Tories consider plans to force short-haul air passengers on to high-speed trains

[Dave]

From the Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2344067.ece

Greg Hurst, Political Correspondent

Plans that would curb drastically the number of flights taken by
British travellers are being considered by the Conservatives with new
taxes on air travel and a halt to airport expansion.

Short-haul flights would receive particular attention: VAT would be
levied on fuel for domestic flights for the first time and airlines
would be forced to give over airport slots to long-haul trips. All
flights would be subject to a separate per-flight tax based on the
amount of CO2 generated, replacing the air passenger duty and shifting
the burden from passengers to airlines, although this might force up
ticket prices anyway. The proposals also include plans for a
moratorium on airport expansion pending attempts to free capacity at
existing airports by restricting short-haul flights and forcing
travellers to switch to trains.

The plans have been drawn up by a policy review group looking at
quality of life issues, whose report is due to be published next month
before the Tory conference in Blackpool. The recommendations have been
put forward by one of its working groups focusing on transport policy
and it was unclear last night whether they had been accepted in full
by the commission's co-chair-men John Gummer, the former Environment
Secretary, and Zac Goldsmith, the wealthy environmentalist.

The group has rejected a widely ridiculed proposal by David Cameron to
restrict people to one return short-haul flight per year at a standard
rate of tax and charge more for subsequent aircraft trips. This idea
of a "green air miles allowance", put forward in a consultation
document, Greener Skies, published by Mr Cameron in March, was
attacked by airlines and tourist bodies and caused unease among some
Conservatives. It has been quietly dropped as impractical.

The group is determined to press ahead with moves to force travellers
to abandon short-haul flights in favour of rail for domestic and
nearby European destinations or face steep rises in taxes or fares.
Its report is based on a calculation that about a fifth of flights
from Heathrow are to destinations easily reached by rail, according to
the Evening Standard. The most popular short-haul destinations are
Paris, Amsterdam and Brussels and, within Britain, Edinburgh,
Manchester, Glasgow and Newcastle.

The Government's plans to allow a third runway at Heathrow would be
unnecessary if such journeys were transferred to rail and airlines
were forced to reallocate their take-off and landing slots for
long-haul travel, the report concludes. Plans for a second runway at
Stansted could also be shelved, it argues.

It represents a gamble that voters will put bold environmental
policies before personal convenience, although heightened security
measures and resulting queues at airports have already begun to alter
the equation. The opening of the Channel Tunnel rail link from St
Pancras will also cut journey times to Paris and Brussels by 20
minutes.

George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, has made clear that he intends
to use green taxes to raise revenue for other policy pledges and tax
reductions in the party's manifesto, such as a commitment to support
marriage. A Conservative spokesman said: "We will not be commenting on
the report until it is published but, as with all of the policy
groups, everything contained in the report will be proposals to the
Shadow Cabinet and will not necessarily become party policy."

The Liberal Democrats intensified the battle for the green vote by
publishing their own environment policy, including a series of taxes
on aviation to fund the party's plans for income tax cuts for the low
paid.

[Dave]

See also

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23410032-details/Tories'+green+taxes+would+fund+tax+breaks+for+families/article.do

...

With other moves, including higher duty on gas-guzzling 4x4s, the
Conservatives believe that they will generate enough "green taxes" to
help fund measures such as a married couples' allowance.

They have drawn up a list of proposals including a freeze on all
airport expansion and tough new taxes on flights to make Britain
greener - and make high-speed trains the transport of choice.

Senior party figures hope that the plans will make the Tories the
greenest party at the next general election and win votes among young
people and families worried about global warming.

The Conservatives' Quality of Life Policy Group, chaired by former
minister John Gummer and green campaigner Zac Goldsmith, has concluded
that serious measures are needed to halt the growth in UK flights.
Among their proposals are:

. A moratorium on all airport expansion, including Heathrow, Gatwick
and Stansted;
. The imposition of VAT on fuel for domestic flights;
. A "single flight tax" to shift tax burden from passengers to
airlines;
. Domestic flight slots to be handed to long-haul trips instead.

The group has however decided to ditch a much-ridiculed proposal to
impose a "green air miles" limit on air travel by which travellers
would have been allowed only one flight and then would have had to pay
more for each subsequent flight.

The idea has now been dropped as impractical and bureaucratic.

Heathrow has already come under unprecedented fire this summer for its
severe delays and losing passengers' baggage.

After 18 months' work, the report by the Quality of Life group will
harness public anger with the airport's bosses BAA. The Tories want to
split up BAA's monopoly to allow Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted to be
run separately to boost competition.

The group has found that almost 20 per cent of flights from Heathrow
every year are to destinations within easy reach by train. The top 10
shorthaul journeys are to Paris, Amsterdam, Edinburgh, Manchester,
Brussels, Glasgow, Newcastle, Leeds/Bradford, Rotterdam and
Durham/Tees Valley.

If those slots were handed to longhaul flights instead, Heathrow could
abandon its plans for a third runway, the Tory group has discovered.

"A moratorium at the very least would allow us to look at what can be
done to enhance capacity on the longer flights," a senior source said.
"With extra security delays at airports and the new Channel Tunnel
rail link cutting the journey time to Paris and Brussels, travelling
by rail can give the taxpayer and passenger better value for money -
as well as being much better for the planet."

The policy group also proposes to scrap Air Passenger Duty, which
Gordon Brown this year increased by between £5 and £40 for various
flights.

It wants to replace the "crude" tax with a "single flight tax" that
would charge airlines for the CO2 emissions per flight. The tax would
be an expensive disincentive to planes to take off half-full.

VAT would also be put on domestic flights. Some 12 out of the original
15 EU states currently impose VAT and environmentalists believe the
British exemption for airlines is an "anachronism".

Although air travel makes up less than 7 per cent of the UK's carbon
emissions, the figure is set to soar to 25 per cent by 2050 under
Labour's expansion plans.

[kytelly]

Post by Dave
VAT would also be put on domestic flights. Some 12 out of the
original 15 EU states currently impose VAT and environmentalists
believe the British exemption for airlines is an "anachronism".

Have to be very carefull here; rail travel is VAT exempt as well and I
could see the airlines making a case for a "level playing field"
accross all transport if they ever had to levy VAT...

[Neillw001]

Post by kytelly

Post by Dave
VAT would also be put on domestic flights. Some 12 out of the
original 15 EU states currently impose VAT and environmentalists
believe the British exemption for airlines is an "anachronism".

Have to be very carefull here; rail travel is VAT exempt as well and I
could see the airlines making a case for a "level playing field"
accross all transport if they ever had to levy VAT...

They'd probably find any move like that would fall foul of EU
competition laws. In any case, do they think trains run on something
that doesn't create pollution somewhere along the way. People are also
not going to vote for a party that restricts freedom of choice that
much. The average Joe in the street doesn't give a damm about global
warming, but does about cheap flights.

Neill

[Capt. Deltic]

Post by Neillw001

Post by kytelly

Post by Dave
VAT would also be put on domestic flights. Some 12 out of the
original 15 EU states currently impose VAT and environmentalists
believe the British exemption for airlines is an "anachronism".

Have to be very carefull here; rail travel is VAT exempt as well and I
could see the airlines making a case for a "level playing field"
accross all transport if they ever had to levy VAT...

They'd probably find any move like that would fall foul of EU
competition laws. In any case, do they think trains run on something
that doesn't create pollution somewhere along the way. People are also
not going to vote for a party that restricts freedom of choice that
much. The average Joe in the street doesn't give a damm about global
warming, but does about cheap flights.
Neill

What no one seems to have noticed yet is that last week's Redwood
Report to Cameron, with its proposal for 00 gauge rubber traction
tyres on the 1:1 scale railway said that intercity rail could not
compete with domestic air travel so the railways should concentrate on
commuter traffic (40 trains/hour with traction tyres) and freight (EWS
man on expert panel). Mag-lev lines would take over long distance
ground transport.

What we have to remember that these strudies are produced by
professional politicians who have been insulated from the real world
for most of their working lives. So let's not take them too
seriously!

Among the Tories Chris Grayling was relativly sensible, but even he
suffered from mag-levity.

Roger

Roger .

.

[Dave]

Post by Capt. Deltic
What no one seems to have noticed yet is that last week's Redwood
Report to Cameron, with its proposal for 00 gauge rubber traction
tyres on the 1:1 scale railway said that intercity rail could not
compete with domestic air travel so the railways should concentrate on
commuter traffic (40 trains/hour with traction tyres) and freight (EWS
man on expert panel). Mag-lev lines would take over long distance
ground transport.

There was a thread on the topic a week or so ago. It wasn't totally
supportive, as you might imagine.

Post by Capt. Deltic
What we have to remember that these strudies are produced by
professional politicians who have been insulated from the real world
for most of their working lives. So let's not take them too
seriously!
Among the Tories Chris Grayling was relativly sensible, but even he
suffered from mag-levity.
Roger

I suspect much of this report was produced under Chris Grayling's
tenure. It certainly sounds like the type of thinking he has advocated
before in public and in an email exchange we had. I got the impression
that he is open minded on the maglev issue, rather than backing it at
the total expense of normal hsr.

D

[The Good Doctor]

Post by Dave
I suspect much of this report was produced under Chris Grayling's
tenure. It certainly sounds like the type of thinking he has advocated
before in public and in an email exchange we had. I got the impression
that he is open minded on the maglev issue, rather than backing it at
the total expense of normal hsr.

If Chris Grayling is open minded about Maglev, then he is a fool.

Anyone with a modicum of sense will rightly reject Maglev out of hand
because of its extreme inflexibility, its vulnerability to breakdowns
and its colossal appetite for energy.

[Dave]

Post by The Good Doctor

Post by Dave
I got the impression
that he is open minded on the maglev issue, rather than backing it at
the total expense of normal hsr.

If Chris Grayling is open minded about Maglev, then he is a fool.

Nothing like a blinkered argument. It has its pros and cons. I'm sure
Chris Grayling is capable of weighing them up.

Post by The Good Doctor
Anyone with a modicum of sense will rightly reject Maglev out of hand
because of its extreme inflexibility, its vulnerability to breakdowns
and its colossal appetite for energy.

1) "Extreme inflexibility" - the achilles heel of any new transport
system. In this case the possible need to change mode offset by the
massive speed advantage to get you to that change quicker than any
through train.

2) "Vulnerability to breakdowns" - do you have casualty statistics for
the system available? How is this any worse than existing systems if
it does break down?

3) "Appetite for energy" - ah yes, so much more energy hungry than
those Airbus 319s and Boeing 737 it would displace. OK, so a 300mph
Maglev takes a lot more power than a 125mph or 200mph train (but the
system overall having half as many units), but this *could* be 100%
clean power, unlike the plane.


You say in a post below that people will choose speed, convenience and
price over green issues. Unfortunately that is probably true, so here
is one *possible* answer that gives the speed and if done right, the
green and the price. In otherwords, a massive carrot and not a stick.

By the way, I am not explicitly pro-Maglev - I recognise that there
are some disadvantages that normal HSR does better - I am just not
explicitly anti it either.

What I don't like is when it is used as a red herring by some
politicians to just do nothing. I think UK Ultraspeed have been naive
in getting used in this way.

D

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 03:57:11 -0700 someone who may be Dave

Post by Dave
1) "Extreme inflexibility" - the achilles heel of any new transport
system. In this case the possible need to change mode offset by the
massive speed advantage

Which massive speed advantage is this? Duorail trains seem to be
doing fairly well in running at high speed.

Post by Dave
2) "Vulnerability to breakdowns" - do you have casualty statistics for
the system available? How is this any worse than existing systems if
it does break down?

The existing duorail trains have the advantage that they can be
diverted onto other duorail railways if necessary [1]. Typically
this is the route the high speed line bypasses. That flexibility
would not be available to a monorail railway unless there was a
network of parallel routes, which seems unlikely to me.

[1] which is what interests me about Eurostar's intention to throw
away this advantage.

[Dave]

Post by David Hansen
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 03:57:11 -0700 someone who may be Dave

Post by Dave
1) "Extreme inflexibility" - the achilles heel of any new transport
system. In this case the possible need to change mode offset by the
massive speed advantage

Which massive speed advantage is this? Duorail trains seem to be
doing fairly well in running at high speed.

