Great Western Coffee Shop

Source: BBC

Although I was once a paid-up "frequent flyer" I haven't flown for nearly ten years now and have no plans to do so in the immediate future, so I shouldn't really express an opinion on this I suppose.

I really do strongly feel though that democratically accountable politicians, and not judges, should be making big decisions such as this though.

And yes I am aware that "democratically accountable" is probably an oxymoron when applied to politicians....

I am pleased by the verdict of the court.
I would not go so far as to prohibit flying, but cant support any expansion thereof.
The purpose of increased airport capacity is to accommodate more flights and more passengers.
If we are serious about the climate emergency, then we need fewer flights and less passengers, not more.

And if long distance rail services were better, including international services to the nearer bits of Europe, then more people would travel by train rather than by air.
Existing airport capacity would then more than suffice.

I totally agree with that comment - this is yet another "suicide note" from the judiciary. However to some extent, they may have a point, as it was the Government who introduced the Laws !!   
The management at CDG, Schipol and Frankfurt must be rubbing their hands with glee.  There is a growing number of very important business centres (mainly in the far east) which have NO direct airlinks with the UK, but plenty from the previously mentioned European cities. If our business men have to take 4 hours/days/weeks longer to get there, I am afraid they will be at the back of the queue for business.
It seems even more perverse as it looks remarkably like a rerun of the bitter campaign to improve (or not improve) rail links between London and the the North (of England!).

PS: As I posted this I noticed a bit further down this board the title of a previous topic: Could Calne, Malmesbury and Marlborough become "transport deserts"?  ...............QED !

I doubt it. The prime Minister said in 2015 that "it is just not going to happen"; it is fair to assume that he still opposes the expansion. Why would the government be angry with a judiciary that helps it do what it wants?

It would be a very grave day for the UK justice system if it could be controlled by politicians.

It is sometimes tried in "banana republics" and often ends with rather fatal results, as when the South Afican Aparthied government tried it back in the 1960s.

The procedure we have is a simple one. The goverment introduces laws and, in case of doubt or injustice, it is for the courts to apply it and/or interpet it.

Please try to take into account that despite all the bad press, commercial aviation contributes about 2.5% of global "man-made" CO2 emissions. And that will probably reduce, as commercial aircraft are getting cleaner and more fuel-efficient all the time.

This sort of decision makes the UK look like a global laughing stock.

This decision will also hamper the efforts of airports like Southampton, where a very small runway extension is needed to improve the airport's future viability (and maybe it's survival). The City Council are opposed, although they are quite happy for cruise ships to sit in port (not on "shore power") all day belching far worse pollution into the atmosphere.

 

I appreciate that aviation is only responsible for a relatively small proportion of climate changing carbon dioxide emissions.

That however can be said of most sectors if considered individually.
Advocates of diesel trucks, petrol cars, coal burning power stations, domestic gas heating, cruise ships, and other sectors, can ALL say "don't worry that is only a small proportion of total emissions"

If we are serious about climate change, we need to reduce use of fossil fuels, not to encourage greater use.

Air transport is virtually 100% fossil fuel powered and likely to remain so. Improvements in fuel efficiency of aircraft have helped only very slightly.
Under present conditions, and under reasonably foreseeable future conditions, we need to fly less, not more.

It's a triumph for the environmental lobby, but a potential economic disaster for the UK, especially post Brexit.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that it makes us a global laughing stock, but certainly Amsterdam, Frankfurt and others will be smiling quietly tonight.

This year, more than any other, Britain needs to be leading by example on climate change.
I will be interesting to see how this ruling is viewed with hindsight, in years to come.

I would contend that, as a nation, we already punch well above our weight on this issue.

It's a pity that other Countries, who have far more capability to positively influence the outcome, don't seem to want to.


They already are as they have more runways and capacity to expand at the expense of Heathrow's (and thereby the UK's) competitiveness:

Paris CDG - 4 runways
Frankfurt - 4 runways
Amsterdam Schipol - 6 runways

.....London Heathrow - 2 runways (down from 3, when the useful cross-wind runway 23/05 was closed, ultimately  to make way for the expanded Terminal 2)
 

I think it is necessary that there are checks and balances with the government system. If the courts question something parliament can legislate to make adjustments they see fit.

News this morning https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51665682 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51665682) might cause the government to reconsider its decision not to appeal the Heathrow case. Can railways schemes also fall foul of this?

Actually that share is forecast to increase,  because air travel is expanding more quickly than efficiency is improving,  while other sectors are easier to decarbonise.

It is the politicians who make the decisions; however they have to comply with their own laws when doing so.  If the government wants to go ahead then it has to modify the proposals to make them comply with the laws they have passed; or they have to modify the laws to permit those plans. It is not democratically accountable to pass laws and then ignore them.

The judges were at pains to say that they were not stopping the government from authorising Heathrow expansion it is just requiring them to show how they have taken account of their climate change commitments in making the decision in accordance with their own laws.

I suspect they won't change their minds and appeal the decision, but leave it to Heathrow to do that as that gets them out of the  internal party opposition to the scheme with many local MP's opposed to the scheme (including the pm). 

As for the impact on road schemes I suspect they will wait for that to happen and then try and show how they have taken it into account. 

The general understanding, I believe, is that rail is much 'cleaner' per person moved that road or air. However, there are some campaigners who take the view that new rail schemes too should be discouraged. The requirement of the courts is that the impact is looked at and taken into account, which it seems has not demonstrably happened on the 3rd runway.  Could mean another round of paperwork for Portishead!

I do question one thing in the BBC article ...


Silly question - regenerative braking - does that not remove the majority of particulates that would come from friction brakes, which I accept my be needed for the come-to-rest phase.  Friction brakes to stop a vehicle moving once it is at rest would be a holding exercise, and particulate-free, right?

Yes, regenerative braking does significantly reduce the particulates emitted from tyre and brake pad wear.
This also increases the life of tyres and brake pads, not only saving money on replacements but also reducing the pollution from manufacturing replacements.
Regenerative braking also reduces electricity consumption, and therefore reduces the pollution from power stations.
Electricity from the UK grid is far less polluting than petrol, but does still produce some carbon dioxide and other pollutants, reducing consumption is therefore desirable.

Heathrow's 3rd runway has lost support of late, and may be postponed for another decade or so. That seems to be the practical effect of the current thinking, as outlined in  New Civil Engineer. (https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/gatwick-expansion-backed-over-heathrow-third-runway-12-02-2021/?eea=MWFjMXYreVV5SEhFKzdvT0RLbW1NMGZ0aW0yRjQ1V2xrN25qdDhqUXUzbz0%3D&n_hash=633&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTURRME4yWTJZbU15TUdGaiIsInQiOiJtd29WNXh4SGx6QU0zbkVydWVhclVhcTdCR0pNaXhlT2I2K0RUbUFrYmhYSCtURkNlYklzeE9jYm9EOU5qQngrWms2M1VCYjhFcllZek1OYTZIUXN0UDZqU1FyN3N4RWFMNUIycmthK21BeGRLM1VuTE9UOEJxelp2MUQ1UEl1aSJ9)

(Continues at source)

Time to start all over again, unless the Government puts its foot down. This could help Bristol in its airport expansion plan, and the people of the villages scheduled for conversion to airfield might be able to breathe slightly more easily (in the metaphorical sense) for a few years until this rears its head again - if the plan is given the nod by the government. The Gatwick plan will upset fewer people than the Heathrow one did, and lawyers are cheaper round those parts.

Perhaps the plan is to use HS2 to get to a new larger hub at Birmingham International.

HS2 suggests a journey time of 38 minutes from London (Source - HS2 (https://www.hs2.org.uk/stations/interchange/)) compared with a journey time of 49 mins (average)  London to Gatwick. (Source - Trainline (https://www.thetrainline.com/train-times/london-to-gatwick-airport))

Boris could potentially support this because it's not Heathrow, and being Central England it's closer to his new voters in the North.

If it isn't, it will be when Boris has read this!

He may choose to keep it slightly more local though. One of the previous iterations of the expansion plan had greater use of Gatwick's second runway. 08L/26R is shorter than its neighbour as  the aerodrome chart shows. (https://www.aurora.nats.co.uk/htmlAIP/Publications/2021-01-28-AIRAC/html/index-en-GB.html), but at 2564 metres is long enough for practically anything to land, and all but the biggest long haul to take off. Bristol Airport for comparison is 2011 metres in length. The two runways are a lot closer together than Heathrow's pair, but with allowance for wake turbulence, both could be used simultaneously to great effect, with landings on  one and take-offs from the other. The money that was to have been spent on moving the M4 and M25 slightly to the right could instead be used to upgrade the railway to Gatwick, to give it a true express service.

London City has the capacity for more flights than it was operating when Covid started. Operators could be tempted to use that for additional internal flights if a market reappears in due course. Stansted, like Bristol, had begun a process to get permission to expand, which will look a lot more attractive to government with Heathrow frozen in time. One of the arguments used against those plans was that with Heathrow having a third runway, there will be no need for expansion at the regional airports.

What does this promise for the future? A busier Gatwick, first and foremost, which won't please everyone but won't upset as many people as a third runway at LHR would, and could mean fringe benefits in terms of improvements to the railway to the airport and south coast. Bristol Airport can go to the Planning Inquiry with renewed optimism, knowing that even if the planning inspector supports the irrational decision of north somerset parish council, the Secretary of State will be likely to allow the expansion unless the Green Party is in power by then. Stansted will also get the nod, and Birmingham might get bigger too. The Prime Minister will go to the hustings in 2025 and tell his constituents that he fought long and hard to stop the third runway, and has saved them all from it. Even if it happened in spite of, rather than because of, him, they will still carry him shoulder high back to Downing Street, hailing him as the greenest Prime Minister who ever graced Parliament. Britain will settle into a new golden age of aviation, with more and more new exciting destinations becoming available from enlarged regional airports.

Then, a couple of years later, plans will be published for a third runway at Heathrow, needed because of the massive increase in air traffic resulting from the rejection of the previous plans...