The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?

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

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.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

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.

"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.

AISI the problem with LHR expansion when performing that test, is that its
business case is based upon the increased use of LHR as a global hub and
therefore encouraging extra people to travel via LHR, for whom neither their
source nor destination is in the UK.

It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased opportunity for
air travel is necessary for the overall good of the UK economy (except in
the trivial amount that air side purchases form of the economy) and that
that economic benefit justifies meeting/overriding whatever requirement the
afore mentioned act requires. Something that a stand alone improvement of
UK point to point travel (rail, road or air) might manage.

tim

On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:15:57 -0000, "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.

Yup, another gift from that nice Mr Grayling!


AISI the problem with LHR expansion when performing that test, is that its
business case is based upon the increased use of LHR as a global hub and
therefore encouraging extra people to travel via LHR, for whom neither their
source nor destination is in the UK.

Many of those hub users will be based in the UK, just not near
Heathrow. For example, there will be more UK regional flights to an
expanded Heathrow.


It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased opportunity for
air travel is necessary for the overall good of the UK economy (except in
the trivial amount that air side purchases form of the economy) and that
that economic benefit justifies meeting/overriding whatever requirement the
afore mentioned act requires. Something that a stand alone improvement of
UK point to point travel (rail, road or air) might manage.

There are many other benefits from Heathrow expansion, including
having more direct flights from it to places like South America, thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents and the planet.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:15:57 -0000, "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.

Yup, another gift from that nice Mr Grayling!


AISI the problem with LHR expansion when performing that test, is that its
business case is based upon the increased use of LHR as a global hub and
therefore encouraging extra people to travel via LHR, for whom neither
their
source nor destination is in the UK.

Many of those hub users will be based in the UK, just not near
Heathrow. For example, there will be more UK regional flights to an
expanded Heathrow.

that's not the point

many of them aren't (based in the UK)

It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased opportunity for
air travel is necessary for the overall good of the UK economy (except in
the trivial amount that air side purchases form of the economy) and that
that economic benefit justifies meeting/overriding whatever requirement
the
afore mentioned act requires. Something that a stand alone improvement of
UK point to point travel (rail, road or air) might manage.

There are many other benefits from Heathrow expansion, including
having more direct flights from it to places like South America,

really

pure speculation

thus
reducing the use of other hubs like Madrid or Schiphol. Those benefit
both UK residents

if it happens

and the planet.

how?

Flights from these other hubs are still going to operate.

If there are more flights from London extracting passengers, those flights
will operate less full

I couldn't believe how empty my flight with Emirates last month was. Barely
a quarter full.

I understand their business mode of proving a hub and spoke from Europe to
the Far East.

But do they really need three flights from Heathrow, 2 from Gatwick and at
least one from Stansted - every day?

In message , at 12:15:57 on Fri, 28 Feb
2020, tim... remarked:


"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.

AISI the problem with LHR expansion when performing that test, is that
its business case is based upon the increased use of LHR as a global
hub and therefore encouraging extra people to travel via LHR, for whom
neither their source nor destination is in the UK.

It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased opportunity
for air travel is necessary for the overall good of the UK economy
(except in the trivial amount that air side purchases form of the
economy)

You still banging on about that? The economic benefits of passengers
(and cargo) in transit go *way* beyond people buying a cup of coffee.

and that that economic benefit justifies meeting/overriding whatever
requirement the afore mentioned act requires. Something that a stand
alone improvement of UK point to point travel (rail, road or air) might
manage.

tim


--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:15:57 on Fri, 28 Feb 2020,
tim... remarked:


"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.

AISI the problem with LHR expansion when performing that test, is that its
business case is based upon the increased use of LHR as a global hub and
therefore encouraging extra people to travel via LHR, for whom neither
their source nor destination is in the UK.

It therefore cannot possibly be argued that this increased opportunity for
air travel is necessary for the overall good of the UK economy (except in
the trivial amount that air side purchases form of the economy)

You still banging on about that? The economic benefits of passengers (and
cargo) in transit go *way* beyond people buying a cup of coffee.

really

show your working,

cos I don't believe it

tim

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.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

"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