The Economist : HS2 Railroad to nowhere

[Zoe]

You're not really suggesting an alternate route at all, just objecting to the current one. Saying "somewhere near the existing WCML or M1" (or words to that effect) isn't a route suggestion.

It is a suggestion of where the route could go, the M1 corridor could be used and would not be as destructive as going through the Chilterns AONB. If it was never going to be an option from the start then no-one would have considered it.

 

[Snapper]

No, going directly through the likes of Milton Keynes would be expensive but there are routes closer to the M1 that could be used as these would not be as environmentally destructive. .

How are you defining environmentally destructive that a different route is going to be less so?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am suggesting that an alternative route via the M1 corridor could be used and would not be as destructive as going through the Chilterns AONB.

It wouldn't be the first new railway to go through an AONB. HS1 also does - but the residents of Kent didn't kick up quite the same fuss.

 

[Zoe]

How are you defining environmentally destructive that a different route is going to be less so?

Look at a map and you will see that the planned route goes directly through the Chilterns AONB. The M40 may well not have been built in the current political climate.

 

[Snapper]

I think the article in the Economist was well written and highlighted a number of issues which pro-HS2 campaigners have yet to address.

Which are?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Look at a map and you will see that the planned route goes directly through the Chilterns AONB. The M40 may well not have been built in the current political climate.

And? The fact that a route traverses an AONB doesn't automatically make it any more environmentally destructive than if it crosses other land. It's all about how it's built.

 

[mallard]

It is a suggestion of where the route could go, the M1 corridor could be used and would not be as destructive as going through the Chilterns AONB. If it was never going to be an option from the start then no-one would have considered it.

The M1 goes more-or-less through the Chilterns AONB anyway (technically, there's a "gap" at Luton, taken up by the town itself so no space for a railway). I'm sure that if you tried to work out a concrete route near the WCML/M1 you'd quickly run into the same conclusion that the people paid by the government to do the very same thing did; it's not viable.

 

[Zoe]

And? The fact that a route traverses an AONB doesn't automatically make it any more environmentally destructive than if it crosses other land. It's all about how it's built.

If you have an Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty then cutting through it is going to remove the natural beauty of it.

 

[Snapper]

They're not proposing the current route out of spite, it's been chosen because the engineers, politicians, etc. genuinely think that it is the best route. I very much doubt you could find a reasonable route that follows the WCML/M1 that could both serve Birmingham effectively and be straight enough for high speed. The WCML itself isn't straight enough for much beyond the speeds already achieved, even with tilting rolling stock and the M1 goes to Leicester, not Birmingham.

Indeed. This is a point that the NIMBY's always forget, preferring to represent it almost as if the plan is to take it through the Chlterns simply to spite them.

 

[Zoe]

The M1 goes more-or-less through the Chilterns AONB anyway (technically, there's a "gap" at Luton, taken up by the town itself so no space for a railway). I'm sure that if you tried to work out a concrete route near the WCML/M1 you'd quickly run into the same conclusion that the people paid by the government to do the very same thing did; it's not viable.

I wouldn't say it's no viable but they seem determined to get to Birmingham as quickly as possible. As I say if the M1 route was a complete no-go then no-one would be seriously suggesting it and I'm certainly not the only person.

 

[Snapper]

If you have an Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty then cutting through it is going to remove the natural beauty of it.

I'm sorry but that doesn't actually follow. Look at the plans for HS2 in the Chilterns. You won't actually see most of it as it will either be in tunnels or cuttings (especially in the really attractive AONB bits). It's hard for something to 'remove' natural beauty when it's not visible.

 

[Zoe]

I'm sorry but that doesn't actually follow. Look at the plans for HS2 in the Chilterns. You won't actually see most of it as it will either be in tunnels or cuttings (especially in the really attractive AONB bits). It's hard for something to 'remove' natural beauty when it's not visible.

Even if it is in cuttings you are still cutting through the area and so it will no longer be completely natural. We had all this with road projects in the 1990s and look at all the protests that resulted.

 

[Snapper]

Even if it is in cuttings you are still cutting through the area and so it will no longer be completely natural.

Hang on a minute - have you been to the Chilterns? It's not a 'natural' landscape as it is! It's suffered from the impact of man for millenia. A cutting isn't going to make a huge difference compared to the impact the M40 has had!

We cannot take a fundamentalist attitude to the Chilterns - It's an AONB - not a national park or world heritage site.

