HS2

[Mike Storey]

50 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

So should the challenge to HS2 get to the stage where predicted emissions levels are put on the table, all HS2 has to do is show that modal transfer from road (and air) to rail results in a net reduction in emissions?  Likewise if there is sufficient percentage transfer to public transport by Heathrow staff (I've read LHR employs over 75000 within its boundary) and passengers, conceivably a net reduction in emissions could be claimed. 

 

However, the energy used by building either infrastructure project would take some time to offset.  If that is considered part of the calculation, you can probably rule out any significant housebuilding in the UK; cement and brick manufacture is pretty energy intensive.  Presumably Chris Packham will be launching a legal challenge against new houses in the near future.

 

It could well be the construction phase that is being challenged. However, our Celeb would have to prove that this method would prove less polluting than the alternatives, such as widening existing railway tracks (x 3 presumably), or building a new but more conventional railway, or building more roads, or having more flights, or all four. The Paris Accords do not prevent development, but require that such development is undertaken in the most sustainable way.

 

So the only viable alternative argument from Packham et al, would be the "do nothing" tack. It would be interesting to see how far that went.

[billbedford]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

With the Heathrow decision the reason it has been rejected is quite simply that the Government itself has signed up to the Paris accord (That decision had NOTHING to do with the court system) and is pledging to radically reduce Carbon emissions. Granting approval for the expansion of aviation quite clearly contradicts the obligations the Government signed up to and THAT was why the judgement said what it did (which does NOT 'ban' the expansion of Heathrow in principle).

 

As such all the courts have said is that either the UK Government has to formerly withdraw from the Paris agreement (which means that said agreement can no longer be used as evidence in a court hearing), or alternatively provide evidence that an increase in aircraft capacity at Heathrow will not increase emission levels.

 

 

That is not what the Appeal Court decided. The decision was based on the narrow legal question on whether the Secretary of State should have taken the Paris Accords into account when deciding whether to grant an Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), for the third runway at Heathrow. They decided that he didn't take the Paris Accords into account, however if he had done he was not bound to act in accordance with them. 

 

The full judgement is on-line for those who are interested

 

..and this is the relevant part of the court's decision:

 

Quote

 

Decision:

 

“Climate change issue (1) – whether the designation of the ANPS was unlawful because the Secretary of State acted in breach of section 10(3) of the Planning Act

 

234. The grounds advanced on behalf of Friends of the Earth by Mr Wolfe focused in particular on the requirements of section 10 of the Planning Act. Mr Wolfe submitted:
(1) There was an error of law in the approach taken by the Secretary of State because he never asked himself the question whether he could take into account the Paris Agreement pursuant to his obligations under section 10.
(2) If he had asked himself that question, and insofar as he did, the only answer that would reasonably have been open to him is that the Paris Agreement was so obviously material to the decision he had to make in deciding whether to designate the ANPS that it was irrational not to take it into account.

 

235. We accept those submissions in essence.

 

236. First, it is clear to us from the material that was before the Divisional Court that the Secretary of State was advised that he was not permitted as a matter of law to take into account the Paris Agreement because he should for relevant purposes confine himself to the obligations set out in the Climate Change Act (see paragraphs 218 and 220 above). He therefore did not ever consider whether to take the Paris Agreement into account as a matter of discretion.

 

237. Secondly, and in any event, if he had appreciated he had any discretion in the matter, we agree that the only reasonable view open to him was that the Paris Agreement was so obviously material that it had to be taken into account. It is well established in public law that there are some considerations that must be taken into account, some considerations that must not be taken into account and a third category, considerations that may be taken into account in the discretion of the decision-maker (see, for example, the opinion of Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood in Hurst, at paragraphs 57 to 59). As Lord Brown
observed of that third category (in paragraph 58 of his opinion), there can be some unincorporated international obligations that are “so obviously material” that they must be taken into account. The Paris Agreement fell into this category. 

 

238. Again we would emphasize that it does not follow from this that the Secretary of State was obliged to act in accordance with the Paris Agreement or to reach any particular outcome. The only legal obligation, in our view, was to take the Paris Agreement into account when arriving at his decision.”

 

 

[melmerby]

An interesting item on the local news about the collapse of FlyBe.

