High Speed Two

[doktorhonig]

The money spent on such large infrastructure projects isn't lost. It's put into teh economic circle, and there's no problem with building both, crossrail and other projects around your country. It's definitely not a money thing - why else are governments building large-scale infrastructure during recessions?

Now is the best time to spend money and get something in exchange instead of paying unemployment-money-stuff (i don't know how you call it).
Of course there are constraints like qualified people and available machinery, but always mentioning huge numbers doesn't help.

[Wasila]

It is true that the money will (eventually) be recovered in ticket sales. Of course that will only go to London - but at least it means that there is less need for the government to divert funds there. Also consultancy complaints etc. are beyond the scope of the discussion.

[John]

Relatively few. I'd guess maybe 5 - 10% domestic + Paris + Brussels. But you have to bear in mind that quite a few of these wouldn't be replaced by HS2 (e.g. Belfast).

Another thing to consider is the time of day these flights leave, of course there are some in the morning peak, however it may only open up for instance 5 morning slot pairs at times suitable for markets in the western hemisphere, e.g. North and South America.

See my post on page 1 of this topic: http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?p=757742#p757742

It looks at the numbers for domestic flights out of Heathrow and what HS2 might reduce.

[Wasila]

And, of course, it's a much greener way to travel. Also you don't have the fuss of security, and a rail station tends to be a lot closer than an airport. And possibly more importantly than air travel - it will make rail more competitive against road. It would reduce pressure on A/M4 as well as the M1 and all others that go to major destinations.

[JamieLei]

Looking down on the departure list, very VERY few flights are actually domestic. Especially if you take into account that most domestic flights are double counted cause of being codeshared with AA/BA.

http://www.heathrowairport.com/portal/p ... epartures/

[orudge]

Looking down on the departure list, very VERY few flights are actually domestic. Especially if you take into account that most domestic flights are double counted cause of being codeshared with AA/BA.

They're much more than double-counted if you're looking at the departures list there - bmi also flies extensively within the UK, and they have half a dozen or so codeshare partners. From Heathrow, I think it is only BA and bmi that fly domestically. From the other London airports, you also have the likes of Flybe, EasyJet, Ryanair, and no doubt other low cost airlines with silly names. But from Heathrow there are of course many more mid- and long-haul flights, since Heathrow is the UK's "premier" airport.

[Kevo00]

There might be relatively few domestic flights, but they certainly jam up the runway. I remember having to wait the best part of an hour for my United flight to San Francisco to take off, while a procession of at least 5 small BA planes (sorry not a great plane spotter), probably going to the UK and near continent, took off.

[orudge]

On the contrary, I had to wait at least half an hour or so on Friday for my flight from Heathrow to Manchester to depart because there were lots of other planes heading off to more exotic destinations. Heathrow could ideally do with a third runway, but that's another kettle of fish entirely...

[JamieLei]

I'm completely for the third runway. Heathrow currently runs at 98% capacity - no other airport in the world does that. I'd be happier though if a lwas was also put in place which means that it cannot schedule more than 85% capacity, effectively increasing capacity by 27.5%, and making sure that the number of planes landing doesn't just fill up completely.

Third runway roll ahead. Hence I'm not voting for the Conservatives - they plan to cancel it.

[orudge]

I'm completely for the third runway. Heathrow currently runs at 98% capacity - no other airport in the world does that. I'd be happier though if a lwas was also put in place which means that it cannot schedule more than 85% capacity, effectively increasing capacity by 27.5%, and making sure that the number of planes landing doesn't just fill up completely.

Indeed, one of the main problems at the moment is that the slightest thing can cause rippling delays - resulting in many flights having to either circle the airport for longer before landing (resulting in more pollution), or sitting on the tarmac not being able to take off (again, resulting in more pollution). If a new runway was built, with a provision along the lines of that which you suggest, then I imagine it would help matters considerably.

And of course, expansion of Heathrow doesn't have to mean that High Speed Two can't be built, or similar. HS2 will no doubt reduce certain domestic flights, although it certainly won't (and shouldn't) eliminate them completely. What this country seems to lack these days is joined-up thinking on the matter of transport, with the consideration that planes and cars can still play a role, and indeed play an important role, and that not every journey is going to be replaced by a train or a bus.

Speaking of which, how come when a new railway line gets built and is used to capacity, it's a good thing, but when a new road is built and immediately fills up with traffic it's a bad thing? (The latter showing that there's obviously been a major demand for such a road anyway, and it perhaps should have been built with more capacity in mind!)

Anyway, somewhat tangental there...

Third runway roll ahead. Hence I'm not voting for the Conservatives - they plan to cancel it.

