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

[whole diary]

[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?

[Noggin]

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?

Whether we like it or not, the reality is that Bristol is the main airport for the South West of England, and is likely to be so for a long time to come.

People want and need to fly for business and personal reasons. Yes, we shouldn't be flying it willy-nilly or where a good rail alternative exists, but should we deny air travel to those who happen to be located in Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Exeter because we disapprove of it.

Surely the way to make the best of the situation would be to build a decent heavy-rail connection into the airport, particularly one that supports direct services to Exeter and beyond? If the public sector played its part to clear the regulatory issues and perhaps electrified the mainline, I'm sure some kind of creative financier could think up a way to fund it through some kind of long-term bond offering.    

[TonyK]

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

A lot of people struggled with that concept, including North Somerset Council. I didn't, and neither did the inspector and his colleagues. All their years of learning have not been wasted. This decision, and the approved expansions of Stansted and Luton, should bring a slight measure of relief to anyone fighting the expansion of Heathrow.

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.

To quote my friend the inspector, himself quoting someone on the airport team:

As BAL put it, “people don’t fly because there are airports; rather, there are airports because people want to fly.”

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.

I'm with you on the first point, and will take the bus when I go there next month.  A short drive from Bristol would use a lot less fuel than the schlep to Gatwick and back, passing Bristol airport on the way home. Multiplied by 50 or so cars, it is not insignificant. Nor is the saving in aircraft fuel in flying the extra miles, then stacking over Ockham. I have spent half an hour on a Boeing 747 going in slowly descending circles before finally heading out to the Thames estuary to join the queue on finals to land at Heathrow. Only once have I circled close to Bristol airport because of traffic, and I was driving. It wasn't a 747. On the encouragement of more flying overall, I refer you to the quote by my learned friend above. He has studied the topic, and knows more than you or I do.

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"

Given that aviation counts for under 2% of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)'s output of greenhouse gases, you would achieve far more by charging VAT^▸ (Value Added Tax) at 20% on gas until all homes have electric heat pumps, stopping all road building and removing the freeze on petrol and diesel duty until all cars are electric, charging proper duty on diesel used for transport until all trains and buses are powered by clean electricity, and good luck at the next election. Growing crops or using energy to make aviation fuel is just posturing, at least until we have abundant clean energy to do it with. Once our nuclear fleet is up to speed, maybe that would be a good use for surplus renewable energy as it isn't time constrained in the way the grid is. Aircraft will use less fuel per passenger mile - the progression has been steadily downwards since the Wright Brothers' first flight, but I accept that aviation, and possibly shipping, will be the last to abandon fossil fuels. When they do, there will still be campaigns against flying.

Whether we like it or not, the reality is that Bristol is the main airport for the South West of England, and is likely to be so for a long time to come.

People want and need to fly for business and personal reasons. Yes, we shouldn't be flying it willy-nilly or where a good rail alternative exists, but should we deny air travel to those who happen to be located in Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Exeter because we disapprove of it.

Exactly. Which is not to knock Exeter Airport - I flew to Naples once, and very good it was too - but Bristol's catchment area makes it the horse to back for trips abroad from the region. It's 180 miles from Penzance, to put the area into perspective. It's 110 miles from Plymouth, but there's a bus from there to Bristol Airport. I fully approve of your campaign to upgrade the railway from Cornwall.

[Surrey 455]

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^» (South Western Railway - about) 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.

Without the 456s the 455s are down to 8 cars. In the peaks I always get someone sitting next to me and there's a few standing in the vestibules. As much as I hate having an hourly service, I have to admit I don't often see overcrowding. When I do, I have to assume an earlier train has been cancelled.

[TonyK]

Bristol Airport Ltd has asked for a full award of their costs in relation to the appeal. Reading the full application won't make for easy reading for councillors. If I were a councillor, I would be starting work on planning cuts to pay the bill.

[broadgage]

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"

[Bob_Blakey]

.....but Bristol's catchment area makes it the horse to back for trips abroad from the region.....

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.

[broadgage]

.....but Bristol's catchment area makes it the horse to back for trips abroad from the region.....

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.

If ALL of the passengers flying from Bristol or Exeter airports were so doing instead of driving to a London airport, then yes there would be a saving in road fuel. So no problem in reducing capacity at Heathrow then !

Hardly likely is it, indeed expansion at Heathrow is being called for in ADDITION to the expansion at Bristol.

The real purpose of expanding capacity at Bristol, Heathrow, and at other airports is to enable MORE flights in total, in order that MORE people can fly MORE conveniently, to MORE destinations.

Any savings in road fuel resulting from some passengers driving to a local airport instead of driving to a more distant airport will be completely swamped by an overall total increase in flying.

If we are serious about the climate emergency we need to fly a lot less, and not be adding capacity for more flights.

[TaplowGreen]

.....but Bristol's catchment area makes it the horse to back for trips abroad from the region.....

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.

If ALL of the passengers flying from Bristol or Exeter airports were so doing instead of driving to a London airport, then yes there would be a saving in road fuel. So no problem in reducing capacity at Heathrow then !

Hardly likely is it, indeed expansion at Heathrow is being called for in ADDITION to the expansion at Bristol.

The real purpose of expanding capacity at Bristol, Heathrow, and at other airports is to enable MORE flights in total, in order that MORE people can fly MORE conveniently, to MORE destinations.

Any savings in road fuel resulting from some passengers driving to a local airport instead of driving to a more distant airport will be completely swamped by an overall total increase in flying.

If we are serious about the climate emergency we need to fly a lot less, and not be adding capacity for more flights.

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)?