It accounted for about 15% of all flights at Birmingham Airport.

Interviewing a business spokesman he said it was used by businessmen (& women presumably?) to get to other cities around the UK for business purposes and said he didn't know what would happen as "there was no alternative"

Quite clearly doesn't consider train travel.

 

It's like an earlier comment I heard today "How will we get from Exeter to London without FlyBe?"

Again what about a train?

Too many seemed to be wedded to non train forms of transport and won't consider trains even when there is a reasonable service.

Lets hope HS2 will rectify that.

 

[Mike Storey]

17 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

That is not what the Appeal Court decided. The decision was based on the narrow legal question on whether the Secretary of State should have taken the Paris Accords into account when deciding whether to grant an Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), for the third runway at Heathrow. They decided that he didn't take the Paris Accords into account, however if he had done he was not bound to act in accordance with them. 

 

The full judgement is on-line for those who are interested

 

..and this is the relevant part of the court's decision:

 

 

 

Interesting that the Climate Change Act being referred was the 2008 Act. If HMG had appealed, one wonders whether the much more stringent requirements of the 2019 Climate Change Act would also be required to be "taken into account" - they certainly would, if by inference, the Govt started again. 

 

The mere fact of the Supreme Court deciding that their judgement did not force the Sec of State to "act in accordance with the Paris Agreement, or to reach any particular outcome", does not necessarily preclude that he/she should have done so.

 

The earlier parts of the Judgement list the Govt's defence as having been advised that he did not need to take into account international agreements, and that the only applicable law was domestic. The 2008 Act required an 80% reduction in emissions. The 2019 Act requires a 100% reduction. Hard to see how authorising a Strategy which allows for a very significant increase in flights meets either of those "domestic laws".....

[Pete the Elaner]

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Not so. The "Miller" case of January 2017 (Supreme Court), ruled that the Govt could not simply take the UK out of the EU, without first producing an Act of Parliament. May had attempted to ignore parliament, in a similar way that Johnson also attempted to do, and both were found wanting by the courts. May produced the first reading of a bill which would regularise the situation, within two days. In other words, she found a way around it, but only because she needed to comply with the law.

 

So Brexit was found to be "illegal", at least in the way that Mrs May first attempted to deliver it. Not the intention itself.

 

Nice to hear I'm not the only one around here without long term memory loss.

[billbedford]

14 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Interesting that the Climate Change Act being referred was the 2008 Act. If HMG had appealed, one wonders whether the much more stringent requirements of the 2019 Climate Change Act would also be required to be "taken into account" - they certainly would, if by inference, the Govt started again. 

 

 

It has to be the law as applying at the time of the original unlawful decision. If lawyers could apply some updated law partway though a case we could get some truly Kafkaesque outcomes. 

[Edwin_m]

13 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

It has to be the law as applying at the time of the original unlawful decision. If lawyers could apply some updated law partway though a case we could get some truly Kafkaesque outcomes. 

True.  But if the government re-visited their policy on Heathrow, then they would have to take account of the current state of the law including the 2019 Act.  

[Mark Saunders]

“ If things stay like this there’l Be no change “

 

 

[Zomboid]

9 hours ago, melmerby said:

An interesting item on the local news about the collapse of FlyBe.

It accounted for about 15% of all flights at Birmingham Airport.

Interviewing a business spokesman he said it was used by businessmen (& women presumably?) to get to other cities around the UK for business purposes and said he didn't know what would happen as "there was no alternative"

Quite clearly doesn't consider train travel.

 

It's like an earlier comment I heard today "How will we get from Exeter to London without FlyBe?"

Again what about a train?

Too many seemed to be wedded to non train forms of transport and won't consider trains even when there is a reasonable service.

Lets hope HS2 will rectify that.

 

Given the journey times, Birmingham to Newcastle by rail (for example) isn't especially competitive with what air could offer. Once HS2 is open that should change.

 

I'm surprised anyone would fly from Exeter to London though, unless their ultimate destination is right on top of the airport it'll be quicker by rail. Newquay to London I can understand, I flew when I made that journey.

[jjb1970]

How many internal flights are to connect with onward flights? On some routes most people seem to be connecting with onward flights. And some internal routes do make more sense by air than train, for example London - Aberdeen. 

