"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 28/02/2020 12:15, tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 28/02/2020 08:51, tim... wrote:
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.

The more interesting thing is campaigners are intending to challenge
road schemes on the same grounds which could have a beneficial effect
on
the economics of rail expansion and electrification schemes.


The same campaigners also challenge rail schemes, as we've seen with
HS2.

The same ruling will also apply to any other airport expansion, which
may
not please the government and London mayor quite so much.

The point about the ruling is that it didn't say that the airport
expansion, wasn't, or couldn't be, compliant with whatever law it is
that it's suppose to comply with, just noted that the proposals hadn't
been tested against that requirement, when they should have been.

If you read on, the problem for the proponents is that if it is tested
against the requirements, it cannot pass.

Whilst that is not an end result that I am unhappy with,

I'm not convinced that it is possible for someone to make that claim.

There is every possibility that a different proposal could pass.

But it will take LHR another 3 years to get there - and may require extra
spending that makes the financial even more shaky than they are.

For example, one of the things that LHR claim that they can improve in their
plan is to lessened their carbon footprint by making more people come by PT
by using a "congestion charge" to encourage them.

But a Congestion charge cannot possibly discourage people who have no
alternative travel option, those people will just have to "suck it up" and
will carry on driving to the airport.

LHR have, three times, at previous planning enquires "promised" that
building the Western rail route into the airport would *come* as part of he
new development, and three times when push come to shove they didn't provide
it.

If it were me evaluating LHR's proposals, any calculations for future carbon
footprint based upon passengers using PT would have to be met *before* the
ground work on the runway is started. I.E the rail improvement have to be
in place (and shown to be effective) first, not just proposed for later and
then forgotten (again).

tim