New runway plans shelved

[Nemesis]

I live within about 60 metres of a railway. Don't find it a problem at all. And if we did away with all railways and built new airports all over the place I think your picture re environmental costs might change in that case. And as these are already there and much of the costs of materials etc have long since been paid back then I think your arguments fallacious.

Same as roads really - the amount of those that litter up the country maybe we should do away with those too? Think of the land they take up, and the cost of keeping them repaired.

I think it's sorta considered that the current cheapo costs of air travel are maybe not terribly sustainable.

I see also in today's press:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2121495,00.html

 

[Flyfisher]

Why would 'doing away with all railways' imply building 'new airports all over the place'? I don't think I ever said or implied anything of the sort and I don't see that it would be necessary, apart from a few more runways perhaps.

As for the road network, of course it is very extensive and also covers large amounts of the country and costs a lot to maintain, but that is no reason not to scrap the railways. Isn't such duplication a waste? Faced with such duplication, wouldn't it be a good idea to get rid of one of them? What would you suggest would be best for the country; a road network or a rail network? No contest I suspect.

Keeping the railways because they are already there is also not a very good basis for objective decision making; it impedes progress in other, more efficient technologies, and often just means throwing good money after bad.

As for a "A 30-year plan to transform rail travel . . . will be set out by the government this month" . . . . well, I'm speechless that anyone could give that sort of statement any credibility whatsoever.

 

[Nemesis]

Oh but how wasteful so many of those roads are - miles and miles hardly used!

And I can get to London from my house by walking to a station, getting a train, changing to another and getting off at the other end.

Can't do that by plane. And indeed I'd suggest that all over the country people can't get very readily to airports.

Never mind. It's kept you out of worse mischief this afternoon looking up those figures.

I've been off looking at trains.

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, but transport infrastructures can't be built around the rail travel experiences of one person can they? Never mind.

I've been off looking at trains.

I thought you'd been reading the Grauniad-on-Sunday . . .

 

[Nemesis]

Did that this morning early.

Actually, I do find when I travel by train others seem to also.

You'd be amazed at how many people aren't spending half their lives leaping on and off aircraft.

 

[Flyfisher]

and vice versa with planes and trains respectively.

 

[Nemesis]

Still, what price the environment, eh?

All that CO2 - who gives a damn?

Not when you can leap on a hugely subsidised plane.

Build an airport in every town! Village even! We can all commute to work by air!

 

[CHRIS]

I would like to mention that I got fleeced again today by both sides of the Flyfisher - Nemises rant.

1, £25.50 train fare for 42mins (ONE pailway)
2, £12.50 Parking at Stansted Airport (BAA)

and it was very busy and very hot.

After being at -4.5m below the bank of the river Thames in an archaeological dig surounded by sheet piles I was in no mood for the fun provided by Railtrack and ONE

I am going back to £8 congestion and £7 for parking in NCP Upper Thames ST for the day and £10 diesel. Stuff global shafting!

 

[Nemesis]

Oh I'm not ranting - I just like trains! I don't actually give a bugger for anyone else's opinion.

So why don't you fly?

 

[CHRIS]

I hate flying especially from the budget airline places as the Chavs on their 1 week in the Costas are a real inconvinence. I did look at flying from Stansted to Bristol few weeks ago as the Train was £215 before 9.30.

If you like trains you should get the Amtrack from Denver to Salt Lake City along the Colorado river as that is one of the best views on 2 tracks and for a pure picture of chaos from Mumbai to Goa (Infact any Indian train) - It will cure you of a love for trains (for a few hour anyway).

 

[Nemesis]

No, I mean why don't you fly in the UK to work, as Flyfisher seems toi think is the future...

 

[Pford75]

Well I spent 7 months working in Edinburgh (whilst living in Norfolk).

Driving every week was not feasible and the train was not only more expensive, it also would have meant leaving on a Sunday to be there for work on a Monday.

Whereas, flying from Norwich airport...small prop plane...less than 1h45mins and you're in Edinburgh.

I have no problem with any sort of transport, it's the lack of integration. Planes are good for long distances (much cheaper and quicker than rail), rail is good for travel between large cities and towns and also for heavy freight...roads are good for the final miles...the problem seems to be that we fail to join them all up! eg. No train service to airports...meaning people drive....meaning they all have huge car parks....or lack of affordable parking at train stations.....or even worse...public transport of any kind which is dirty, late & expensive

 

[Flyfisher]

No, I mean why don't you fly in the UK to work, as Flyfisher seems toi think is the future...

Feel free to ask daft questions, but please don't ascribe them to me.

 

[Nemesis]

Oh - that seemed to be what you were suggesting in getting rid of the rail network and expanding airports!

Planes are cheaper but that's because of the lack of duty on fuel etc. It's not a level playing field.

I agree that things aren't joined up, but there does seem to be a case being made for reducing air travel not expanding it re CO2 emissions. Cheap weekenfd flights abroad aren't in the long term sustainable I think, but that's the idea on which airport expansion plans have been based - that we just all keep on doing it.

 

[Flyfisher]

Planes are cheaper but that's because of the lack of duty on fuel etc. It's not a level playing field.

Er, railways are hardly unsubsidised. I see that Arriva will receive just over 1 BILLION over the duration of their newly won franchise (details) and that's just one operating company and doesn't include all the continued government subsidy to Network Rail.

Is there a railway system in the world that runs without massive subsidy?

I appreciate you're a railway fan, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean it isn't an outdated, past its time, technology. Just ask yourself why people prefer to use cars for the vast majority of their travel, or planes when the distances are more significant. And if trains are so good for freight, why are there so many lorries on our roads?

A successful transportation system shouldn't require lobby groups and subsidy to survive, it would just happen naturally. Sorry, but railways (with certain specific exceptions) simply don't cut it these days.

 

[Nemesis]

Actually I'm not a great fan of any form of travel, mostly it's a means to an end. I'm appreciative of the fact we all need to try to reduce our use of all forms of transport. I like trains though and it seems many others are quite happy to use the train. If Beeching's axe hadn't fallen maybe we would use the train a great deal more. Certainly where I live people use it.

But it's interesting winding you up and watching you fly...

 

[Nemesis]

Latest Press Release fro SSE campaign:




PRESS RELEASE

ISSUED BY STOP STANSTED EXPANSION 9 July 2007



TERRY WAITE SPEAKS OUT AT STOP STANSTED EXPANSION PICNIC



Terry Waite CBE was the guest of honour at a Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) picnic in Broxted yesterday (Sunday 8 July) at the SSE Wood which he inaugurated three years ago in his capacity as Patron of the campaign group.



The wood at Broxted Hill, near Great Dunmow, Essex was planted in 2004 by SSE members as a symbol of their determination that a second runway will never be built at Stansted. The saplings are already well established and have benefited from the regular care of a volunteer team including farmer Peter Smith on whose land the wood is planted.



In all, 300 people took part in the picnic, blessed by the beautiful weather. Terry Waite spoke passionately about the need to protect not only local communities but also to fight against the proposals which so threaten the global environment and future generations. Organisers were delighted that he also spent so much time talking to many of those who were present - some from as far afield as Hastings, North Norfolk and even Birmingham.



“At one time, it looked like a second runway was a foregone conclusion,” said Mr Waite. It still has to be fought against, but there is no longer such a clear cut case. We are fighting to get our messages about airport expansion through on two fronts, against the expansion of flights and passenger numbers, and we are fighting because the proposals would affect the whole infrastructure of this part of Essex. People think of Essex as urban, but the vast majority is rural and North West Essex in particular has some of the most wonderful buildings and priceless heritage in our land.”



Terry Waite also raised the problem of climate change: “If development went ahead we would all be affected. The first loss would be our heritage, something which could never be replaced. Then there would be the contribution to environmental pollution, more than a doubling of carbon dioxide emissions from the present five million tonnes annually from airport operations to some 12 million tonnes with a second runway. It is a dreadful thought. You only have to look at recent history to see the effects of climate change. We know that carbon emissions from aviation are a major contributory factor.”



Peter Sanders, SSE Chairman, said: “This wood symbolises our determination to protect this wonderful part of the Essex countryside and make sure that the threat that hangs over it never materialises. Graham Eyre, the Inspector at the 1981-83 Public Inquiry, said that a second runway would be an environmental catastrophe, a major disaster, a monster, and that is what we are determined to stop.”


ENDS

NOTES FOR EDITORS

An application for a second runway is expected to be made in November 2007 to be followed by a Public Inquiry of 18-24 months, starting next year. However, even the Government acknowledges that 2015 is the earliest date by which a second runway at Stansted could be ready – in the unlikely event that it was granted planning permission.



According to the latest proposals for a second runway announced by BAA last January, 73 homes in the parishes of Broxted and Takeley would be bulldozed, including 18 Grade II listed buildings. Dozens more would become virtually uninhabitable because of their proximity to an expanded airport with a second runway. Thousands of people in the immediate area and across the region would also suffer from the broader impacts of expansion, while carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the airport’s operations would leap from the current 5 million tonnes per year to 12 million tonnes.

In terms of land grab, BAA’s second runway proposals would mean that:


almost 5 km2 of land would be needed for an enlarged airport with a 2.2 km runway, 42 aircraft stands, new passenger terminal, car parking, control tower and associated on-site development.
4 country wildlife sites, 5.2 km of rivers, 5.7 km of public rights of way and 6.8 km of local roads would be affected.
2.1 km2 of woodland would disappear while 3.9 km2 of areas of special landscape value and 4.7 km2 of high quality landscape area would be lost.


Massive opposition by SSE and elected representatives across the region has already pushed back proposals for a second runway by four years beyond the Government’s original target date for completion of 2011/12.


Meanwhile, the outcome of the Public Inquiry which runs until October into BAA’s plans for unlimited passenger use of the airport’s single runway and an increase in the number of permitted aircraft movements is not likely to be known until spring 2008.



FURTHER INFORMATION AND PICTURES

Campaign Office 01279 870558, info@stopstanstedexpansion.com
See http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com for pictures


“Our Community – Our Responsibility”

 

[Pford75]

But it's interesting winding you up and watching you fly...

Some might think of this as 'trolling'

If you have a different point of view, that's fine....but if you say things just for the purpose of winding others up......I and most people on this forum have a great deal of respect for your knowledge and passion for historic buildings....and your work with SAVE is admirable....but not everyone shares your point of view on everything. It should be possible for us to 'agree to disagree'.

On the subject of SSE...as I've said before...those opposed are very vocal (disproportionally so)...those in favour of Stansted expansion are drowned out or shouted down (I know this from personal experience at one of the early public meetings). I'd have more respect if those opposed, took all their holidays in the UK, refused to buy any air-freighted goods....never used the postal service etc. etc.

 

[Nemesis]

But it's Flyfisher who IMHO spends his time trolling as I've told him before! Mention anything to do with airport expansion and off he goes. I think mostly he's just ignored now, at times I think it's worth pointing out some of the dafter aspects. When I have time. I don't think he can actually believe half the stuff he posts do you?

I point out you know nothing whatsoever about any work I do - I don't represent SAVE or its point of view in any official capaicity, or any other organisation either. And actually what anyone thinks of me here or elsewhere is not a huge concern.

Of course we cannot do without all airports and aircraft - but we can try to minimise the damage caused and not rush too headlong into expansion.

And I try to tread lightly on the planet. Maybe more than many, less than some.

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm confused about why arguing from a position of factual statements and legitimate questions can be considered as trolling, whereas introducing daft assertions such as commuting to work by air and building airports in every town is not - esepecially when it was expressly admitted to be a wind up.

I don't actually give a bugger for anyone else's opinion.

I get the message and apologise for expecting a sensible discussion.