 

[mallard]

I wouldn't say it's no viable but they seem determined to get to Birmingham as quickly as possible. As I say if the M1 route was a complete no-go then no-one would be seriously suggesting it and I'm certainly not the only person.

Has any of these people "seriously suggesting it" actually come up with a concrete route, or are they all just saying "not here, somewhere over there". I'm certain routes following existing transport corridors were examined closely by planners, politicians, etc. I very much doubt the current conservative-lead government would be risking the support of the the affluent "safe seats" in the Chilterns if they could avoid it.

 

[Zoe]

Has any of these people "seriously suggesting it" actually come up with a concrete route, or are they all just saying "not here, somewhere over there". I'm certain routes following existing transport corridors were examined closely by planners, politicians, etc. I very much doubt the current conservative-lead government would be risking the support of the the affluent "safe seats" in the Chilterns if they could avoid it.

Do you think politicians always make the right decision? It depends what they want, it may well be that they are determined to get to Birmingham as quickly as possible then they would want to use the route through the Chilterns as the M1 route would not be as quick although may well be quicker for going direct to Manchester/Leeds.

 

[mallard]

Even if it is in cuttings you are still cutting through the area and so it will no longer be completely natural. We had all this with road projects in the 1990s and look at all the protests that resulted.

If you're going to take that attitude to the Chilterns, how about we evict the entire population of the area, demolish all man-made structure and build a 40-foot wall around it? That'd keep it nice and natural...

 

[Zoe]

We cannot take a fundamentalist attitude to the Chilterns - It's an AONB - not a national park or world heritage site.

The Blackdown Hills in Somerset/Devon is one reason why the A303(T)/A30(T) will most likely never be dualled to become the main route to Devon/Cornwall. It has been considered but rejected. This is also an AONB.

 

[Greenback]

The environmental argument against HS2 is not a strong one. The construction phase will be most disruptive, but once the line is in place it;s effect on the environment iwll be minimal, as shown by HS1.

 

[mallard]

Do you think politicians always make the right decision?

No, but I do know that they don't risk alienating important supporters without a very good reason.

It depends what they want, it may well be that they are determined to get to Birmingham as quickly as possible then they would want to use the route through the Chilterns as the M1 route would not be as quick although may well be quicker for going direct to Manchester/Leeds.

As I said before, without the "Phase 1" target of significantly improving travel times between Birmingham and London, the line would have to be built direct to Manchester straight away. The price tag for that would not be acceptable.

 

[Zoe]

the line would have to be built direct to Manchester straight away. The price tag for that would not be acceptable.

I'd quite like to see that, rather than the piecemeal attitude to many projects in Britain as there's always the danger that they will be cancelled before fully completed. If building HS2 is simply not an option then the cost should not be important. Possibly you could increase fuel tax to help pay for it.

 

[Snapper]

The Blackdown Hills in Somerset/Devon is one reason why the A303(T)/A30(T) will most likely never be dualled to become the main route to Devon/Cornwall. It has been considered but rejected. This is also an AONB.

And?

There's plenty of examples of AONBs where developments have been allowed. As I mentioned earlier HS1 passes through the North Downs AONB. It strikes me that some Chiltern's residents are taking the attitude that somehow their AONB is more important than any other.

I'll bet they'd be brassed off if everyone said 'OK, let's prevent any further development - which includes house extensions'...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The environmental argument against HS2 is not a strong one. The construction phase will be most disruptive, but once the line is in place it;s effect on the environment iwll be minimal, as shown by HS1.

Indeed. Compare and contrast these two views:

HS1 in the foreground. Motorway beyond.

http://paulbigland.zenfolio.com/p455732661/h390f1e4a#h238fbd72

http://paulbigland.pikfu.net/set1402663/media2849113.html

 

[HSTEd]

The Line should only be approved if it reaches at least Manchester in Stage 1, otherwise there is every danger that the further construction will never occur, once the Birmingham commuters have benefited there will be no further political will to continue construction work.
And that's assuming ballooning capital costs don't wreck it before then.

Also, how far up the WCML does Tilting occur? Because if they select the through running option surely they would have to build 300kph+ rolling stock capable of tilting to avoid loosing all the time they gain above Birmingham to being unable to go faster than Class 90 hauled Mark 3s could.
Such rolling stock doesn't currently exist with the fastest I'm aware of being 250kph (ETR-610 Pendolino)

 

[Zoe]

There's plenty of examples of AONBs where developments have been allowed. As I mentioned earlier HS1 passes through the North Downs AONB. It strikes me that some Chiltern's residents are taking the attitude that somehow their AONB is more important than any other.

The point is that transport projects passing through AONBs are often rejected, why should HS2 get to overrride this?

 

[Snapper]

Do you think politicians always make the right decision? It depends what they want, it may well be that they are determined to get to Birmingham as quickly as possible then they would want to use the route through the Chilterns as the M1 route would not be as quick although may well be quicker for going direct to Manchester/Leeds.

The M1 route wasn't proposed by engineers. If it was they would probably have mentioned that (in many ways) it would be more environmentally damaging in the long run as the trains would have to slow and speed up more to follow such a route (if it could be built) - and thus use far more energy in the long term.

And of course, the M1 doesn't actually go to Britain's second city...

 

[LE Greys]

The point is that transport projects passing through AONBs are often rejected, why should HS2 get to overrride this?

Because it's a railway and railways are much better for the environment than roads. Still, it's about as far as we should go really. The Severn Barrage has some major positive effects, but it would be far, far more destructive than HS2 to an enormous area of wildlife habitat of far greater international importance. I don't think it has a big enough pay-off to be worth it. The Thames Airport would be even worse.

 

[Snapper]

The point is that transport projects passing through AONBs are often rejected, why should HS2 get to overrride this?

Often?

Often is not always.

Why should HS2 be any different to HS1 - or the M40 for that matter - especially as it's less environmentally damaging than a motorway?

Why are the Chiterns any more special than any other AONB? The HS2 plans show that a great deal of care has been taken with designing the route through the Chilterns. Far more than can be done with a motorway.

 

[HSTEd]

Often?

Often is not always.

Why should HS2 be any different to HS1 - or the M40 for that matter - especially as it's less environmentally damaging than a motorway?

This reminds me of the rather hilarious anti-CAHSR environmental reports Ive discovered on the internet, including one about how the shock-wave from trains passing at full speed with throw rocks up to a quarter mile from the trackbed.

 

[Zoe]

The M1 route wasn't proposed by engineers. If it was they would probably have mentioned that (in many ways) it would be more environmentally damaging in the long run as the trains would have to slow and speed up more to follow such a route (if it could be built) - and thus use far more energy in the long term.

Well they may not have even had that option, if the government wanted a direct route to Birmingham (and it seems that is what they wanted) and gave the engineers a remit to develop that route then that's what they would have done. The trains may not have to keep slowing down and speeding up, just as I say M1 route, it doesn't have to follow every curve of the M1 exactly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why should HS2 be any different to HS1 - or the M40 for that matter - especially as it's less environmentally damaging than a motorway?

With hindsight, maybe the M40 shouldn't have been built.

 

[mallard]

The point is that transport projects passing through AONBs are often rejected, why should HS2 get to overrride this?

Often, but not always. It's not "overriding" anything. HS1 was allowed to pass through an AONB as have various other infrastructure projects. The M3 even passes through a National Park. Why shouldn't HS2 be given the same level of priority?

 

[Zoe]

Often, but not always. It's not "overriding" anything. HS1 was allowed to pass through an AONB as have various other infrastructure projects. The M3 even passes through a National Park. Why shouldn't HS2 be given the same level of priority?

The M3 through Twyford Down in the 1990s was built under the Tories, alternatives were suggested but the government didn't listen and it resulted in large environmental protests. It either shouldn't have been built or should have been in a tunnel. Since 1997 the presumption has been against going through AONBs. If we have a presumption against this then why should a new London to Birmingham Line get to override this?

 

[Snapper]

Well they may not have even had that option, if the government wanted a direct route to Birmingham (and it seems that is what they wanted) and gave the engineers a remit to develop that route then that's what they would have done. The trains may not have to keep slowing down and speeding up, just as I say M1 route, it doesn't have to follow every curve of the M1 exactly.

HS2 has been talked about for decades and engineers have had plenty of time to study alternative routes - including an M1 route. The route that has been chosed came out as the optimum choice. It's not a conspiracy, or that anyone was 'ordered' to choose through the Chilterns. It's simply the best route.

 

[Zoe]

It's simply the best route.

That may well be the conclusion if the plan is to reduce journey times between London and Birmingham as much as possible and it seems that's what the government wanted regardless of the fact that it would cut through the AONB. Birmingham seems to be the primary objective of this route and alternative routes would be slower to reach Birmingham even if they are more direct to Manchester/Leeds. The engineers are not going to advise a route that doesn't fit with the remit.