I was wondering about the Heathrow - St Pancras link myself. I've seen plans of 'Heathrow hub' which is on the GWML and supposed to be a 12 platform station. I'm not entirely sure if crossrail involves 6 tracking Hayes- Ladbroke Grove, with the current traffic I assume it does. In which case Eurostars are more than likely to travel to somewhere up near Acton and head into a tunnel to St Pancras.
Nope, its not just Greenpeace that are against it, its pretty much all the local councils, the Lib-dems, the Conservatives, WWF, many senior scientific advisers, several government bodies, the national trust and most of West London to name but a few.
Leaving the nonsense aside that more efficient planes will reduce carbon - it won't, the airlines will just reduce fares and fly more - the economic argument is quite shaky, especially as far more tourists fly out rather than in and the importance of the internet/video conferencing - most business not not rely on international air travel in any case, just a handful of large multinational corporations. 95% of international goods exports/imports are by sea. Moreover, the busiest routes are to places like Paris, Manchester, Amsterdam, Scotland, all places that doable by rail. Which is why HSR has been proposed instead. Currently airline passenger numbers are well down in any case, while Eurostar numbers continue to rise.
Remember the UK is committed to 80% carbon cuts by law, in order to do this if aviation expands in the way predicted , the rest of the economy has to completely decarbonise. So goodbye coal fired power stations, petrol and diesel cars, buses, trains, industrial processes, hello all new electric, powered by nuclear and renewable. The worry is, it is not apparent that this can be done and it sends out all the wrong messages. Geoff Hoon has pretty much said, plug in hybrid cars are going to become mandatory in order to allow Heathrow to expand - or at least that is what they are relying on. This is a huge gamble, because even if the expansion of Heathrow is worth £5 billion (highly doubtful if you plug in external costs) this is about 0.35% of the current economy. (£5bn out of £1410 billion). The high speed line alternative was supposed to be worth more than this as it serves an area bigger than the SE. So the argument is now, one, the other or both.
=====
Cheering him on are the aviation industry (particularly BAA, the airports owner, and British Airways, the dominant airline at Heathrow); big business; and two large unions. Ranged against them, however, is an equally powerful coalition, including environmentalists, Londons mayor, those who live near Heathrow, the two major opposition parties and at least 50 Labour MPs. Mr Brown even had to overcome the disquiet of nearly half his cabinet, who feared that the governments legally binding commitment to reduce by 80% Britains carbon emissions by 2050 would be made to look ridiculous.
The schemes supporters claim that the new runway is essential because Heathrow is at the limit of its capacity, the main reason for its chronic lack of punctuality, and thus in danger of losing its status as one of the worlds busiest hubs to rivals on the continent: Frankfurt, Pariss Charles de Gaulle, Madrid and Amsterdam all have more runways than Heathrow and some are building new ones. They argue that unless Heathrow holds its own, London will become an increasingly unattractive place to do business. In particular, they say that attracting transfer passengers, who are inherently mobile, is vital because they help to sustain an extensive route network.
Mr Brown is peculiarly susceptible to such arguments. During his ten years as chancellor, he often had his ear bent by senior City people about the awfulness of Heathrow. The government is also very close to both BAA and BA, the principal beneficiaries of a Heathrow expansion. Although both firms were privatised in the 1980s (and BAA is Spanish-owned) they are still quaintly regarded in Whitehall as national champions. The bond between BAA and the Department for Transport (DfT) is so close that it is sometimes hard to see where one ends and the other begins.
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12955302&fsrc=rss
MPs, peers and councillors from all parties have set aside disputes to work together in Parliament and the corridors of power. They are joined by an increasingly angry band of residents, celebrities and pressure groups on the ground, willing to take direct action to stop BAA, the airport's owner.
Even the Environment Agency - an arm of central government headed by Lord Smith, a Culture Secretary under Tony Blair - has expressed "deep concern" over the plan.
While the Conservatives have promised to block the plan if they win the next election, and the Liberal Democrats want it scrapped, an early day motion protesting at the expansion has also been signed by 57 Labour back-benchers.
With parliamentary opposition stretching from Andrew Rosindell, the Right-wing Tory MP for Romford, to Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell on Labour's hard Left, there is a similar electicism to the refuseniks outside Westminster.
Esteemed institutions such as the National Trust, Christian Aid and the RSPB stand shoulder-to-shoulder with more radical groups like Plane Stupid, whose members have made headlines since storming the roof of the Palace of Westminster last February.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...throw-throws-together-unlikely-coalition.html
Tim Johnson, director of the Aviation Environment Federation (AEF), told a forum on eco-friendly travel in London today that carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft were still likely to increase from 30 million tons to 60 million tons by 2040.
Mr Johnsons comments came following the Transport Secretary Geoff Hoons announcement that the construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport will go ahead, despite opposition from environmental groups.
The Government and airlines have claimed that, by 2020, new, cleaner aircraft will emit 50 per cent less carbon dioxide than current planes in an effort to justify the decision to expand.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/t...een-fuels-not-enough-to-reduce-emissions.html
At a cabinet meeting three days ago, both Gordon Brown and Mr Hoon set out the economic argument for Heathrow expansion but their presentation was interrupted. Two of the dissenters were the Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, and the Climate Change and Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband. Other ministers joined in, concerned the Government's credibility on global warming would crumble at the first major test if the expansion of aviation, the fastest growing source of carbon emissions, was allowed.
Dissenters included the Leader of the House, Harriet Harman, and Skills Secretary, John Denham. They were joined by Douglas Alexander, a close ally of Mr Brown. As patience wore thin, Mr Brown broke up the meeting, with the final package undecided. But he had no intention of allowing delays over the decision, which had already been put off once, to limp on any further.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...at-bought-off-cabinet-dissenters-1380393.html
EPUK's chief executive Philip Mulligan said: "With the current economic situation leading to collapsing sales of new aircraft and cars, the chances of meeting air quality and noise conditions around Heathrow are becoming more and more remote.
"The government's optimistic position assumed a quick introduction of cleaner, quieter aircraft and road vehicles around Heathrow, which now looks highly unlikely to happen."
'Highly irresponsible'
The aviation industry has a voluntary promise to reduce noise and CO2 emissions by 50% and NOx (nitrogen oxides) emissions by 80% by 2020.
The BBC asked Keith Mans, chief executive of the Royal Aeronautical Society, if these targets would be achieved.
"I honestly don't know," he said. "There is a good prospect that they are achievable by 2020 but the science and the engineering solutions to the science are not totally reliable.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7831462.stm
The plans include a £6bn increase in road capacity (already announced) involving use of the hard-shoulder on parts of the M1 and M6. There would also be a new company called High Speed 2, for the development of a London-to-Birmingham 200mph high-speed rail link scheme via Heathrow. Additionally, Hoon announced more studies on electrifying the Great Western and Midland Mainline rail lines.
Hoon said High Speed 2 would report on progress by the end of the year. But rail industry doubts funding can be found for such a project costing an estimated £5bn alone to run from London to Heathrow.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/16/baa-third-runway-heathrow
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/15/heathrow-third-runway2
hock: