Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

#41

Post by mech1234 »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #8
mech1234 wrote: post #2

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.

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.

Do you accept that increasing the size of a local factory creates local jobs?

Why would an airport be any different? >50% of the employees are going to be ground crew, security agents, etc.

Re: Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

#42

Post by keanzu »

ppf wrote: post #39
mansoor_ wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please tell me you're not driving the same journey?

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.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U...

Re: Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

#43

Post by smashah »

rjsw wrote: post #30
smashah wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn't the proximity of the M25 make it hard to enforce any emissions policy for traffic around Heathrow ?

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.

Re: Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

#44

Post by smashah »

pjc50 wrote: post #32
smashah wrote: post #7

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 ho…

> 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 questi…

> 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.

LHR aims average of every 2 mins.

Re: Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

#45

Post by smashah »

toyg wrote: post #21
smashah wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah no. LHR has one of the highest airport tax, yet still is a leading world hub and annual pax numbers keep going up.

That simply means, from a “prohibitionist” point of view, that the tax is not high enough.

Lol can't wait for 400% beef tax to save the planet /s

Re: Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

#46

Post by rjsw »

smashah wrote: post #43
rjsw wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the proximity of the M25 make it hard to enforce any emissions policy for traffic around Heathrow ?

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 roundab…

I was thinking more that a large proportion of the pollution in the Heathrow area would come from the traffic on the M25.

Re: Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

#47

Post by tonyedgecombe »

Retric wrote: post #14
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can clean up buses, trains, cars etc. It doesn't look like we will ever be able to make air travel carbon neutral.

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.…

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.

Re: Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

#48

Post by tonyedgecombe »

mech1234 wrote: post #41
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you accept that increasing the size of a local factory creates local jobs? Why would an airport be any different? >50% of the employees are going to be ground crew, security agents, etc.

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.

Re: Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

#49

Post by smashah »

rjsw wrote: post #46
smashah wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 roundab…

I was thinking more that a large proportion of the pollution in the Heathrow area would come from the traffic on the M25.

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.

Re: Heathrow third runway plans ruled illegal: not consistent with Paris agreement

#50

Post by Retric »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #47
Retric wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

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.
Post reply on HN