I think this is in a scenario where HS2 ends up running empty-ass services London<->Birmingham because of excess spare stock and paths... in that case, those would be the candidates for an interim call...
Good news (rare, I know!) - that route has basically been rebuilt by the HS2 project due to access, including, I recall - single track but 90mph line speed from AVP up to EWR. It will be reinstated fully.
There are national interests then there are personal interests, the two do not always align and people will always complain about things that they perceive will negatively impact them. Trying to trivialise or patronise them because you don't agree with them is denying fundamental human emotion and is, in a sense, a variant of NIMBYISM, focusing on a subset of the picture that you like or don't like instead of the whole thing.
I must admit that every time I have used the M40, it has been free flowing, the only exceptions being when someone has been careless enough to crash their vehicle, so unless I have been extraordinarily lucky over the last 20 years, I am struggling to see any significant benefit in reducing traffic on a normally free flowing motorway. Reduce it on the M6 and I'm interested.
I had thought more of extending the Chiltern service from AVP to an EWR/HS2 station, and terminating at the new station with through EWR and HS2 services, but for it to work you would need some co-ordination of timetables which is where the current siloed approach starts to fail.
HS2 passes to the south / west of Aylesbury, so isn't the right side for AVP of linking to the Chiltern line/s.
No they didn’t.
Indeed. The people having to deal with this 140-mile-long concrete scar across the countryside have legitimate concerns. Now whether those legitimate concerns outweigh the benefits of HS2 is a matter of opinion.
It’s a way of dismissing people, nothing more.
It would slow it down by more than that. The roads by Stoke Mandeville would need massive improvements, the relief road HS2 has paid for is only 2 lanes.
I was under the impression it would've served closer to the airport and the fact it doesn't is kind of a disappointment in my opinion. Airport stations are among the most ideal spots for urban stations.
My understanding was the proposed site was the other side of the M56 to the airport, only 700m from Terminal 2.
I'm guessing you're fine with the gradual decline of pretty much any and all public services (or things that are but aren't perceived as such) over the next few years then?
They got the stations but not necessarily a train service of any useful frequency serving them.
It is not the underground lines that are the problem. The problem is the deeper foundations of the tall buildings London has. Paris has a lot fewer buildings with deep foundations.
I mean at least both sides can agree that it's been an absolute shambles that shouldn't have gone on for as long as it has.
It's kind of a two-way street though. The country knows what it wants but doesn't want to do what it takes to get there. The fact is both Heathrow and HS2 are critical infrastructure, and while I understand some people in the affected areas won't like it (which is why I actually think public consultation should take place before contracts are signed and locked in rather than making changes later) the country wouldn't get anywhere if we gave them too much power.
Not terrible by any stretch but not optimal for connectivity. Probably the best it could've gotten, but I imagine many passengers probably wouldn't enjoy lugging 700m with their luggage to the terminal.
There was also talk of extending Metrolink in a Wythenshawe Loop so both station and airport would be served.
One to watch in France is Ilisto, also known as Kevin Speed. They plan to run an hourly service connecting Paris with Strasbourg, Lille and Lyon, calling at all the little currently useless stations along the way. The two big questions are:
Do they heck.
They’re no more or less selfish than the politicians who insist that The Thing must be built, and The Thing must be built right next to the poor people’s houses.
I agree. It (NIMBY) is a mildly insulting term, used to shut down debate by adding a value-judgment that pro-development people are morally superior to development-sceptics. Neither side is morally superior to the other. There are usually pros and cons to both sides in these kinds of situations.
It should never have been started, those of us who are against it have always said it would end up being a disaster. I can’t say I take any pleasure in being in proven right.
It sometimes is. But it also captures an attitude to development that deserves skewering. There are plenty of cases (see Peckham in the last week) where NIMBY objections work against their stated objectives, and it's clear that they are not realistically doing anything more than objecting to change.
OT but I've often thought there should be an integrated car hire/tube station on the perimeter of the m25; remove a good chunk of hire cars going through the centre of London.
Ideally, yes.
I'd argue a continuous back-and-forth between will it or will it not happen, not helped by the fact that rail investment is not a bipartisan thing in the UK as it is in more sensible places, has harmed the project far more than who donated what to who.
If it was built in Aylesbury then there would be an almighty strop thrown if it didn't.
Yes they did. Exhibit A is the access road that was blocked on spurious grounds, driving up costs until the planning inspector could overturn it.
All these people criticising NIMBYs and none of them are offering to swap houses with them. They could do their bit for Britain and they choose not to. Why do we think that is?
It isn’t the most convenient though, otherwise we wouldn’t be needing all the earthworks through the Chilterns. It’s such a convenient route we need to build a 2-mile viaduct. Aye right.
Er - where exactly?
I didn't realise that any of them were asking. I'm quite happy to consider swapping. I don't mind living near a railway. Not a motorway though, they're far bigger scars on the landscape and the noise is dreadful.
I can only suggest you look closer at the biggest contractors on the project.
Which access road? Where? And are you legally qualified to decide what are “spurious grounds”?
www.theguardian.com
I suppose the Jude Bellingham bridge does- quite literally- shadow the existing transport corridor.
Which poor people's houses in the Chilterns are these you are referring to?
Might be this one:
www.constructionnews.co.uk
If a council goes against the recommendations of its own planning officers then the grounds are usually spurious. It's not the only case of Bucks CC doing this - and they've lost a fair few appeals. Any time that a council loses a planning appeal, they have wasted ratepayers' money.
A truss bridge has "plunged homes into darkness"? Truss bridges are more hole than bridge. Is it spoiling their view of the Freightliner terminal?
He thinks that it'll drown out the much nearer line which sees a passing train every five minutes?
This is laughable. Is this what a once-respectable broadsheet is now reduced to, featuring angry local people in its newspaper? The Telegraph is turning into a Reach publication, I see.
