|
Massive Airport expansion announced
So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3322277.stm This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions. The noise from Heathrow airport alone affects some 1 million people. There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not essential for the general operation of our society. While many people are quite aware of the environmental impact of road traffic, air travel has got off scott free, essentially the attitude towards airport expansion is rather like the attitude to road expansion 50 years ago. I think some serious questions need to be asked, specifically whether this really is necessary, and what the costs and benefits of increased air travel. As far as I can see, being able to go on holiday twice a year instead of once is nice, but the environmental damage is a price that is not worth paying. Of course, airlines are big industries, and like any big industries, they have the money to sway the opinion of the Government of the day. Parties should be funded by general taxation, not through "donations" - but this is perhaps an issue for another time ;) |
Massive Airport expansion announced
"Oliver Keating" wrote in message ... So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton: One new runway for the least useful airport for the bulk of the population of SE England is hardly a massive expansion. Luton gets to use its current ruwnay a bit more and Heathrow might get a new runway, if it can meet pollution levels that it cannot achieve with the current ones. This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions. These minor expansions will not give anywhere near the capacity to achieve that sort of level of growth. The noise from Heathrow airport alone affects some 1 million people. The majority of whom would have been born after it was built, so it has been there longer than they have. There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not essential for the general operation of our society. A lot of people would argue that holidays are essential for the successful operation of our society. However, according to Newsnight, the main growth area is now in the middle-to-high income bracket travellers. .... As far as I can see, being able to go on holiday twice a year instead of once is nice, but the environmental damage is a price that is not worth paying. Nobody is forcing you to take two holidays a year if you think that, but I will continue to take my usual three and I have a target of at least one long weekend in France each month as well. My personal view is that it is a pity that Gatwick did not get another runway and that the RAF never finished Heathrow's nine runways before they handed it over. Colin Bignell |
Massive Airport expansion announced
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 03:06:13 -0000, nightjar wrote:
The majority of whom would have been born after it was built, so it has been there longer than they have. I live under the proposed third runway flightpath, at present I cannot hear a single plane. How could I have guessed that a 3rd runway was on the cards, especially when the 5th terminal inspector placed a flight cap on the airport? Not that it matters, as BAA can never meet the NOX limits. Even with super clean planes behind current technical abilities, they will blow the figure on cars travelling to the airport alone. Unless they can persuade everyone to take a bus (ho ho ho) they don't stand a chance, Heathrow will become very unpopular fast when it costs £10 to go down the M4 spur. Of course given the number of Labour MP's in the West London area you might think the government already knew this. Steve |
Massive Airport expansion announced
"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert_my_surname_here wrote in message ... "Oliver Keating" wrote in message ... So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton: One new runway for the least useful airport for the bulk of the population of SE England is hardly a massive expansion. Luton gets to use its current ruwnay a bit more and Heathrow might get a new runway, if it can meet pollution levels that it cannot achieve with the current ones. This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions. These minor expansions will not give anywhere near the capacity to achieve that sort of level of growth. The noise from Heathrow airport alone affects some 1 million people. The majority of whom would have been born after it was built, so it has been there longer than they have. There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not essential for the general operation of our society. A lot of people would argue that holidays are essential for the successful operation of our society. However, according to Newsnight, the main growth area is now in the middle-to-high income bracket travellers. ... As far as I can see, being able to go on holiday twice a year instead of once is nice, but the environmental damage is a price that is not worth paying. Nobody is forcing you to take two holidays a year if you think that, but I will continue to take my usual three and I have a target of at least one long weekend in France each month as well. My personal view is that it is a pity that Gatwick did not get another runway and that the RAF never finished Heathrow's nine runways before they handed it over. And of course if one is "only" travelling as far as the South of France one doesn't have to fly does one? |
Massive Airport expansion announced
"nightjar" wrote in message . ..