Well, the status quo - as I am sure you know - is that commercial
maglev reaches 431km/h against rail's 320km/h. I'm sure that I also
don't need to tell you that the acceleration can be sustained at a
constant rate to higher velocities. Or that the system is capable of
higher speed on a longer track than that in use today. (Genuinely
proven so, as opposed to the odd record attempt.)

Post by David Hansen

Post by Dave
2) "Vulnerability to breakdowns" - do you have casualty statistics for
the system available? How is this any worse than existing systems if
it does break down?

The existing duorail trains have the advantage that they can be
diverted onto other duorail railways if necessary [1]. Typically
this is the route the high speed line bypasses. That flexibility
would not be available to a monorail railway unless there was a
network of parallel routes, which seems unlikely to me.

In the case of the UK, this only holds true if the conventional
duorail system is built to the same loading gauge, has stock that fits
the same loading gauge, has power and signalling systems compatible
with the diversionary routes, drivers with route knowledge etc, etc.
Realistically, what is the chance of that, given the problems
introducing new units or the issues E* had on its introduction in the
south and on attempts to take it past Newcastle?

The backwards compatibility argument is much weaker in the UK than on
continental tracks. Far better make sure the system is robust and deal
with extreme situations with other means.


As I said above, I am not pro-maglev or anti-maglev. I just take a
considered view on these things before branding something foolish. If
an extended conventional vs. maglev debate distracts us from the issue
that something is needed, then I would favour just getting on with
conventional rail a la HS2. I also think that in the case of the UK
Ultraspeed scheme, any time advantage gained is lost in the Crossrail
transfer to Central London (assuming that you want to go there and the
latter exists) - and that this makes a mockery of their claims to be
the only system capable of offering such journey times (but this is of
course not a generic fault of maglev). However, I also think that
UKU's journey time figure is for an all stops service, which on their
route would be an interesting concept.

Post by David Hansen
[1] which is what interests me about Eurostar's intention to throw
away this advantage.

Because keeping routes into South London and Waterloo International
open for stoppages would be an expensive insurance policy.


D

[asdf]

Post by Dave

Post by David Hansen

Post by Dave
1) "Extreme inflexibility" - the achilles heel of any new transport
system. In this case the possible need to change mode offset by the
massive speed advantage

Which massive speed advantage is this? Duorail trains seem to be
doing fairly well in running at high speed.

Well, the status quo - as I am sure you know - is that commercial
maglev reaches 431km/h against rail's 320km/h.

I would argue that going (much) above 320km/h is undesirable, as the
energy efficiency becomes abysmal (worse even than aircraft).

Post by Dave

Post by David Hansen
The existing duorail trains have the advantage that they can be
diverted onto other duorail railways if necessary [1]. Typically
this is the route the high speed line bypasses. That flexibility
would not be available to a monorail railway unless there was a
network of parallel routes, which seems unlikely to me.

In the case of the UK, this only holds true if the conventional
duorail system is built to the same loading gauge, has stock that fits
the same loading gauge, has power and signalling systems compatible
with the diversionary routes, drivers with route knowledge etc, etc.
Realistically, what is the chance of that, given the problems
introducing new units or the issues E* had on its introduction in the
south and on attempts to take it past Newcastle?

I'd agree with this - the railway these days does not seem interested
in diverting trains when something goes wrong, preferring to bustitute
instead.

Post by Dave
The backwards compatibility argument is much weaker in the UK than on
continental tracks. Far better make sure the system is robust and deal
with extreme situations with other means.

I disagree. Backwards compatibility is important, not for diversions,
but to allow scheduled through services from the high speed route onto
classic lines. See the Class 395s and CTRL-DS.

[Dave]

Post by asdf

Post by Dave

Post by David Hansen

Post by Dave
1) "Extreme inflexibility" - the achilles heel of any new
transport
system. In this case the possible need to change mode offset by the
massive speed advantage

Which massive speed advantage is this? Duorail trains seem to be
doing fairly well in running at high speed.

Well, the status quo - as I am sure you know - is that commercial
maglev reaches 431km/h against rail's 320km/h.

I would argue that going (much) above 320km/h is undesirable, as the
energy efficiency becomes abysmal (worse even than aircraft).

Can you cite a source for this? From what I have seen, the power
needed by a Boeing 747 at cruise velocity is 7x that of a modern train
at 350km/h (65MW at cruise vs 9.6MW for Siemens Velaro - Google it)
for a vehicle carrying potentially 1/2 the number of pax. A 500 tonne
(10 car) Transrapid requires 14MW at 500km/h, which is about the same
as a 300km/h Eurostar for slightly more pax (~1000 against ~800). And
as I said before, that is the consumption of 1 unit. There will be
less units in a maglev system than conventional system.

The 14MW comes from 1.7kW/tonne for levitation, P = Coeff drag x
front area x velocity ^ 3 x air density / 2 for the drag, 1/2 m
v^2 for forward motion and an efficiency of 0.85.

This "maximum desirable speed" seems to rise over the years on uk.r to
whatever the current in-service top speed of conventional rail is...
:-/

Post by asdf

Post by Dave

Post by David Hansen
The existing duorail trains have the advantage that they can be
diverted onto other duorail railways if necessary [1]. Typically
this is the route the high speed line bypasses. That flexibility
would not be available to a monorail railway unless there was a
network of parallel routes, which seems unlikely to me.

In the case of the UK, this only holds true if the conventional
duorail system is built to the same loading gauge, has stock that fits
the same loading gauge, has power and signalling systems compatible
with the diversionary routes, drivers with route knowledge etc, etc.
Realistically, what is the chance of that, given the problems
introducing new units or the issues E* had on its introduction in the
south and on attempts to take it past Newcastle?

I'd agree with this - the railway these days does not seem
interested
in diverting trains when something goes wrong, preferring to
bustitute
instead.

Post by Dave
The backwards compatibility argument is much weaker in the UK than on
continental tracks. Far better make sure the system is robust and deal
with extreme situations with other means.