[phil-b259]

10 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

Nice to hear I'm not the only one around here without long term memory loss.

 

Sorry, it still doesn’t change the fact that the courts have NEVER declared Brexit illegal.

 

Memory loss doesn’t come into it - being able to appreciate the importance of following procedures correctly does!

 

All the courts have ever said is that the Government did not follow the correct procedure for carrying Brexit out. They have NEVER said Brexit cannot happen, merely that correct procedures must be followed to make it happen.

 

The two things are ENTIRELY separate - it’s lazy journalists and people with vested interests who try and claim that the two are the same.

 

Similarly the decision about Heathrow was effectively simply a matter of procedure, and the Government to follow its own rules, rather than ignore them because it suits certain business interests.

 

[Siberian Snooper]

On the local news last night, one family had dipped out on their holiday as they were booked on a flight from Exeter to Heathrow, to connect with their onwards flight to their holiday destination. Quite a few people do that from down here.

 

 

[melmerby]

15 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

On the local news last night, one family had dipped out on their holiday as they were booked on a flight from Exeter to Heathrow, to connect with their onwards flight to their holiday destination. Quite a few people do that from down here.

 

 

There was one chap in Birmingham that was booked to get to Oz using no less than four flights of which the FlyBe was the first.

I can really understand the frustration there.

 

2 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Given the journey times, Birmingham to Newcastle by rail (for example) isn't especially competitive with what air could offer. Once HS2 is open that should change.

 

 

You still have to get to/from the airports plus check-in/out times

[Zomboid]

25 minutes ago, melmerby said:

You still have to get to/from the airports plus check-in/out times

Actually my example of Birmingham - Newcastle isn't as bad as I'd thought, but at 2h52 on the fastest trains, plus time spent getting to/from New Street/ Newcastle Central it's not terribly competitive with what I'd guess would have been about 40 minutes in the air plus the to/from the ultimate destination (if such a flight existed before Flybe collapsed there's no easy way to find the actual timing now).

[Northmoor]

3 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Given the journey times, Birmingham to Newcastle by rail (for example) isn't especially competitive with what air could offer. Once HS2 is open that should change.

 

I'm surprised anyone would fly from Exeter to London though, unless their ultimate destination is right on top of the airport it'll be quicker by rail. Newquay to London I can understand, I flew when I made that journey.

To Heathrow or Gatwick I can agree, but Exeter to London CITY Airport would be much quicker than rail for visiting your financiers in the City itself, or Canary Wharf.  

[admiles]

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

To Heathrow or Gatwick I can agree, but Exeter to London CITY Airport would be much quicker than rail for visiting your financiers in the City itself, or Canary Wharf.  

 

There's also the fact that flying can be considerably cheaper than rail. Many companies insist on the cheapest method of travel. I know mine does.

 

I may have an interest in rail but in a lot of cases it's just too expensive to consider.

[Edwin_m]

1 minute ago, admiles said:

 

There's also the fact that flying can be considerably cheaper than rail. Many companies insist on the cheapest method of travel. I know mine does.

 

I may have an interest in rail but in a lot of cases it's just too expensive to consider.

But if the airline in question has just gone under, doesn't that suggest that the airfares are unsustainably low?  

[admiles]

7 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

But if the airline in question has just gone under, doesn't that suggest that the airfares are unsustainably low?  

 

More than likely. But I'm not just comparing rail to air.

 

For example I had a meeting in London a few weeks ago. I had three days notice. Checked rail fare (from Ipswich where I live) - £148 return standard class.  In the car £22 of fuel. Even if you add in wear and tear etc the car wins on cost every time.  No way my company would sanction rail travel.

 

Times in my industry are incredibly tough, we're getting hammered by Brexit and the effects of Coronavirus. Against that background rail travel is frankly a luxury.  I'm sure many other companies choose the cheapest travel option too. Be that air or road.

[caradoc]

14 minutes ago, admiles said:

 

More than likely. But I'm not just comparing rail to air.

 

For example I had a meeting in London a few weeks ago. I had three days notice. Checked rail fare (from Ipswich where I live) - £148 return standard class.  In the car £22 of fuel. Even if you add in wear and tear etc the car wins on cost every time.  No way my company would sanction rail travel.

