On the margin, compared to the alternative, this will:
1. Make flights to and from, and connecting flights through, Heathrow more expensive.
2. Move more flights to other neighboring airports.
3. Reduce the volume of people flying to/from/through the Heathrow and the UK in general.
I am not sure how much of each effect is needed to absorb the change.
If you make things more expensive, less people will buy that thing. It will reduce emissions in the UK by reducing the airtraffic through the UK. Exactly the intended consequence.
plus we can invest that money improving bus services and rail networks, which will help poorer people participate in the economy. If you can't get the bus to work, you probably don't need a plane to Dubai...
What do you mean by improving bus services? Greater West London is the most connected outside of Central, it's TfL policy not to invest in better, cleaner, greener buses not because the money is instead going to LHR expansion.
Personally I'm pro expansion but not too concerned if it never happens. However, it will be a great shame if, after all of this effort in the name of environment, these smaller issues I mentioned don't get solved.
All the way through the process I've struggled to understand who will benefit from Heathrow being a hub other than the airport itself. Especially now smaller airports have regular flights across the Atlantic and to other parts of the world.
Even if all the hub traffic went away Heathrow would still be a busy airport. There is a huge demand for air travel to and from London, the airport is at capacity now.
The title is a bit misleading. The court ruled that the government failed to take their climate change commitments into account in approving the third runway. They can go ahead with the third runway if they redo their approval taking climate change commitments into account (unlikely to happen as I understand the Prime Minister is against the third runway).
The PM was against it when doing that brought him votes. He’s long since wiggled out of any commitment. He could have scrapped it already if he wanted to. This is a PM who likes big infrastructure projects, he just needs to find half-decent political cover.
The Prime Minister was against it 5 years ago, when he was a constituency MP, on the back benches, in a constituency that would suffer more nosie and air pollution from another runway.
And who also supported an alternative of another runway built on reclaimed land nicknamed "Boris Island".
I live right next to Heathrow and am starting a micromobility company to tackle air pollution in this end of town, and hold an (albeit expired) PPL.
Air quality is bad here for humans on the ground due to the dilapidated 10 year old diesel buses that tfl allow in West London, and the vast amount of Single occupancy vehicles that commute to and from Heathrow every single day.
With the disaster that is Brexit on the horizon it's definitely not a good idea to scrap the expansion of LHR. I more than anyone want to clean up the environment in West London, but all things considered, it's not worth it to shoot ourselves in the foot and not expand Heathrow and a scrapping of the expansion is a hollow victory if all other issues impacting the West London environment are not addressed.
Cleaner buses, better incentives against SOV use, better alternatives to SOVs, steeper landing slope and other landing policies, properly maintained and seperated bike lanes, expedited and expanding plans for CS9, revised electric micromobility legislation (>500w & upto 20mph), more funding for local offsetting initiatives.
These make a difference for people on the ground, not not expanding Heathrow.
Edit: also right under the flight path. As most everyone else, got used to the noise.
I'm more optimistic, with Rolls Royce's new ultrafans expected to bring +25% efficiency gains and BA retiring the 747 program there is some hope.
But I agree with you in general. The things that we can clean up we should, with funding from the expansion, policy from gov and properly structured incentives/disincentives.
The question I think becomes one of are we trying to protect the locals, or fighting against the idea of air travel. Unfortunately the latter does not achieve the former in this case.
You can get carbon neutral hydrocarbon based fuels from either direct synthesis or biofuels. Hydrogen is theoretically more efficient, but has significant hurdles.
Interestingly commercial aircraft are surprisingly efficient per passenger mile. Norwegian Air Shuttle is sitting at the top with 104 mpg‑US per passenger, thanks to its fuel-efficient Boeing 787-8, a high 85% passenger load factor and a high density of 1.36 seat/m2 due to a low 9% premium seating.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft And that’s on top of generally being able to take more direct routes than land based transportation.
Meanwhile any efficiency savings are eaten up by huge increases in air travel. See Jevons paradox.