I disagree. Backwards compatibility is important, not for
diversions,
but to allow scheduled through services from the high speed route onto
classic lines. See the Class 395s and CTRL-DS.

Which is precisely the crux of my first point. If the enhanced speed
of the maglev combined with good timetabling allowed a quick arrival
at a regional main station, then forward connection by conventional
train, it is probable that the total journey time would be shorter
than if one took a 320km/h train to the junction with the classic line
and on to the eventual destination.

D

[asdf]

Post by Dave

Post by asdf

Post by Dave

Post by David Hansen
Which massive speed advantage is this? Duorail trains seem to be
doing fairly well in running at high speed.

Well, the status quo - as I am sure you know - is that commercial
maglev reaches 431km/h against rail's 320km/h.

I would argue that going (much) above 320km/h is undesirable, as the
energy efficiency becomes abysmal (worse even than aircraft).

Can you cite a source for this?

The first part? Energy usage increases with the square of the speed,
while journey time is inversely proportional to speed (so the gains in
journey time get progressively smaller for each additional km/h).
Obviously it's fairly arbitrary where you draw the line.

The second part? Nope, other than this group passim. IIRC some figures
posted have ranked maglev as less efficient than air. Yours differ, of
course.

Post by Dave

Post by asdf
I disagree. Backwards compatibility is important, not for
diversions,
but to allow scheduled through services from the high speed route onto
classic lines. See the Class 395s and CTRL-DS.

Which is precisely the crux of my first point. If the enhanced speed
of the maglev combined with good timetabling allowed a quick arrival
at a regional main station, then forward connection by conventional
train, it is probable that the total journey time would be shorter
than if one took a 320km/h train to the junction with the classic line
and on to the eventual destination.

Probably only if the high speed leg of the journey is at least 300
miles non-stop, or more if there are intermediate stops. (I can't be
bothered to do an exact calculation as I don't have the acceleration
figures to hand, and it's probably been done before anyway.)

[Lüko Willms]

Am Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:09:31 UTC, schrieb The Good Doctor

Post by The Good Doctor
If Chris Grayling is open minded about Maglev, then he is a fool.

Can't comment that since I never heard of that person.

Post by The Good Doctor
Anyone with a modicum of sense will rightly reject Maglev out of hand
because of its extreme inflexibility, its vulnerability to breakdowns
and its colossal appetite for energy.

Well -- any transport system linked to a guideway is inflexible, it
can only move where such guidelines have been built beforehand. Only a
mule brings you everywhere, or a Hovercraft.

The only Maglev in revenue service linking Pudong airport with the
Shanghai subways system runs for several years now, and does not prove
it being "vulnerable to breakdowns".

As to energy -- well, it uses energy for suspension and guidance,
what the traditional railway does not, but then there is hardly any
friction and roll resistance to be overcome, lowering the energy need
for moving. It might get even with the traditional railway, or might
even be lower.

BTW, in the times when I have travelled to Britain more frequently,
I wanted to have a fast link between the Gatwick and Heathrow
airports, done best by a Transrapid type maglev. I think one should
seriously consider a maglev ring linking all airports around London
(maybe except London City Airport), allowing a better load balancing
between the airports, even transferring between flights landing at one
and departing at another airport. Being built on a viaduct would not
take too much space on the ground.


Cheers,
L.W.

[Terry Harper]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:36:19 -0700, "Capt. Deltic"

Post by Capt. Deltic
What no one seems to have noticed yet is that last week's Redwood
Report to Cameron, with its proposal for 00 gauge rubber traction
tyres on the 1:1 scale railway said that intercity rail could not
compete with domestic air travel so the railways should concentrate on
commuter traffic (40 trains/hour with traction tyres) and freight (EWS
man on expert panel). Mag-lev lines would take over long distance
ground transport.

How many have actually read the Report. Maglev is mentioned once:

Finally, we have looked at high speed train options for the UK, and
have concluded that an incoming
Conservative government should explore the feasibility and costs of
implementing the new Maglev
technology, which offers the opportunity of far faster inter-city
travel, and hence a more effective
challenge to the aeroplane. This should surely be preferred to
spending further large sums of money on
attempts to create a limited number of express facilities on our
already congested and overburdened
track at the expense of other rail services.

No proposal there that Maglev should take over long distance ground
transport, only that it should be "explored".

[woody]

Post by Neillw001

Post by kytelly

Post by Dave
VAT would also be put on domestic flights. Some 12 out of the
original 15 EU states currently impose VAT and environmentalists
believe the British exemption for airlines is an "anachronism".

Have to be very carefull here; rail travel is VAT exempt as well and I
could see the airlines making a case for a "level playing field"
accross all transport if they ever had to levy VAT...

They'd probably find any move like that would fall foul of EU
competition laws. In any case, do they think trains run on something
that doesn't create pollution somewhere along the way. People are also
not going to vote for a party that restricts freedom of choice that
much. The average Joe in the street doesn't give a damm about global
warming, but does about cheap flights.
Neill

As you say Joe public is hooked on cheap flights and a recent survey
of rail users showed that rails green credentials dont really come
into the equation,speed and price is what matters and more and more
people are voting with their feet particulaly where Rail journey times
exceed 3 hours which is why FGW are now struggling in my own back yard
Plymouth/Cornwall.Trying to force people onto an inferior product will
not work,remember the Tory fuel escalator designed to get people out
of their cars,it failed miserably despite causing massive hikes in
fuel duty and had to be abandoned.

[John B]

Post by Neillw001

Post by kytelly

Post by Dave
VAT would also be put on domestic flights. Some 12 out of the
original 15 EU states currently impose VAT and environmentalists
believe the British exemption for airlines is an "anachronism".

Have to be very carefull here; rail travel is VAT exempt as well and I
could see the airlines making a case for a "level playing field"
accross all transport if they ever had to levy VAT...

They'd probably find any move like that would fall foul of EU
competition laws.

What on earth are you talking about? EU competition laws are about
competition, hence the name. They don't affect whether or not
governments can put VAT on air fares, and (quoting stats above,
haven't checked them meyself) 4/5 of western European countries
already do.

Post by Neillw001
In any case, do they think trains run on something
that doesn't create pollution somewhere along the way.

Less than planes, is the point. Even diesel lardbuckets like the
Voyagers at typical train vs plane load factors are less polluting
than air for the same distance; a low-weight high-density electric IEP
with regenerative braking will be an order of magnitude less polluting
(particularly if we get a decent % of electricity generation onto
renewables, which will be a hell of a lot easier than developing a
biomass-powered plane).

Post by Neillw001
People are also
not going to vote for a party that restricts freedom of choice that
much. The average Joe in the street doesn't give a damm about global
warming, but does about cheap flights.

Hmm. While it's true that people are keener on Something Must Be Done
measures when they don't hit them in the pocket, 90% of people in the
UK believe man-made climate change will have a 'significant impact' on
future generations, and 70% believe that government should 'take the
lead in combating climate change, even if it means using the law to
change people's behavior'. [*]

[*] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/03/eawarm103.xml

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

[The Good Doctor]

Post by John B
What on earth are you talking about? EU competition laws are about
competition, hence the name. They don't affect whether or not
governments can put VAT on air fares, and (quoting stats above,
haven't checked them meyself) 4/5 of western European countries
already do.

You may find that a proportion of western European countries also put
VAT on train fares.

[The Good Doctor]

Post by John B
While it's true that people are keener on Something Must Be Done
measures when they don't hit them in the pocket, 90% of people in the
UK believe man-made climate change will have a 'significant impact' on
future generations, and 70% believe that government should 'take the
lead in combating climate change, even if it means using the law to
change people's behavior'. [*]
[*] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/03/eawarm103.xml

The answers people give to questions posed in surveys offen differ
considerably from the choices they actually make in the real world.

The major factors governing travel decisions are price, journey time
and convenience.

A small minority of people may place a higher priority on green
considerations, though most of them will be happy to donate to a
near-useless carbon offsetting scheme just to salve their conscience.
But the vast majority of people will put green concerns firmly in
fourth place following price, journey time and convenience.

[John B]

Post by The Good Doctor

Post by John B
While it's true that people are keener on Something Must Be Done
measures when they don't hit them in the pocket, 90% of people in the
UK believe man-made climate change will have a 'significant impact' on
future generations, and 70% believe that government should 'take the
lead in combating climate change, even if it means using the law to
change people's behavior'. [*]
[*]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/03/eaw...

The answers people give to questions posed in surveys offen differ
considerably from the choices they actually make in the real world.

Agreed, hence my first sentence.

Post by The Good Doctor
The major factors governing travel decisions are price, journey time
and convenience.
A small minority of people may place a higher priority on green
considerations, though most of them will be happy to donate to a
near-useless carbon offsetting scheme just to salve their conscience.
But the vast majority of people will put green concerns firmly in
fourth place following price, journey time and convenience.

Also true - however, it is much more likely that people will want the
government to incentivise greener schemes and/or penalise less green
schemes, than that they will change their transport decision without
such legislation (partly because one is a more abstract concern than
the other, and partly because of collective action problems).

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

[asdf]

Post by John B

Post by Neillw001
In any case, do they think trains run on something
that doesn't create pollution somewhere along the way.

Less than planes, is the point. Even diesel lardbuckets like the
Voyagers at typical train vs plane load factors are less polluting
than air for the same distance; a low-weight high-density electric IEP
with regenerative braking will be an order of magnitude less polluting
(particularly if we get a decent % of electricity generation onto
renewables, which will be a hell of a lot easier than developing a
biomass-powered plane).

I agree, except with the last point, which is nonsense.

Electricity does not get generated by renewables at a fixed % of the
total usage. There is an absolute amount of renewable generating
capacity. You're suggesting that the amount (in MW) of renewable
electricity being generated somehow increases each time you turn the
kettle on (or run an electric train).

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:14:46 +0100 someone who may be asdf

Post by asdf

Post by John B
a low-weight high-density electric IEP
with regenerative braking will be an order of magnitude less polluting
(particularly if we get a decent % of electricity generation onto
renewables, which will be a hell of a lot easier than developing a
biomass-powered plane).

I agree, except with the last point, which is nonsense.
Electricity does not get generated by renewables at a fixed % of the
total usage. There is an absolute amount of renewable generating
capacity.

Only at any particular time. Over time this is being increased.

Post by asdf
You're suggesting that the amount (in MW) of renewable
electricity being generated somehow increases each time you turn the
kettle on (or run an electric train).

I don't think that is being suggested. Rather what appears to be the
suggestion is that it is a lot easier to introduce renewable
electricity generation than biomass powered aeroplanes.

[asdf]

Post by David Hansen

Post by asdf

Post by John B
a low-weight high-density electric IEP
with regenerative braking will be an order of magnitude less polluting
(particularly if we get a decent % of electricity generation onto
renewables, which will be a hell of a lot easier than developing a
biomass-powered plane).

I agree, except with the last point, which is nonsense.
Electricity does not get generated by renewables at a fixed % of the
total usage. There is an absolute amount of renewable generating
capacity.

Only at any particular time. Over time this is being increased.

Yes, but this doesn't depend on whether you build electric railways or
not.

Post by David Hansen

Post by asdf
You're suggesting that the amount (in MW) of renewable
electricity being generated somehow increases each time you turn the
kettle on (or run an electric train).

I don't think that is being suggested. Rather what appears to be the
suggestion is that it is a lot easier to introduce renewable
electricity generation than biomass powered aeroplanes.

If so, then that suggestion has nothing to do with railways (unless
one is contemplating replacing 100% of the country's power generation
with renewables).

[Alistair Gunn]

Post by John B
and 70% believe that government should 'take the
lead in combating climate change, even if it means using the law to
change people's behavior'. [*]

That might be what they say, I suspect what they mean is "... using the
laww to change *other* people's behaviour"! <grins>

[bobrayner]

Post by Neillw001

Post by kytelly

Post by Dave
VAT would also be put on domestic flights. Some 12 out of the
original 15 EU states currently impose VAT and environmentalists
believe the British exemption for airlines is an "anachronism".

Have to be very carefull here; rail travel is VAT exempt as well and I
could see the airlines making a case for a "level playing field"
accross all transport if they ever had to levy VAT...

