Bristol Airport

[whole diary]

[TonyN]

In other news, Chancellor Rishi Sunak has just announce a cut in the aviation passenger duty levied on internal flights, and an extension of state help for regional airports.

At the end of the Budget did Rishi say wether the Budget was sponsored by Ryanair or Easyjet.

[IndustryInsider]

Either way, I expect there was furious lobbying, just like there has been with the SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) planned cuts.

[broadgage]

Except that the aviation industry lobbying has worked and produced tax cuts and public funding for airports.

The passenger lobbying regarding Waterloo to Bristol services, MIGHT succeed, but dont count on it.

[broadgage]

Breaking news, Bristol airport expansion approved, as announced on today's evening news.

More flights, more passengers, more pollution, more global warming. The climate emergency is now very last year.

Appalling news. Even I would not ban air travel, but to actively increase capacity is a backwards step.

[johnneyw]

I didn't expect that!

It occurred to me that this will also have big implications on getting these increased numbers of passengers to and from the airport.  How will this be addressed?

[broadgage]

I didn't expect that!

It occurred to me that this will also have big implications on getting these increased numbers of passengers to and from the airport.  How will this be addressed?

According to the TV news report there will be "loads of buses swooping in and out" so that is all right then.

I expect some PV modules and a few electric car charging points, for greenwashing.

[TonyK]

Breaking news, Bristol airport expansion approved, as announced on today's evening news.

More flights, more passengers, more pollution, more global warming. The climate emergency is now very last year.

Appalling news. Even I would not ban air travel, but to actively increase capacity is a backwards step.

Unsurprisingly, I don't share your sense of dismay, and see it as a positive step forward. Not just for Bristol, but for the overall reduction in traffic criss-crossing the country in search of a flight.

I haven't been able to find the inspector's decision yet, to see on what basis he came to his conclusion. There is already talk of legal action by the council and anti-aviation group. You may recall that some time ago, I said:

Like others, I think this decision will not survive an appeal and a public inquiry. The council went against their planning officer's recommendation, and wrote a rebuttal of his advice. Any appeal will be based on law and policy at the time the application was made, so any new limits subsequently introduced will have no bearing on it. If NSDC's reasons did not follow national policy, they will be overturned. I hope they didn't turn down the application simply to appease the protesters outside the town hall, knowing full well that an appeal would succeed and secretly looking forward to the increased business rates and the chance to blame the Tories, because that is not an efficient use of council tax money. It isn't unheard of - look at Bristol City Council and the MacDonalds in Fishponds.

I'll stick my neck out, not very far, and say that any legal action will be futile unless the inspector is found to have had a vested interest, which won't happen. There is a six-week window in which to apply for a judicial review. I think the action group is more likely than North Somerset DC^▸ (Direct Current) to seek judicial review, unless the council can be persuaded to risk throwing good money after bad. This appeal will have cost them a lot of their taxpayers' money, and they may yet have to pay the airport's costs too. A JR needn't cost them more than a teacher's salary for a year, unless they try to turn it into a re-run of the flawed arguments they used to refuse permission. Bristol Airport Action Network's representative has said the group will be speaking to a legal team about the decision. I am sure they will find one willing to take on the work, for a consideration.

On the positive side, I hope that the airport makes good on any undertakings it made regarding transport to the airport. I am sure it will - before the pandemic struck, the majority of buses using the South Bristol Link Road were heading to or from the airport. They seem to have abandoned it in favour of a return to the route through Bedminster. I don't know if that is permanent, but the airport tends towards the pragmatic, and may well return to running both versions of the route as traffic picks up. That is assuming the guided bit and Cumberland Road remain fit for use by buses. I don't like the early signs, though. Better bus infrastructure is mentioned in the report from ITV, but nothing about rail.

[stuving]

This BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) report includes a helpful link (for once) to the inspectors' report.

The conclusion is brief in the extreme:

Conclusion
562. Despite the harms identified and taking account of all other considerations, the Panel concludes that the balance falls in favour of the grant of planning permission.
563. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all matters raised, the Panel conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

But in among a lot of matching pairs of hands, this looks as crucial as any:

554. Other environmental effects have been assessed, including climate change, highways matters, air quality, as well as character and appearance (and the AONB^▸ (Areas Of Natural Beauty)), and biodiversity. These are considered to be neutral in the balance as no material harm was found, nor conflict with relevant development plan policies or other broader national policy objectives.

(Yes, the whole report is that long.)

[broadgage]

I can not agree that more airport capacity is any way good for the environment, or even neutral as is stated in the report.

The purpose of increased capacity is to handle more flights so as to enable more people to fly. Airlines are virtually 100% fossil fuel powered and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

Transport to/from the enlarged airport is better by bus than by car, but that is ignoring the underlying problem of the amount of  fuel used by the aircraft.

A short drive to Bristol airport will use less road fuel than a longer drive to a London airport, but again that is ignoring the underlying problem of the amount of fuel used by the aircraft. And of course the shorter drive to Bristol will encourage MORE flying in total.

And to those who argue that future aircraft will use either a lot less fuel or something other than fossil fuel, I would say "Fine, simply prohibit ALL increased airport capacity, and reverse ALL tax breaks until this is achieved"

[Bmblbzzz]

I'm entirely unsurprised by this decision.

Unlike some, I'm not sanguine about the reduction in traffic crossing the country to reach an airport. Yes, that might happen, but evidence from all forms of transport is that increasing capacity increases usage, for all modes from foot to space travel.

[broadgage]

There is also an interesting contrast between relatively green railways, and very ungreen airlines.

On "the railway" the response to the pandemic is one of cutting train lengths and numbers of trains on the grounds that fewer people are travelling. Reversing these cutbacks will no doubt be a slow and expensive process. Any increase  in passenger numbers will be met by the old mantra of "there is no spare rolling stock to cater for holidays and special events"

Numbers flying have also reduced, but the response is the exact opposite, increase airport capacity in order to attract more custom "build it and they will come"

[IndustryInsider]

Aren’t we busy building East West Rail, a slightly curtailed HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) and finishing off Crossrail, not to mention several new railway stations and have just reopened two old routes at Okehampton and Cross Keys to Newport?

[broadgage]

Aren’t we busy building East West Rail, a slightly curtailed HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) and finishing off Crossrail, not to mention several new railway stations and have just reopened two old routes at Okehampton and Cross Keys to Newport?

Yes we are, and such schemes are commendable, but meanwhile on GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) fewer trains and shorter trains are the norm, with little urgency in doing anything about this because "passenger numbers are down and the present service is generally adequate"

And on SWR^» (South Western Railway - about), the class 455s are being withdrawn before the replacements are available, again due to "falling passenger numbers"

And cross country are withdrawing HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) and reducing capacity for similar reasons.

New services via Okehampton are of no help to the passenger standing from Paddington to Taunton, or from Waterloo to Basingstoke, or on many cross country services.

[stuving]

... meanwhile on GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) fewer trains and shorter trains are the norm ...

We all know that "meanwhile" GWR's service has fewer services and some shorter trains that the norm, for two major reasons. So I think that quote must be an example of broadgage's law - by analogy with Hofstadter's law, of course:

"GWR normally run fewer and shorter trains than they normally run".

[IndustryInsider]

And on SWR^» (South Western Railway - about), the class 455s are being withdrawn before the replacements are available, again due to "falling passenger numbers"

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) it’s the 2-car Class 456s that have been withdrawn, along with a few 455s, but the majority are staying for the time being.

I don’t know enough about passengers loadings on the SWR inner suburban routes (and I suspect you don’t either) to know whether there is a significant capacity crisis as a result, but on the face of it, it’s a very commuter biased route and I suspect 10-car trains are well in excess of what’s currently needed.  At off-peak times they always were anyway.

Depending on how long it takes the Class 701 issues to be resolved (some have suggested the class number indicates the number of outstanding faults on them), perhaps SWR will pay dearly for being told by the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) to let go of the units that’ve left the franchise. 

Or they’ll time it well and 701s will come on stream at just the right time to deal with an increase in passenger numbers.

I agree with you that the current situation with CrossCountry is very unsatisfactory, particularly at weekends.

As for Paddington to Taunton I note the list of short forms has dropped away almost completely over the last few days.  I wonder if that was at least partly linked to my theories of depot staff isolations during the worst of the omricon case numbers?