I'm also very sceptical that we can synthesise enough fuel to power even a fraction of the current fleet. We need to fix this problem now and that means relying on technology we have now.
As flying is frequently better for the environment than driving, increased flights might not be a bad thing for the environment. It really comes down to if their replacing existing travel or adding more travel.
Which is why I said: It really comes down to if their replacing existing travel or adding more travel.
The majority of flights are between locations you can drive to. Even long haul flights often have at least one leg within driving distance ie: DC > NYC > Hawaii rather than a direct flight.
Most people don’t live near Heathrow but even then the number of direct flights is limited. You can fly direct from Heathrow to a tiny number of airports in China, but from those airports you can then get to most cities in China.
Basically, you can fly from almost any airport to almost any other airport. But, you can only directly fly between a tiny subset of those pairs.
Ammonia, produced using renewable energy, is one carbon-neutral fuel that might work for aviation. The Royal Society just produced a full report on green ammonia and its possible role in a carbon-neutral economy: https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/green-ammon...
The new TfL rail line from Paddington (and peeling off from Elizabeth line) is electric, so, good. LHR can have a ULEZ and busses have more than ample opportunity to be cleaned up. This all comes down political will and proper incentives to get locals to clean up their commutes.
Once you take the m4 exit off the m25 you have warning signs for ULEZ already even though ULEZ is actually only the congestion charge zone and they don't hit it until they reach Hyde Park roundabout so it's not a stretch to have a lnother ULEZ out in Great West London since people are already fully aware of it.
In a perfect world there would be a staged rollout of ULEZ the epicenter being the A312 parkway/GWR roundabout then expanding down Great West Road until you hit the GSK building. As the ULEZ is rolled out, there would be heavy subsidies offered for EVs for residents in that increasing zone. Before all of that though, all local bus operates would have a 5 year age limit on all busses and strict emissions standards enforced. Residents would have the ability to report back and host subsidized air quality sensors+data, there would be a portal to report offending bus routes (just like there are noise abatement reporting procedures set up for airfields). There would be a mass overhaul of the cycle lane network from Southall down to feltham through Hounslow towards Heathrow airport.
I would also heavily subsidize Piccadilly line travel for LHR employees and extend the LHR free travel zone for busses up to Hounslow West station & Hayes and Harlington station (right now it's only up to hatton cross and Holiday Inn - people still have to pay to get there and instead just opt to drive).
Enforcement of an LHR ULEZ would be at the end of a whole list of measures. Unfortunately due to budget cuts and privatization, a lot of these are not even considered feasible.
Yes that's why I mentioned the zone would move Eastward from the A312 parkway, allowing outside traffic to easily come into LHR for pickup/dropoff without the increased restrictions.
> With the disaster that is Brexit on the horizon it's definitely not a good idea to scrap the expansion of LHR.
Wait, what? This doesn't follow at all. And expanding LHR will naturally increase the amount of ground traffic, including diesels?
The UK's increasing immigration tightness is difficult to reconcile with airport expansion, and an economic contraction is likely to hit demand for air travel. As is all question of global warming: from building a new runway you could estimate e.g. one plane landing every 5 minutes 12 hours a day is how much additional CO2 emissions?
> one plane landing every 5 minutes 12 hours a day is how much additional CO2 emissions
That's quite a reductionist view point. Operating Heathrow at something near 100% capacity, as it currently does, means that aircraft spend a huge amount of time queueing on the ground (burning a surprising fraction of the fuel they'd use in the air), going around a holding pattern or being vectored all over the sky.
> With the disaster that is Brexit on the horizon it's definitely not a good idea to scrap the expansion of LHR.
Wait, what? This doesn't follow at all. And expanding LHR will naturally increase the amount of ground traffic, including diesels?
Not if old diesel busses are banned in greater West London? I too can add a question mark at the end of a non-question? Wow?
>economic contraction is likely to hit demand for air travel.
Economic contraction, government deregulation/tax cuts, decreased pricing, increase demand. Economic systems don't stop after the first step.
>one plane landing every 5 minutes 12 hours a day is how much additional CO2 emissions?
Misconception. Airplanes are pretty much idling during landing, especially with recent regulations calling for steeper approaches for A380. Extra runway = more throughput = less time spent taxiing = decreased emissions on ground per flight.
I for one have never understood (aside from the network effect and lack of choice) why anyone actively chooses to connect through LHR. The taxes on airfare are extortionate just because they can, you have to pay (!) for on-airport hotel shuttle buses, the facilities are dilapidated and designed with, um, British sensibilities, and transferring / security is an ordeal given how cheaply they choose to (under)staff the services.
It is pretty nearly the opposite of a SIN, MUC, or DXB, in my mind.
It’s not terribly worse than most major hubs in the area. The only one I would rate higher, more or less in the same range from US east coast (which I guess is the major market for hub-like traffic in LHR) is Schiphol, but that’s another sprawl that probably cannot grow much more. Munich is nice but it’s so much smaller and significantly further afar from the US. CDG is an utter dump. I don’t know about the Spanish options, maybe those could compete more actively, but maybe they’ve got their hands full with SouthAmerican traffic.
I’ve only ever flown into Gatwick and it surprises me that they haven’t expanded it with the aim of taking more business from Heathrow. If you’re operating as a transit hub, it doesn’t matter that you’re a train ride away from London. The network effect must be really strong.
But effectively it's centrally planned and only one of them is going to get the permission. Transport links between the two aren't as great as you'd like either.
People have gotten so used to flying they can't see how dependent and entitled they've become. When I share that I'm about to start my fifth year without flying, everyone tells me how impossible it is for them but they never try.
If they tried, they'd realize how much flying is spreading their lives and communities thin, undermining community.
A flight will bring you to a distant loved one. Flying in general disperses communities so you have to fly. Meanwhile we let our communities get covered with litter and garbage dreaming of escape enabled by flying.
Indeed. The mpg per person for a modern passenger plane is better than the average US car (assuming a single-person journey by car). The most important factor here is miles travelled, not the mode of transport used.
The fatality per mile rate is also wildly lower for commercial flight, so driving instead of flying is 750x [1] more likely to result in you never making it to your destination.
The second time I took a flight, it was from Denver to San Francisco, to visit family. At that point, the nuclear family's itinerary had been Pennsylvania-DC-Ohio-Colorado. The uncle and aunt's itinerary had been Pennsylvania-New York-Kentucky-Texas-California. All this dispersal was managed by automobile.
57 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 114 ms ] threadI am not sure how much of each effect is needed to absorb the change.
Personally I'm pro expansion but not too concerned if it never happens. However, it will be a great shame if, after all of this effort in the name of environment, these smaller issues I mentioned don't get solved.
Why would an airport be any different? >50% of the employees are going to be ground crew, security agents, etc.
I applaud the ingenuity of whomever managed to come up with and press home this argument but it feels like a stretch to me.
As someone who lives under the flight path of Heathrow I can't say I'll shed any tears if the third runway is permanently blocked by it though.
And who also supported an alternative of another runway built on reclaimed land nicknamed "Boris Island".
Air quality is bad here for humans on the ground due to the dilapidated 10 year old diesel buses that tfl allow in West London, and the vast amount of Single occupancy vehicles that commute to and from Heathrow every single day.
With the disaster that is Brexit on the horizon it's definitely not a good idea to scrap the expansion of LHR. I more than anyone want to clean up the environment in West London, but all things considered, it's not worth it to shoot ourselves in the foot and not expand Heathrow and a scrapping of the expansion is a hollow victory if all other issues impacting the West London environment are not addressed.
Cleaner buses, better incentives against SOV use, better alternatives to SOVs, steeper landing slope and other landing policies, properly maintained and seperated bike lanes, expedited and expanding plans for CS9, revised electric micromobility legislation (>500w & upto 20mph), more funding for local offsetting initiatives.