They'd probably find any move like that would fall foul of EU
competition laws.

Why?

[The Good Doctor]

Post by Neillw001

Post by kytelly

Post by Dave
VAT would also be put on domestic flights. Some 12 out of the
original 15 EU states currently impose VAT and environmentalists
believe the British exemption for airlines is an "anachronism".

Have to be very carefull here; rail travel is VAT exempt as well and I
could see the airlines making a case for a "level playing field"
accross all transport if they ever had to levy VAT...

They'd probably find any move like that would fall foul of EU
competition laws. In any case, do they think trains run on something
that doesn't create pollution somewhere along the way. People are also
not going to vote for a party that restricts freedom of choice that
much. The average Joe in the street doesn't give a damm about global
warming, but does about cheap flights.

The Tories can come up with all the ideas they wish, but for the
foreseeable future, they are not going to get the chance to put any of
them into practice.

[Neil Williams]

Post by kytelly
Have to be very carefull here; rail travel is VAT exempt as well and I
could see the airlines making a case for a "level playing field"
accross all transport if they ever had to levy VAT...

And VAT *is* charged on mainland European train fares.

(I personally disagree with the EU over VAT - it is a regressive and
unfair tax. I would rather see it abolished and replaced with an
increase in income tax)

Neil

[Lüko Willms]

Am Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:38:23 UTC, schrieb Neil Williams

Post by Neil Williams
(I personally disagree with the EU over VAT - it is a regressive and
unfair tax. I would rather see it abolished and replaced with an
increase in income tax)

Metoo


Cheers,
L.W.

[furnessvale]

Post by kytelly

Post by Dave
VAT would also be put on domestic flights. Some 12 out of the
original 15 EU states currently impose VAT and environmentalists
believe the British exemption for airlines is an "anachronism".

Have to be very carefull here; rail travel is VAT exempt as well and I
could see the airlines making a case for a "level playing field"
accross all transport if they ever had to levy VAT...

Never mind the VAT perhaps the conservatives, or even the present
government, could make a start on levelling the playing field by
charging excise duty on air fuel at the same rate as the railways have
to pay.

George

[The Good Doctor]

Post by furnessvale

Post by kytelly

Post by Dave
VAT would also be put on domestic flights. Some 12 out of the
original 15 EU states currently impose VAT and environmentalists
believe the British exemption for airlines is an "anachronism".

Have to be very carefull here; rail travel is VAT exempt as well and I
could see the airlines making a case for a "level playing field"
accross all transport if they ever had to levy VAT...

Never mind the VAT perhaps the conservatives, or even the present
government, could make a start on levelling the playing field by
charging excise duty on air fuel at the same rate as the railways have
to pay.

That only levels the playing field if it is done all across Europe.

[John Youles]

Post by kytelly

Post by Dave
VAT would also be put on domestic flights. Some 12 out of the
original 15 EU states currently impose VAT and environmentalists
believe the British exemption for airlines is an "anachronism".

Have to be very carefull here; rail travel is VAT exempt as well and I
could see the airlines making a case for a "level playing field"
accross all transport if they ever had to levy VAT...

Presumably, VAT-registered businesses would be able to reclaim the VAT paid
levied on travel for business purposes ?

--
John Youles Norwich England UK

[Graeme Wall]

In message <***@eclipse.net.uk>
"Dave" <***@p.com> wrote:

[snip]

Post by Dave
With other moves, including higher duty on gas-guzzling 4x4s, the
Conservatives believe that they will generate enough "green taxes" to
help fund measures such as a married couples' allowance.
They have drawn up a list of proposals including a freeze on all
airport expansion and tough new taxes on flights to make Britain
greener - and make high-speed trains the transport of choice.
Senior party figures hope that the plans will make the Tories the
greenest party at the next general election and win votes among young
people and families worried about global warming.
The Conservatives' Quality of Life Policy Group, chaired by former
minister John Gummer and green campaigner Zac Goldsmith,

[snip]

It was going so well up till then.

Post by Dave
. A moratorium on all airport expansion, including Heathrow, Gatwick
and Stansted;

Doing nothing is always an attractive option for the tories.

Post by Dave
. The imposition of VAT on fuel for domestic flights;

Only works if the aircraft's diagram keeps it in the UK all day, one trip to
an EU destination and guess where it will refuel.

Post by Dave
. A "single flight tax" to shift tax burden from passengers to airlines;

Which will promptly get shifted back to the passengers.

Post by Dave
. Domestic flight slots to be handed to long-haul trips instead.

Now we get to the real policy.

[John B]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Dave
. The imposition of VAT on fuel for domestic flights;

Only works if the aircraft's diagram keeps it in the UK all day, one trip to
an EU destination and guess where it will refuel.

Not sure that's true, given the large amount of fuel that's used by
carrying fuel around (and indeed, the opposition of safety authorities
to planes landing while carrying large amounts of fuel).

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

[Graeme Wall]

Post by John B

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Dave
. The imposition of VAT on fuel for domestic flights;

Only works if the aircraft's diagram keeps it in the UK all day, one trip
to an EU destination and guess where it will refuel.

Not sure that's true, given the large amount of fuel that's used by
carrying fuel around (and indeed, the opposition of safety authorities
to planes landing while carrying large amounts of fuel).

Planes on short hops with quick turnarounds already only refuel at certain
intervals, not each stop. If the tax incentive is great enough, plane
diagrams can be adjusted so that those refueling stops are where the tax
situation is the most advantageous.

Also you have the problem of defining a 'domestic flight'. Lawyers will make
lots of money argueing over whether one leg of a Glasgow-London-Majorca
service is domestic or international.

[Neillw001]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by John B

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Dave
. The imposition of VAT on fuel for domestic flights;

Only works if the aircraft's diagram keeps it in the UK all day, one trip
to an EU destination and guess where it will refuel.

Not sure that's true, given the large amount of fuel that's used by
carrying fuel around (and indeed, the opposition of safety authorities
to planes landing while carrying large amounts of fuel).

