Bristol Airport - proposals for expansion and bus services - merged posts

[whole diary]

[TonyK]

TUI^▸ (Touristik Union International. Also known as TUI Group - ) are currently flying out of Exeter to/from other European destinations 6 days a week (nothing on Wednesdays) and by May there will be services 7 days a week. I assume this is a commercial decision and that a significant proportion of their custom originates from west of Exeter. In terms of environmental damage is it better for these people to reduce their road trips by around 130 miles and then hop on a plane which is very unlikely to have to join a queue for take-off or landing? Ideally, of course, Exeter Airport would be rail connected but I think we all know that is not going to happen.

Thank you for the heads up - it will be handier for me than Bristol. It will indeed save fuel all round for Exeter to cater to a lot more of the population of Devon and Cornwall. The list of destinations is extremely limited in comparison to Bristol, and the prices are a lot more than easyJet, but hopefully this is just the first step towards a much bigger range of flights out of Exeter. As an aside, airlines don't like using fuel on the ground either. Sir Branson himself was at one point proposing that aircraft are tugged to their place in the queue by electric tugs, using only the APU until it is almost time for them to go. I can see practical problems there, such as what happens if an engine refuses to start, but pilots often taxi with only one engine running and start the other on the way to the holding point, and shut one down after landing before heading for the stand. Starting a modern engine is fast and simple - I saw a small boy almost start an Airbus engine at an open day before a pilot rushed forward to intervene.

My one trip out of Exeter was a joy because of the lack of other traffic. The pilot may have been given "Clear for take-off" before reaching the runway, rather than two minutes after lining up behind a landing big jet.

If Bristol airport get their way and council taxpayers DO have to pay then that in my view is wrong.

The message sent out is that "there is no point in opposing airport expansion, because any decision made by the local authority  can be overuled and said local authority then have to pay the costs"

Democracy ? not applicable to airport expansion, vote how you want, but airport expansion will go ahead anyway.
Climate emergency ? not applicable because more flying is actually OK.

It is not surprising that calls for what is politely called "direct action" are growing. The people of Bristol voted for a local authority that opposed airport expansion, they did the "right thing" by voting rather than by use of violence. And look how that ended.

And of course in London, an apparently watertight undertaking that there would be no third runway at Heathrow turned out to actually mean "well a third runway is OK in fact"

Whilst I am sure that your views will be held by anyone against aviation, the main message is one that was loud and clear before north somerset DC^▸ (Direct Current) refused planning permission. Local authorities are there to make local decisions, but are bound by law and by a national planning framework as well as their own local policies. If they don't abide by those, their decisions will be overturned, and if the other party is put to unnecessary expense because they acted perversely in reaching their decision, they are entitled to recover their costs. Had it been a matter of interpretation of policy, it would have been different, but the airport's case is that this is much more profound. The inspector will sort it all out, I'm sure.

Did the people of Bristol vote for a council that opposes airport expansion? Certainly, the 24 green councillors could be assumed to tick that box, but I don't know the views of the other 66% of the members of the council. It was not their decision to make anyway, but the current transport plan has the provision of improved public transport to the airport as a priority, so they aren't getting in the way. The people of Bristol voted for a council wanting to reintroduce trams three times, but ended up with a few bus lanes and a special expressway for the airport instead.

As for Heathrow, we can agree that no undertaking to not build a third runway can ever be watertight or cast iron, although more regional capacity will water down the case for it. Expansion to the north of Heathrow was first cancelled in December 1953, and it has been on and off ever since. The only final result possible is that it is built. Whether or not that happens will be a matter for my grandchildren to discuss in all likelihood.

[broadgage]

I'm not quite sure why, and this could be a wild stab in the dark, but I'm starting to think you're not too keen on aviation, as well as IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train)?

You are correct.
I am opposed to any growth in or expansion of aviation due primarily to the fuel consumed, indeed I would like to see a reduction. The fuel used per mile, per passenger, is broadly similar to that used in driving. No great accuracy may be claimed in this as both cars and aircraft vary in fuel use and in load factor.
The problem is that the speed of air transport encourages greater use. Few people would drive a thousand miles for a short break, but flying that distance is routine.
I am not alone in such views, there is growing concern about climate change.

I dislike IETs for the reasons given elsewhere, and again I am not alone in such views. Some people like them, but most consider them a backward step in terms of comfort, facilities, and train length.

[IndustryInsider]

You really must stop taking the bait every time, Broadgage! 

[TonyK]

Few people would drive a thousand miles for a short break, but flying that distance is routine.

You got me there, broadgage. I didn't have enough annual leave to drive home from Alaska or Tokyo. The Falklands may have proven tricky too. They weren't really short breaks though, and I did some of the journeys by sea.

[Robin Summerhill]

is growing concern about climate change.

I dislike IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) for the reasons given elsewhere, in terms of ... and train length.

Yup

Those barstewards running 9 and 10 car trains to replace the longer HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) (if you include some fresh air at each end...)

[grahame]

Few people would drive a thousand miles for a short break, but flying that distance is routine.

You got me there, broadgage. I didn't have enough annual leave to drive home from Alaska or Tokyo. The Falklands may have proven tricky too. They weren't really short breaks though, and I did some of the journeys by sea.

I suspect the concern starts at extreme cases, such as flights for a day in Lapland to meet Santa and his reindeer.  Not sure if they've done those from Bristol, but certainly from a number of other regional airports.

[TonyK]

Yup

Those barstewards running 9 and 10 car trains to replace the longer HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) (if you include some fresh air at each end...)

Powered by electricity for part of the way, produced by wind (if it's windy) or sun (if it's sunny), or carbon-free nuclear and gas most of the time. Still cleaner than filthy diesel. If National Rail signed up to a 100% renewable electricity tariff like London Underground did, the amount of fossil fuels used in making electricity throughout the land would be cut dramatically overnight.  If one is going to embrace the fight against climate change and exhort others to do so, one must accept with good grace whatever slight discomfort the fight may cause along the way.

[Celestial]

If National Rail signed up to a 100% renewable electricity tariff like London Underground did, the amount of fossil fuels used in making electricity throughout the land would be cut dramatically overnight. 

Never quite understood these renewable tariffs. At any point in time there's a certain amount of demand on the network, and similarly available supply. some of which will be green but some won't. How that's divvied up feels irrelevant. If coal is needed for the last 3% at a particular point in time , NR^» (Network Rail - home page) (nor indeed anyone else) can't say, "make sure we don't get any of that nasty coal generated electricity to power our trains" - it's just one big pot.   

[ellendune]

If National Rail signed up to a 100% renewable electricity tariff like London Underground did, the amount of fossil fuels used in making electricity throughout the land would be cut dramatically overnight. 

No not really.  The only way it would drop overnight is if more renewable generation is brought on stream. 

Signing up to  renewable tariff means that your supplier has to find that amount of renewable electricity to buy.  That creates demand for renewable generation and drives new renewable generating capacity. 

The electrons moving in the wires don't know how they are sourced so yes it will be a mixture, and availability at a particular time will mean wind and solar will need to be balanced with other sources unless there is a large amount of battery storage. Tidal would make a real difference here as it is predictable and can be balanced out by having generation in different locations around the coast. 

[broadgage]

Yup

Those barstewards running 9 and 10 car trains to replace the longer HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) (if you include some fresh air at each end...)

Powered by electricity for part of the way, produced by wind (if it's windy) or sun (if it's sunny), or carbon-free nuclear and gas most of the time. Still cleaner than filthy diesel. If National Rail signed up to a 100% renewable electricity tariff like London Underground did, the amount of fossil fuels used in making electricity throughout the land would be cut dramatically overnight.  If one is going to embrace the fight against climate change and exhort others to do so, one must accept with good grace whatever slight discomfort the fight may cause along the way.

The new trains are indeed at least a bit green, and undeniably better than flying is, bi-mode power is far preferable to 100% diesel.
I am not convinced however that new trains HAVE to be worse than old ones in terms of comfort and facilities, If the old trains had padded seats, then why cant the new ones ? If the old trains had buffets, then why is providing this facility so hard or unreasonably expensive on new ones ?
And as for train length, I appreciate that the new trains are INTENDED to be longer, but in practice 5 car operation is frequently reported, and has been since they were introduced.

Why should we "accept with good grace" that new trains are worse than old ones.

[broadgage]

If National Rail signed up to a 100% renewable electricity tariff like London Underground did, the amount of fossil fuels used in making electricity throughout the land would be cut dramatically overnight. 

Never quite understood these renewable tariffs. At any point in time there's a certain amount of demand on the network, and similarly available supply. some of which will be green but some won't. How that's divvied up feels irrelevant. If coal is needed for the last 3% at a particular point in time , NR^» (Network Rail - home page) (nor indeed anyone else) can't say, "make sure we don't get any of that nasty coal generated electricity to power our trains" - it's just one big pot.   

Agree, any one customer signing up to a renewable tariff DOES NOT magically alter the mix of generation used to supply the national grid. It is simply an accounting exercise, that I, and others have compared to the Church practice of selling indulgences whereby sins can be for forgiven for a sum of money.

If the electricity actually comes exclusively from green sources, then why has it gone up so much ? Wind and sunlight have not increased in price as has natural gas.

The only way to make electricity greener is to build more wind turbines, and install more solar panels, and other renewables. NOT by trading or offsetting.

[TonyK]

Never quite understood these renewable tariffs. At any point in time there's a certain amount of demand on the network, and similarly available supply. some of which will be green but some won't. How that's divvied up feels irrelevant. If coal is needed for the last 3% at a particular point in time , NR^» (Network Rail - home page) (nor indeed anyone else) can't say, "make sure we don't get any of that nasty coal generated electricity to power our trains" - it's just one big pot.   

For pity's sake, don't tell everybody! The few power companies that are left rely on some people thinking their supply wired up to a wind turbine directly, and don't ask what happens when it isn't windy.

No not really.  The only way it would drop overnight is if more renewable generation is brought on stream. 

Signing up to  renewable tariff means that your supplier has to find that amount of renewable electricity to buy. 

That, or buy REGOs^▸ (Renewable Energy Guarantee of Origin) on the open market across Europe and even beyond. It costs under £2 to buy enough to greenwash the supply to the average British home for a year. Broadgage refers to these as "indulgences", and I think he has hit that nail squarely on the head.

[broadgage]

The again delayed reopening of Tavistock railway station and the line thereto was reported on local TV news yesterday, 13/02/2022.  The latest delay was contrasted to the expansion of Bristol airport.

It was suggested that airport expansion could be "pushed through" but that railway re-opening was "delayed as long as possible" Certainly seems an interesting view of actual transport priorities.

[TonyK]

The again delayed reopening of Tavistock railway station and the line thereto was reported on local TV news yesterday, 13/02/2022.  The latest delay was contrasted to the expansion of Bristol airport.

It was suggested that airport expansion could be "pushed through" but that railway re-opening was "delayed as long as possible" Certainly seems an interesting view of actual transport priorities.

Portishead was also compared to the airport expansion yesterday, although not by our friend RS, who is above this bad-mouthing of the opposition as a way of scoring cheap points. Everything that takes a long time will henceforth be compared to the breakneck speed with which the expansion of Bristol Airport was pushed through the planning system.

As it happens, the airport's application was not "pushed through" at breakneck speed, but in fact took longer than it should have done because of what has now been shown as north somerset DC^▸ (Direct Current)'s failed attempt to subvert the planning rules. The airport also had finance sorted prior to submitting the application, something which remains elusive in the Tavistock case. I am sure it is not responsible for the glacial pace of projects that rely on what little public money is left. I am also sure that their planning team would be delighted to share some of their expertise with neighbouring local authorities, if asked.

For the record, I share the frustration of waiting for things to happen on small rail projects.

[eXPassenger]

The again delayed reopening of Tavistock railway station and the line thereto was reported on local TV news yesterday, 13/02/2022.  The latest delay was contrasted to the expansion of Bristol airport.

It was suggested that airport expansion could be "pushed through" but that railway re-opening was "delayed as long as possible" Certainly seems an interesting view of actual transport priorities.

The big difference is that Bristol Airport is being pushed by a private company with finance available and all of the detailed planning BCRs^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio) etc were done behind closed doors.

With railways the funding comes from HMG and all the planning is done in public with far more opportunities for query and delay.  I suspect that in full GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) days Portishead would have been far faster.