These make a difference for people on the ground, not not expanding Heathrow.
Edit: also right under the flight path. As most everyone else, got used to the noise.
But I agree with you in general. The things that we can clean up we should, with funding from the expansion, policy from gov and properly structured incentives/disincentives.
The question I think becomes one of are we trying to protect the locals, or fighting against the idea of air travel. Unfortunately the latter does not achieve the former in this case.
Interestingly commercial aircraft are surprisingly efficient per passenger mile. Norwegian Air Shuttle is sitting at the top with 104 mpg‑US per passenger, thanks to its fuel-efficient Boeing 787-8, a high 85% passenger load factor and a high density of 1.36 seat/m2 due to a low 9% premium seating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft And that’s on top of generally being able to take more direct routes than land based transportation.
I'm also very sceptical that we can synthesise enough fuel to power even a fraction of the current fleet. We need to fix this problem now and that means relying on technology we have now.
You can't drive across the Atlantic or Pacific, this a rather silly argument.
The majority of flights are between locations you can drive to. Even long haul flights often have at least one leg within driving distance ie: DC > NYC > Hawaii rather than a direct flight.
Not out of Heathrow they aren't.
Basically, you can fly from almost any airport to almost any other airport. But, you can only directly fly between a tiny subset of those pairs.
In a perfect world there would be a staged rollout of ULEZ the epicenter being the A312 parkway/GWR roundabout then expanding down Great West Road until you hit the GSK building. As the ULEZ is rolled out, there would be heavy subsidies offered for EVs for residents in that increasing zone. Before all of that though, all local bus operates would have a 5 year age limit on all busses and strict emissions standards enforced. Residents would have the ability to report back and host subsidized air quality sensors+data, there would be a portal to report offending bus routes (just like there are noise abatement reporting procedures set up for airfields). There would be a mass overhaul of the cycle lane network from Southall down to feltham through Hounslow towards Heathrow airport.
I would also heavily subsidize Piccadilly line travel for LHR employees and extend the LHR free travel zone for busses up to Hounslow West station & Hayes and Harlington station (right now it's only up to hatton cross and Holiday Inn - people still have to pay to get there and instead just opt to drive).
Enforcement of an LHR ULEZ would be at the end of a whole list of measures. Unfortunately due to budget cuts and privatization, a lot of these are not even considered feasible.
Wait, what? This doesn't follow at all. And expanding LHR will naturally increase the amount of ground traffic, including diesels?
The UK's increasing immigration tightness is difficult to reconcile with airport expansion, and an economic contraction is likely to hit demand for air travel. As is all question of global warming: from building a new runway you could estimate e.g. one plane landing every 5 minutes 12 hours a day is how much additional CO2 emissions?
That's quite a reductionist view point. Operating Heathrow at something near 100% capacity, as it currently does, means that aircraft spend a huge amount of time queueing on the ground (burning a surprising fraction of the fuel they'd use in the air), going around a holding pattern or being vectored all over the sky.
Not if old diesel busses are banned in greater West London? I too can add a question mark at the end of a non-question? Wow?
>economic contraction is likely to hit demand for air travel.
Economic contraction, government deregulation/tax cuts, decreased pricing, increase demand. Economic systems don't stop after the first step.
>one plane landing every 5 minutes 12 hours a day is how much additional CO2 emissions?
Misconception. Airplanes are pretty much idling during landing, especially with recent regulations calling for steeper approaches for A380. Extra runway = more throughput = less time spent taxiing = decreased emissions on ground per flight.
LHR aims average of every 2 mins.
It is pretty nearly the opposite of a SIN, MUC, or DXB, in my mind.
But effectively it's centrally planned and only one of them is going to get the permission. Transport links between the two aren't as great as you'd like either.
If they tried, they'd realize how much flying is spreading their lives and communities thin, undermining community.
A flight will bring you to a distant loved one. Flying in general disperses communities so you have to fly. Meanwhile we let our communities get covered with litter and garbage dreaming of escape enabled by flying.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U...