Planes on short hops with quick turnarounds already only refuel at certain
intervals, not each stop. If the tax incentive is great enough, plane
diagrams can be adjusted so that those refueling stops are where the tax
situation is the most advantageous.
Also you have the problem of defining a 'domestic flight'. Lawyers will make
lots of money argueing over whether one leg of a Glasgow-London-Majorca
service is domestic or international.
--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

You also have to consider where you are going to accomodate all these
people who are not going to travel by plane anymore. We are constantly
being told the railways are at bursting point and without massive
investment in railway expansion you wouldn't be able to deal with even
half the passengers who travel internally by air in the UK each day.
Do the Tories propose widening the ECML for instance, to six tracks.
Have they given any consideration to the damage a move like that would
do to the envirnment? There comes a point where just putting more or
longer trains on existing tracks won't work.

Neill

[Dave]

Post by Neillw001
You also have to consider where you are going to accomodate all these
people who are not going to travel by plane anymore. We are
constantly
being told the railways are at bursting point and without massive
investment in railway expansion you wouldn't be able to deal with even
half the passengers who travel internally by air in the UK each day.
Do the Tories propose widening the ECML for instance, to six tracks.
Have they given any consideration to the damage a move like that would
do to the envirnment? There comes a point where just putting more or
longer trains on existing tracks won't work.
Neill

Which is why a new track in existing transport corridoors - as with
the CTRL - would be a sensible move. If needed, a line to the spec of
the CTRL could carry 20,000 passengers each way per hour.

D

[Peter Masson]

Post by Dave
corridoors

That's what it feels like when the buffet is 5 coaches away and you have to
negotiate all the doors on teh way. ;-)

Peter

[Neil Williams]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:42:27 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Dave
. Domestic flight slots to be handed to long-haul trips instead.

Now we get to the real policy.

I do wonder if a better way to do this would be to restrict all
airports to their original design capacity (thus quite a bit less than
LHR handles now) in terms of both passengers and aircraft movements.
As the demand is there, prices would increase in order to reduce it.
This would put people off flying without any silly rules or politics,
and would make the experience less fraught for those who still needed
to fly and thus paid a bit more.

Neil

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Neil Williams
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:42:27 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Dave
. Domestic flight slots to be handed to long-haul trips instead.

Now we get to the real policy.

I do wonder if a better way to do this would be to restrict all
airports to their original design capacity (thus quite a bit less than
LHR handles now) in terms of both passengers and aircraft movements.
As the demand is there, prices would increase in order to reduce it.
This would put people off flying without any silly rules or politics,
and would make the experience less fraught for those who still needed
to fly and thus paid a bit more.

No practical way to enforce that. After all it would mean a cut in BAA's
profits.

[Lüko Willms]

Am Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:42:27 UTC, schrieb Graeme Wall

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Dave
. The imposition of VAT on fuel for domestic flights;

Only works if the aircraft's diagram keeps it in the UK all day, one trip to
an EU destination and guess where it will refuel.

That's the same argument in each single member country of the EU --
let them simply get their act together and issue a Community rule that
aircraft fuel is to be taxed, get the Swiss and Norwegians to apply
that too, and then that's it.


Cheers,
L.W.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Lüko Willms
Am Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:42:27 UTC, schrieb Graeme Wall

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Dave
. The imposition of VAT on fuel for domestic flights;

Only works if the aircraft's diagram keeps it in the UK all day, one trip to
an EU destination and guess where it will refuel.

That's the same argument in each single member country of the EU --
let them simply get their act together and issue a Community rule that
aircraft fuel is to be taxed, get the Swiss and Norwegians to apply
that too, and then that's it.

The moment you do that the Kleine Englanders will demand an opt-out on the
grounds that they won't be dictated to by Brussels.

[Alistair Gunn]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Dave
. A "single flight tax" to shift tax burden from passengers to airlines;

Which will promptly get shifted back to the passengers.

I think the idea is to "encourage" the airlines to run their planes as
full as possible, so that the CO2 generated is spread over more people?
Quite why they think the airlines want to fly empty seat space around I
don't know?

[The Good Doctor]

Post by Alistair Gunn

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Dave
. A "single flight tax" to shift tax burden from passengers to airlines;

Which will promptly get shifted back to the passengers.

I think the idea is to "encourage" the airlines to run their planes as
full as possible, so that the CO2 generated is spread over more people?
Quite why they think the airlines want to fly empty seat space around I
don't know?

There are a surprising number of flights that operate empty or
near-empty just to keep hold of the immensely valuable take-off and
landing slots, which can be worth several million pounds each at
London Heathrow.

At present, the tax is applied per passenger, so these empty and
near-empty flights will raise zero or near-zero tax, thus providing
very little incentive to lower carbon emissions.

[allan tracy]

Post by Dave
The group is determined to press ahead with moves to force travellers
to abandon short-haul flights in favour of rail for domestic and
nearby European destinations or face steep rises in taxes or fares.
Its report is based on a calculation that about a fifth of flights
from Heathrow are to destinations easily reached by rail, according to
the Evening Standard. The most popular short-haul destinations are
Paris, Amsterdam and Brussels and, within Britain, Edinburgh,
Manchester, Glasgow and Newcastle.
The Government's plans to allow a third runway at Heathrow would be
unnecessary if such journeys were transferred to rail and airlines
were forced to reallocate their take-off and landing slots for
long-haul travel, the report concludes. Plans for a second runway at
Stansted could also be shelved, it argues.

I'm afraid yet another piece that completely misses the point about
Heathrow's short haul flights.

Half of all short haul journeys into Heathrow are made for connection
purposes and are not stand-alone flights.

Very few would choose air over rail from Manchester - London but we're
not talking about London, we're talking about Heathrow for which rail
does not cater. Those that choose to fly do so either because they're
flying on to somewhere else or because their eventual destination is
the M4 corridor (a destination XC has also recently decide to ignore
entirely)

Removing short haul connecting flights from Heathrow would only reduce
the appeal of the International flights so it's difficult to see those
flights filling the slots.

Stop people flying on BA from Manchester to London to connect into
BA's International network and they won't go by train they'll just
switch to foreign airlines such as Air France or KLM and fly via Paris
or Amsterdam.

Perhaps more consideration should be given to convincing BA that it's
a British airline and not a London one and that they might consider
that the UK doesn't finish at Watford.

BA has recently pulled out of virtually every provincial UK airport.
In Birmingham they have sold their entire operation to Flybe whose
International partner is Air France so it's via Paris for all Brummies
from now on - great own goal.

Whilst we're on the subject of Brum, the new WC network excludes
Birmingham International entirely from its Scotland network. Meanwhile
the airport offers eight flights a day to Glasgow and Edinburgh and
they wonder why people fly?

[Neil Williams]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:15:50 -0700, allan tracy

Post by allan tracy
BA has recently pulled out of virtually every provincial UK airport.
In Birmingham they have sold their entire operation to Flybe whose
International partner is Air France so it's via Paris for all Brummies
from now on - great own goal.

It would have been anyway. There are, and were, no flights from Brum
to London.

Post by allan tracy
Whilst we're on the subject of Brum, the new WC network excludes
Birmingham International entirely from its Scotland network. Meanwhile
the airport offers eight flights a day to Glasgow and Edinburgh and
they wonder why people fly?

I'd have thought rather more people would be within the catchment area
of BNS than of Birmingham Airport, so I don't think that's a sensible
comparison.

Neil

[allan tracy]

Post by Neil Williams
I'd have thought rather more people would be within the catchment area
of BNS than of Birmingham Airport, so I don't think that's a sensible
comparison.

BNS like most city centre stations is a pig to get to whereas
International (and more to the point the Airport) with its motorway
links and cheap parking is a wizz if you have a car.

If the choice for Scotland is to be New Street or the Airport then
it's really no contest it you have a car or, far more likely, being
dropped off in a car the airport wins hands down.

[Neil Williams]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:00:55 -0700, allan tracy

Post by allan tracy
If the choice for Scotland is to be New Street or the Airport then
it's really no contest it you have a car or, far more likely, being
dropped off in a car the airport wins hands down.

The piss-poor punctuality and reliability of flights from it to
Scotland might tip the balance in favour of rail, OTOH. (Yes, I have
been watching - flown through BHX about 20 times in the last year at
various times and it's rare for the BA/BE flights to Scotland not to
be late or cancelled).

And if you can't be dropped off, travelling by train from your local
station might win. (Most of my trips by air start by train)

Neil

[allan tracy]

Post by Neil Williams
The piss-poor punctuality and reliability of flights from it to
Scotland might tip the balance in favour of rail, OTOH. (Yes, I have
been watching - flown through BHX about 20 times in the last year at
various times and it's rare for the BA/BE flights to Scotland not to
be late or cancelled).

Don't get me wrong, I would never fly to Scotland, always train, but I
still think it's a bit of an own goal not to start the new VWC
services back from International or Coventry.

At the moment, I think it's every two hours to Scotland form both
places and don't forget Coventry is a low cost airport nowadays.
Though not Scotland so far but I'm sure it won't take them long.

[Iain]

Post by Neil Williams
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:15:50 -0700, allan tracy

Post by allan tracy
BA has recently pulled out of virtually every provincial UK airport.
In Birmingham they have sold their entire operation to Flybe whose
International partner is Air France so it's via Paris for all Brummies
from now on - great own goal.

It would have been anyway. There are, and were, no flights from Brum
to London.

There have been in the dim and distant past, the M40 killed the last
ones off in about 1990. When Virgin were at their very worst, there
were some talks about a BHX-London City flight. Now, Virgin are a lot
better and such talk has receded (but I still take Chiltern out of
habit).

Air France dropped the hideous Flybe about two years ago, CityJet
operate the Paris flights on behalf of Air France. Air France have
about 425 seats a day out of BHX, their glove-puppets in KLM have
about 530 seats. Lufthansa has a fairly massive 985, plus 270 on their
glove-puppet SWISS. I would imagine that a decent number of seats on
each flight are for the destinations rather than for connections.

The one group that will have changed are the frequent fliers, when
London^WBritish Airways were at Birmingham, I flew them and went to
London for destinations I couldn't get to from Birmingham on BA, so I
could keep my Silver status. Now I fly on Lufthansa or SWISS from
Birmingham nearly every time and avoid London unless the fare
difference is too much.

Post by Neil Williams

Post by allan tracy
Whilst we're on the subject of Brum, the new WC network excludes
Birmingham International entirely from its Scotland network. Meanwhile
the airport offers eight flights a day to Glasgow and Edinburgh and
they wonder why people fly?

I'd have thought rather more people would be within the catchment area
of BNS than of Birmingham Airport, so I don't think that's a sensible
comparison.

There's a surprisingly large number of people who will go to
International to catch the train even though New Street is nearer. It
might have something to do with the parking that is perceieved to be
available there.

Iain

[Dave]

Post by allan tracy

Post by Dave
The group is determined to press ahead with moves to force
travellers
to abandon short-haul flights in favour of rail for domestic and
nearby European destinations or face steep rises in taxes or fares.
Its report is based on a calculation that about a fifth of flights
from Heathrow are to destinations easily reached by rail, according to
the Evening Standard. The most popular short-haul destinations are
Paris, Amsterdam and Brussels and, within Britain, Edinburgh,
Manchester, Glasgow and Newcastle.
The Government's plans to allow a third runway at Heathrow would be
unnecessary if such journeys were transferred to rail and airlines
were forced to reallocate their take-off and landing slots for
long-haul travel, the report concludes. Plans for a second runway at
Stansted could also be shelved, it argues.

I'm afraid yet another piece that completely misses the point about
Heathrow's short haul flights.
Half of all short haul journeys into Heathrow are made for
connection
purposes and are not stand-alone flights.
Very few would choose air over rail from Manchester - London but we're
not talking about London, we're talking about Heathrow for which rail
does not cater. Those that choose to fly do so either because
they're
flying on to somewhere else or because their eventual destination is
the M4 corridor (a destination XC has also recently decide to ignore
entirely)

Which is exactly why proposed HSR schemes - be they conventional rail
or maglev - advocate a Heathrow spur. A change from domestic rail to
international flight has to be as convenient as from a domestic
flight, c.f. the situation with Charles de Gaulle or Frankfurt.

D