It will never happen unless it involves cycle lanes, which is all Leeds City Council seem to be interested in these days. And look at what a blight these have been on Wellington Street and Kirkstall Road. When are the council elections??
Johnson is promising us even more buses, bus and cycle lanes. Joy!
 
On a more serious note airports are an easy target for the environmentalists as they have a ready made opposition to any expansion/redevelopment plans in the NIMBYs who live close by. This is why it is imperative that the silent majority in favour are motivated to air their support for LBA’s plans. Hopefully the lesson from Bristol can be learnt.
 
The airport re-development definitely sits under the northern powerhouse agenda for the Tory govermnet, so politically I dont think we will be having the kind of problems others have had... there are too many regional development stakeholders who want this to happen.
 
Agree....best place for the cycle land is straight down the middle of the runway! Bloody cyclist do my head in on the back lanes in Ilkley.
It would be nice to see them 5 abreast on Runway 14 refusing to move over for a B737-800!
Have to admit I am one of the bikers who rides two abreast on the back roads of Ilkley. This is done because if we ride single breast stupid drivers think it safe to over take on bends etc., when the road not wide enough for two cars and a bike.
I am doing a field trail, at the moment, for my heart condition, undertaken as a joint venture between LGI heart unit and Leeds University. As an ex cyclist, looked at as an ideal guinea pig, one day spent in the the laboratory on the bike, the alternate day on the open road, with my helper with all the monitors riding by my side, his web cam which is to monitor me, picks up more evidence of bad car driving, one of which the university have forwarded to the police.
Accept not aviation related, but just putting the opposite view as a cyclist.
 
With regard to Bristol, there is of course one big difference. Bristol has already expanded and is already seeing more passengers per year than LBA are even seeking to accommodate with their new terminal, so perhaps saying no to Bristol is not going to be as damaging to that airport as saying no would be to LBA. Hopefully they will appeal though and get the decision overturned.

As for being prepared for a long game, and the council insisting on the roads and access arrangements being sorted before the terminal is approved, that won't happen based on what I am told. Firstly, if approved, the parkway station can be readied for roughly the same time as the terminal, so they can be developed alongside each other. The council and WYCA have already taken forever to make a decision on this and it would be wholly wrong of them to delay the airport development because they have themselves taken so long to make a decision. The development of the parkway station and road is their problem, not the airports. Apart from that, my understanding is that if approval is not forthcoming fairly quickly from LCC, then the project may well be killed off by AMP and the funding allocated to it, directed to somewhere that is more appreciative. I would hope however that before taking such action, they would also appeal should LCC say no to AMP and yes to the NIMBYs and activists.
 
The airport appears to be pulling all the right strings so far as environmental issues are concerned relating to the proposed terminal development.

When the application goes in and the support letters are posted, people need to be absolutely clear in their letters that any action taken to reduce aviation CO2 must be done at national level and not by individual councils. Remembering that aviation only accounts for 2% of all CO2 emissions globally and this should be stated loud and clear to LCC. Perhaps even alongside the road transport figure 17% globally.

If LCC are serious about reducing CO2 they would be better perusing getting cars off the roads including reducing the number of motorway journeys to other airports.

I expect the council might try to throw a spanner in the works at some point and I think the airport must be prepared to put its hand in its pocket for a decent environmental package to ensure it appeses them.
 
I’m probably going out on a limb here.....but here goes!

Let me stress that there is no one on here that is more desperate for the airport to expand, and to be the airport we all want it to be than me

Reading all the comments on here over the last few weeks it’s absolutely clear how we all the want the airport to grow and succeed.

However, the issue of climate change is a very real one and one that isn’t going to go away. Whilst I do not support the actions of groups like Extinction Rebellion, indeed I find their antics quite stupid at times, I do think the message they try promote is an important one. I suspect in 50 years time when most of us will be long gone, our kids will be asking why didn’t the earlier generations do more?!?

So to get to my point, I’m increasingly frustrated at some of the phrases used by some members on here like “tree huggers”, “the great unwashed” etc and recently a dig at cyclists for not paying road tax! Really ?!?
Do we really need to use phrases like that?

I’m interested to do my bit to help climate change, I’m a keen cyclist and yes, I’m absolutely desperate for the airport to thrive.

Hopefully I won’t get shot down in flames .......
 
Last edited:
With regard to Bristol, there is of course one big difference. Bristol has already expanded and is already seeing more passengers per year than LBA are even seeking to accommodate with their new terminal, so perhaps saying no to Bristol is not going to be as damaging to that airport as saying no would be to LBA. Hopefully they will appeal though and get the decision overturned.
It could and probably would be very damaging to the airport and the region if BRS was permanently anchored on 10 mppa, a figure that it's within one million of reaching. Any business that is prevented though external reasons unconnected with the health of the business from growing is not an appetising prospect for its owners or any potential buyer. It would be like telling a local Tesco it can only sell x number of this and y number of that per year.

