"Blue Sky Thinking" about Heathrow

Our transport is heavily oil-based. What are the alternatives?

Moderator: Peak Moderation

User avatar
PS_RalphW
Posts: 5872
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Cambridge

Post by PS_RalphW »

vtsnowedin wrote:Will EV autos and trucks not need smooth highways?
These are new or greatly widened roads to fit more cars on to reduce congestion. The existing roads are quite smooth., and EVs run just as well on rough roads as other vehicles
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6596
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:14 pm
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

PS_RalphW wrote: These are new or greatly widened roads to fit more cars on to reduce congestion. The existing roads are quite smooth., and EVs run just as well on rough roads as other vehicles
Yes but if you have the traffic volume you need the matching capacity. As we move to EVs we will reduce CO2 emissions without necessarily reducing vehicle miles driven so we certainly need to maintain the system we have and make any expansions needed.
If you want to reduce unnecessary building stop issuing permits for suburban Mcmansions on cooky cutter lots.
fuzzy
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: The Marches, UK

Post by fuzzy »

PS_RalphW wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:Will EV autos and trucks not need smooth highways?
These are new or greatly widened roads to fit more cars on to reduce congestion. The existing roads are quite smooth., and EVs run just as well on rough roads as other vehicles
I disagree. The roads west of Brum [Shropshire, Worcestershire etc] are often single track potholed dirt roads. It will take a lot of sorting out.
Banning HGVs and prairie tractors from dirt tracks would focus the local pricks.
User avatar
Potemkin Villager
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:58 am
Location: Narnia

Re: "Blue Sky Thinking" about Heathrow

Post by Potemkin Villager »

According to the unspeakably petit bourgeois grauniad:-

"The court of appeal had found the government’s approval of the runway was illegal because ministers had failed to take into account the UK’s commitments under the 2015 Paris climate accord, which requires keeping global temperature rise as close to 1.5C as possible. But following arguments by Heathrow’s lawyers, the supreme court found this was not necessary and overturned the judgment."

Oh the wisdom of lawyers and judges! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
The Stone Age represents 99.99% of mankind's existence on this planet. Francis Pryor
User avatar
PS_RalphW
Posts: 5872
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09 am
Location: Cambridge

Re: "Blue Sky Thinking" about Heathrow

Post by PS_RalphW »

SO, just when COvid19 has conclusively proved that the vast majority of business flying is totally unnecessary, and the holiday industry has shrunk to a tiny fraction of its previous size due to travel restrictions, the government is about to support a massive and unnecessary increase in carbon emissions whilst pretending to be leading the world to a carbon free future.
User avatar
adam2
Site Admin
Posts: 8217
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: North Somerset

Re: "Blue Sky Thinking" about Heathrow

Post by adam2 »

What climate emergency ?
We should be significantly reducing air travel, not expanding airports to encourage even more flying.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 12499
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:35 am
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Re: "Blue Sky Thinking" about Heathrow

Post by kenneal - lagger »

I agree.

At the moment that runway space won't be required for another year at least according to airlines traffic provisions and they are assuming that air traffic will build back to what is was before covid. Some assumption!! That assumes that we won't have another pandemic before then!! Or an economic collapse which would delay the build for a few years at least. We can only hope.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
adam2
Site Admin
Posts: 8217
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: North Somerset

Re: "Blue Sky Thinking" about Heathrow

Post by adam2 »

The recent ruling about the third runway also sends out the message that promises or assurances by "the authorities" are worthless. Simply change the way in which the law is applied such that "no third runway" turns into "a third runway is fine"

No wonder that some anti Heathrow campaigners are calling for violent action. "The legal approach does not work, they simply ignored it and overturned earlier promises"
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Post Reply