Infrastructure, Construction & Developments


Advertisement


Do you support the proposed new terminal for LBA

  • Yes

    Votes: 40 97.6%
  • No

    Votes: 1 2.4%

  • Total voters
    41

leedslad

Active Member
Feb 19, 2012
266
43
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...
 

Len Fish

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
285
103
71
Batley
... 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.
 

Bazza

Member
May 10, 2013
17
13
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.
 

Aviador

Administrator
Staff member
I've upgraded to support F4A!
Jan 12, 2009
13,641
373
HEAD OFFICE
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.
 

Aviador

Administrator
Staff member
I've upgraded to support F4A!
Jan 12, 2009
13,641
373
HEAD OFFICE
Everyone's just nitpicking now? I mean, really, LBA has virtually no military traffic apart from the occasional flypast. If you lot are going to complain about that then what about emergency service vehicle sirens, noisy buses and truck movements on the A65 and A658, the wind and rain, where do you stop. This discussion is getting silly now. No more in this thread about noise. We have a thread dedicated to anti airport discussions and those types of posts need to go there. I will be moving them.

This thread is for Infrastructure Development related topical discussions only. LBA has announced fantastic plans to build a new terminal.

@rmac No problem with your post, it's just not the right thread for this type of discussion. Please contact me through the PM system if you would like to discuss this further.
 

rmac

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2009
362
143
I was not complaining about the RAF activity but as the airport wants all the support it can get for the new terminal maybe some reading the Evening News will complain, and get it wrong, and then any negative comments only fall into the hands of the protesters. Therefore my question was -Does the airport have to have these approach flights at this time when the airports future is being discussed favourably or not.
 

Aviador

Administrator
Staff member
I've upgraded to support F4A!
Jan 12, 2009
13,641
373
HEAD OFFICE
Yes it's not easy getting the right balance as discussions naturally go off topic from time to time.

Shortly after the new terminal was announced I did say the thread must keep on topic. It was inevitable people were going to stray away onto discussions about rail links, noise and so on. It's not a problem talking about those thing but it would be better if it was posted in a more suitable thread.

What I did this time was I let the discussion run for a while in hope it would venture back on topic. I even contributed to it myself to respond to Tarn Spotter.

Unfortunately the thread was becoming polarised on noise related discussions.

That is why I've moved it. Nothing is deleted.
 
Top Bottom