"Oliver Keating" wrote in message ... So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton: One new runway for the least useful airport for the bulk of the population of SE England is hardly a massive expansion. Luton gets to use its current ruwnay a bit more and Heathrow might get a new runway, if it can meet pollution levels that it cannot achieve with the current ones. Pollution levels do not include CO2 , they usually are only NOx , CO , and SO2 which are a lot easier to meet. And how is it useful for the bulk of the population? You think that Fred the bus driver needs to go to an important business meeting in franfurt every other week? This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions. These minor expansions will not give anywhere near the capacity to achieve that sort of level of growth. Even if its 20% and not 40% , it doesn't matter. Its increasing , thats the problem. It should be decreasing. There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not essential for the general operation of our society. A lot of people would argue that holidays are essential for the successful operation of our society. Holidays may be nice , but they're hardly essential. Ask any farmer. Besides which there are plenty of ways to travel without using an aircraft. Nobody is forcing you to take two holidays a year if you think that, but I will continue to take my usual three and I have a target of at least one long weekend in France each month as well. Bully for you. And when you wonder why england in 30 years is like the south of france (and southern europe is a semi desert) and all the mative faunu is dying perhaps you can explain to your kids that it was partly down to the selfishness, indifference and extravagance of people like yourself. My personal view is that it is a pity that Gatwick did not get another runway and that the RAF never finished Heathrow's nine runways before they handed it over. You're a bit of an arsehole arn't you? B2003 |
Massive Airport expansion announced
"Oliver Keating" wrote in message ...
So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3322277.stm This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions. The noise from Heathrow airport alone affects some 1 million people. There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not essential for the general operation of our society. While many people are quite aware of the environmental impact of road traffic, air travel has got off scott free, essentially the attitude towards airport expansion is rather like the attitude to road expansion 50 years ago. I think some serious questions need to be asked, specifically whether this really is necessary, and what the costs and benefits of increased air travel. As far as I can see, being able to go on holiday twice a year instead of once is nice, but the environmental damage is a price that is not worth paying. Of course, airlines are big industries, and like any big industries, they have the money to sway the opinion of the Government of the day. Well said. Pity no one in government really gives a toss about the enviroment and they'll be too old to care when the consequences really start to take effect. Somehoe I don't think our grandchildren will look back on our generation with much affection. B2003 |
Massive Airport expansion announced
"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
... So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3322277.stm This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions. And it's put directly into the upper atmosphere which has more of a detrimental effect than if it were released at ground level. There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not essential for the general operation of our society. Exactly. Much of the air travel expansion in the last few years has been with the budget airlines. These are typically short hops which, if there was a sufficiently good high-speed rail network, would be unnecessary. In addition, if these short hop flights were removed from airports there would be the space available for long-haul flights without the need for airport expansion. While many people are quite aware of the environmental impact of road traffic, air travel has got off scott free, essentially the attitude towards airport expansion is rather like the attitude to road expansion 50 years ago. Indeed. Take, for example, no tax being placed on aviation fuel. Wasn't DB (German railways) going to sue the EU or something for letting aviation fuel stay untaxed? I can't remember... I think some serious questions need to be asked, specifically whether this really is necessary, and what the costs and benefits of increased air travel. This question should be asked of *all* forms of travel. Do we really to travel as much as we do? The problem is, more capacity creates more demand, which then outstrips capacity, so more capacity needs to be provided. We blatantly can't carry on like this forever, so a government somewhere along the line has to limit the demand, either passively by letting congestion put people off, or actively by using tolls or price increases. One simple way to do this to alleviate the rush-hour peak is to give tax incentives to companies who let people have more flexible working hours to try to spread the rush out. Sorry this has turned into a rant! :-) Angus |
Massive Airport expansion announced
"nightjar" nightjar@insert_my_surname_here wrote:
"Oliver Keating" wrote... So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton: One new runway for the least useful airport for the bulk of the population of SE England is hardly a massive expansion. Luton gets to use its current ruwnay a bit more and Heathrow might get a new runway, if it can meet pollution levels that it cannot achieve with the current ones. And Gatwick may get one if Heathrow doesn't. 'Tis an absurd waste of money to preserve what is effectively the status quo, when the alternatives are just as good! This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions. That's a rather pessimistic figure - I hope the percentage will be much HIGHER due to more use of renewable energy for electric power and land transport! These minor expansions will not give anywhere near the capacity to achieve that sort of level of growth. I'd classify these as major expansions (even though more capacity could be achieved with minor expansons). The noise from Heathrow airport alone affects some 1 million people. The majority of whom would have been born after it was built, so it has been there longer than they have. There are many exceptions (Her Majesty included) but I don't think that's the point. Many more people would be inconvenienced by the noise from an extra runway. There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not essential for the general operation of our society. A lot of people would argue that holidays are essential for the successful operation of our society. However, according to Newsnight, the main growth area is now in the middle-to-high income bracket travellers. Even if you assume overseas holidays are essential, there's no need to build more runways at the main airports. England has HUNDREDS of disused and underused runways, many of which are suitable for conversion to airports. ... As far as I can see, being able to go on holiday twice a year instead of once is nice, but the environmental damage is a price that is not worth paying. What would you regard as a price worth paying? Nobody is forcing you to take two holidays a year if you think that, but I will continue to take my usual three and I have a target of at least one long weekend in France each month as well. My personal view is that it is a pity that Gatwick did not get another runway and that the RAF never finished Heathrow's nine runways before they handed it over. I wasn't aware there were ever plans for Heathrow to have nine runways. Where were the other three going to be? I think Heathrow's better off as it is. It will be possible to more than double the number of passengers simply by using bigger aircraft! Another runway would have serious safety implications if there's a missed approach on the center runway. |
Massive Airport expansion announced
Aidan Stanger wrote:
snip Another runway would have serious safety implications if there's a missed approach on the center runway. Rubbish! They currently use one for takeoffs and one for landings - how would the situation be any worse with a third runway? -- MrBitsy |
Massive Airport expansion announced
Angus Bryant wrote:
This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions. And it's put directly into the upper atmosphere which has more of a detrimental effect than if it were released at ground level. I've heard this claim an awful lot, but not an explanation as to why. What effect does CO2 have in the upper atmosphere that it does not have at ground level? |
Massive Airport expansion announced
Aidan Stanger wrote:
"nightjar" nightjar@insert_my_surname_here wrote: "Oliver Keating" wrote... The noise from Heathrow airport alone affects some 1 million people. The majority of whom would have been born after it was built, so it has been there longer than they have. There are many exceptions (Her Majesty included) but I don't think that's the point. Many more people would be inconvenienced by the noise from an extra runway. Actually the government yesterday imposed a very stringent limit on noise at Heathrow which should have the effect of ensuring that more people are *not* inconvenienced. Darling has committed to the 3rd runway being conditional on the area of the 57 dBA noise contour being frozen at last year's figure of 127 sq km. The SERAS study claimed that a 3rd runway would expand the noise contour area to more than 200 sg km; then last year's consultation paper decided this was too pessimistic and predicted figures as low as 153 sq km, before conceding grudgingly that it was just about possible to keep within the 145 sq km limit imposed by the conditions for building Terminal 5, even with 3 runways. Now the government says it must be not more than 127 sq km. I think this may be more difficult to meet than the air quality limits. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Massive Airport expansion announced
"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
... Angus Bryant wrote: This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions. And it's put directly into the upper atmosphere which has more of a detrimental effect than if it were released at ground level. I've heard this claim an awful lot, but not an explanation as to why. What effect does CO2 have in the upper atmosphere that it does not have at ground level? Try this (esp. section 3.43) http://www.aet.org.uk/PDFs/RCEP%20Ai...n%20flight.pdf Angus |
Massive Airport expansion announced
..
There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not essential for the general operation of our society. If you mean Budget Holidays as in the expanison of budget airlines flying from airports. Business travellers are tending to go more by budget airlines. Why should a business pay three times the amount just so its middle manager can have a leather seat and a cup of tea for free on their one hour flight? And the other big growth that has helped budget airlines has been the growth in number of people with second homes in Spain and France flying there for the weekend. Whilist I would agree rich people sipping red wine in their second homes should be forced to sell the home and give the money to homeless people. I think that budget holidays are essential. Poor people should be allowed to travel aboard too. Have you ever been to Cleethorpes and Scarborough? You can see why us poor folk would rather leave the country than go there. Lots of things are not essential for the general opreation of society. i.e alcohol. Try banning that. But think about the benefit to society. Instead of saying lets rise prices so only rich people can fly. Lets embrace the fact that more and more people can fly. The world is getting smaller. Lets celebrate it. Especially today. Celebration of 100 years flight and that (unless you read the Guardian and then your belive flight was invented by a Brazilan) |
Massive Airport expansion announced
"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message ... Angus Bryant wrote: This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions. And it's put directly into the upper atmosphere which has more of a detrimental effect than if it were released at ground level. I've heard this claim an awful lot, but not an explanation as to why. What effect does CO2 have in the upper atmosphere that it does not have at ground level? The green house effect is caused by CO2 in the upper atmosphere bouncing back infra-red radiation to the earth. The fact is, incoming radiation from the sun is high frequency because the sun is very hot. CO2 is transparant to high frequency radiation. The Earth is much cooler, so it emits low-frequency radiation, which CO2 absorbs and reflects - hence greenhouse. CO2 at ground level has little effect, but in the upper atmosphere its where it really has it's effects. So in theory, a pollution source that puts CO2 straight up there, rather than at ground level will do more harm. The argument is slightly spurious because atmospheric gases have an excellent mixing coefficient, and any local high concerntrations of CO2 will be rapidly mixed until the concerntration is nearly uniform - indeed recent analysis found that the concerntration of CO2 was extremely constant around the world. |
Massive Airport expansion announced
"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert_my_surname_here wrote in message ... "Oliver Keating" wrote in message ... So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton: One new runway for the least useful airport for the bulk of the population of SE England is hardly a massive expansion. Luton gets to use its current ruwnay a bit more and Heathrow might get a new runway, if it can meet pollution levels that it cannot achieve with the current ones. Considering there are less than ten runways in the SE, one extra one is quite significant. But also there was talk of Heathrow terminal 6 (!) and a third one. Basically expansion across the board, except for Gatwick. This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions. These minor expansions will not give anywhere near the capacity to achieve that sort of level of growth. Admittedtly the USA is responsible for much of this, but even so, air travel is the fastest growing source of CO2 emmissions, and that is something everyone should be concerned by. The noise from Heathrow airport alone affects some 1 million people. The majority of whom would have been born after it was built, so it has been there longer than they have. I really doubt that. Heathrow effects much of west London, the noise may not be as unbearable as right next door, but it is still there. There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not essential for the general operation of our society. A lot of people would argue that holidays are essential for the successful operation of our society. However, according to Newsnight, the main growth area is now in the middle-to-high income bracket travellers. This is dubious. 50 years ago hardly anyone went abroad to go on holiday, and we got on fine then. Besides, I am sure lots of these business meetings could make better use of telecommunications. Now I know they are not a substitute for being there, but they could be used on more occasions. ... As far as I can see, being able to go on holiday twice a year instead of once is nice, but the environmental damage is a price that is not worth paying. Nobody is forcing you to take two holidays a year if you think that, but I will continue to take my usual three and I have a target of at least one long weekend in France each month as well. My personal view is that it is a pity that Gatwick did not get another runway and that the RAF never finished Heathrow's nine runways before they handed it over. I find people who claim not be green quite amusing. By ignoring the problems they somehow feel immune to the situation, or worse yet, simply deny any problem exists because they are unable to face the truth. Colin Bignell |
Massive Airport expansion announced
"MrBitsy" wrote in message ... Aidan Stanger wrote: snip Another runway would have serious safety implications if there's a missed approach on the center runway. Rubbish! They currently use one for takeoffs and one for landings - how would the situation be any worse with a third runway? At present if an a/c taking off need to divert suddenly they simply turn away from the other runway's flight path. If you have three working in parallel where doe the middle one go? |
Massive Airport expansion announced
Cast_Iron wrote:
"MrBitsy" wrote in message ... Aidan Stanger wrote: snip Another runway would have serious safety implications if there's a missed approach on the center runway. Rubbish! They currently use one for takeoffs and one for landings - how would the situation be any worse with a third runway? At present if an a/c taking off need to divert suddenly they simply turn away from the other runway's flight path. If you have three working in parallel where doe the middle one go? The issue is not about a/c "needing to divert suddenly" but needing to go around for another approach to land. If both the other runways have a/c taking off at the time, I guess the middle a/c would fly straight ahead until it was safe to turn under one of the other take-off paths. It makes the circuit a bit longer, that's all. Presumably the problem has been solved at Paris CDG and other multi-runway airports. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Massive Airport expansion announced
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:01:22 +0000, Steve Peake
wrote: How could I have guessed that a 3rd runway was on the cards, especially when the 5th terminal inspector placed a flight cap on the airport? perhaps because the plans for the third runway were drawn up years ago. It didn't take a rocket scientist to anticipate that one day there was a chance they might come to something. -- Lansbury www.uk-air.net FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup |
Massive Airport expansion announced
"Oliver Keating" wrote in message ... So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3322277.stm This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions. sinp Luddites like you will put millions on the dole queue. |
Massive Airport expansion announced
"CJG Now Thankfully Living In The North" wrote in message om... . There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not essential for the general operation of our society. If you mean Budget Holidays as in the expanison of budget airlines flying from airports. Business travellers are tending to go more by budget airlines. Why should a business pay three times the amount just so its middle manager can have a leather seat and a cup of tea for free on their one hour flight? To be honest, I am not sure quite a lot of these meetings have any value at all. The managers fly out there, stay in an expensive hotel, then meet for about an hour and have a chat which usually doesn't actually do anything productive and ends with "i'll e-mail you with the details and we can take it from there". Great, could have done that in the first place. And the other big growth that has helped budget airlines has been the growth in number of people with second homes in Spain and France flying there for the weekend. Whilist I would agree rich people sipping red wine in their second homes should be forced to sell the home and give the money to homeless people. I think that budget holidays are essential. Poor people should be allowed to travel aboard too. Have you ever been to Cleethorpes and Scarborough? You can see why us poor folk would rather leave the country than go there. Lots of things are not essential for the general opreation of society. i.e alcohol. Try banning that. But think about the benefit to society. Instead of saying lets rise prices so only rich people can fly. Lets embrace the fact that more and more people can fly. The world is getting smaller. Lets celebrate it. Especially today. Celebration of 100 years flight and that (unless you read the Guardian and then your belive flight was invented by a Brazilan) Celebrate the world by destorying it? The problem is like this: air travel causes a lot of pollution, and we have to ask the question of how to we ensure that all those trips are absolutely necessary? Well, the only method that we can be sure works is by price. A high price will force users to judge how necessary their flight is. Just look at the drop in traffic after congestion traffic, all of these journeys that were "absolutely essential" or "could not be made any other way" were obvious not essential enough to warrant £5 expenditure. Yes pricing the poor out of the skies is a social injustice, but it could be argued that is merely caused by the ever widening gap between rich and poor in this country - a totally seperate issue! |
Massive Airport expansion announced
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message ... "nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert_my_surname_here wrote in message ... "Oliver Keating" wrote in message ... So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton: One new runway for the least useful airport for the bulk of the population of SE England is hardly a massive expansion. Luton gets to use its current ruwnay a bit more and Heathrow might get a new runway, if it can meet pollution levels that it cannot achieve with the current ones. This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions. These minor expansions will not give anywhere near the capacity to achieve that sort of level of growth. The noise from Heathrow airport alone affects some 1 million people. The majority of whom would have been born after it was built, so it has been there longer than they have. There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not essential for the general operation of our society. A lot of people would argue that holidays are essential for the successful operation of our society. However, according to Newsnight, the main growth area is now in the middle-to-high income bracket travellers. ... As far as I can see, being able to go on holiday twice a year instead of once is nice, but the environmental damage is a price that is not worth paying. Nobody is forcing you to take two holidays a year if you think that, but I will continue to take my usual three and I have a target of at least one long weekend in France each month as well. My personal view is that it is a pity that Gatwick did not get another runway and that the RAF never finished Heathrow's nine runways before they handed it over. And of course if one is "only" travelling as far as the South of France one doesn't have to fly does one? No, one doesn't. Eurostar to Lille, then TGV direct to Avignon, and Montpelier or Marseilles. 183mph almost all the way. Colin |
Massive Airport expansion announced
Eurostar to Lille, then TGV direct to Avignon, and Montpelier or
Marseilles. 183mph almost all the way. How come when a train does 183 mph, everyone's all like "woohoo, this is the best thing ever, trains rule"... but when a car does 183 mph, everyone's all like "what an irresponsible, dangerous thing to do, why won't you think of the children?!?!?!?" |
Massive Airport expansion announced
"Chris Jones" wrote the following
in: Eurostar to Lille, then TGV direct to Avignon, and Montpelier or Marseilles. 183mph almost all the way. How come when a train does 183 mph, everyone's all like "woohoo, this is the best thing ever, trains rule"... but when a car does 183 mph, everyone's all like "what an irresponsible, dangerous thing to do, why won't you think of the children?!?!?!?" Because trains are pretty safe at 183mph whereas cars are pretty dangerous. -- message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith. Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can. Robin May may be my name, but Robin is my first name. |
Massive Airport expansion announced
Robin May wrote:
"Chris Jones" wrote the following in: Eurostar to Lille, then TGV direct to Avignon, and Montpelier or Marseilles. 183mph almost all the way. How come when a train does 183 mph, everyone's all like "woohoo, this is the best thing ever, trains rule"... but when a car does 183 mph, everyone's all like "what an irresponsible, dangerous thing to do, why won't you think of the children?!?!?!?" Because trains are pretty safe at 183mph whereas cars are pretty dangerous. Given a clear track and a highly-trained driver and I would suggest a car easily capable of 183 mph would be fairly safe. And there aren't many trains operating in the UK that can safely do anything like 183 mph. A Pacer dmu is far more alarming than a Mondeo at 50. -- http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William Pitt, 1783) |
Massive Airport expansion announced
Because trains are pretty safe at 183mph whereas cars are
pretty dangerous. But train tracks don't have the visibility for 183 mph. If some kids throw some garbage onto the line (like they did a few weeks ago when they pushed a car onto the CTRL), by the time the train driver sees it, too late he's dead. He can't steer around it or take any other avoiding action. Sounds pretty dangerous to me. |
Massive Airport expansion announced
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message ... .... And of course if one is "only" travelling as far as the South of France one doesn't have to fly does one? Gatwick to Toulouse or Montpellier with BA scheduled flight is a couple of hours for around £60 + taxes per person return. Driving is a couple of days each way, at around £1,000 for the trip, last time I did it. London to Montpellier by Eurostar and TGV is 7-8 hours and £109 return. So, I don't have to fly, but, particularly important for a long weekend, it is the quickest and the cheapest way to travel. Colin Bignell |
Massive Airport expansion announced
"Oliver Keating" wrote in message ... "nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert_my_surname_here wrote in message ... "Oliver Keating" wrote in message ... So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton: One new runway for the least useful airport for the bulk of the population of SE England is hardly a massive expansion. Luton gets to use its current ruwnay a bit more and Heathrow might get a new runway, if it can meet pollution levels that it cannot achieve with the current ones. Considering there are less than ten runways in the SE, one extra one is quite significant. Not if you build it where it is least needed. Stansted could cope with a 50% increase in traffic using the existing runway alone. Heathrow and Gatwick, which have much more populated catchement areas, are both working at over 90% capacity. But also there was talk of Heathrow terminal 6 (!) and a third one. Basically expansion across the board, except for Gatwick. All ringed around with so many provisos that it is unlikely that any of them will come to fruit. Personally, I think that the government is just creating a smoke screen, while they wait until they can give Gatwick its second runway, by which time it will be too little, too late. This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions. These minor expansions will not give anywhere near the capacity to achieve that sort of level of growth. Admittedtly the USA is responsible for much of this, but even so, air travel is the fastest growing source of CO2 emmissions, and that is something everyone should be concerned by. However, long term predictions are notoriously unreliable. If you believe past forecasts on that sort of timescale, we ran out of coal last century, have no more oil and are all using clean nuclear fuelled electricity. The next generation of airliners will use 20% less fuel and I have little doubt that the designers are working on ones that are even cheaper to run. ..... There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not essential for the general operation of our society. A lot of people would argue that holidays are essential for the successful operation of our society. However, according to Newsnight, the main growth area is now in the middle-to-high income bracket travellers. This is dubious. 50 years ago hardly anyone went abroad to go on holiday, and we got on fine then. 50 years ago, virtually nobody had a TV and few houses had central heating but people's expectations of the minimum standard of living change. .... I find people who claim not be green quite amusing. By ignoring the problems they somehow feel immune to the situation, or worse yet, simply deny any problem exists because they are unable to face the truth. Or, those of us who recall the London killer smog, have a different perspective on what constitutes a problem. Colin Bignell |
Massive Airport expansion announced
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:50:05 -0000, "Chris Jones"
wrote: Because trains are pretty safe at 183mph whereas cars are pretty dangerous. But train tracks don't have the visibility for 183 mph. If some kids throw some garbage onto the line (like they did a few weeks ago when they pushed a car onto the CTRL), by the time the train driver sees it, too late he's dead. He can't steer around it or take any other avoiding action. Sounds pretty dangerous to me. Yes, but you might be ludicrously biased. Rail lines are not perfectly safe. But are you *seriously* trying to allege that any real or imagined problem you can come up with for a train to deal with doesn't have a road parallel? Your car, at 183mph, has to contend with cars operated by distracted drivers, drivers at 57mph, drivers who are drunk, pedestrians throwing rocks from bridges, drivers who are making ill-considered judgements about weather conditions, etc. Malc. |
Massive Airport expansion announced
wrote:
The runways are offset so there is scope for an early turn. AFAICS this is not the case for the Heathrow plans. International Procedures have to be adhered and this is taken into account when designing the airfield. There are procedures that should prevent any incedent from occurring. However, if something goes wrong then Air Traffic Control would have little time to react, and I consider that to be a problem. Did you see the BBC docufake "The Day Britain Stopped"? Their plane crash scenario is not very realistic under the present situation, but if a third runway were to be constructed then the risk would increase by several orders of magnitude. |
Massive Airport expansion announced
|
Massive Airport expansion announced
Oliver Keating wrote:
"Aidan Stanger" wrote... Angus Bryant wrote: This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions. And it's put directly into the upper atmosphere which has more of a detrimental effect than if it were released at ground level. I've heard this claim an awful lot, but not an explanation as to why. What effect does CO2 have in the upper atmosphere that it does not have at ground level? The green house effect is caused by CO2 in the upper atmosphere bouncing back infra-red radiation to the earth. Are you sure? I thoght it was caused by the atmosphere absorbing the radiation. The fact is, incoming radiation from the sun is high frequency because the sun is very hot. CO2 is transparant to high frequency radiation. Incoming radiation is a mixture of high and low frequencies. The Earth is much cooler, so it emits low-frequency radiation, which CO2 absorbs and reflects - hence greenhouse. I'd not heard anything about the reflection effects of CO2 before. Have you got a source for that? However, I had heard about the reflection effects of H2O, of which there is quite a lot in aircraft exhaust emissions. The URL Angus supplied confirms that H2O in the stratosphere is thought to be a problem due to the amount of back radiation it reflects being slightly higher than the amount of incoming radiation it reflects - although scientists are far from certain on this. CO2 at ground level has little effect, but in the upper atmosphere its where it really has it's effects. So in theory, a pollution source that puts CO2 straight up there, rather than at ground level will do more harm. You say it's the upper atmosphere where CO2 really has its effects. Other than reflecting some of the radiation back down towards the ground, what harmful effect would it have? The argument is slightly spurious because atmospheric gases have an excellent mixing coefficient, and any local high concerntrations of CO2 will be rapidly mixed until the concerntration is nearly uniform - indeed recent analysis found that the concerntration of CO2 was extremely constant around the world. |
Massive Airport expansion announced
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:13:16 +0000, Lansbury wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:01:22 +0000, Steve Peake wrote: How could I have guessed that a 3rd runway was on the cards, especially when the 5th terminal inspector placed a flight cap on the airport? perhaps because the plans for the third runway were drawn up years ago. It didn't take a rocket scientist to anticipate that one day there was a chance they might come to something. I'll repeat myself, why would a 3rd runway be needed while there was a flight cap in place? Steve |
Massive Airport expansion announced
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:17:50 +0000, Steve Peake
