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

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

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

Scrap the VAT, introduce the PAT

I was tweeted this link yesterday: Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated' | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Confidential data from maritime industry insiders based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars shows that just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars. Low-grade ship bunker fuel (or fuel oil) has up to 2,000 times the sulphur content of diesel fuel used in US and European automobiles.

The fuel oil (bunker fuel) used by those sea-going levihathans, just like kerosene (the airlines fuel) are not taxed, as opposed to petrol and diesel used by cars. Ironically, cars have become much cleaner, even diesel with new particulate filters -although they're not quite ubiquitous yet.

My conclusion is simple: our government is taxing automobilists and smokers not for health or environmental reasons, but simply because it can. Taxing foreign ships and plane is more difficult but not less harmless.

How to solve this?

I've been wrestling with that idea for a while: it's difficult to tax things that don't fall under a national law. The current system to tax CO2 emissions for instance is profoundly injust as I put it above, and it misses the point as housing for instance is not taken into account. It also favours displacing CO2 emitted by post-industrial countries to developping countries who use old generation coal stations.

One thing that could be taxed is the good when purchased. So what I propose is replacing the VAT with a variable tax based on CO2, NOx and other harmful compounds "embedded" (in reality emitted during the manufacturing process) in the products we buy.

That would be a PAT: Pollution Added Tax.

I can only see benefits: it would give everyone an incentive to be more sustainable, and create a lot of jobs because it would be quite complicated to administer.

But my PAT would be a great way towards more GloCalisation.


Tags: environment, airlines, pollution, richmondtransits.blog, transportation, uk, politics, co2, green, vat

Comment on new cars vs. old cars

Interesting post here:
Re*Move: New Cars vs Old Cars II

And my comment:

Interesting conundrum.

1. Yes, rewarding for failure is wrong.
Let's just however point out that rescuing banks was not optional to start with and then that Western Governments have lent money to those failed banks. It's a bet of course, but the tax payer should, hopefully, get some return when they cash in those shares in a few years.
Note that some govermments have been smarter than others (UK, USA) by getting some right-to-say instead of just buying non-preferential shares.

2. The car industry has come a long way, people won't give up individual mobility easily.
While US regulators did not do anything to force their national manufacturers to reform, the story is different in Europe where there's some pressure to reduce emissions. This has resulted in quite some considerable technological advances, but ultimately it's down to economics: when oil will be rare, people will switch to electric because it will be economically viable.
On the other hand, public transportation offerings vary from poor (USA) to excellent (Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark). You can't expect people to switch in a nation like the UK where there's been virtually no investment in rail for the like of 30 years, no high-speed lines between regions, etc...

3. Cash for new cars, it's not about ecology stupid.
It would be carbon-efficient to let every industrial job go on the dole. People would watch their plasma screen but won't have the money to have cars. The whole economy may collapse and some will cheer at the decrease in CO2 emissions. Riots will ensure, and we'll need to develop tear-gas that don't contribute to global warming.

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