This is something that bugs me, indeed. The Conservatives also seem to have decided they're not going to raise the motorway speed limit to 80mph, as they once said they would. Guess that's what happens when they turn "green". Problem is, what are the alternatives though? Labour, no thank you, over half of my life I've been governed by Labour, and I'd rather not see them any more for a good while. The Lib Dems? Possibly - some of their ideas are good, and some are very silly. Unfortunately, it still looks unlikely that they're going to be a viable candidate for actually running the country in the near future. In Scotland, I guess we have the SNP, but they seem to be looking particularly poorer now that the economy has gone bust (and they can't rely on handouts from Westminster...), plus I don't care for Scottish independence. So I probably will be voting Conservative, unless they roll out some particularly stupid policies in the next few months. We shall see.

[John]

I'm completely for the third runway. Heathrow currently runs at 98% capacity - no other airport in the world does that.

Yes there is. It's called London Gatwick.

Speaking of which, how come when a new railway line gets built and is used to capacity, it's a good thing, but when a new road is built and immediately fills up with traffic it's a bad thing? (The latter showing that there's obviously been a major demand for such a road anyway, and it perhaps should have been built with more capacity in mind!)

Because people will use the easiest option with the least congestion. You build a new road then you create new car journeys - as well as shifting them from other roads.
Building new roads doesn't solve problems. It just shifts them elsewhere. Motorways are the prime example for this - adding lanes causes months of delays for the road works. Then the traffic levels increase until it all jams up again.
Just look at what 4-laneing the M25 has done...

Also road at capacity = traffic jam, railway at capacity = still running.

[orudge]

Building new roads doesn't solve problems. It just shifts them elsewhere. Motorways are the prime example for this - adding lanes causes months of delays for the road works. Then the traffic levels increase until it all jams up again.

Not necessarily - look at, say, the A74(M) and compare it with the M74. The two roads form a continuous route between Glasgow and Carlisle, but the M74 is primarily two-lane, with the A74(M) being three-lane. The M74 is typically rather busy, and appears relatively congested. The A74(M) has lots of extra capacity, and as such flows much more freely, while still only having much the same level of traffic.

In the case of, say, the M25, the fact is simply that there is too much traffic trying to use it. There's only so many lanes you can add on that will really be effective, as junctions tend to be the choke points - in this case, building completely alternate routes can help alleviate such issues, such as building a new "express" route next to it which doesn't have as many junctions. The M6 Toll is a semi-decent example of this, but the fact that it's tolled will no doubt have a negative effect on travel levels. If the tolls were removed, then traffic levels there would increase, but traffic levels on the parallel M6 would reduce too. There would probably be an overall increase in traffic using the two roads, but since it would be effectively doubling capacity, I'm sure there's still be a reasonable amount of spare capacity to handle it.

And, of course, there was an extensive plan to build several London ringways, but that was shelved many years ago as it would admittedly have resulted in too much disruption to central London.

[Wasila]

I am for the third runway and am a Conservative supporter (economy rates higher on my list than transport - even though they can be related. At least they support Heathrow Hub). Unfortunately it seems that the 3rd runway battle is lost for the forseeable future - BAA have already have an opportunity to submit a planning application for the Runway but have still not done so.

I am not sure if this is due to money issues as it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity but I wouldn't be surprised since the old technique was deployed against it; buy a healthy company and saddle it with the debts you used to buy it.

Also I am for raising the speed limit - it is lower than in most Western countries and Germany has know problems despite it's (lack of a) speed limit, the problem is that the anti-car lobby is powerful here. That is why we have such a spare motorway network.

[JamieLei]

Route's been announced.
Personally I think it's a bloody good one - forking at Birmingham for both the West and East.

http://railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010 ... 540km.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8561286.stm

[atomicdanny]

While I think its a good one, I doubt that it will happen because as soon as the election is over, it wil be cancelled like all of the other projects (except the chiltern one as that one actually is going on, and crossrail!)

[JamieLei]

Hence why they really need to grit their plans into the ground and public conciousness such that the Tories can't cancel it. The plans now go to Leeds and the North East, what more do the Tories want!

[orudge]

If one were to actually read the article though, the Conservatives are committed "in principle" to the line though, and would even plan to start work two years earlier than Labour. Whether that *actually* happens is perhaps another matter.

[JamieLei]

Although it was only a few months ago they were thinking of scrapping the whole thing on the principle of "it doesn't go to Leeds".

[John]

London Terminus of Euston?

I know that's where the West Coast ends, but surely linking up with the highspeed line at St Pancras/Kings Cross makes more sense?

Or am I missing something obvious?

[EXTspotter]

No space at St Pancras for more platforms and the current ones are at almost full capacity.