Calculating the cost of travel by air

[Danny]

Read this interesting letter in the Times today and thought it would be worthwhile debating:Calculating the cost of travel by air

From Mr Paul F. Withrington

Sir, Mrs Lambert extols the virtues of rail travel compared with air. I comment that, before coming to a conclusion as to which form of transport is the most damaging, data would be useful, but sadly there is little of that about.

For example, the most recent system-wide fuel consumptions for national rail available to the nation appear to be those provided to me by British Rail in 1990. In that year provincial services returned the equivalent of 64 passenger miles per gallon , Network Southeast 83 and Intercity 112 - no better than a small diesel powered car containing two people. The express coach may return 200 passenger miles to the gallon.

Then we have Michael O'Leary, chief executive of Ryan Air, claiming that air travel "is the most efficient and environmentally friendly form of transport ... [carrying] far more passengers per unit of fuel used than cars or busses". The basis for that is not known, but clearly it is important to find the truth before settling policy.

The same goes for other environmental factors, such as passenger miles per hectare of land used (weighted for noise impacts) for road, rail and air.Nobody knows what the differences are, but intuitively it could be that air, although devastating locally, requires less land than any other form of motorised transport.

Let us hope the green lobby, which in principle we must all support, has at least done its sums, traceable back to source data, rather than relying on gut feeling.

Yours faithfully,
P.F. WITHRINGTON
(Director), Transwatch
12 Redland Drive
Northampton NN2 8QE
July 8

Source The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-741770,00.html)

It is in response to a letter by Mrs Jean Lambert, MEP who, typically of a green party politician makes statements that reinstate the lost faith I have in politicians... NOTDomestic flights and runways

From Mrs Jean Lambert, MEP for London Region (Green)

Sir, For once the airlines, in saying they will drop flights between several British cities and Heathrow if the airport doesn’t get a third runway (report, earlier editions, June 30), are offering a truly environment-friendly deal that would also benefit our economy.

The airline industry is one of the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions, and the effects of climate change generate billions of pounds in costs every year. The aviation industry enjoys a range of tax advantages too.

We need to level out the transport playing field to ensure our creaking rail services are not put at an unfair disadvantage by the more environmentally damaging alternative of flying.

So let’s take the airlines at their word. We’ll refuse to build a third runway at Heathrow, and in return they’ll reduce domestic flying. We could assist them in the latter endeavour by introducing emissions charges at airports, which would help to recover some of the external costs, and by ending the tax breaks. This would then raise considerable revenue for the improvements in ground transport which would remove much of the demand for domestic flying.

Yours,
JEAN LAMBERT
(Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance),
European Parliament, Rue Wiertz,
1047 Brussels.
July 1.

Source The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-737363,00.html)

Discuss...

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I think the Greens have got a point. It has to be more efficient to use high speed trains (as they do in mainland Europe) to move large numbers of people between major cities. The size and demography of UK is particularly suited to inter-city rail travel; the distances are too far for road transport to be effective, and too short to warrant taking to the air.

I frequently travel from Wilmslow (14 miles south of Manchester) to London. If I drive, it takes forever and I'm knackered when I get there (if I get there!). If I nip up to the airport and fly, I end up in Heathrow, not London. And all the faffing around at the airports means that from door to door it's not particularly quick. Add the journey times to/from the airports, and it's not much quicker than a good car journey.

I can catch a train at Wilmslow with no faffing about at all at 7:15, enjoy a superb breakfast, and be in central London before 9:30.

Next year, when engineering improvements to the line are complete, we are promised a train at about 7am getting to London by 9am. Just think what would be possible if we had high speed railways like they have in France and Germany and Spain!

And despite what the press says about Virgin Trains, my experience is they are more punctual and less prone to cancellation that the Manch - Heathrow flights.

Flying enjoys one major unfair financial advantage over competitive transport systems - tax free fuel. With airlines able to easily refuel abroad, it's difficult to see what UK government could do about that.

SSD

[GK430]

I think it high time that the politicians faced up to the facts. Congestion exists for one simple fact: the population continues to rise. Okay you can make adjustments for age groups and the fact that with an ageing population you no doubt end up with more people on the move with financial ability and vehicles.
Fewer people = less congestion. I have yet to hear any politician suggest ways of reducing this problem.

Infrastructure needed for a successful air transport industry takes up far less of the land mass than either road or rail and often those living in the vicinity gain employment opportunities that would not otherwise exist.

Aircraft pass over my village regularly and are barely noticed. So what you ask - well VC.10's go over almost daily, but I still love the sound of 4 Conways! There one minute and gone the next. Yet I need double glazing to reduce the racket off the road which goes on H24 and there is a railway line that is in a cutting some 300 metres away and the whole house shakes several times during the night when heavy good trains pass through.

If I travel by train everything needs to go in the wash or off to the dry cleaners.

Nobody has ever got the rail system operating successfully in the UK. There are always new start ups in the aviation industry, but how often are businesses keen to invest in our railways

:ouch:

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

<<<
I think it high time that the politicians faced up to the facts. Congestion exists for one simple fact: the population continues to rise. Okay you can make adjustments for age groups and the fact that with an ageing population you no doubt end up with more people on the move with financial ability and vehicles.
Fewer people = less congestion. I have yet to hear any politician suggest ways of reducing this problem.
>>>

I don't think congestion in the UK's transport industries is caused by rising population. The population of the UK has been pretty steady for 30 years, rising only gently from 55m to 60m. What causes congestion is the rising demand for travel, which is caused by a combination of rising prosperity/spending power and the falling cost of travel in real terms.

Air travel is ridiculously cheap by some benchmarks compared with 20 or even 10 years ago. This of itself has also created demand which would not otherwise be ignited. It's like when the M25 was completed - the motorway unlocked a huge demand for journeys around the London area that would not otherwise have taken place.

In theory, the market should be saying that as the value of a scarce resource rises (eg. airport slots, airspace, motorways), the price should rise. I suppose this is happening already with talk of toll-charges on UK roads, the London congestion charge, higher fares/landing fees at Heathrow, compared with Stansted etc.

While I am fully supportive in princple of efforts to expand air travel and employment from aviation, we are hitting up against a ceiling of capacity. The only way things can change will be for the price of those services to rise, or for the market to be fragmented, as we see now with low-cost carriers. But the consequences of that fragmentation will be more heavily used assets, which may eventually lead to higher costs because of capital expansion and more rapid replacement cycles.

The airline industry also has to deal with the environmental issue full square. It can't wish it away and joke about it to the converted here in pprune. So, there is an urgent need for the industry to fight back with its own propaganda messages and counter the ill-informed stuff coming out from HACAN, for example, and their fellow travellers.

[acmi48]

it seems our american cousins have all this sown up..which ever way suits you to get from a to b with minimum fuss

[ATC Watcher]

What is missing in Europe in general ( and that includes the UK I guess but I am not sure where UK is located ) is a Transport policy.
Now a bit of controversy:
A State or a strong regulator (e.g EU ?) could impose rules such as transport up to 400 Km must be by High speed trains for instance. Subsidies given for developping such trains. Taxes to other forms of transportation ( buses, Airplanes , etc..)
Privates cars for distances up to 100km. Above that distance make it unatractive by tolls, etc...
Very unpopular perhaps, but one day we will have to face that we cannot continue as we do today. One person per car congesting motorways and building more and more runways to carry people over small distances. Over 50% of the European flights today are less than 1 hour duration.
In countries like Norway or Switserland it may make sense , it does not in countries like the UK, Germany or France.
Example :
If the TGV tracks were finished Bordeaux will be 2 hours from Paris. city centre to city centre. It take 1 hour in a B737/ A320 + 2 hours ground transportation to get to and from the airports.
The tickets prices are similar. The fossile fuel cost is 1 to 10 in favour of the train.
There are no more flights between Brussels and paris since the TGV runs to CDG. It is far cheaper and faster to take the train.

OK, controversy over : taking a TGV is not very exiting , but aviation as we knew it will change quickly. The A380 will start some trends very soon.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

taking a TGV is not very exiting

I beg to differ! far more exiting to see the countryside flashing past at close on 200 mph at ground level, and able to get up easily and take a stroll or eat a meal, than to be sitting in a cramped airline seat lkooking at the seat in front or the ones each side. If you are lucky enough to have a window seat, you might see some clouds (usual, in Europe). If you are really lucky, you might see the ground - which, from 35,000 feet, is a bit boring.

And you know that when you arrive, you'll just get off. You and your suitcase, which is in the same carriage and visible to you throuout the journey. None of that cattle-herding airport cr*p to put up with, and no chance of nice surprises like 'lost luggage'.

SSD

[Neo]

Why the hell should we have our choice of transport dictated to us by politicians, particularly those from an organisation as corrupt and venal as the EU?

Any decent market economy will provide a choice of transport, and we get to choose which we want to use.

What could be simpler?

[RatherBeFlying]

Airport to airport flight times are next to nothing flat.

But what really counts are the door to door times:

1 hr to airport
3 hr for security/checkin
1/2 hr to collect bags
1 hr to destination
5.5 hr total.

Taking the train

1/2 hr to station
1/4 hr buying ticket and boarding
1/2 hr from station
1.25 hr total.

So the tortoise gets a 4 hour head start.
Add to that the lack of security indignities and the opportunities to stroll around, chat with fellow travellers, have a comfortable pint...

These days travelling in economy is a form of voluntary confinement.

[eastern wiseguy]

Interesting thread ...but surely not rumour nor news? what about letting the canivores on current affairs get their teeth into this?

[Xeque]

Back in the 1980’s I used to live in Cornwall.

On the occasions when I needed to travel to London I had to be at Redruth station by 5.15 am to catch the first Intercity to Paddington arriving at around 10.30 am. Add an hour to get up, get ready and travel to the station and the journey time was 6 ¼ hours if the train arrived on time. The fare was £25 day return standard class and we were able to use the Restaurant Car and thus enjoy an excellent breakfast after the train departed Plymouth as well as a good dinner on the way back.

The alternative was to fly Brymon from Newquay to Heathrow. The early morning flight departed at 7.30am and landed in London at about 8.45am. Add 1½ hours to get to Newquay (including a 30 minute check in) and another 1½ to taxi to the stand, get out of Heathrow and into London and you have a journey time of just over 4 hours provided the flight wasn’t stacked at Heathrow due to heavy inbound traffic or delayed by weather. The fare (as I recall) was about £90 return. The benefits of air over rail were marginal because both services got you into London at about the same time. The plus was that one didn’t have to get out of bed so early.

Incidentally, I once flew my Rallye 100 from Bodmin to White Waltham. It took 6 hours (from home to a business meeting in the West End) and at £35 per hour in the air it was not very cost effective but it was fun!

Best deal? Obviously, the train. The Brymon service was excellent if you were connecting with another flight at Heathrow but it was not really a sensible option for people who needed to commute to London on a regular basis although there were a number of passengers who did commute daily. Eventually the route was changed to Gatwick, which pretty well destroyed its usefulness.

It was the same all round. In those days the train was definitely the way to go. True, BA operated the Manchester and Glasgow shuttles and in those halcyon pre-terrorist days the cheap fare and “walk-on” ability was a godsend making it a true alternative to the train but it was very limited in scope. There was no Newquay or Cardiff shuttle for example.

A couple of months ago I was in London doing some work for the Railways. I stayed with friends near Stanstead. During this time I used intercity trains extensively with occasional flights by Easyjet/Go and Ryanair and I found that today there can sometimes be definite advantages in taking the plane rather than the train.

GNER would get me from Kings Cross to Glasgow Central in 6½ hours but I had to get myself into central London first thereby adding another 1½ hours to the journey time. In comparison, the flight from Stanstead to Glasgow including check-in and a long taxi ride into the city from Glasgow Airport was about 3 hours.

The biggest difference was in cost. The cheapest return rail fare London to Glasgow was £69 but could be as high as £160. The return flight by Easyjet was around £90.

A single journey from Stanstead to Newquay by Ryanair cost me a mere £15 and took just under 2 hours in total. The train still takes 5½ hours and the fare is over now £100. Oh and by the way, standard class passengers are no longer allowed to use the Restaurant Car.

So what’s my point you may well ask?

Britain is too small a country to really benefit from regional air travel although under certain circumstances, it can make more sense to fly rather than to take the train. However, an intercity train can hold up to 1,000 passengers and regional air travel can never replace that capability so there is always going to be room for both services. It’s up to individual customers to select the service that is most beneficial to them in terms of time and cost and market forces will ultimately dictate who will be the winner here in terms of price and provision of services.

The “greens” should stop making objections whilst avoiding the provision of viable alternatives. There are some things that must happen regardless of a known or perceived impact on the environment and whilst we all appreciate their concern, the world still has to turn.

Whilst I was in the UK, the government published its findings regarding expansion at the major London airports. A copy of the glossy brochure was delivered to my friend’s since they were a household that could be impacted by changes at Stanstead.

I have never read such a load of baloney in all my life. The brochure went into great detail about various alternatives for additional runways at each airport, much of which was pure pie-in-the-sky. A cursory glance at the scale drawings and maps provided indicated that aircraft could well require refuelling by the time they had taxied to the active! Each of the schemes suggested immense and totally unacceptable impact on the surrounding countryside and peoples homes.

Most of the options suggested were so patently against the public interest that it seemed to me that it was all a blind that would allow the government to do what it had already made its mind up to do all along, namely to (simply) add one new runway at (each) Gatwick and Stanstead whilst making better use of local international airports in the north, the midlands and the west.

At least, that is what I hope they intend but who knows?

Building a new airport in the Thames estuary with a dedicated rail link into London is a great idea. Less noise, more jobs etc etc but perhaps it should replace Heathrow completely rather than supplement it. Now there’s a thought!

Greenhouse gasses? Another blind. Cows do more damage to the ozone layer with their methane emissions than all the cars, trains and aeroplanes put together.

Finally, there was an earlier comment about government containment of population growth. This could be dealt with at a single stroke by stopping child benefit payments after the third child. Now there’s another thought!

[Argus]

Having flown from Paris to London recently, and also made the reverse journey by train a few days later, I must say that Eurostar has it over the dirty and 'tired' BA 737 with indifferent trolley dollies who'd rather pick their noses than attend on passengers.

[maxy101]

I wonder if we are all missing the point here. I predict the UK government wont take any of this into account, but will build whatever appears to be the cheapest option, and that within 10years and the benefit of hindsight ,will turn out to be the more expensive option.

[jumpseater]

This argument has been doing the rounds for many a year, one of the biggest problems is deciding which criteria to measure to gauge an environmental impact.

If we look in broad terms at emissions (greenhouse gasses) and noise we find:

Air Travel
Aircraft engines and APU's
Airport gound emmissions, road vehicles, pax (car and coach) and industry on site airsde, cargo, ground handling, airport ops.
Noise, predominantly around 10nm radius from the airport for aircraft, more locally for APU's and engine runs
Vibrations from noise (operations and engineering)
Land use, (generalisation) large areas at airport locations

Rail
Diesel powered trains are obviously more polluting as a single source than an electric one. (disregard the generating electricity argument, as otherwise it gets way to complex)
Linear pollution along the length of the rail line be it a short branch line or the length of a country.
Noise/vibration as immediately above.
Difficult to assess pax contribution to emmissions, but almost certainly less than air, particularly when one considers commuters walking to the stations, not something many people do to the airport!.
Land use, relatively small, linear in format. Think of how compact most major rail stations are considering the volume of pax flow through them.

Road
Large quantites of emmissions, especially due to congestion in urban areas, and one of the largest contributors to airport emmissions too, due to the volume of pax arriving by car.
Noise/vibration linear but also very concentrated in urban area
Land use linear but covering large areas.

Note I am using domestic UK in these categories, as per Danny's quoted letters. Places like Norway for example would have to assess the impact of the many ferry services that operate as public transport.

Until the regulators (govt), travel industries and greenies can agree to a uniform system of quantification of these basic impacts we will not get anywhere fast in integrating our transport systems. Some regulation (probably additional taxation) may well be required in some or all of the industries, as I would argue that the free market system we have is beginning to fail, hence many peoples concern regarding congestion and pollution. It does need brave descisions too by the regulators and planners.

For example there is currently proposals to link Luton airport to the east coast main line usin a completely new branch line. Ten miles south of the proposed junction is an disused line which runs east to west, and by reinstating that line it could link Luton and Stansted just by using disused lines. It would of course mean some demolition of houses, businesses, and put trains back where they havent been for some 40 years, and hence a new environmental impact for those affected, which is why the 'don't like it?, move/don't live there' argument has no credibility what so ever.

I have a friend who lives in Wimbledon and has to travel to both Edinburgh and Newcastle. If he goes to Edinburgh he flies from Heathrow or Gatwick and travels to the airport by public transport. If he goes to Newcastle he goes by train as the ground transport connection/check in time makes the journey too long by air. This is for two locations about 100miles apart on the same rail line. His work is always based 'in town' so the train delivers him straight to the door for both destinations. Going by road (coach) would do the same as rail, but takes far too long.

[ATC Watcher]

quote :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any decent market economy will provide a choice of transport, and we get to choose which we want to use.

What could be simpler?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you elaborate how a market economy would build roads abd high speed railways tracks ? I understand Eurotunnel was already bankrupt twice and the costs of the tunnel never recovered and never will be as the maintenance costs alone exceed revenue .


as to DANNY,s original question : the real costs of air travel ?

Another point :


What was the cost of the new Funchal runway extension and do you think it make sense ?

[zed3]

Whilst I agree the train is probably the best means of transport within any European country - city to city. The problem lies with pax from , say Singapore to Manchester. Arriving in Heathrow at around 0600 , after a twelve hour flight , one then should svaour the delights of a transfer by underground , taxi, or (expensive) Paddington link (plus underground) all with baggage and then a train from Euston up to Manchester. Here is where flying IS more easier and effective . This is going to be a long and interesting discussion methinks.

[G-ALAN]

It is obvious to me that flying is more efficient over longer distances, say 500+ miles, anything less than that and I'm afraid it's the train.

As a regular traveller from Glasgow to London I always take the train unless the flight is going dirt cheap. The distance between Glasgow Central and London Euston is 401 miles, that is city centre to city centre, the distance between Prestwick and Stansted is about 350 Miles however I still have to pay money to get to PIK, be there 1 1/2 hrs before flight which is usually delayed, wait on baggage at STN and then pay absurd amounts of money on the Stansted Express to get to the centre of London which can take up to another hour and haul heavy baggage around. All in all it takes me the same time to go by train and alot less hassle, money and stress. And by the way Virgin trains run a very punctual service we usually always arrive early, the record so far is 20 minutes early :ok:

Don't even get me started on going from GLW to LHR :*

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I wonder if we are all missing the point here. I predict the UK government wont take any of this into account, but will build whatever appears to be the cheapest option, and that within 10years and the benefit of hindsight ,will turn out to be the more expensive option.

That's precisly why we have such a run-down railway system in UK. Governments of all colours take the short term view - they just have one aim - to get re-elected next time. So they choose the cheapest expedient to hand regardless of the long term cost and failure to solve the root of the problem - the 'ostrich' approach. When the chickens come home to roost, they'll be 'Lord so and so' retired on a big pension and won't give a damn.

European governments seem to take a more pragmatic approach and are not afraid of comitting large amounts of money to public infrastructure projects like high speed inter-city railways. It costs more up front, but it pays in the long term and actually solves the problem.

It also brings fringe benefits not directly related to moving people around - towns and cities on the route of a high speed railway enjoy a massive boost to their economies and job opportunities - something that may not be of interest to a private railway company, but should be to a state-owned one.

Since European politicians presumambly want to get re-elected as well, I'm not sure how they manage to take this sensible approach when their UK equvalents dodge the issue. Perhaps European voters are more sensible than us in UK?

SSD

[Ploz]

After a very long time away from Pprune, I find a thread on subject that I have actually been working on! A number of interesting reports have been issued on the subject, some of which I have contributed to. In fact the House of Commons Transport Select Committee publishes its report on Thursday.

When we were examined by the Transport Committee, they were keen to know why newer, greener technology took so long to come on-line in the aviation industry. Our answer was basically that aircraft are designed to meet the regulations expected at the time of their introduction and no more. Coupled with the 25+ year fleet renewal time, techology takes an age to get right across the fleet.

There are still technological improvements to come, but much greening could come from operations rather than manufacturers. Lower cruise altitude, optimum leg lengths and air traffic management could deliver better "global warming performance" as well.

When the HoC Transport SC Report is available I will post a link as well as a link to our "evidence".

[Danny]

The main point I was interested in was the bit: The same goes for other environmental factors, such as passenger miles per hectare of land used (weighted for noise impacts) for road, rail and air.Nobody knows what the differences are, but intuitively it could be that air, although devastating locally, requires less land than any other form of motorised transport.Does anyone know if anyone actually doing a study or research into this question?

We are all familiar with the problems of getting to and from the airport and some of the loops we have to jump through once there but the actual question of the cost, say over 30 years, of operating each form of transport mentioned including the cost, maintenance and environmental impact of the supporting infrastructure does not seem to figure anywhere nearly accurately.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I guess any such study would require that the land under the noise footprint should be included, as well as actual airfield land.

The noise footprint of a big airport is massive. That of a motorway much smaller. That of a main line electric railway much smaller still. And on pollution grounds, the railway wins hands down.

And there's still the factor of untaxed avtur to consider - without worlwide agreements, that's tough one to crack.

SSD

[Knold]

RBF

3 hr for security/checkin

How do you figure?

[Globaliser]

Ploz may be able to post all the stuff here in due course, but one of the studies done recently shows that "rail transport makes more noise than air transport". The impact of noise from air transport is concentrated at origin and departure and is very intrusive in those areas, but otherwise it is silent as far as the ground is concerned. A train makes a smaller noise footprint at any one time but it is in continuous existence throughout its journey and the overall noise impact is arguably greater.

[ferris]

Also depends on how the electricity is generated to run the train.

Still plenty of places burning coal.

[Knold]

You bring up the great enigma of Green politics that I have never understood ferris. Actually I don't think Spock's logic could work this one out.

"No nuclear power but we want trains that run on electricity"?!?

[Ploz]

On the subject of comparative land use and environmental impact of rail and short haul air transport, see http://www.cfit.gov.uk/reports/racomp/index.htm

Although not perfect, it is the best study to date that I have found and has been cited in a number times in subsequent studies.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Also depends on how the electricity is generated to run the train. Still plenty of places burning coal

True, but it's far easier to capture and filter-out the nasties in a powerstation flue than to do the same in the equivalent in each of thousands of car, lorry, and aeroplane engines - also burning carbon fuels.

SSD

[ferris]

How do you filter out Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide?

[RatherBeFlying]

Knold 3 hours is the time Air Canada told me to arrive before departure time for two trips YYZ-LAX. Usually at least half of that 3hr. is spent killing time:ugh: Did arrive 2 hr early at LAX and had 10 minutes to spare.

Now for a debate in the Toronto Globe and Mail on a commentary by their former Editor:
Letter (http://globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030715/TUESLETS15-6//?query=thorsell) Another Letter (http://globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030715/TUESLETS15-7//?query=thorsell) Article (http://globeandmail.ca/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030714.wthors0714/BNStory/National/?query=thorsell)

[Iron City]

Ferris: If the engine (turbine, diesel, whatever except nuke) is operating properly there shouldn't be any CO, just CO2 and water.

Took my wife's 2002 Honda for it's obligatory emissions inspection not long ago and got back the report with standards for CO, Oxides of Nitrogen, and hydrocarbons and test results entered as "0" in all 3 areas. The dealership said that that was correct and that the car gave off so little of this stuff that the machine couldn't measure it. So maybe it wasn't literally zero but darn close.

The questions on most economical transportation means from A to B would be easy to answer if ther weren't so many artificial or politically driven factors thrown into the machinery... the market would decide. But since there are no perfect markets some analysis is needed. Economics of air vs rail is different in different countries and even regions. In the U.S. it's air by a mile in most places because the distances tend to be longer, and the passenger rail system, except in a few regions, is a joke.

[Knold]

Maybe I've just be lucky then. I've done two hours but never more.

[jumpseater]

Danny's question,

Does anyone know if anyone actually doing a study or research into this question?

We are all familiar with the problems of getting to and from the airport and some of the loops we have to jump through once there but the actual question of the cost, say over 30 years, of operating each form of transport mentioned including the cost, maintenance and environmental impact of the supporting infrastructure does not seem to figure anywhere nearly accurately.

Part of the problem in getting to this figure is that the railways and roads have been in existance for a very long time compared to air travel and have been integrated into the social structure to a far greater degree. I would suggest its only comparatively recently in the UK and Europe that air travel has been seen as an affordable alternative mode of transport. My parents would not have considered flying to Switzerland from the UK 30 years ago, they'd have taken the ferry/train, today I would find it hard to find a reason not to fly. Also what is your base line from where you start measuring. For example:
Trains:
Do you count the generation of the power (electricity or diesel) as part of the environmental impact? It obviously is, but will it make a meaningfull comparison against the impact of producing a tonne of kerosene for example?. Electricity gets to the train along a wire (supporting infrastructure), avgas has to use a pipeline, or more commonly train or road tanker(supporting infrastructure), do you count these?, the list is endless and I don't have the answer to where to start, but I'm farly certain that aviation, and relativley short sectors where there is a reasonable alternative mode of transport might not fare too well.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

In all these debates I want to jump up and down shouting WHO CARES?

I don't care about pollution from burning fuel and I don't care about depleting fossil resources. The pollution is getting less and fuel is plentiful.

The decline of heavy industry emissions in the our country over the past 30 years has more than compensated for any increase in transport emissions. The air is now far far cleaner in out cities than it was in the golden years of the 1950's when barely the local Vicar had a Morris Oxford that did 3,000 miles a year.

Just like the car the modern gas turbine engine puts out a fraction of the pollution of its 30yr old ancestor. Logically then we can afford to see a doubling or quadrupling of flights without any net increase in pollution - so where's the problem?

And don't give me noise.

There isn't a house in London where you can't hear the constant background roar of the road network. There isn't a house in Hounslow that has gone down in value because of Heathrow. I'd love to be able to see the residents associations faces in Hounslow, Crawley and Bishops Stortford when BAA announced it was moving its entire South East Operation to a new site off Kent. A 50% slump is property prices and 100% jump in local unemployment would focus their minds with alacrity I think.


WWW

[BALIX]

Why is it when ever there is a debate about the relative merits of transportation that everyone assumes that passengers are all going from the same starting point to the same ending point? Sure, if I wanted to go from the centre of Glasgow to the centre of London, the train might just be a bit faster when the transit times to airports, check-in etc. is taken into consideration.

However, last weekend I wanted to go from my home in Troon to the mother-in-laws in Chelmsford. (OK, maybe not 'wanted' to go...). Five minutes to Prestwick, one hour check-in, fifty-five minute flight, twenty minute for the bags to arrive and a half hour journey at the other end. Three hours door to door. Try and do that on the train. Even on the way back, with a two hour delay following Monday's problems at STN, I was still home well before I could have hoped for using other forms of transport.

OK, I know this debate is not strictly speaking about transit times but every journey is embarked upon for a different reason and people have their own reasons for choosing one form of transport over another. If they stuck a high speed train link between Troon and Chelmsford (and charged just thirty quid return), I would maybe use it. Until then, it is a no-brianer.

Incidentally, in France they have an extensive TGV service but there is still a good market for domestic air travel.

[Iron City]

If the question is whether air transportation is more damaging environmentally than other methods the simplistic way is to compare a given length of journey by a train, automobile, bus, and airplane. This is a gross oversimplification, but could be useful.

Neither the MEPs original letter or the response to it had any quantitative information in it. Some possible sources for the interested are:

www.aee.faa.gov/emissions/global/IPCC_report.htm on the U.S. FAA web site the office of environment and energy (primarily noise and emissions oriented, though deals some with fuel efficiency) IPCC was an intenational panel talking about aviation effects on global climate through 2050. There are also other references in the www.aee.faa.gov site.

To compare to trains and automobiles the web site www.fra.dot.gov/rdv/environment/index.html gives the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration material with links to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that has data on emissions of various types of power plants, including aircraft, trains and automobiles.

From just a cursory review of the IPCC report the question may be simple but the answers are not. In their work they used a 5% per year increase in aircraft operations (don't all the airlines wish that!) and a 3% increase per year in emissions because as technology improves powerplants get more efficient. It seems that aviation produces about 3% of all manmade (oops human generated, must be PC) CO2 emissions and 17% or so of all transportation emissions. So if aviation hauls more than 17% or so of all the person miles and ton miles of transportation world wide it is more environmentally friendly than other modes, at least in terms of CO2 output.

[jumpseater]

WWW, Who cares? well lots of people, in particular lots of people who are not in our industry, but are affected by it.

'The pollution is getting less' really?

'The decline of heavy industry emissions in the our country over the past 30 years has more than compensated for any increase in transport emissions' really?

Logically then we can afford to see a doubling or quadrupling of flights without any net increase in pollution - so where's the problem? really?

Perhaps for the above three you might like to validate your statements, as they fly in direct contradiction to what most of the industry environmentalists are trying to address. If you're right then surely we're all wasting our time.

And don't give me noise. Why not?, after all thats exactly what you're giving someone on the departure or approach each time you fly. Noise is easily described as unwanted/undesired sound, no different maybe from next doors dog yapping all day after you've just done a six sector day and ended up using all your discretion :ok:, or Nova boy sitting outside your house wid da bass booming, or are those unacceptable to you because you feel they're antisocial sounds YOU personally might not want. Whats acceptable to you isn't to other people and vice versa.

The aviation industry does not have a unilateral embargo from its environmental impacts, thats why we have environmental impact assessments, airport consultative committees, a department of environment (or whatever they're called this week) etc etc....

[Ploz]

Well said Jumpseater - Emissions are a global problem (as is avaition - global, not a problem) and heavy industry has not declined, it has just moved.

As promissed, here is the link to the HoC Transport Committee report published yesterday. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmtran/454/454.pdf
Unusually, they have actually taken note of our evidence (which is pleasing :D) and on a first scan section 4 on environmental issues is pretty sound.

Reading a bit further, BAA, BA, bmi and CAA all come in for some pretty harsh critisism, but if we go into that, it could start a whole new thread.