Transport trepidation
Share
The long march toward a low carbon future has this week taken another twist with airports at the centre of a government-funded study.
Over the next three years experts from the Universities of Loughborough, Cranfield and Leeds aim to quantify and mitigate the carbon footprint left by people travelling to and from airports.
The cynical among you might question why other large facilities or attractions aren’t targeted by similar studies.
Stonehenge, for example, is a popular tourist draw but actually getting to it requires a good deal of fuel burn.
However, a quick glance at BAA’s website goes some way to put the study into perspective. Heathrow alone employs 72,000 staff and, in 2008, saw 66.9 million passengers pass through it.
With this in mind, the multi-university team will look at the feasibility of setting up audio/video facilities at airports that can link with anyone’s home, reducing the need to travel to airports to see people off; situating luggage-drop facilities in city centres and train stations; and establishing web/mobile-based information-sharing services that promote car-sharing among airport users.
Going back to Heathrow, it might be worth assessing the rail options available to travellers and airport staff alike.
Taking the Piccadilly Line from central London to the airport is a cheap option but, as many of you will know, it is also an exercise in abject hate-filled misery at peak times. Packing your luggage, family and friends into an already overcrowded carriage is not many people’s idea of fun.
Alternatively, one could make the journey to Heathrow via the Heathrow Express. What a difference! The service is fast (the journey takes 15 minutes) and frequent (four trains run every hour) and is rarely, if ever, overcrowded or uncomfortable. This, however, might be something to do with the fact that an Express class return ticket costs £32. At £2.13 per minute travelled, this is not a budget option.
There is, however, a minicab company close to where I live in north west London that will take me door-to-door for £25, leaving me unflustered and relaxed on my arrival – at the expense of a hefty carbon footprint.
The academics have quite a job on their hands, but they do have one eye very firmly on the practicalities of implementing change.
‘There’s no point developing and implementing a carbon-reduction measure if it won’t work in the real world – perhaps because it involves people paying more than they’re prepared to pay,’ said project leader Dr Tim Ryley of Loughborough University. ‘So developing a realistic understanding of attitudes and motivations with respect to people’s environmental behaviour will be key to delivering a practical set of recommendations.’
Readers' comments (5)
BB | 22 Jan 2010 1:14 pm
The price/convenience/environment matrix is one that frequently bothers me. Further to your comparative journeys to Heathrow, purchasing zones 1-6 TFL tickets to transport two adults and two children would set you back a hefty £44.40.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
J | 22 Jan 2010 3:48 pm
“Luggage-drop facilities in city centres” – how long is it since the West London Air Terminal on Buckingham Palace Road closed? You could do everything there and relax on a direct bus to Heathrow. (Even get your travel inoculations, usually a few days before traveling). However the implications for current “security” (theft of elderly ladies’ items in hand luggage, neglect of known terrorist connections?) would need to be considered.
Like many other things, what goes around, comes around.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon Martin | 22 Jan 2010 3:56 pm
Why are airports being targeted? A fair and valid question when many other facilities and attractions are being ignored when they obviously attract more carbon emissions.
It would be another cynical attempt by Government to operate at the outer peripheries of specific areas, with the intention of public acceptability. Once accepted it will expand with the inevitable revenue derived for the treasury.
Airports are another soft target, particularly as many business users, or holidaymakers have to use vehicles to get there. Business users may fly to a meeting and return the same, or next day, holidaymakers will have the family and considerable luggage, particularly with smaller children or teenagers. Imagine trying to take this on public transport, not legal or practical, and a deterrent to most airport users.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David | 24 Jan 2010 9:46 am
In the early 1970s I travelled to Moscow from Heathrow with BEA. Luggage was checked in at a bus station in the centre of London, we caught the bus to the airport, luggage waiting for us in Moscow.
So off airport checking-in has been done and is not rocket science. a bit of updating and security containerisation of luggage would be straight forward.
In fact all checking in could be well away from the airport. Just nice electric transport to the airport from local city railheads to the airport.
But, is there the will? Who pays? It is easy and straight forward though.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mike West | 25 Jan 2010 8:11 am
Another cynical attempt to protect air transport from the fact that this is the one big use of fossil fuels that could be controlled to impact significantly on Mankind's (well at least for developed countries) impact on the CO2 problem. End the massive effective subsidy air travel benefits from relative to all other forms of transport and the problem of getting to and from airports won't seem so great. Let's not hear anything as facile as the statement made a few weeks ago that we can cope with the planned increase in air travel if all other applications cut CO2 emissions by 90 %. If worrying about getting to and from airports is the best that can be done, we may as well give up now.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment