|
Written by David Cuthbertson
|
|
Monday, 13 August 2007 |
The worst airport I've ever flown out of is Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City)
in Vietnam. It was clearly designed by communists to crush the spirit
of anyone wanting to leave their Socialist Utopia. The second worst is
Heathrow.
LHR does not have the same hopeless bleakness but it's not too far off.
The airport is overcrowded and falling to pieces in places. The rest of
it is poorly designed and in desperate need of investment. Heathrow
badly needs Terminal 5 - which is due to open in 2008 - and Terminal 6,
which is still in the early planning stages. Passenger capacity is only
one problem and a third runway will be needed long before the 2020 date
suggested by the Government's recent white paper.
A recent study commissioned by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to find
out why New York was losing business to London revealed that the only
thing that business people disliked about London was Heathrow. Even Ken
Livingstone has said that the current state of the airport "is shaming
London."
BAA, which owns the airport, is in trouble. The competition commission
is threatening to break up the organisation which owns all off the
airports in London. It's parent company, Ferrovial, brought the airport
largely with borrowed cash and rising interest rates are stretching
it's budget. Protesters are threatening to stage incursions and it is
still being crushed under the weight of government planning regulations.
A recent Economist article makes
the case for the break up of BAA and that looks increasingly like it
will happen. As the article says, that will be a start, but not an end,
to the process of improving Heathrow. Other countries, like Australia
and New Zealand, have even encouraged competition within
airports - with airlines owning their own terminals for instance.
Deregulation should also follow the breaking up of the BAA monopoly,
since competitive markets are much better at directing investment and
balancing price and service than regulators.
Sorting out Heathrow is very important and it is something that has to
be done right. Why then is the government allowing a tiny number of
protesters to hold back progress and imposing unnecessarily severe
security conditions?
|
|
Written by Tim Worstall
|
|
Thursday, 09 August 2007 |
Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, has decided that drivers of
"gas-guzzling" cars will have to pay a daily congestion charge of £25
per day. Meanwhile drivers of lower emitting cars will pay no
congestion charge at all.
Needless to say the increased charge is justified on the grounds of
global warming – isn't every half-baked government scheme these days?
But in reality this has far more to do with social envy and raising
revenue than it does with helping the environment or reducing
congestion.
Cars are already taxed twice according to how much they pollute: once
by the tax on petrol, and again by a separate tax on the cars
themselves. These taxes more than cover the cost of the environmental
damage that the vehicles cause. Further 'green taxes' are unnecessary.
In any case, surely one small car coming into the city for free and
driving around all day (as they will now have a clear incentive to do)
will cause more emissions than a larger vehicle used for the
school-run, or a quick trip to the shops?
From the congestion perspective, the stupidity of this idea is just as
apparent. As AA spokesman Paul Watters told the newspapers, families
would find it much cheaper to bring two small cars into the city than
one larger one. Indeed, you could drive an army of small cars into the
city, gridlock all the roads, pump out emissions all day long, and
still not have to pay a penny.
Proper road-pricing (which actually prices roads and charges people for
using them) remains the best way to reduce congestion. Sadly, idiotic
schemes like Mr Livingstone's are making the idea a very tough sell.
|
|
Written by Steve Bettison
|
|
Sunday, 01 July 2007 |
One of the joys of passing the milestone age of 60 is the availability of a Freedom Pass
. The pass alleviates the worry of the cost of transport and grants
independence to many who would otherwise be reliant on others. Now many
of the over 60s and disabled users are up in arms over an apparent
threat to the scheme from London Councils .
The Freedom Pass is funded by 33 boroughs and councils of London
who all pay money to Transport for London (TFL). Currently this is
around £216m, a rise of over 52% since 2001 when the figure was £142m.
If disagreement arises between the councils and TFL then the head of
TFL can impose whatever figure he sees fit. It is no coincidence that
the Mayor of London, arbiter general of TFL, is keen to see this
arrangement continue especially as the council taxpayers of London are
not receiving a fair deal or value for money.
The Mayor has wrongly claimed that London Councils’ ideas, for an
independent adjudicator, and his own removal from setting the figure,
are nothing more than a way of abolishing the Freedom Pass. The idea of
an independent figure, such as the Secretary of State for Transport,
overseeing the final figures would mean more accountability to the
council tax payers of London. Another way of further reducing the costs
to the overtaxed residents of London would be its integration with the
Oyster Card technology so that usage could be measured. The journeys of
the 1 million users could then be charged directly to the individual
boroughs and councils rather than its current basis on the number of
passes issued. The implementation of these ideas would make the Freedom
Pass a truly fair way of giving independence to the elderly and
disabled of London, as well as the taxpayers.
|
|
Written by Dr Madsen Pirie
|
|
Friday, 15 June 2007 |
The European aerospace group EADS is following others into the space
tourism sector. Before European taxpayers start clutching their wallets
in panic, however, they should note that this is seen as a commercial
venture to be funded mainly by private capital. EADS is currently
putting together industrial and financial partnerships to raise the 1
billion euro development costs. That's a lot more money than it cost
Burt Rutan to develop SpaceShipOne and carry off the Ansari X-prize,
and I imagine a lot more than it's costing Richard Branson to fund
Rutan's follow-up, SpaceShipTwo, to carry passengers.
The difference is, according to the BBC and Telegraph
accounts, that they are comparatively minimal projects, whereas the
EADS plan is for a more robust vehicle. Crucially, their spaceplane
will take off under the power of its own conventional turbojet engines,
and only switch to rocket power when it reaches 7.5 miles. The rocket
engine that takes it over the 100km space threshold is fuelled by
methane ands oxygen. Passengers who've paid between £100,000 and
£135,000, will experience the view of earth from the outside through
large windows, and will be able to float around in zero-G.
It will be interesting to see which of the various technological
approaches is first to start taking fare-paying passengers. Clearly the
number of advance tickets sold between them is an indicator that there
might be a big market for the space travel experience. I can't help
feeling that the European one is bound to involve EU subsidy at some
stage, if only because virtually everything else does…
|
|
Written by Tom Bowman
|
|
Monday, 26 February 2007 |
Whitehall's grip on infrastructure funding and delivery is killing off sensible bus and tram schemes across the country, says a parliamentary report.
Sadly for many the mere mention of 'transport' induces deep yawns and
boredom, but without proper transport provision Britain faces a bleak
future of overcrowded trains and jam-packed roads. The reality is that
we would do much better if Whitehall didn't have so much control.
The problem lies with central government's grip of power over transport
funding and delivery. Most people think inept local authorities are
unable to deliver transport services, but actually the reverse is true.
Local authorities across the country want desperately to improve
transport but are straight-jacketed by Whitehall controls, layers of
government bureaucracy, and red tape. Since only 7% of local authority
spending is raised from council tax, local authorities are powerless
to fund infrastructure schemes and are dependent on central government
grants which are all ring-fenced for central government priorities
(health, education etc.).
To pay for transport schemes, local authorities must bid for funding
from central government. These bidding processes are time consuming,
complex, require expensive studies costing millions – and ultimately
there is no guarantee that funding will be granted. Manchester
Airport's Interchange (report pg. 14) took six years to complete
because Whitehall Mandarins required endless studies despite general
support for the scheme. And it isn't just one funding pot; centralised
funding involves a baffling array of funding bodies. Liverpool alone
uncovered over thirty different funding agencies (report pg. 18) which
makes it extremely difficult to cobble together cash for one project
since each has Quango has different time-scales, requirements and
targets.
The answer? A courageous political party needs to devolve financial
powers to local authorities. In America and Australia local government
uses Tax Increment Financing
which use the expected growth in property tax revenues from a
designated geographic area to finance bonds used to pay for
infrastructure. The Conservatives could counter Gordon Brown's
centralising trend and support financial devolution to the local level.
By empowering local government David Cameron could sweep away the
multiple layers of regeneration Quangos that Whitehall has created
because of its distrust of local government to deliver. Then local
people could be in charge of their own destiny, not unelected
bureaucrats – and by devolving power, local government would be more
accountable. Sure, some local authorities will get it wrong, but it
will be better than the present system, and those that get it right can
be a beacon for the rest. Some say Margaret Thatcher killed local
government, but the time has come for David Cameron to resurrect it.
|
|
Written by Dr Madsen Pirie
|
|
Sunday, 07 January 2007 |
It's introduced as a concept car, but this sometimes foreshadows a
production model, and in the case of the Volt this looks likely.
Unveiled on Sunday at the Detroit Motor Show, it marks GM's re-entry
into the electric car field after it abandoned its EV1 in the 1990s.
Ray Hutton tells us
it could be on sale by the end of the decade. It uses an all-electric
drive to do 0-60 mph in 8.5 seconds, with a top speed of 120 mph. Its
limited range of 40 miles, enough for most commuter journeys, is
augmented by a one-litre petrol engine for charging the battery. The
petrol engine does not drive the car, as do current hybrids such as the
Toyota Prius.
The Volt is "a family hatchback built on the platform to be used for
the next Vauxhall Astra," and will be much cheaper to build than the
hand-built EV1. The model is taken to indicate GM's commitment to more
environmentally friendly transport, since electricity can be generated
from many energy sources, including ones independent of fossil fuels
and with benign emissions. Its E-Flex propulsion system "can be adapted
to use bioethanol fuel or have a diesel engine or a hydrogen fuel cell
as the generator of electricity."
One rather nerve-racking feature of electric cars, including hybrids,
is their silence. Those accustomed to crossing roads by taking quick
glances and factoring in the noise of traffic can be surprised by one
of them up close and dangerous. People will have to relearn their
street awareness.
There was a documentary movie last year called "Who Killed the Electric
Car," which claimed that GM scrapped the EV1 only because of pressure
from business interests including oil companies. If that were true, it
seems strange that GM should now be unveiling what might be a more
valid and popular successor.
|
|
|
