The Economist : HS2 Railroad to nowhere

[Snapper]

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?

Who says that there's a 'presumption'? What's the evidence for this? And, if it's true about motorways, let's not forget that a railway is NOT a motorway.

Clearly, there is not a presumption about railways as HS1 passes through an AONB.

I believe that your confusing an assumption with a presumption and a railway with a motorway.

 

[Zoe]

Who says that there's a 'presumption'? What's the evidence for this? And, if it's true about motorways, let's not forget that a railway is NOT a motorway.

Alistair Darling in 2002 and this was against a 2 lane dual carriageway NOT a motorway. An M1 route was considered for HS2 as were other routes but the government are determined to push ahead with the current route. If we end up with 1990s style environmental protests that it will cost a fair bit to remove them.

 

[Snapper]

Alistair Darling in 2002 and this was against a 2 lane dual carriageway NOT a motorway.

I'm sorry but this doesn't really provide any evidence of a presumption. What exactly did Darling say or do? What this suggests is more of judging individual cases on their merits - nothing more.

 

[mallard]

Alistair Darling in 2002 and this was against a 2 lane dual carriageway NOT a motorway. An M1 route was considered for HS2 as were other but the government are determined to push ahead with the current route. If we end up with 1990s style environmental protests that it will cost a fair bit to remove them.

Statements made my former government ministers are not laws and are not even binding to themselves, let alone their successors.

A dual carriageway still has a much larger impact on the landscape than a two track railway.

So, you admit that the M1 route was considered and then rejected in favour of the "Chiltern" route? What does that tell you about the viability of the M1 route?

 

[Zoe]

I'm sorry but this doesn't really provide any evidence of a presumption. What exactly did Darling say or do? What this suggests is more of judging individual cases on their merits - nothing more.

Alistair Darling himself used the word presumption. Why should HS2 get approved when there is a presumption against building a road (not a motorway) through an AONB?

 

[Snapper]

Alistair Darling in 2002 and this was against a 2 lane dual carriageway NOT a motorway. An M1 route was considered for HS2 as were other routes but the government are determined to push ahead with the current route. If we end up with 1990s style environmental protests that it will cost a fair bit to remove them.

Determined to 'push ahead' with it because it's the best route that's been come up with - as opposed to taking a far less sensible route just to allay protests in the Chiltern's.

As for the 1990s style protests - we shall see. They certainly didn't happen over HS1.

 

[Zoe]

it's the best route that's been come up with

As I say that may well be the case if the priority is simply getting London to Birmingham journey times as low as possible at any environmental cost but if the first priority was Manchester/Leeds then it wouldn't have to go directly to Birmingham.

 

[Snapper]

I'm sorry but that doesn't really make a lot of sense when you think about it. By taking the route that it does it also connects Birmingham to Leeds and Manchester rather than just London!

 

[Zoe]

I'm sorry but that doesn't really make a lot of sense when you think about it. By taking the route that it does it also connects Birmingham to Leeds and Manchester rather than just London!

Birmingham is already well connected to London, does it really need another railway line?

 

[Greenback]

The best argument for HS2 is the capacity one, so yes, another line is required.

 

[Snapper]

Birmingham is already well connected to London, does it really need another railway line?

Zoe, I'm sorry, but if you have to pose such a basic and fundamental question then I'm really not sure what meaningful contribution you think you can make to this thread.

The Government aren't proposing to spend £32bn on a HS network just for the fun of it...:roll:

Perhaps your time would be better spent doing a little research on the reasons that HS2 has been proposed in the first place?

 

[Zoe]

Zoe, I'm sorry, but if you have to pose such a basic and fundamental question then I'm really not sure what meaningful contribution you think you can make to this thread.

The Government aren't proposing to spend £32bn on a HS network just for the fun of it

Politicians don't always get it right. I'm not saying there should be no high speed rail but Birmingham is already well connected to London, is a journey time of less than 90 minutes really that bad? You also can't build your way out of congestion, it may well be in the longer term that demand management is a better option.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps your time would be better spent doing a little research on the reasons that HS2 has been proposed in the first place?