Some people complain bitterly because BRS is Canadian-owned and profits flow to its owners. They ignore the near (at today's values) £400 million invested in infrastructure over the past two decades. When a city or region is desperate for a Japanes or Korean car factory to be set up and bring in overseas investment to create jobs where do they think the profits go? BRS owners have been pouring in overseas investment for many years to create jobs and add to the region's GVA.

A beached BRS would be an extremely unattractive prospect. The current owners have an eventual target of 20 mppa by the 2040s. It has to be able to continue to grow or face a gradual decline.
 
We all must remember we are entitled to our views. And it could just be there are more supporters out there than we realise. I too agree that's a good and brave post gazza, well done. It proves level headedness does exist. If we support this development properly and sensibly, understanding the environmental impact, we can come out on the right side. The head has to rule the heard. This could just be a development to benefit so many
 
From reading the Bristol info the main issues appeared to be 1. transport infrastructure ...and for us this will mean more than the park and ride...for any proposed increase in pax the road plans will need to show that the local routes can cope with any increase 2. Carbon emissions 3. Disruption to local residents due to increased pax.
 
I’m probably going out on a limb here.....but here goes!

Let me stress that there is no one on here that is more desperate for the airport to expand, and to be the airport we all want it to be than me

Reading all the comments on here over the last few weeks it’s absolutely clear how we all the want the airport to grow and succeed.

However, the issue of climate change is a very real one and one that isn’t going to go away. Whilst I do not support the actions of groups like Extinction Rebellion, indeed I find their antics quite stupid at times, I do think the message they try promote is an important one. I suspect in 50 years time when most of us will be long gone, our kids will be asking why didn’t the earlier generations do more?!?

So to get to my point, I’m increasingly frustrated at some of the phrases used by some members on here like “tree huggers”, “the great unwashed” etc and recently a dig at cyclists for not paying road tax! Really ?!?
Do we really need to use phrases like that?

I’m interested to do my bit to help climate change, I’m a keen cyclist and yes, I’m absolutely desperate for the airport to thrive.

Hopefully I won’t get shot down in flames .......


Since 1990, airlines have reduced passenger CO2 emissions by 50%, that's pretty impressive and goes to show the industry is trying it's best, who knows....maybe in the next 15-20 years we may have airplanes that will be 100% electric that emit zero emissions.... I guess a lot of the environmental folk seem to miss that fact.

The point is we all want clean air, but why does the airline industry get the most flack when ships and cars are the biggest polluters on earth.
 
If regional airports are not allowed to grow due to environmental concerns, what would the alternative be? Endless extra miles to travel to LHR, LGW, MAN etc. You are not going to stop people flying on holiday!! Surely discouraging long-distance driving would be a far better cause for environmentalists? We don't get the noisy old crates such as DC9's and B737/200's anymore, so surely noise pollution is less of an issue and as XEROX refers to above, surely CO2 emissions per flight must be lower these days.
 
Just to highlight how pathetic this all is, 2% represents global emissions from aviation. The amount of CO2 in the air is 0.04%, if you take away the naturally occurring CO2, let's say man is responsible for half, this means aviation is responsible for 0.025% of global CO2 in the air. I can't even imagine the amount of noughts I'd need to add to show how much CO2 LBA is responsible for even if the airport doubled in size.
Any mathematicians out there?
 
Me either, but I'd say that's the main worry since the terminal relies on it... Don't think there's much the council can do from planning perspective re terminal... Daytime flight hours more contentious though...
 
... However, the issue of climate change is a very real one and one that isn’t going to go away. Whilst I do not support the actions of groups like Extinction Rebellion, indeed I find their antics quite stupid at times, I do think the message they try promote is an important one. I suspect in 50 years time when most of us will be long gone, our kids will be asking why didn’t the earlier generations do more?!?

So to get to my point, I’m increasingly frustrated at some of the phrases used by some members on here like “tree huggers”, “the great unwashed” etc and recently a dig at cyclists for not paying road tax! Really ?!?
Do we really need to use phrases like that?
I totally agree but there has to be a balance between climate change measures and economic reality. AMP have gone out of their way to make the new terminal and indeed the whole airport as green as possible in the future. LCC needs to recognise this and in turn go out of their way to recognise the economic importance of the proposals for the whole region and approve the plans. The environmentalists and NIMBYs can be extremely irritating and annoying but we need to treat them with respect and support the proposals calmly and logically with proven facts. Not to do so will weaken our case.
 
