Environment campaigners win Heathrow runway ruling putting the project in turmoil.

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

Heathrow Airport: Plans for third runway plans in tatters after legal defeat

https://news.sky.com/story/heathrow-air ... t-11944267

I actually expected this outcome as the government handed the reason to the campaigners themselves back then and a ruling against the campaigners would also have been a ruling against the government and this would have had a big impact on further proceedings and would have mostly triggered a political debate and the outcome there would have given new ground for another appeal.

With this ruling now, expansion at Heathrow will probably only be possible if it can be "carbon neutral" which will be a hard task. Projected third runway would have been up and running in 2029, with this ruling I expect earliest in 2040 if not even 2050, depending on how propulsion technology improves. If all electrical short haul is possible in the near future, expansion might be possible.

Heathrow should ban all those who advocate against the third runway from flying from there. Then again, none of these greens should be flying from anywhere, they should use eco-friendly transport means like bicycles or paddle boats.

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to get anything built in Britain, with the constant barrage of legal proceedings on “environmental” grounds plus NIMBYs and the politicians who pander to them.

In any case, I’m not sure how having an already crowded two-runway airport with planes circling above London become will be beneficial for the environment.

Heathrow should turn this to their advantage. By agreeing to no third runway in favour of an increased cap to 650000, a new terminal 6 with 100 new gates and an end to runway alternation. Mixed-mode operations on both runways, and improvements to the night quota by landing on easterlies.

So what does 'LON' do now ? Further expansion of another airport, does Heathrow Holdings Ltd go shopping for another option elsewhere ?

A lot of us who don’t live next to Heathrow are pretty exasperated by this whole situation. Just build the damn expansion already.

I can understand those living next door to LHR being against it though.

Armodeen wrote:

A lot of us who don’t live next to Heathrow are pretty exasperated by this whole situation. Just build the damn expansion already.

I can understand those living next door to LHR being against it though.

You mean the people who decided to move next door to an international airport,complaining about noise?

uta999 wrote:

Heathrow should turn this to their advantage. By agreeing to no third runway in favour of an increased cap to 650000, a new terminal 6 with 100 new gates and an end to runway alternation. Mixed-mode operations on both runways, and improvements to the night quota by landing on easterlies.

It is not exactly how things work. If you lose such a procedure, you lose. You are not entitled to receive something in exchange.

Blerg wrote:

Heathrow should ban all those who advocate against the third runway from flying from there. Then again, none of these greens should be flying from anywhere, they should use eco-friendly transport means like bicycles or paddle boats.

For those who advocate against it on environmental ground, it probably already is the case.
I am probably not the only person who decided long time ago to use trains for most of my journeys in Europe.

jamsco99 wrote:

Armodeen wrote:

A lot of us who don’t live next to Heathrow are pretty exasperated by this whole situation. Just build the damn expansion already.

I can understand those living next door to LHR being against it though.

You mean the people who decided to move next door to an international airport,complaining about noise?

No, I think he means the people who moved near to an international airport because it is one of the only place where they found the kind of place they needed and can afford in a city where real estate costs are completely crazy (in part for the same reason that drives the need for a new runway) and would like not to have more disturbances.

jamsco99 wrote:

Armodeen wrote:

A lot of us who don’t live next to Heathrow are pretty exasperated by this whole situation. Just build the damn expansion already.

I can understand those living next door to LHR being against it though.

You mean the people who decided to move next door to an international airport,complaining about noise?

In fairness, the third runway is a new development and will affect people way outside the area where the existing 2 runways had an impact in the past. Can't really blame people for not wanting that.

JannEejit wrote:

So what does 'LON' do now ? Further expansion of another airport, does Heathrow Holdings Ltd go shopping for another option elsewhere ?

They say they will appeal to the Supreme Court. But TBH...this is the first of many fights that will drag the process out for years. Christ, it was initially proposed by government in 2003!

Maybe LGW 2nd runway can get done instead?

Did anyone actually think this was going to get built anyway?

First world, liberal democracies dont do giant projects like this anymore. Sadly

VSMUT wrote:

jamsco99 wrote:

Armodeen wrote:

A lot of us who don’t live next to Heathrow are pretty exasperated by this whole situation. Just build the damn expansion already.

I can understand those living next door to LHR being against it though.

You mean the people who decided to move next door to an international airport,complaining about noise?

In fairness, the third runway is a new development and will affect people way outside the area where the existing 2 runways had an impact in the past. Can't really blame people for not wanting that.

The third runway is NOT a new development. It has been 'planned' for over 30 years. The land was put aside in the 1940's for future expansion of London Airport as it was called then. It has not been left open land for no reason. How can it be green to allow 15-20 minute delays for the 480000 annual movements at LHR to continue?

Eventually all vehicles will turn electric, maybe even some planes. As it is a/c are now quieter than they have ever been. The 787/A350/NEO/A220 and (MAX) are barely audible unless you live locally, have mental health issues and only notice noise from above, without noticing the din all around you at ground level.

The mad men have taken over the asylum.

I think the only question left now is what will the UK do instead. It seems clear that to continue to fight for the 3rd runway is just to delay alternatives.

The news here is not that the court ruled against, it is that the UK government basically set it up that way. There is zero political will for this project so it can not proceed.

Scotron12 wrote:

JannEejit wrote:

So what does 'LON' do now ? Further expansion of another airport, does Heathrow Holdings Ltd go shopping for another option elsewhere ?

They say they will appeal to the Supreme Court. But TBH...this is the first of many fights that will drag the process out for years. Christ, it was initially proposed by government in 2003!

Maybe LGW 2nd runway can get done instead?

Unless Heathrow wins in the Supreme Court any runway building is impossible. The exact same arguments could be used against new runways at LGW or STN, or anywhere else in the UK. Unless overturned on appeal, the outcome of this decision is that any infrastructure development in the UK must be carbon neutral.

Good news for Dr. Peters Group, DORIC et al. The residual values of their A380s just went up, just a little bit, but still

Elshad wrote:

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to get anything built in Britain, with the constant barrage of legal proceedings on “environmental” grounds plus NIMBYs and the politicians who pander to them.
In any case, I’m not sure how having an already crowded two-runway airport with planes circling above London become will be beneficial for the environment.

I worked and still work on environmental projects and large infrastructure projects. In the past, let’s say until the introduction of obligatory Environmental Impact Assessments for large infrastructure projects we did not consider the environmental issues properly. But nowadays we simply exaggerate it.

For me such legal decision have the taste of the end of the Roman empire. I would love to read a history book about Europe in several hundreds of years. I guess they will write something like “actually, West Europe was doing fine. But at some point these countries become so lethargic due to their own legislations and the new super power to the East simply took over their role”.

I think Heathrow could do with a 3rd runway really but like many have said it takes forever to do grand infrastructure in this country. Is there any benefit however to a 24-hour Heathrow? As some sort of common ground. Though the complaints will come back to noisemaking but I mean there must be some common ground

Elshad wrote:

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to get anything built in Britain, with the constant barrage of legal proceedings on “environmental” grounds plus NIMBYs and the politicians who pander to them.

Well, in this case here the court merely looked at existing laws and checked if the planned runway complied with them. Surprise, it didn't. Better planning could have prevented that.

Elshad wrote:

In any case, I’m not sure how having an already crowded two-runway airport with planes circling above London become will be beneficial for the environment.

LHR could choose to offer less slots per runway, thereby reduce delays and push airlines towards larger, more efficient aircraft. But of course that would impact their profits and piss off a certain local airline. BA has an awfully high ratio of A319 to A321 for a supposedly 'congested' airport.

Humans are funny, aren't they?

- Build airport far away from the city so that you have room for expansion and you don't have to worry about bothering people with noise
- Years later developers discover there is a lot of land around that new airport and some may like to live there because they travel a lot (or for enthusiasts.. LOL)
- More people buy homes there (knowing there is a major airport) because "Hey, that's a really neat development... and nah, the airplanes don't bother me!"
- Then all of a sudden noise becomes a problem.... You didn't know what an airplane engine sounds like?

I'm surprised they don't want to shut down the whole thing!

I think London, as for New York (JFK, LGA, EWR), should look at efficiency and consolidate all 4 major airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Lutton and Stansted) into one GIGA AIRPORT off some location somewhere outside London.... A monstrosity with 8 runways 8 terminals (you name it) ... Also, adopt a law that the area surrounding the airport is protected for future expansion and no one can willingly move there, or around there, and start complaining about the noise! This way environmentalists get to be happy at the reduced carbon footprint 1 airport will generate versus 4; while airport authorities gain efficiencies and reduced costs!

Just ignore the green parties and continue building that 3rd runway.

The economy needs to grow folks.

uta999 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

jamsco99 wrote:

You mean the people who decided to move next door to an international airport,complaining about noise?

In fairness, the third runway is a new development and will affect people way outside the area where the existing 2 runways had an impact in the past. Can't really blame people for not wanting that.

The third runway is NOT a new development. It has been 'planned' for over 30 years. The land was put aside in the 1940's for future expansion of London Airport as it was called then. It has not been left open land for no reason. How can it be green to allow 15-20 minute delays for the 480000 annual movements at LHR to continue?

Eventually all vehicles will turn electric, maybe even some planes. As it is a/c are now quieter than they have ever been. The 787/A350/NEO/A220 and (MAX) are barely audible unless you live locally, have mental health issues and only notice noise from above, without noticing the din all around you at ground level.

The mad men have taken over the asylum.

30 years is well within a realistic timeframe for how long people can have lived in the area.

Toinou wrote:

uta999 wrote:

Heathrow should turn this to their advantage. By agreeing to no third runway in favour of an increased cap to 650000, a new terminal 6 with 100 new gates and an end to runway alternation. Mixed-mode operations on both runways, and improvements to the night quota by landing on easterlies.

It is not exactly how things work. If you lose such a procedure, you lose. You are not entitled to receive something in exchange.

Blerg wrote:

Heathrow should ban all those who advocate against the third runway from flying from there. Then again, none of these greens should be flying from anywhere, they should use eco-friendly transport means like bicycles or paddle boats.

For those who advocate against it on environmental ground, it probably already is the case.
I am probably not the only person who decided long time ago to use trains for most of my journeys in Europe.

jamsco99 wrote:

Armodeen wrote:

A lot of us who don’t live next to Heathrow are pretty exasperated by this whole situation. Just build the damn expansion already.

I can understand those living next door to LHR being against it though.

You mean the people who decided to move next door to an international airport,complaining about noise?

No, I think he means the people who moved near to an international airport because it is one of the only place where they found the kind of place they needed and can afford in a city where real estate costs are completely crazy (in part for the same reason that drives the need for a new runway) and would like not to have more disturbances.

And how much electricity used by trains comes from renewable sources? Taking the train as the alternative to flying only makes sense if electricity that powers them comes from eco-friendly sources. From what I know that's still not the case today.

jamsco99 wrote:

Armodeen wrote:

A lot of us who don’t live next to Heathrow are pretty exasperated by this whole situation. Just build the damn expansion already.

I can understand those living next door to LHR being against it though.

You mean the people who decided to move next door to an international airport,complaining about noise?

It is not that easy. Since the runway closures in 1970 only 09L/27R and 09R/27L are in use. So everyone north or south of Heathrow has actually really low noise emissions. The new plan changes this for people north of the airport. So I can understand the fight against the expansion.

I know this here is an aviation site but just ask yourself, would you allow a speed way in your back garden? I mean chances are you live close to one if you are close (10km radius) to a city center and the trend in additional traffic shows more speed ways are needed so why not build another one just passing your property by 15m.

I mean an entire town of 700+ houses was meant to be bulldozed... that is a bit more than just in your backyard if you live there.

There is always a pro and a contra.

This here is entirely on the government, as they went against their own analysis that is now coming back to haunt them:

The government’s climate change committee advised that expanding Heathrow is not compatible with a climate neutral economy

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51649096

What really will effect heathrow is brexit if it go to wto terms. I think the chance of this today is around 50%. In that case London will not be as dominating as EU financial hub in 20 years time. Many business trips will go to Frankfurt, dublin and Paris instead.

If there in another delay on let us say 5 more years the business case will look different and the BA / IAG position will look different.

Qazar wrote:

- Build airport far away from the city so that you have room for expansion and you don't have to worry about bothering people with noise

LHR is the closest airport to London, disregarding oddball LCY.

Qazar wrote:

- Years later developers discover there is a lot of land around that new airport and some may like to live there because they travel a lot (or for enthusiasts.. LOL)

Letting people settle in the vicinity of an airport is indeed a failure of the local administration. They could've chosen to keep the land reserved for agriculture or industry. Wonder why they didn't?

Qazar wrote:

- More people buy homes there (knowing there is a major airport) because "Hey, that's a really neat development... and nah, the airplanes don't bother me!"

More like because "nobody else wants to live here so these homes are just barely affordable for me". That doesn't mean they gave up all human rights.

Qazar wrote:

- Then all of a sudden noise becomes a problem.... You didn't know what an airplane engine sounds like?

We're talking about a major expansion that pushes the airport boundaries much, much closer to peoples' homes than before. Indeed, London could choose to build a new airport far away from people without many noise complaints. They could ensure that runway construction and operation are done in an environmentally friendly manner. But they've bet all their money on LHR 3rd runway.

To an extent I can see both sides of this, noting that this judgement isn't about the local residents or even air pollution, but rather about climate change

IF Western governments (and society) see climate change as a massive problem which has to be taken very seriously, it seems inconsistent to be banning petrol and diesel cars, banning gas boilers, and encouraging us to eat less red meat, while at the same time expanding aviation, which is what a 3rd runway would enable. It's not as if the 3rd runway is being built so that the same number of flights can use Heathrow without all the current congestion and stacking.

So when will LHR be overtook by CDG?

People who actually care about the environment would see that a third runway at Heathrow is a good way to address the severe holding/congestion problems (I.E lots of planes burning fuel waiting to land) currently plaguing LHR. Unless they can propose other solutions to address this (they won't), environmental concerns are a false flag.

Blerg wrote:

And how much electricity used by trains comes from renewable sources? Taking the train as the alternative to flying only makes sense if electricity that powers them comes from eco-friendly sources. From what I know that's still not the case today.

Approximately 30 % of the electricity in the UK.

Although people will still complain about the noise and visual impact of new railways, of wind turbines, of solar panels, of high voltage lines ... There's no way to please everybody. In some places, planners have realised that it's cheaper and faster to build stuff underground than to battle environmentalists and residents in court.

mxaxai wrote:

Blerg wrote:

And how much electricity used by trains comes from renewable sources? Taking the train as the alternative to flying only makes sense if electricity that powers them comes from eco-friendly sources. From what I know that's still not the case today.

Approximately 30 % of the electricity in the UK.

Although people will still complain about the noise and visual impact of new railways, of wind turbines, of solar panels, of high voltage lines ... There's no way to please everybody. In some places, planners have realised that it's cheaper and faster to build stuff underground than to battle environmentalists and residents in court.

Do we know where this electricity is mostly used? Or is it released into the electricity grid with the rest. I am not too familiar with how this work so I am curious to know if 30% of train electricity also comes from renewable sources.

Blerg wrote:

Toinou wrote:

uta999 wrote:

Heathrow should turn this to their advantage. By agreeing to no third runway in favour of an increased cap to 650000, a new terminal 6 with 100 new gates and an end to runway alternation. Mixed-mode operations on both runways, and improvements to the night quota by landing on easterlies.

It is not exactly how things work. If you lose such a procedure, you lose. You are not entitled to receive something in exchange.

Blerg wrote:

Heathrow should ban all those who advocate against the third runway from flying from there. Then again, none of these greens should be flying from anywhere, they should use eco-friendly transport means like bicycles or paddle boats.

For those who advocate against it on environmental ground, it probably already is the case.
I am probably not the only person who decided long time ago to use trains for most of my journeys in Europe.

jamsco99 wrote:

You mean the people who decided to move next door to an international airport,complaining about noise?

No, I think he means the people who moved near to an international airport because it is one of the only place where they found the kind of place they needed and can afford in a city where real estate costs are completely crazy (in part for the same reason that drives the need for a new runway) and would like not to have more disturbances.

And how much electricity used by trains comes from renewable sources? Taking the train as the alternative to flying only makes sense if electricity that powers them comes from eco-friendly sources. From what I know that's still not the case today.

Stop using that tired old argument that environmentalists should never use anything made with plastic or petroleum. It's unintuitive to the point of silly.
The issue is the responsible use of those items as opposed to the wasteful way we use them now. Responsible use costs more money which is why there's so much pushback from industry on it. And their lobbyists have somehow suckered regular folks into sympathizing with those poor misunderstood billionaire CEOs and BoDs.

The No 3rd runway and extinction rebellion movement as a whole has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. They are simply the modern hypercritical middle-class NIMBY's of old, who eat, drink, drive, travel, pollute and procreate like everyone else, but still moan about it to make themselves feel righteous and important.

It is worth looking at the decision of the court here. This is not about a bunch of green protesters. It is about the court of appear ruling that the expansion is illegal. i.e. against UK law made by parliament. You don't get around that by rubbishing the protesters. Therefore you can only assume that this is the decision the government wanted.

Blerg wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Blerg wrote:

And how much electricity used by trains comes from renewable sources? Taking the train as the alternative to flying only makes sense if electricity that powers them comes from eco-friendly sources. From what I know that's still not the case today.

Approximately 30 % of the electricity in the UK.

Although people will still complain about the noise and visual impact of new railways, of wind turbines, of solar panels, of high voltage lines ... There's no way to please everybody. In some places, planners have realised that it's cheaper and faster to build stuff underground than to battle environmentalists and residents in court.

Do we know where this electricity is mostly used? Or is it released into the electricity grid with the rest. I am not too familiar with how this work so I am curious to know if 30% of train electricity also comes from renewable sources.

Everything in the grid is 'mixed' so you can't tell that where an electron got its energy from. Like in an ocean, you can't tell which water molecule came from which river. But of course energy input = energy output in a grid, so for accounting purposes every energy packet can be traced from its source to its consumer. That way, for example, the German railways operate on '100 % renewable electricity'. They still use the same electricity as everybody else but their money goes entirely to renewable power sources.

JustSomeDood wrote:

People who actually care about the environment would see that a third runway at Heathrow is a good way to address the severe holding/congestion problems (I.E lots of planes burning fuel waiting to land) currently plaguing LHR. Unless they can propose other solutions to address this (they won't), environmental concerns are a false flag.

How about less flights, more investment in R&D... less frequency and larger planes. Let business adapt to the situation, not the situation adapt to business. The businesses who stand to profit from more capacity should be the ones responsible for making sure the extra capacity comes in a sensible way, at least somewhat environmentally friendly way instead of plonking down another piece of asphalt and changing nothing else.

Sure, economic progress is good, but like anything else, not at any cost.

HPRamper wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Toinou wrote:

It is not exactly how things work. If you lose such a procedure, you lose. You are not entitled to receive something in exchange.



For those who advocate against it on environmental ground, it probably already is the case.
I am probably not the only person who decided long time ago to use trains for most of my journeys in Europe.



No, I think he means the people who moved near to an international airport because it is one of the only place where they found the kind of place they needed and can afford in a city where real estate costs are completely crazy (in part for the same reason that drives the need for a new runway) and would like not to have more disturbances.

And how much electricity used by trains comes from renewable sources? Taking the train as the alternative to flying only makes sense if electricity that powers them comes from eco-friendly sources. From what I know that's still not the case today.

Stop using that tired old argument that environmentalists should never use anything made with plastic or petroleum. It's unintuitive to the point of silly.
The issue is the responsible use of those items as opposed to the wasteful way we use them now. Responsible use costs more money which is why there's so much pushback from industry on it. And their lobbyists have somehow suckered regular folks into sympathizing with those poor misunderstood billionaire CEOs and BoDs.

So people should stop using certain arguments just because you don't like them? Tough luck, suck it up and deal with it.

They should be banned from using things they are fighting against because in this case they are hampering the development of one of world's most important airports just because... they think planes are polluting the world. How about they look back at how much progress aviation has made and how much pollution has actually been reduced. These greens are irrational extremists who don't look at the whole picture because if they did then they would have to reconsider their entire program. And anyway, consolidating air traffic to one part of the city makes more sense then spreading it out all over the region. At least when you concentrate air travel to a certain area you also focus 'pollution' there.

Why can't Stansted expand? Plenty of space. Takes the pressure of LHR.

NZ321 wrote:

Why can't Stansted expand? Plenty of space. Takes the pressure of LHR.

Impossible to get to for 95% of London and the SE for a start. Stansted, like Luton is a bit of a hobby airport. Just there for the locals.

uta999 wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

Why can't Stansted expand? Plenty of space. Takes the pressure of LHR.

Impossible to get to for 95% of London and the SE for a start.

I thought it had a direct rail link like Gatwick?

NZ321 wrote:

uta999 wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

Why can't Stansted expand? Plenty of space. Takes the pressure of LHR.

Impossible to get to for 95% of London and the SE for a start.

I thought it had a direct rail link like Gatwick?

How do I get from Gatwick to Stansted Airport?
Unfortunately there is no direct Gatwick to Stansted airport train. By train, you need to take the airport train (Gatwick Express) into central London, Victoria, and make an additional journey using the London Underground, to Tottenham Hale. From Tottenham Hale you catch the Stansted Express to Stansted.

I have a question...So with airlines like BA with Heathrow as their home and with this constraint of two runways how do they grow capacity? Do they purchase larger planes or?

Opus99 wrote:

I have a question...So with airlines like BA with Heathrow as their home and with this constraint of two runways how do they grow capacity? Do they purchase larger planes or?

Yes that's why they built the A380 but that horse has left the gate...

Could the 3rd runway be built instead in a SW direction between Stanwell and the M25 ?
There's only marshland and a reservoir there, no houses will need to be demolished. The road from the M25 to the Southern Perimeter Road will only need to be tunnelled instead of the whole M25. It runway could be a shortened, say 8000 ft or so, version allowing all the short-haul planes from T5 to use it instead of the taxiing all the way down to the 27's.

I will say that even as it is now, that after staying in Brentford, the noise really is very detrimental to quality of life there and I'm an enthusiast who enjoys looking at airplanes. And that's an area that was certainly developed well before aviation.

I do get both sides of this, but I suppose IAG must be preparing to route more connecting traffic through DUB or MAD.

mxaxai wrote:

Blerg wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Approximately 30 % of the electricity in the UK.

Although people will still complain about the noise and visual impact of new railways, of wind turbines, of solar panels, of high voltage lines ... There's no way to please everybody. In some places, planners have realised that it's cheaper and faster to build stuff underground than to battle environmentalists and residents in court.

Do we know where this electricity is mostly used? Or is it released into the electricity grid with the rest. I am not too familiar with how this work so I am curious to know if 30% of train electricity also comes from renewable sources.

Everything in the grid is 'mixed' so you can't tell that where an electron got its energy from. Like in an ocean, you can't tell which water molecule came from which river. But of course energy input = energy output in a grid, so for accounting purposes every energy packet can be traced from its source to its consumer. That way, for example, the German railways operate on '100 % renewable electricity'. They still use the same electricity as everybody else but their money goes entirely to renewable power sources.

When the electric train departs, the additional marginal energy is taken from fossil fuels. Nuclear and wind energy is always used first. Train companies may directly or indirectly support building ecolocigally sustainable energy sources. That 100 % renewable/fossil free is quite white wash anyway.

Nevertheless, the energy consumption per pax in train is usually considerably less than in plane, though high speed and low load factor may occasionally turn it upside down. There are very different calculations circling around.

YIMBY wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Do we know where this electricity is mostly used? Or is it released into the electricity grid with the rest. I am not too familiar with how this work so I am curious to know if 30% of train electricity also comes from renewable sources.

Everything in the grid is 'mixed' so you can't tell that where an electron got its energy from. Like in an ocean, you can't tell which water molecule came from which river. But of course energy input = energy output in a grid, so for accounting purposes every energy packet can be traced from its source to its consumer. That way, for example, the German railways operate on '100 % renewable electricity'. They still use the same electricity as everybody else but their money goes entirely to renewable power sources.

When the electric train departs, the additional marginal energy is taken from fossil fuels. Nuclear and wind energy is always used first. Train companies may directly or indirectly support building ecolocigally sustainable energy sources. That 100 % renewable/fossil free is quite white wash anyway.

Nevertheless, the energy consumption per pax in train is usually considerably less than in plane, though high speed and low load factor may occasionally turn it upside down. There are very different calculations circling around.

However, often overlooked is the fact that high speed rail costs around £100B per 100 miles of track, takes 20 years to build, and demolishes more houses, communities, fields, woodland and decimates more AONB than a few extra flights at LHR. The electricity used is a very minor matter when it comes to HSR.

uta999 wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Everything in the grid is 'mixed' so you can't tell that where an electron got its energy from. Like in an ocean, you can't tell which water molecule came from which river. But of course energy input = energy output in a grid, so for accounting purposes every energy packet can be traced from its source to its consumer. That way, for example, the German railways operate on '100 % renewable electricity'. They still use the same electricity as everybody else but their money goes entirely to renewable power sources.

When the electric train departs, the additional marginal energy is taken from fossil fuels. Nuclear and wind energy is always used first. Train companies may directly or indirectly support building ecolocigally sustainable energy sources. That 100 % renewable/fossil free is quite white wash anyway.

Nevertheless, the energy consumption per pax in train is usually considerably less than in plane, though high speed and low load factor may occasionally turn it upside down. There are very different calculations circling around.

However, often overlooked is the fact that high speed rail costs around £100B per 100 miles of track, takes 20 years to build, and demolishes more houses, communities, fields, woodland and decimates more AONB than a few extra flights at LHR. The electricity used is a very minor matter when it comes to HSR.

That is not a fair assumption as the main costs (for the UK HS2) stem from compensation and bad supervision.

I know it does not count as HSR but still there are 200km/h+ possible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel

160km of tunnel with 115km of track build for $10B. For half the costs of the HS2 they probably could build one tunnel from London to Birmingham without destroying anything on the surface.

uta999 wrote:

However, often overlooked is the fact that high speed rail costs around £100B per 100 miles of track, takes 20 years to build, and demolishes more houses, communities, fields, woodland and decimates more AONB than a few extra flights at LHR. The electricity used is a very minor matter when it comes to HSR.

Rubbish. Typical cost is < 10 billion € per 100 miles of 2-way track, even accounting for significant tunnel and bridge construction. TBH, rail projects are often subject to the same NIMBY'ism as any other construction project so it's cheaper and faster to put it in a tunnel than to fight with all the residents and buy the fields and woodland.

FluidFlow wrote:

uta999 wrote:

YIMBY wrote:

When the electric train departs, the additional marginal energy is taken from fossil fuels. Nuclear and wind energy is always used first. Train companies may directly or indirectly support building ecolocigally sustainable energy sources. That 100 % renewable/fossil free is quite white wash anyway.

Nevertheless, the energy consumption per pax in train is usually considerably less than in plane, though high speed and low load factor may occasionally turn it upside down. There are very different calculations circling around.

However, often overlooked is the fact that high speed rail costs around £100B per 100 miles of track, takes 20 years to build, and demolishes more houses, communities, fields, woodland and decimates more AONB than a few extra flights at LHR. The electricity used is a very minor matter when it comes to HSR.

That is not a fair assumption as the main costs (for the UK HS2) stem from compensation and bad supervision.

I know it does not count as HSR but still there are 200km/h+ possible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel

160km of tunnel with 115km of track build for $10B. For half the costs of the HS2 they probably could build one tunnel from London to Birmingham without destroying anything on the surface.

Think about the poor moles they will be displacing if they built such a tunnel....

PepeTheFrog wrote:

Just ignore the green parties and continue building that 3rd runway.

The economy needs to grow folks.

Just ignore these pesky businessmen who think the world resolves around hourly LON-NYC flights. Put a few A380s on the route already and free up slots for other destinations. Rinse and repeat through the network.

The economy needs to grow folks.

JustSomeDood wrote:

People who actually care about the environment would see that a third runway at Heathrow is a good way to address the severe holding/congestion problems (I.E lots of planes burning fuel waiting to land) currently plaguing LHR. Unless they can propose other solutions to address this (they won't), environmental concerns are a false flag.

Because Heathrow, ATC, the government, and the airlines have all committed that they will not schedule their operations with a third runway like every day is a bright sunny day and planes will not again routinely circle above the airport waiting to land...