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!!!!

Quote of the day

Sometimes I like how a quote can be just flipped on its head, like that one:

Tessa Jowell, Minister for London, said: "The people who came out and voted Labour are the people who use public services and know their importance and their value to their lives." (souce: Labour takes control of eight more London town halls, Evening Standard, 10/5/10)

And taking the contrarian view, those who voted Conservative are the ones paying for those services?
This isn't really a stretch from the imagination, especially considering that Richmond for instance gets less per head than other boroughs:

It explained that we get less than £150 a year per resident from central government – less than any other borough - compared to the outer London average of over £400 a head. Neighbouring Wandsworth for example gets over £500 a head.  This means that our residents have to pay one of the highest Council Taxes in the country, despite having an efficient, low-spending council. (source: Extracts from Cllr Stephen Knight’s speech to council on 2 March 2010: recommending 0% increase tax increase)

politics, taxes, richmond, richmond.giv

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

Should the UK follow Zimbabwe?

BBC NEWS | World | Africa | Zimbabwe abandons its currency

Should the UK retain the Sterling? The exchange rate variations we see those days are hurting the British economy badly, whereas it's un-deniable that the Euro-Zone is much better off thanks to the single currency and the financial rules that it brought...

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

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

Children aren't the center of the world

The Times has more today on Childcare is bad for your baby, working parents are warned. If this doesn't make any working mum feel guilty, what will?

Beyond the tabloidic headline, there's more on the fallacy that socialising children in bad for them. But nothing on the benefits for mothers and the society of women in the workforce. And nothing either about brats spoilt by mothers bored at home...

It's quite amazing to read this in 2008...

UK, politics, children, richmondtransits.blog

Darling and the impact on the Sterling

Read this morning Pre-Budget Report and Alistair Darling's £1 trillion debt gamble (Times Online)

What the chancellor, and the media, forget to say is that VAT cut won't help much in an economy that's hooked to imports.

More borrowing probably in fact will further weaken the Sterling Pound, resulting in more imported inflation and negating those 2.5% VAT cut.

Time to join the Euro?

UK, economy, politics, budget, euro, richmondtransits.blog

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: Heathrow, Dft, BA, BAA, LHR, HeathrowExpansion, airlines, transportation, rail, trains, UK, Politics, 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'

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

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).

Tax, tax, tax -but still no rail infrastructures

The government keeps on taxing automobilists but fails to invest in public transportation:

Read in
BBC NEWS | England | London | New station's opening postponed: "The station will be the first new suburban station built in south London since the Second World War, according to Merton Council."

What a disgrace! Rail fares up, taxes on petrol up, local council tax up and interest rates up. The Richmond commuters feel the pinch on the wallet more than ever recently.

In the meantime, kerosene is still not taxed and now Boris bailed off the massive demonstration against Heathrow -this doesn't detract the Beeb to pedal the BAA spin comparing Heathrow to other cites, conveniently forgetting that London has no less than FIVE international airports.

All that could have been avoided if instead of perpetuating a 1950ies planning error the government had planned to build a new airport in the estuary as it has often been suggested -and close other airports such as Gatwick, City or Heathrow like it has been done in Berlin and other European cities.

It seems that the government is very short sighted indeed when it comes to transportation.... It maybe why we still don't have a footbridge in North Sheen?

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: heathrow, airport, BAA, DfT, UK, politics, transportation, environment, richmondtransits.blog

Blatant hypocrisy over parking spaces

Richmond council announced they will be taxing parents for dropping off their kids at local schools (through ending the 15 mn free parking allowance in a CPZ).

They are blaming the lack of parking places in the borough, paving the way for more CPZ (Controlled Parking Zones): More CPZ to come? (Richmond and Twickenham Times, 25/4/08)

This is simply and utterly hypocrisy: just consider the fact the council limits parking places in new developments such as the scheme in Garden road or the the office block extended in Chalkers corner.

But then, to me it looks like Green has become a synonym for "more taxes": every time taxpayers are being hit, especially in Richmond, it's in the name of the Carbon Reduction God, just like the failed congestion charge is now disguised into a low emission zone, etc...

When I read Jeremy Clarkson saying the greenies are the new trotskysts I thought it was amusing and second degree. Actually, I don't anymore. While I am all for doing everything we can to not leave the planet in a better state that the baby boomers are now handing it over to Generation X, the issue with the "green issue" is polititians who have managed to remove all substance and tax more.

It's always the stick: you drive a large car? Market forces and fuel prices are not enough, here's an additional parking tax. But that applies mostly to motorists, not to Heathrow. Nor do we get carrots: on the continent you get tax breaks for installing solar powered heating, geothermal exchanger, etc... Here, we just get free rockwool. Just like the congestion charge: a plaster on a broken leg.


Tags: richmondtransits.blog, green, CPZ, gardenroad, congestioncharge, london, cars, transportation, UK, politics

Is Heathrow really out of capacity?

I keep reading articles comparing Heathrow with other European cities. Of course I believe that press is independent and not infuenced by



BA bosses urges bigger Heathrow...

But hang on, when I read this I get itchy skin:
BBC NEWS | UK | Heathrow creaks under heavy traffic

Of course they miss the point: no other European city has more 5 international airports! We have Heathrow (2 runways), Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and City (each with a single runway). So that's 6 runways in total, creating noise all around London! Ridiculous.

All the money spent in Heathrow would have been better used creating a new aiport in the middle of the Thames estuary with good train and road links rather than blighting all the airspace around London. But the government seem to think small. No high speed trains network for instance, small project only.

The problem of thinking small is that you end up with a bigger problem...


Tags: heathrow, airlines, transportation, rail, uk, politics, richmondtransits.blog

Childcare costs

Read this yesterday and it's certainly corroborated by personal experience:
BBC NEWS | UK | Charity says childcare costs soar.

I was listening yesterday to the Children's Minister yesterday and she said that most families can get some help.

I thought, oh really, some good news this morning?

And then she went on saying that funding is available to families earning less than £40k per couple.

Indeed she's quoted here:
Beverley Hughes, the children's minister at Westminster, said: "I recognise that childcare costs are a serious matter for some families in some areas.

Do they really believe their spin or is that sheer hypocrisy?

The AVERAGE national salary was little under £30k in 2005-2006, meaning it's way above in outer London, where the cost of childcare is higher.

BOTTOM LINE: this is a serious handicap for women who want to pursue a career and a strong contributor to gender inequality.


Tags: children, childcare, family, UK, politics, richmondtransits.blog

It's about time indeed

In the Times this morning:
It’s time to make way for £50bn high-speed network, says rail chief - Times Online

It's about time indeed -20 years after the French- to rejuvenate the British Rail Network, take market share on air travel.

If the goverment is really serious about cutting CO2 emissions and provide a sustainable future for our children, it should invest in fast and affordable public transport infrastructures. Then the commuters will switch from planes and car, but they won't if there are no alternatives even if taxes keep rising.

Tags: transportation, railways, trains, UK, politics, richmondtransits.blog

Pan-European Maglev....

In this post, the Greenmonk Associates rejoin my conclusions about increasing the share of rail vs. air transport:
Tax and Travel in EU: On Carbon Added Tax (CAT) and Maglev

I just have to comments:

1. Maglev is a power hog, much more than steel-on-steel. But since the UK is going back into nuclear, it’s less of an issue?

2. The main point though is on reducing friction, not from a technology standpoint but more on individual journeys: reduce the number of interconnections (for instance by removing intermodal discontinuities) and adoption climbs rapidly.
In this respect, pan-european TGV like France is spearheading works but only if there’s sufficient parking at stations and easy connection with local public transports. The smartest at this are the Dutch who have two bikes: one at each station of their daily commute, plus bike-sheds with repair facilities.

In a nutshell, make it easy by investing into infrastructure and the air CO2 emissions (although is CO2 the real issue?) will diminish: see my previous posts on More on Heathrow and No will for carbon friendly transportation strategy.

Much more efficient in the long term than simply taxing cars. But isn’t short termism the root cause of anthropogenic climate change?"

Tags: transportation, trains, railways, UK, politics, environment, richmondtransits.blog

Focussing on CO2: good for bears, bad for humans?

As environmental concerns are growing, the EU and governments, including London's and the UK's are increasing their focus on limiting CO2 emissions. I've got two issues with this strategy:

1. Unless China and Blair's Gordon's best friends across the pond actually do something, our efforts are vain. And by extension, focussing on car emissions is equally short sighted as transportation overall account for 14% of all emissions (for instance housing is 10% and industries 16%, and I don't hear of a congestion charge on steel production or house building). This is because while cars can be taxed relatively easily (unless one is prepared to get a licence plate in Andorra), establishing a carbon tax on Chinese toys imports is a bit more problematic, both on the international trade laws aspects and on the difficulty to calculate it fairly.

2. Focussing only on CO2 car emissions favours diesel cars, which emitt much more particulates and other pollutants have got serious implications for human health, especially in inner cities. To this, one needs to add other greenhouse gas such as methane (cows fart!).

I will thus continue to fill my car with unleaded to protect babies.

Read also my comment on this post from Greenmonk: On Small Changes, Small Cars, Tax and Pollution

Tags: diesel, cars, environment, pollution, politics, UK, transportation, richmondtransits.blog