 

£148 is an awful lot, but checking Anglia Trains website for the next available weekday, ie Monday 9th March, cheaper fares are available, eg £37 single on the 0717 from Ispwich and coming back, £19 on the 1600 from Liverpool St. Still more than the car (although vehicle tax,  insurance, perhaps parking too also have to be added to the cost) but (hopefully) considerably less stressful !

[KeithMacdonald]

My Day Job employer has just vetoed rail travel.

 

Why?

1) Too expensive.

The cheaper fares that are sometimes available are usually off-peak, therefore not suitable for urgent business meetings arranged at short notice (demanding peak-time travel at full price).

2) Too dangerous.
Coronavirus precautions have accelerated the move to video conferencing for meetings, and Working From Home (WFH) as a more acceptable "normal" way of working via secure VPN.

 

After which, I suspect, many will say why bother travelling at all?

 

[woodenhead]

8 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

My Day Job employer has just vetoed rail travel.

 

Why?

1) Too expensive.

The cheaper fares that are sometimes available are usually off-peak, therefore not suitable for urgent business meetings arranged at short notice (demanding peak-time travel at full price).

2) Too dangerous.
Coronavirus precautions have accelerated the move to video conferencing for meetings, and Working From Home (WFH) as a more acceptable "normal" way of working via secure VPN.

 

After which, I suspect, many will say why bother travelling at all?

 

I rarely travel into the office nowadays, work rail travel once a constant is a distant memory.

 

Skype, teams or simply voice conferencing is all we need most of the time.

[woodenhead]

I've also worked from home for pretty much the last 6 years now as well, big desk and dual screen set up in the home office, vpn connection to work, nothing I cannot do on my laptop from home that I could from the office.

 

No commuting, no traffic jams, work hours that suit me.

 

However, because I am cossetted like this I forget what it's like for everyone else and if I leave the house between the hours of 7am and 9am I get surprised by all the cars and queues and how long it takes to go 2 miles in the rush hour.

[Hobby]

 

7 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Given the journey times, Birmingham to Newcastle by rail (for example) isn't especially competitive with what air could offer. Once HS2 is open that should change.

 

Really? I'm not sure that it would make too much difference once you have factored in train connections and getting from one station to another in Birmingham, probably as 30 minute saving bearing in mind you'd have to change once on the HS line. But I'd be interested to see your timings!

 

40 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

2) Too dangerous.

 

How? Coronavirus restrictions about being in crowded places so far don't apply to the UK. If they did you'd be doing a lot less than just not travelling by train. If you can point me to the advice they have received which specifies such dangerous practices as travelling by train in the UK I will gladly pass it on to my employers... I could do with some paid time off...

Edited March 6, 2020 by Hobby

[woodenhead]

11 minutes ago, Hobby said:

How? Coronavirus restrictions about being in crowded places so far don't apply to the UK. If they did you'd be doing a lot less than just not travelling by train. If you can point me to the advice they have received which specifies such dangerous practices as travelling by train in the UK I will gladly pass it on to my employers... I could do with some paid time off...

I think he means his company have deemed travel to dangerous in general and suggest working from home instead.

 

This virus could markedly alter the workplace as more and more companies take the plunge and reduce their need for office space - working from home you are generally less likely to pick up contagious conditions as you're not spending large parts of the day in close proximity to others - in the office, on a train or the bus.

 

On the downside, you miss the banter, the face to face relationships and the general hubub of office life.

 

But I don't miss commuting.

[KeithMacdonald]

6 minutes ago, Hobby said:

Coronavirus restrictions about being in crowded places so far don't apply to the UK. If they did you'd be doing a lot less than just not travelling by train. If you can point me to the advice they have received which specifies such dangerous practices as travelling by train in the UK I will gladly pass it on to my employers... I could do with some paid time off...

 

Be patient young Hobby! :-)

The advice is already ready in draft form.

Some of us with medicine-related Day Jobs may have already seen it.

It's just waiting for official sign-off and a general-public release date.

 

By the way, those of us with memories that still work might just remember the previous waves of hysteria over Swine Flue and SARS.

In the event, far fewer people were affected than the apocalyptic predictions suggested. Let's hope it's the same this time as well?