Showing posts sorted by relevance for query BAA. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query BAA. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday, August 31, 2009

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.






, , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Lobbies and lazy journalism

Crisis: Queues at Heathrow Terminal 5 today
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:

Thursday, October 23, 2008

BAA wakes up to the sound of locomotives?

Train- © hfng - Fotolia.com. Plane- © Lars Christensen - Fotolia.comBAA changed their whining pitch and now says that Heathrow 'needs rail links as well as third runway' (Evening Standard).

That's of course after the Tories said they were in favour of a £20bn plan for a 180mph rail link instead of Heathrow third runway.

At a conference BAA urged the rail industry to work with the aviationsector to generate a "once-in-a- generation opportunity to create aworld-leading air and transport hub at Heathrow". BAA said its aim isfor a "third runway built within strict environmental limits and ahigh-speed rail network that will connect the UK's hub airport withevery major centre of population across the country".

Yeah right. Seems like they want to have their cake and eat it. Personally, I frankly doubt they really want high-speed rail: in France, the SNCF predicts that the introduction of high-speed trains running at 360 kph (224 mph) would mean that the airlines passenger share between Paris and Toulouse (585 km or 360 miles) would fall from 80% to 30%.

But they kept some of their usual lies: "Mr Condie highlighted Paris and Frankfurt, which have both developed high-speed rail links and have more runways than Heathrow."
This of course is misleading as they compare Heathrow (2 runways) instead of London (5 runways, plus one un-used in Gatwick) to other capitals. What is true is that both France and Germany have linked high-speed trains (TGV and ICE) to airports.

Read also my other posts on Heathrow expansion.

, , , , , , , ,

Thursday, December 04, 2014

Heathrow fakes it

Gatwick airport claims Heathrow set up fake support group for new runway
Back Heathrow, which gets funding from west London airport, says it represents local businesses and residents




, transport correspondent, The Guardian,




    
Here's what happens when lobbies take over societies. In case you haven't been following, the story goes that way: government gives up on planning vital infrastructure (Maplin Sands, 1973, Labour), then privatises it (Tory, 1986), forces it to sell off assets (Tory, 2009), resulting in each of the SIX international airports around London being owned by different (often foreign) shareholders. The result is all of them pitching for their own (shareholders) interests -at the expense of greater public good. Ensues a lot of private propaganda, etc., but no one saying simple things such as high-speed rail being a good alternative for (2006, Labour).
  


Related posts

Monday, September 29, 2008

Some Heathrow news...

A collection of interesting news items over the last couple of weeks...

Firstly, it seems politicians are starting to get their head about the anger caused by the unabated Heathrow expansion pushed by BAA and the DfT:

Government body calls for Heathrow review (RTT, 19/09/08)
Wandsworth Council leader Edward Lister said: “First the environment
agency now the SDC, how many more of the Government’s own advisers have
to tell Gordon Brown that he has got it wrong on Heathrow expansion?
“The economic case for expanding Heathrow seems to hinge on a
future of cheaper flights and ever-growing demand. But none of these
assumptions seem to take account of rising oil costs, the economic
downturn or the government’s own CO2 targets.
“No serious attempt has been made to compare the benefits of a
third runway with other transport solutions such as high speed rail for
which there is great demand on Scotland and the North.

“It’s five years since the airports white paper was published and
it is looking increasingly irrelevant to the nation’s transport needs.

“Brown should order an independent study that looks at the full
impact of expanding Heathrow on all sectors of the economy – and
compares it to the alternatives. There must be more to UK transport
policy than what is good for BAA.”


Did he read my previous posts on the subject???  The Sustainable Development Commission report is here.

Tories promise to shelve plans for third runway (RTT, 29/09/08)




"shadow transport secretary Theresa Villers said a Tory Government would
spend £20billion on a high-speed rail line between London’s St Pancras,
where the Eurostar is based, and Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds."


I couldn't agree more!

Boris Johnson has smelt the opportunity and resurrected the plans for a new airport in the estuary:
Boris Johnson airs plan for Heathrow-on-Sea (Times Online 10/02/08).  Makes total sense to me, as it's not that much more expensive than a third runway and a much better location. Unfortunately, short-sighted politicians have stalled it so far:

"Since the 1960s, 13 major cities including Paris, Milan and New York have
moved their airports further out. In Hong Kong, the government spent six
years and $20 billion building an airport on an artificial island and
linking it by bullet train to the city.In Britain, however, similar proposals have repeatedly been blocked. In the
1970s a scheme to build an airport on Maplin Sands near Southend-on-Sea in
Essex was abandoned because of a shortage of public funds."


(Image from "Scrap Heathrow and build a £30bn airport on an island, says Boris Johnson", Daily Mail 22/09/08)


PS: just to confirm that the company running Heathrow isn't up to the job:
Bacteria leaks and lost passengers among Heathrow breaches (RTT, 28/09/08)
CAA supports forced sell off of BAA airports


, , , , , , , ,

Monday, November 17, 2008

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, March 17, 2008

T5 opens, shows BAA-Government hypocrisy and collusion

Annie Mole is penning this great Going Underground's Blog, and she's also local to Richmond. Her Friday post was about London Heathrow Terminal 5:
Heathrow Terminal 5 opened today - great.
For those thinking of an improved travel experience, bad luck: according to this Times article "the £4.3 billion project has its fair share of critics. A report in The
Observer
claimed that passengers at nearly half of the terminal’s
departure gates will be bussed to planes, rather than being able to reach
them on foot by air bridges."


Going Underground points to this HACAN page everyone should read:BAA's broken promises to local residents.

Which brings me to my hero of the day: the BBC reports that Conservative MP for Putney Justine Greening criticised BAA for being 'too close' to Heathrow and mounted challenge. I've long said BAA, BA and the DoT were in bed, so I am quite happy to read this....

Friday, May 02, 2008

And yet another broken promise by DfT and BAA...

This morning the RTT ran another story on the continued lies and broken promises by the infamous Department of Transport, BAA and BA ménage a trois:
Secret Heathrow plan to reduce air quality (Richmond and Twickenham Times)

"The Government wants to sacrifice air quality across London to allow an
extra 60,000 flights a year into Heathrow, according to reports.
"

Just in case the 2 millions living around the area did not already felt conned...

I've already blogged many times on Heathrow, a "dump" according to American Airlines' Head of Customer Services (Europe) Don Langford:
Is Heathrow really out of capacity?
More on Heathrow
Is sustainability sacrificed on the Heathrow altar?
Transported logic



Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, August 28, 2009

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...

IFlowers placed by level crossing gates at Elsenham Station in Essex where Charlie Thompson and her friend Olivia Bazlinton died.'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: , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, July 25, 2008

Economic case for Heathrow expansion 'flawed'

An article in the RTT needs little to be added to:
Economic case for Heathrow expansion 'flawed' (From Richmond and Twickenham Times)

The Friends of the Earht have commissionned a report to the Stockholm Environment Institute was commissioned: see their press release here.

The report was written by Elizabeth A. Stanton and Frank Ackerman from the Stockholm Environment Institute - US Centre. A link to the full report is here:www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/consumer_surplus.pdf

From the RTT site:

The report found three major flaws in the assessment of these benefits and called for an independent review:

  • The passenger demand projections are uncertain - for example they rely on fares falling because the cost of oil per barrel is predicted to fall from an assumed $65 in 2006 to $53 in 2030. Oil is currently around $130 a barrel and experts predict will not fall below this before the end of 2016.
  • Foreign passengers changing planes in the UK are counted as a benefit to the UK economy - but this is against HM Treasury guidance on project appraisal. In 2005 nearly 30 per cent of Heathrow passengers were travellers simply changing planes.
  • It assumes “doing nothing” is the only alternative to airport expansion ignoring alternatives with less environmental impact like switching short haul passengers to rail travel, investing in video conferencing or limiting transfer passengers.
This comes as little surprise, after the government commissioned a study on the future of transportation by no one else than the former BA boss: The Eddington Transport Study.

Strangely, although it's successful everywhere else in Europe, he did recommend against high speed link (see my previous post: Finally, high speed train gets national coverage).

Just to repeat myself: looking at Heathrow in isolation is at best misleading since there are 4 other international aiports in London (plus spare capacity in Portsmouth, Midlands, ect, all easily reachable by high-speed train if there was any) and it is dishonest because it doesn't look into alternative transport modes.

But then, the DfT, BA and BAA are forming a ménage a trois to protect the commercial interests of BA and BAA...

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, January 18, 2008

Is Heatrow in the wrong place?

This article points out the dangers of an airport in densely populated area:
BBC NEWS | UK | Will a third runway add to the risk?

What the article conveniently forgets, is that as I've been saying before, Heathrow in badly situated.

The dominants winds in Europe tend to be Westerly, and with LHR directly on the West boundaries of London, flight paths are directly over the city -probably a unique sad fact in Europe?

This means that over 2 millions of poor souls live (and try to sleep) under the flight path. Very scenic, but isn't that an un-necessary risk? We're told that given the improvement on reliability, 2 engines are enough for long flights over large bodies of water. Preliminary reports after yesterday's accident point to a failure from both engines about 90 seconds before crash-landing, I guess around above Richmond. For myself, I prefer 4 engines 4 long haul as in the Virgin ad...

Bottom line: if the Government wasn't in bed with BAA (and BA), it would develop the other 3 airports which are using flight path over less densely populated areas -namely Stanstead, Luton and Gatwick.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Monday, January 19, 2009

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.

Frankfurt airportThis 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.


    , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Monday, January 05, 2009

    Thursday, January 17, 2008

    Glad I managed to land... (and Heathrow expansion lies)

    Major panic at Heathrow after a BA 777 crash landed short of the South runway:
    Heathrow drama after aircraft crash lands - Times Online

    My flight managed to land just 10 mn after, and was not diverted....

    We don't know why but it puts into equation the risk element of having a shorter third runway within a densely populated area.

    By the way, I've tried to fill in the Government consultation on Heathrow expansion from the airport on the way out, but the "free access" kept cutting off half way -infuriating.
    The consultation document is biased for many reasons:

    1. The economic impact is not proven
    2. It does not present other alternatives such as developping a high-speed train network to relieve the airport from domestic flights
    3. It does not say why, out the 5 London airports, Heathrow has to get a 3rd runway. After all, Gatwick could too, Stanstead and Luton could get a second one -but it might be a bit tight to expand City aiport....
    4. The pollution takes into account a large zone around Heathrow (otherwise they would not meet EC criteria) and does not take into account the fact that air travel pollution is not well measured.
    5. We can't trust the government as it's in bed with BAA and BA, after all they kept the expansion plans quiet until T5 was built despite T5 planning permission was granted on the condition to keep aircrafts movements to 480,000 (the expansion would bring this number to over 700,000!!!).

    Do also read those 20 airport questions for Ruth Kelly from the 2Mgroup.

    ACT NOW!

    Check the Richmond Borough guidelines on how to fill in the consultation document (here), Sign the petition to oppose Heathrow expansion (tips on how to do this here), participate to the mass rally on Feb 25th...

    Links:
    http://www.2mgroup.org.uk/
    http://www.hacan.org.uk/
    http://www.richmond.gov.uk/home/environment/pollution/noise_pollution/aircraft_noise.htm
    http://www.stopheathrowexpansion.com/


    Tags: , , , , , ,

    Friday, July 11, 2008

    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: , , , , , , , , , ,

    Friday, May 16, 2008

    Is the DfT deaf?

    Read this morning in the Richmond and Twickenham Times: Court challenge to early morning Heathrow jumbos.

    I find difficult to agree that a 747 could wrongly be put in a category of "quiet planes", unless maybe the transportation ministry staff never flew, quite alike the urban planners who designed cycling path clearly never rode a bicycle.

    For me, it is yet another proof of the collusion between the Department for Transport and BAA.



    Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

    Tuesday, January 20, 2009

    Essential reading: 2M Group on Heathrow Expansion

    Stop 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.




    , , , , , ,

    Wednesday, July 16, 2008

    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: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Thursday, January 15, 2009

    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.


    , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Wednesday, March 08, 2006

    Why is the governement pushing to increase number of night flights?

    However, those assumptions are biased, to say the least:
  • A direct relation between economic growth and the need for air travel is far from being proven, as remote working and telecommunication change our daily lives
  • Why should air travel continue to be subsidised at a rate of £557 per tax payer and per annum while alternatives such as fast trains are not being promoted and funded? Why also should flying to the South of Spain be cheaper than taking the train to Penzance?
  • There are major international 5 airports around London, against only 2 in Paris and one in other major economic capitals. The fact that BA and BAA would be more competitive with 3 runways at Heathrow may be true, but that’s another statement. Why anyway would Londoners need to pay the price of BAA and BA’s profits? Unless they are suggesting giving free share options to people living under the flight paths, I see no reasons.

  • The agenda of those lobbies go directly against the welfare of 1m people living under the flight path and does not consider the indirect costs at any point:
  • why should they tolerate more aircraft pollution?
  • why should they tolerate more aircraft noise, especially at night?
  • Why should they tolerate more congestion, taxes, etc?

  • Heathrow itself was built on farmland using war-time regulation to avoid a public enquiry and is badly located: it's to my knowledge one of the only European airports to be built on the West side and at short distance of a capital or major city. Given the winds in Europe are dominantly Westerly or Easterly this is quite a poor planning decision. It explains the huge environmental impact of Heathrow and why over 1m Londoners live directly under the flight path. In this respect, Gatwick, Stansted or Luton are much more sensibly located and are closer to main communications link.

    Read this for more on how the South East Regional Air Study neglected indirect costs. In tax only, the negative balance is £8.5 billions in favour of the air travel lobbies… Little has been done to quantify the direct and indirect impact of aircraft noise and pollution.

    In conclusion, the massive subsidy enjoyed by air travel and on the other side the equally large but little researched induced costs is based on flimsy economic assumption. If only a small part of those direct and indirect costs and if tax subsidies were removed, Heathrow could DOWNSIZE!



    Links: HACAN ClearSkies