wrote: I'll repeat myself, why would a 3rd runway be needed while there was a flight cap in place? and it what legally binding agreement is a flight cap imposed? -- Lansbury www.uk-air.net FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup |
Massive Airport expansion announced
"Malcolm Weir" wrote in message
Los Angeles International Airport has FOUR parallel runways. It ain't a big deal, despite what the doom-sayers claim. Quite a few airports have four parallel runways, or more specifically, two widely-spaced pairs of closely-spaced parallel runways. LAX is an example of this, in quite a constrained, congested site, not unlike LHR. But Atlanta has thr same layout and I believe thay're now building a fifth parallel runway to the south. CDG also has four runways with this layout, though I'm not sure if all four are yet operational. Even worse, Chicago O'Hare (ORD) has five runways, which include two intersecting pairs of parallel runways (http://www.oharenoise.org/Images/ord_alay.gif). |
Massive Airport expansion announced
Cast_Iron wrote:
"MrBitsy" wrote in message ... Aidan Stanger wrote: snip Another runway would have serious safety implications if there's a missed approach on the center runway. Rubbish! They currently use one for takeoffs and one for landings - how would the situation be any worse with a third runway? At present if an a/c taking off need to divert suddenly they simply turn away from the other runway's flight path. If you have three working in parallel where doe the middle one go? Straight on..... -- MrBitsy |
Massive Airport expansion announced
Nigel Pendse wrote: "Malcolm Weir" wrote in message Los Angeles International Airport has FOUR parallel runways. It ain't a big deal, despite what the doom-sayers claim. Quite a few airports have four parallel runways, or more specifically, two widely-spaced pairs of closely-spaced parallel runways. LAX is an example of this, in quite a constrained, congested site, not unlike LHR. But Atlanta has thr same layout and I believe thay're now building a fifth parallel runway to the south. CDG also has four runways with this layout, though I'm not sure if all four are yet operational. Even worse, Chicago O'Hare (ORD) has five runways, which include two intersecting pairs of parallel runways (http://www.oharenoise.org/Images/ord_alay.gif). Looks like seven runways on the map? |
Massive Airport expansion announced
"Martin" wrote in message
Nigel Pendse wrote: "Malcolm Weir" wrote in message Los Angeles International Airport has FOUR parallel runways. It ain't a big deal, despite what the doom-sayers claim. Quite a few airports have four parallel runways, or more specifically, two widely-spaced pairs of closely-spaced parallel runways. LAX is an example of this, in quite a constrained, congested site, not unlike LHR. But Atlanta has thr same layout and I believe thay're now building a fifth parallel runway to the south. CDG also has four runways with this layout, though I'm not sure if all four are yet operational. Even worse, Chicago O'Hare (ORD) has five runways, which include two intersecting pairs of parallel runways (http://www.oharenoise.org/Images/ord_alay.gif). Looks like seven runways on the map? I think that this is the proposed layout after expansion. |
Massive Airport expansion announced
Your car, at 183mph, has to contend with cars operated by distracted
drivers, drivers at 57mph, drivers who are drunk, pedestrians throwing rocks from bridges, drivers who are making ill-considered judgements about weather conditions, etc. Well of course it wouldn't be safe to do 183 mph on an existing motorway, they just aren't designed for it as you say. But neither are most of our railway tracks. However, we could build some new high-speed motorways, suitably aligned for 183 mph, with a minimum speed limit of 150 mph or something, and it could well work. Of course, if you got a blowout at that speed the results could be rather interesting. |
Massive Airport expansion announced
"Richard J." wrote in message
... Cast_Iron wrote: At present if an a/c taking off need to divert suddenly they simply turn away from the other runway's flight path. If you have three working in parallel where doe the middle one go? The issue is not about a/c "needing to divert suddenly" but needing to go around for another approach to land. If both the other runways have a/c taking off at the time, I guess the middle a/c would fly straight ahead until it was safe to turn under one of the other take-off paths. It makes the circuit a bit longer, that's all. Presumably the problem has been solved at Paris CDG and other multi-runway airports. One of the three, at least, will be in use for take-off only. It ought to be possible for the aircraft on the middle runway approach to turn towards that other runway and do a circuit in that direction. However at LHR the proposed third runway is a short one, and so presumably will be used by smaller aircraft for both landings and take-off. -- Terry Harper http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/ |
Massive Airport expansion announced
Well, the only method that we can be sure works is by price. A high price will force users to judge how necessary their flight is. Just look at the drop in traffic after congestion traffic, all of these journeys that were "absolutely essential" or "could not be made any other way" were obvious not essential enough to warrant £5 expenditure. Yes but it still stands that a lot of things are un-neccessary and cause damage. Especially drug taking, smoking and drinking. But I don't see the liberals and enviromentalists trying to ban these three. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk