What about internal flights ? How do you see them ?
I would have replied earlier, but I had internet problems yesterday.
Anyway, I see most of domestic air travel as far less necessary than the rail system. The exceptions are the services to the remote Scottish islands mentioned earlier in the thread that could be considered as an essential public service for those communities.
In terms of what ? CO2 ? (not all rail is electrified and the electric still needs to be generated somehow). What about the impact on the land with rail ? I'm not sure that those opposing the high speed rail link would agree and have a justified point about the environmental impact of rail. I'm also sure that those opposing additional runways and the proposed new airport plans. I would certainly like to see what evidence there is from both sides.
The difference, as I see it, between air and rail environmentally wise is not just about CO2. While there is disruption when a new railway lien is constructed, which is a very rare undertaking, HS1 has shown that afterwards things can be restored so that there is very little damage to the areas that the rails pass through. In most cases, stations are either already in existence or will be built on brown field sites near or within existing urbanised areas/
In contrast, build or extend an airport and what was green space is lost, to all intents and purposes. Then, as more and more people use the expanded facilities, you have to add more and more infrastructure on top.
On top of this, there's the noise pollution. Trains are pretty quiet compared to an aircraft, even if the line isn't electrified.
Very much have to disagree here. One of the many attractions of London is that it provides opportunity for international buisness. Following some of the debate about airports recently the main political rhetoric is that we need the additional runways because of the important links for buisness. It does however; go hand in hand with rail because once arrive in the country they need to get into London. HS2....
I did say that international air travel is beneficial to the economy, but as it's international, I don't think that it is the same as domestic rail travel which provides a huge direct benefit to the people of the UK.
Rail and air travel has become inextricably linked and they have an increasingly symbiotic relationship. Economically we need both.
I couldn't agree more. However, I thought we were discussing whether rail is an essential public service or not? I could be wrong about international air travel not being an essential public service, but I don't think that has any impact on whether rail is or not! I can't see how anyone cans ay that the rail system isn't an essential part of the national infrastructure.
In short, this isn't really about rail v air or rail v road. We need a mixture of all transportation modes, including ships, for a healthy economy, certainly in terms of international passenger travel and trade.
However you are then placing a hefty fine on people who choose not to use public transport because they do not wish to see their own personal space invaded by others. There are many people outside of London who have no intention of using public transport full stop!
I am not morally agnostic like some in the previous Labour government
. I don't have a problem in principle with encouraging people to switch to public transport. In practical terms I do have a problem though, because many people don't have a choice in the matter, and it's very hard to differentiate between those that do, and those that don't.
I haven't tried to argue that rail is more CO2 intensive than your car. So to reiterate the point in which you have misquoted (quite badly)
I think that is a side issue in any case, in a debate that's already moved away from its original subject.
Greenback posted regarding Air travel being less environmentally friendly than Rail. So I asked for clarification. If he is thinking directly in terms of CO2 then he makes a point BUT it is only part of the story. Rail has ripped through the land like the Blight. You are free to google the environmental impact of HS2. The railway has a very direct impact which cannot be ignored.
I hope I've provided a little clarification above, and I agree there's more to it than simple CO2 emissions.
I don't think it's fair to say that rail has ripped through the land like blight, though. Yes, HS2 has an impact, as any construction project of such a scale is bound to, but as I said above, much of the land affected can be returned to its previous state afterwards.
Secondly you have to remember that the electric that a choo choo uses has to be generated from somewhere. I would argue that power stations are a necessity but electric is not "clean" by any margin.
I agree. I have concerns about our capacity to generate electricity in the future as it is, and things like electrification and electric cars are bound to increase demand even further.
Greenback is usually pretty good and hopefully has some solid facts I can peruse or can expand his point about the environmental impact.
Thanks! What sort of facts would you like?
A small digression...
On a personal note I'm not sure about HS2. There is a buisness case for it and highspeed rail will provide opportunity. As people have posted above I get the feeling that it is part of the problem of pushing people into commuting rather than generating local buisness. I certainly believe that HS2 is more of a political tool than any necessity or public right.
I do agree with you on this. I think that bringing cities closer to London will just encourage more long distance commuting, and my personal view is that it won't do anything to invigorate the areas it will be connecting London to.
However, this isn't the place for such a discussion. Though it's getting to the point now that I can't remember how the thread started out!