I totally agree but there has to be a balance between climate change measures and economic reality. AMP have gone out of their way to make the new terminal and indeed the whole airport as green as possible in the future. LCC needs to recognise this and in turn go out of their way to recognise the economic importance of the proposals for the whole region and approve the plans. The environmentalists and NIMBYs can be extremely irritating and annoying but we need to treat them with respect and support the proposals calmly and logically with proven facts. Not to do so will weaken our case.

You’re absolutely right and that was the point I was trying to make.

Talking generically here and not specifically about aviation, there are often two schools of thought. One is that climate change is not important and we should all plough on regardless with no concern for climate change. The other is that we should all stop driving cars, flying, eating meat etc etc. Both extremes are exactly that and both are unachievable and borderline irresponsible!

I’m firmly in the middle, like you and I suspect most people, that economic growth should continue but with an ever increasing awareness of the impact on the climate.

Back to the airport specifically. This news is the most exciting news in the best part of 35years of visiting there and I certainly can’t wait to see it happen.
 
I agree there needs to be a balanced approach to airport expansion. LBA desperately needs a new terminal and has done for many year. Leeds and the Leeds City Region desperately need a better airport, with better connections with our European neighbours and beyond.

I agree there is a finite balance between the economic benefits and the environmental impact of growing an airport. I would like to see the airport submit a comprehensive plan to counter those environmental concerns, one which allows for growth beyond 7mppa in the future but one that has the environment at the heart of its plans.

How can the airport achieve this?

We all deserve clean air and water and we deserve a clean environment to live in. The airport has a duty to protect it's neighbours and wildlife surrounding the airport against noise and pollution. On submitting the formal application to expand the airport, they should incorporate a series of schemes to counter the environmental impact. Some things can be done immediately, somethings can be done later as the airport grows.

What I think is achievable is the following.

A scheme whereby initially the airport works towards becoming carbon neutral through building it's new terminal and by working with its business partners on site. Static ground equipment can be noisier and more polluting than the aircraft. The airport should maintain it's current nighttime restrictions on the use of noisy ground power equipment and aircraft engine testing.

Any growth beyond the current 4mppa should be countered by carbon offsetting through tree planting schemes working with Yorkshire region landowners. The airport should contribute towards the Northern Forest which is a government scheme working alongside the Woodland Trust and other organisations.

There are also a number of nature reserves around the area where the airport could assist to maintain and expand them. The airport is close enough to Golden Acre Park to be able to see it from the new terminal location. The Yorkshire Wildlife Trust is involved there. Some UK airports have a hands on approach by offering labour to some good cause organisations periodically. Stansted Airport Example. As well as being a genuine good cause, this support can be used to build a relationship with it's neighbours. A relationship which benefits both parties.

The airport could offer to limit growth beyond 7mppa until aircraft can offer a further reduction in noise and CO2 emissions that meets LCCs environmental objectives.

The airport needs to work alongside LCC to reduce road journeys to the airport, reducing road use and CO2. There is clear evidence to suggest Yorkshire air passengers driving to neighbouring airports adds significantly more CO2 emissions in comparison with flying from their local airport however, the airport should still work with WYTS and LCC to maximise the number passengers arriving to LBA by greener public transport alternatives.

The airport needs to work out what additional bus routes might be achievable with or without subsidies. In a previous discussion on the Road Rail Access thread some time ago I mentioned the need for 24 hours buses if buses are to become a genuine alternative for passengers. It is no good a bus service starting at 05:00 or 06:00 if check-in opens at 04:00, or if your flight home lands at 02:00 in the morning. The airport says it will connect with the proposed Parkway station by working alongside the train scheduling. The airport also needs to consider making bus options also work with the flight scheduling if it is to be considered a genuine alternative to arriving by car.

Road access. In previous years the airport has been asked to contribute to road improvements close to the airport. Although I believe LCC should be held responsible for this, there maybe some instances where the airport should contribute in areas surrounding the terminal access routes.

The airport should offer to consider multi storey parking in the future to ensure no additional green land is used.
 

Upload Media

Upgrade Your Account

Subscribe to help support your favourite forum and in return we'll remove all our advertisements. Your contribution will help to pay for things like site maintenance, domain name renewals and annual server charges.



Forums4aiports
Subscribe

NEW - Profile Posts

9 trips in 9 days done 70 miles walked and over 23-00 photos taken with a large number taken at 20mph or above. Heavy rain on 1 day only
5 trips done and 45 miles walked,. Also the RAF has had 4 F35B Lightning follow me yesterday and today....
My plans got altered slightly as one of the minibus companies had to cancel 3 trips and refunded me but will be getting nice discount when I rebook them.
wondering why on my "holidays" I choose to get up 2 hours earlier than when going to work. 6 trips in 6 days soon coming up with 3 more days to sort out

Trending Hashtags

Advertisement

Back
Top Bottom
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock