Climate campaigners win Heathrow expansion case

[Nearly Sane]

Although it's still possible that it may happen, I doubt that this is an easy fix.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693

[Roses]

Jolly good.

[Harrowby Hall]

There is an argument that a third runway would lower the overall level of carbon emissions. Jet aircraft proportionally use most fuel at low flight levels when they are not at cruising speed. Having only two runways means that at peak operating times  Heathrow-bound aircraft are put into holding patterns in which they circle at low level until given clearance to land. The pollution from these patterns is considerably greater than from a direct approach.

A third runway would reduce the incidence of holding patterns and the consequent carbon pollution.

[jeremyp]

There is an argument that a third runway would lower the overall level of carbon emissions. Jet aircraft proportionally use most fuel at low flight levels when they are not at cruising speed. Having only two runways means that at peak operating times  Heathrow-bound aircraft are put into holding patterns in which they circle at low level until given clearance to land. The pollution from these patterns is considerably greater than from a direct approach.

A third runway would reduce the incidence of holding patterns and the consequent carbon pollution.

In theory yes. In practice, air traffic might increase to the point where aircraft are holding for as long as they are now.

[SteveH]

Jolly good.

Quite.

[Udayana]

I'm not sure I understand or appreciate the economic benefits of a "hub airport".

If a hub is needed why does it have to be near London? It could be located anywhere?

 

[Outrider]

There is an argument that a third runway would lower the overall level of carbon emissions. Jet aircraft proportionally use most fuel at low flight levels when they are not at cruising speed. Having only two runways means that at peak operating times  Heathrow-bound aircraft are put into holding patterns in which they circle at low level until given clearance to land. The pollution from these patterns is considerably greater than from a direct approach.

A third runway would reduce the incidence of holding patterns and the consequent carbon pollution.

The assumption there is that the current load would be split amongst three runways rather than two - Heathrow's business model (and, indeed, the entire financial justification for this in the first place) was to increase the throughput at Heathrow, resulting in MORE low-level holding patterns.

As to the damage done, the low level output affects particulates and breathing conditions, whilst the high-level output has a higher greenhouse effect so it's rather more a case of differing problems than one being significantly better or worse than the other.

O.

[jeremyp]

I'm not sure I understand or appreciate the economic benefits of a "hub airport".

It's more efficient in terms of flights than point to point.

If a hub is needed why does it have to be near London? It could be located anywhere?

A hub airport needs to be near a transport hub. Not everybody travels onwards by air.

[SteveH]

Well, hurrah and huzzah!

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't have strong opinions on Heathrow expansion, but I do think that solution from aviation will only be curtailed by improving technology - both for aircraft themselves, but also technology that replaces the need for air travel, whether that be better high speed rail for short distances, or remote conferencing type technologies.

But that wasn't really the point I wanted to make. My point is about the crazy timescale it takes for us in the UK to make decisions about major infrastructure projects, whether it be HS2 or Heathrow. We really must make these decisions quicker and then either scrap them or get on with them. And this isn't a new problem, its being going on for decades - remember the embarrassment when the channel tunnel opened and on the French side they were straight onto hundreds of miles of high speed rail, while in Kent for years the trains shared old slow lines through to London.

[Harrowby Hall]

On an island the size of Great Britain there should be little need for air services if we had an effective high speed rail system. Rail can provide city centre to city centre services. If we had a rail system like Japan's Shinkansen we wouldn't bother flying.

To travel from the centre of, say, Glasgow by air you have to travel to the airport to arrive at least an hour before you flight time and you will spend about 30 minutes getting off the plane, collecting luggage and getting out of the terminal ... and then spend another hour getting to the City or the West End. A flight time of an hour or so has been supplemented by between three or four hours. A HST would have taken less than three hours - seated and possibly working.

Incidentally, the people objecting to the potential destruction of historic woodland by HS2 should consider the fact that the completed railway from London to Birmingham will take up much less land than does Heathrow Airport.

[jeremyp]

On an island the size of Great Britain there should be little need for air services

I think you should consider what the meaning of "island" is.

if we had an effective high speed rail system. Rail can provide city centre to city centre services. If we had a rail system like Japan's Shinkansen we wouldn't bother flying.

Well we can't have an effective high speed rail system, at least not at any reasonable price.

To travel from the centre of, say, Glasgow by air you have to travel to the airport to arrive at least an hour before you flight time and you will spend about 30 minutes getting off the plane, collecting luggage and getting out of the terminal ... and then spend another hour getting to the City or the West End.

Heathrow to Paddington on the Heathrow Express takes 15 minutes.

A flight time of an hour or so has been supplemented by between three or four hours. A HST would have taken less than three hours - seated and possibly working.

Your flight time is nonsense. You can arrive at Glasgow airport an hour before the flight and still make the flight (it's domestic) and, with hand luggage only, you can be outside the terminal 15  minutes after you land. It's then 15 minutes to Paddington. central Glasgow to central London is achievable in three hours by air. Furthermore, for anybody coming from West of London to Heathrow, Heathrow is more convenient than a railway station in the middle of London.

Incidentally, the people objecting to the potential destruction of historic woodland by HS2 should consider the fact that the completed railway from London to Birmingham will take up much less land than does Heathrow Airport.

Yes, but Heathrow is already there. Also, if you are trying to get to Glasgow, a train that goes as far as Birmingham is not of much use.

Also, the difference is marginal. It's approximately 600 km (less as the crow flies but we need some literal wiggle room) from Glasgow to London. Heathrow is 12km² which means that if you stretched Heathrow out to 600km long, it would be 20 metres wide.

I just measured the width of the track of HS1 just south of Ashford International and it's 16 metres. But we haven't yet taken into account the space required for cuttings and embankments, or new stations or new buildings required for the displaced occupants of buildings demolished to get the line into London and Glasgow and through Birmingham and Manchester (I assume you want the trains to stop there too).

Sorry to post such a downer. I love trains and I'd much rather travel to Glasgow on one than in a plane, but we do need to be realistic about the options.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to note I've done the house in Glasgow to office in Canary Wharf in just under 3 hours. Any upgrade to make Glasgow to London by rail including getting to and from office and home in anything like 4 hours is going to cost about 200bn, if you are lucky, and wouldn't be in place until way after I would be retired.

[Harrowby Hall]

I think you should consider what the meaning of "island" is.

"Great Britain" is the name of the island on which England, Scotland and Wales are situated.

I think that it is you who should consider what the meaning of "island" is.

It's size is, by the way, about  90% of that of Honshu (an island have visited on four occasions). The predominant mode of transport on Honshu is the shinkansen - a model for all railway systems anywhere.

[Udayana]

Don't really see a problem with Glasgow-London flights - as long as all of the pollution created is cleaned up, along with a generous contribution towards cleaning up pollution from a century of unrestricted flying.

However, you don't need a hub airport for local point to point flights. Build a separate, well connected by rail+road hub airport for long distance flying.  Or use Schiphol.

[Udayana]

I don't have strong opinions on Heathrow expansion, but I do think that solution from aviation will only be curtailed by improving technology - both for aircraft themselves, but also technology that replaces the need for air travel, whether that be better high speed rail for short distances, or remote conferencing type technologies.

But that wasn't really the point I wanted to make. My point is about the crazy timescale it takes for us in the UK to make decisions about major infrastructure projects, whether it be HS2 or Heathrow. We really must make these decisions quicker and then either scrap them or get on with them. And this isn't a new problem, its being going on for decades - remember the embarrassment when the channel tunnel opened and on the French side they were straight onto hundreds of miles of high speed rail, while in Kent for years the trains shared old slow lines through to London.

Isn't that because these projects are badly designed - carefully fucked up in support of, or in defiance of, various competing vested interests?

[jeremyp]

"Great Britain" is the name of the island on which England, Scotland and Wales are situated.

I think that it is you who should consider what the meaning of "island" is.

Do you have a point you want to make?

You seem to be assuming that nobody on this island wants to go anywhere that is not on this island? The meaning of "island" is "landmass surrounded by water".

It's size is, by the way, about  90% of that of Honshu (an island have visited on four occasions). The predominant mode of transport on Honshu is the shinkansen - a model for all railway systems anywhere.

Yes because Great Britain is exactly the same as Honshu except slightly smaller. /sarcasm.

[jeremyp]

Isn't that because these projects are badly designed - carefully fucked up in support of, or in defiance of, various competing vested interests?

How would you design HS2 differently such that everybody would accept it and stop whining?

I think making it go all the way to Glasgow would be quite a goods idea, but very expensive and likely to increase the whining rather than reduce it.

[Udayana]

How would you design HS2 differently such that everybody would accept it and stop whining?

I think making it go all the way to Glasgow would be quite a goods idea, but very expensive and likely to increase the whining rather than reduce it.

The original plan (with connections) seemed better. I think it is too late now.  - don't think it is economically viable. Expecting delivery of a white elephant in about 10 years.

The best thing to do now is get the existing systems working and increase capacity where possible. Get someone on workking out requirements and plans for the longer term.

[jeremyp]

The original plan (with connections) seemed better. I think it is too late now.  - don't think it is economically viable. Expecting delivery of a white elephant in about 10 years.

Adding stops slows the train down quite considerably. For example a class 800 which is a modern highish speed EMU that has replaced the old HSTs takes 78 seconds to accelerate from 0 to 125mph and nearly a minute to slow down to a stop from maximum speed. You quickly get to a point where the high speed service is only marginally faster than the existing service.

[Udayana]

Adding stops slows the train down quite considerably. For example a class 800 which is a modern highish speed EMU that has replaced the old HSTs takes 78 seconds to accelerate from 0 to 125mph and nearly a minute to slow down to a stop from maximum speed. You quickly get to a point where the high speed service is only marginally faster than the existing service.

True. But ... also need to consider the start and end points - no point having these at hard or awkward to get to stations. 

If considering higher speeds then the actual route becomes less important, so could be built alongside existing railways or motorways.

[Outrider]

On an island the size of Great Britain there should be little need for air services if we had an effective high speed rail system. Rail can provide city centre to city centre services. If we had a rail system like Japan's Shinkansen we wouldn't bother flying.

I travel considerable distances around the UK, and depending on where I'm going it can be by plane or train - it's not about the speed, primarily, it's about the cost.  There aren't many flights that cost me more for a round trip than £150, partly aided by the fact I'm within an hour's drive of three decent sized airports.  There's a train station in town, but it's not main-line, so we only get one service an hour, and as soon as I'm looking to go across London and out the other side I either need to travel outside of rush hour, stay overnight, work day two and come back outside of rush hour again, or the price goes over £200 without a blink.

To travel from the centre of, say, Glasgow by air you have to travel to the airport to arrive at least an hour before you flight time and you will spend about 30 minutes getting off the plane, collecting luggage and getting out of the terminal ... and then spend another hour getting to the City or the West End. A flight time of an hour or so has been supplemented by between three or four hours. A HST would have taken less than three hours - seated and possibly working.

Domestic flights you can book in before you leave home, and be at your departure gate half an hour before flight time - although depending on the time of day and the airport security can be a pain.  As to collecting luggage, if you're business travelling for one or two days you don't need to use hold luggage, and can simply walk away.

Incidentally, the people objecting to the potential destruction of historic woodland by HS2 should consider the fact that the completed railway from London to Birmingham will take up much less land than does Heathrow Airport.

But a lot more than than the expansion of Heathrow airport, much like the existing railway network takes up much more space than the current (or expanded) Heathrow... you aren't comparing like-for-like, here.

I'm against the Heathrow expansion, I'd rather see a northern hub developed, but then I'm against HS2 for much the same reasons.  As to the state of trains in the UK, privatisation hasn't worked at all because there isn't any genuine competition with the franchise model to make market forces work for the benefit of the market.

O.

[Owlswing]

There is an argument that a third runway would lower the overall level of carbon emissions. Jet aircraft proportionally use most fuel at low flight levels when they are not at cruising speed. Having only two runways means that at peak operating times  Heathrow-bound aircraft are put into holding patterns in which they circle at low level until given clearance to land. The pollution from these patterns is considerably greater than from a direct approach.

A third runway would reduce the incidence of holding patterns and the consequent carbon pollution.

This is fallacious! The idea is to allow MORE auircraft to use the airport! More aircraft more pollution - I live in a building where, if I look up at aircraft on final approach, they are low enough for me to see what colour underwear the female crew members are wearing! At that hight it means that the pollution from the engine exhausts takes next to no time to reach a hight at which people walking along the steet are breathing it.

Is is any wonder that respiratory disease in the area on either west or east sides of the airport are at epidemic proportions.

What must also be taken into consideration is the incease in pollution fronm the inbcreae in the number cars, busses and coaches bringing in the extra passengers and the lorries bingng in the extra freight.

The third runway was carefully promoted with little or no support from the area surrounding the airport and all ads purporting to show locals in support were faked!

Third Runway? An ecological disaster by another name! 

[Walter]

This is fallacious! The idea is to allow MORE auircraft to use the airport! More aircraft more pollution - I live in a building where, if I look up at aircraft on final approach, they are low enough for me to see what colour underwear the female crew members are wearing! At that hight it means that the pollution from the engine exhausts takes next to no time to reach a hight at which people walking along the steet are breathing it.

Is is any wonder that respiratory disease in the area on either west or east sides of the airport are at epidemic proportions.

What must also be taken into consideration is the incease in pollution fronm the inbcreae in the number cars, busses and coaches bringing in the extra passengers and the lorries bingng in the extra freight.

The third runway was carefully promoted with little or no support from the area surrounding the airport and all ads purporting to show locals in support were faked!

Third Runway? An ecological disaster by another name!

aww Owly

my heart bleeds