• Legal bid launched to stop government’s £27bn road building plans (Forbes)
• Missing taking a train? Take a KX-Leeds ride from the cab (LNER)
• Norway’s A-ha moment that made it an electric car leader (Guardian)
• The bus – humble but effective – podcast (99%Invisible)
• The history & future of Portland passenger rail video (ReeceMartin)
• My God – it’s full of stars (BeautyOfTransport)
• Pandemic shows what cities have surrendered to cars (Atlantic)
Read our most popular articles:
- Schrodinger’s Cab Firm: Uber’s Existential Crisis
- You Hacked – Cyber-security and the railways
- On Our Line Podcast #8: Talking Uber, Lyft and Mobility disruption
And some of our other sections:
Feel we should read something or include in a future list? Email us at [email protected].
Reconnections is funded largely by its community. Like what we do? Buy us a cup of coffee or visit our shop.
<
Whether this kind of thing leads to a clearer acknowledgment and acceptance of the likely economic effect of such ambitious environmental targets, or a retreat from such ambitious targets to reduce those economic effects, will be interesting to see. The government has certainly been keen to put off making clear statements and plans of how it will achieve its environmental targets.
The specific grounds that Transport Action Network, a relatively new environmental pressure group set up in 2019, have raised in their pre-action letter are:
1) The Paris Treaty requires the UK government to have regard not only to the level of carbon emissions in 2050, but also the total quantity of carbon emissions between now and 2050; expanding the road network will increase emissions in the short term, and thus the total emissions between now and 2050, even if later we are all driving electric cars. Thus the govt has failed to take proper account of Paris in this decision.
2) The government has failed to take account of the increase in other emissions affecting air quality from the additional traffic and whether it will make it worse in an illegal way, for example whether it will be consistent with legal requirements in relation to NOx emissions.
3) The government has failed to carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment as required under law.
The Paris argument is interesting. It is potentially not as powerful as the Paris argument that they succeeded with in the Heathrow case. But they won the Heathrow case on two separate grounds, when one was enough. Here again they have some further grounds that look like they might have some legs.
If the government loses such a case, sometimes it can just go back and make the decision “properly” and still come to the same decision, or retain the essence of the first decision by changing some details. The Heathrow case was an exception to that, because the rules had changed since it first made the decision, and so a remade decision, made according to the court’s interpretation, would have to satisfy stricter rules. But it might be more feasible in the present case.