, health, UK, London, environment, richmondtransits.blog

Finally, high speed train gets national coverage

The 2M group, representing the 2 millions people living under the Heathrow airport flight path (LHR is the airport annoying the most people in Europe) has managed to get great coverage:

Evening Standard: £30bn rail link to put Sheffield within three hours of Paris
BBC: Proposals for speed rail link
and more...

Read also this well research page: High Speed Rail to the North on alwaystouchout.com andTHE IMPACT OF HIGH SPEED RAIL ON HEATHROW AIRPORT on Greengauge21.

From the 2M Group website:

High Speed North - Joining up Britain
The
2M Group has published a new study which looks at how a new high speed
rail network could link major cities throughout the UK and provide
direct routes to Europe.

The proposals would join Heathrow to this new rail network – removing the need for most domestic flights.

It would link UK cities to Europe with, in many cases, a travelling time of less than four hours.

The proposals have been published by 2M as part of its contribution to the growing debate on alternatives to aviation growth.

High Speed North – Joining up Britain (515 kb)

You can also download some of the more detailed workings of the report's author.

Principles of high speed rail (126 kb)

Read my previous posts on the subject under the tag Heathrow.

Finally, listen to this BBC report showing the collusion between the DfT, BA and BAA:

Heathrow plans 'not biased'

Environmental perversity...

Because the Government has imposed a "use it or loose it" rule for those precious Heathrow take-off and landing slots, some airlines such as BMI plan to have planes ‘fly empty’ to keep slots at Heathrow.

This shows the difficulty of governing in a free market economy (if there's such a thing?): any regulation potentially affects market forces and can be perverse.

In this case, the perversity is that if prevents short term downwards capacity adjustment.

However, it brings the LHR third runway question again: at a time where the Government seems to already have made its mind (read Hutton signals go-ahead for Heathrow expansion before consultation), another proof of its collusion with BA and BAA, it seems that with oil prices at a record level and not going down any time soon the need for additional capacity may not be there anyway.

Tags: airlines, LHR, Heathrow, T5, T6, HeatrowExpansion, BA, BAA, transportation, environment, UK, Politics, DfT, richmondtransits.blog

Greenpocrisy

So politicians want us to be green... Seems laudable, especially since it is badly needed, the country being bad at recycling, etc...

But then, it seems it always only translate in one thing for citizens: more taxes. Car are an obvious and easy target, but even if one accepts taxing based on CO2 is a good idea (I don't), France for instance have figured out a way to achieve the same goals with a fiscally neutral system.

But in the UK, nope -it's always tax more.

For example, there are no incentives to install solar panels for (the payback is something like 15 years) the German or France again goverments provides grants in the shape of subsidised feed-in tariffs (home and business can sell solar-generated electricity back into the grid), which makes it affordable and reduces the return on investment to 3-5 years). As a result, over half a million homes are equiped in Germany, helping with mass production scale economies -and creating 400 000 jobs in the process.

But in the UK? Nope. Another bad example is public transportation, where the goverment wants rail users to contribute more: reduced subsidies mean that passengers revenue will climb from 50 to 75%!!!

This is my point: the Government is taxing polluting cars on one hand, but not taxing aviation fuel and increasing the cost of alternative, less polluting, transportation modes. Can't think of being more hypocritical on green issues!


Tags: UK, Politics, green, greenwash, environment, transportation, airlines, railways, rail, train, richmondtransits.blog.uk

Heathrow expansion is vital...

...for Mr. Walsh's bonus!

His arguments in this Richmond and Twickenham Times article dubious for the least:

1. The jobs impact has never been quantified by an independent survey

2. Comparing LHR alone to other airports is dishonest for the least because London has FIVE (international) airports.

3. Finally, BA and BAA just can't be trusted: T5 was given planning permission on the condition there will not be further expansion...


Tags: Heathrow, LHR, T5, BA, BAA, airport, airlines, UK, transportation, environment, richmondtransits.blog

Politics and GreenWash

I've always been interested by ecology, tryign to do my bit -like leaving a camping/picinic site cleaner than when I arrived. But my green attitude is based on common sense, not on any form of green religion inspired by city-luddites, the kind of people who were trotskyst before, green priests now and impose on others their attitude of green moral superiority.

For instance, at a time where we had agricultural surpluses subsidised by the EU, it only made sense to me that we should do biofuels. The current debate now about sustanability of biofuels comes from a herd movement towards biofuels when the infrastructure is not there.

Then the polititians came in and suddenly started to talk green. The only issue is that for politicians, it seems that Green = More Taxes. And we only see tax, tax, tax -but still no rail infrastructures
or maybe the're taxing the wrong stuff: Focussing on CO2: good for bears, bad for humans? Methane for instance stays in the atmosphere longuer than CO2: should we fit a meter at the back of each cow, or become vegeterians? (seems vegan is not a good idea...)

In my mind, it's not only taxes but there are many other ways of being greenner: microgeneration is one. The Guardian had a great full page article on how power from the people could cut CO2 emissions - with government help (shame the online version doesn't have the graphs).

But it seems the government is busy making broken promises and trying to substanciate the fact that Heathrow, thanks to its "Low Emission Zone" will be clean. In passing, we have to thank the EU for imposing stricter anti-pollution norms... (and NB: no, curbing LHR's growth won't harm the capital because it's only one of the FIVE London airports).

This is why I've become highly suspicious of Green Politicians: to me they will provoke a backlash and what they decide isn't even good for the environment.

PS: but kudos to Westminster to allow cyclists use one way streets riding counterflow. This is commen sense, doesn't cost anything and works (just go to The Hague if you don't belive me).

It's not only taxes...

I've long been annoyed by those people talking about CO2 emissions regardless of the context, etc...
Some say the publicity helps the green cause, I am rather more cynical and think that greenwash, just like idiotic taxes, is going to make people feel sick and tired and that the backlash is going to be a rejection of the need to be green.

It seems I am not alone:
Advertising watchdog receives record complaints over corporate 'greenwash' | Environment | guardian.co.uk

PS: read also Focussing on CO2: good for bears, bad for humans?

Tags: green, greenwash, richmondtransits.blog, ecology, environment

Green = More Taxes (for Politicians)

I thought I'd blog an extension to this post as I've been mullling over this all day:
Richmond Transits: Blatant hypocrisy over parking spaces

A few simple ideas:
- Why don't we get reduced VAT (from 17.5 to 5%) on all loft conversions incorporating a planted roof?
- Or a tax credit when installing solar / geothermic central heating?
- Or get grants for all renovations achieving a set target for insulation?

Both would save significant carbon emissions and make buildings more sustainable.

To me, politicians are hypocritical about green issues: it's not that they don't care. They do. A lot: it allows to raise taxes, such as congestion charge, road pricing, etc etc...

The endless greenwhash (non-sensical talks incorporating green keywords) only harms everyone's acceptance of the need to act now whithout producing significant results. Greenwash kills Green Goodwill because the consumers intimately feel they're not getting a good deal.

From CatPro (the Campaign Against The Parking Rip Off)

This is a last minute thing we only have until MIDNIGHT TOMORROW!!!

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Scrap all existing and planned tolls, "road pricing" and so called "congestion charging".

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/notolls/

Please pass it on.

Tags: Heathrow, airlines, transportation, ecology, pollution, richmondtransits.blog

Good news: less flying rats...

It never cease to amaze me seeing "animal activists" who put pigeons before humans:
BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | Tests 'show pigeons are starving'

As far as I know, pigeons are not an endengered specie, but rather a nuisance....


Tags: pigeons, london, animal, activits, environment, ecology, richmondtransits.blog