Do you believe everything the government tell you?

 

[Snapper]

Politicians don't always get it right.

If you'd check the history of HS2 you'd have noticed that it wasn't politicians who either designed it or suggested the need for it. To keep banging on about politicians shows a serious misunderstanding of the issues around HS2.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

There was a copy of Rail left at work the other day from a few weeks ago. In the comment section from Nigel Harris was a statement that had me spitting coffee in a mixture of hysterics, anger and incredulity. Apparently "Even time served railway supporters from the North (I'd like to think that was me) have been seduced by the propaganda of the NIMBYs and have yet to engage with the HS2 debate, we need to convince them".

I always thought Paul Bigland was the most patronising supporter of HS2, but sorry Paul, your crown has been taken!I t's statements like that that make me redouble my efforts to campaign against it, so congratulations Mr Harris!

 

[Zoe]

If you'd check the history of HS2 you'd have noticed that it wasn't politicians who either designed it or suggested the need for it.

Politicians do want it now though and it will be the politicians that make the final decision. Yes there is a lot of support for HS2 but it is certainly not universal and even Christian Woolmar doesn't support the current route.

 

[Snapper]

I'd suggest that the post from 'Get pulled off' shows up the shallowness of a lot of the opposition to HS2. It's not based on anything sensible or rational.

 

[Zoe]

I'd suggest that the above statement shows up the shallowness of a lot of the opposition to HS2.

So are you suggesting Christian Woolmar is talking rubbish?

 

[Snapper]

It's always interesting how the anti-HS2 debate always degenerates in the face of the factual argument.

 

[Zoe]

I'd suggest that the previous post shows up the shallowness of a lot of the opposition to HS2.

As I say, if people like Christian Woolmar are speaking out against it and he very much supports public transport then I really don't think you can call it a shallow argument. The Green Party also oppose the current route.

 

[Snapper]

Opposing something like HS2 because you don't like how someone talks about it? That's anything but sensible or rational.

Of course there will always be people who oppose something like HS2 (the NIMBYs of the Chilterns for example) but what does become clear is that so much of the anti argument is clearly irrational. It plays on fears or tries to cast doubts to do so. Still, it's interesting because it shows up a lot of the opposition for what it really is.

It's hardly a sophisticated rebuttal of the arguments about and the need for HS2.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As I say, if people like Christian Woolmar are speaking out against it and he very much supports public transport then I really don't think you can call it a shallow argument. The Green Party also oppose the current route.

The shallow argument I was referring to was of opposing something simply because someone you don't like supports it in a way you don't like.

 

[Zoe]

Opposing something like HS2 because you don't like how someone talks about it? That's anything but sensible or rational.

I didn't say I was opposing the current plan due to the way someone talks about it.

 

[Snapper]

I didn't say I was opposing the current plan due to the way someone talks about it.

I wasn't referring to your post. I was referring to the one by 'get pulled off'

 

[mallard]

There was a copy of Rail left at work the other day from a few weeks ago. In the comment section from Nigel Harris was a statement that had me spitting coffee in a mixture of hysterics, anger and incredulity. Apparently "Even time served railway supporters from the North (I'd like to think that was me) have been seduced by the propaganda of the NIMBYs and have yet to engage with the HS2 debate, we need to convince them".

I always thought Paul Bigland was the most patronising supporter of HS2, but sorry Paul, your crown has been taken!I t's statements like that that make me redouble my efforts to campaign against it, so congratulations Mr Harris!

For every stupid or misinformed quote from a pro-HS2 spokesperson, I'm certain I can find an equally stupid or misinformed quote from an anti-HS2 spokesperson. There are idiots on both sides of the debate. Let's at least try to keep ourselves from sinking to their level.

 

[Zoe]

Well let's give Get-Pulled-Off the chance to state the reasons for their opposition.

 

[NSEFAN]

If it was simply about capacity then high speed wouldn't be as important but clearly this is about high speed also.

The reason it has to be fast is because higher speed = more paths = more capacity. That's the main reason for the line's higher speed. If the current WCML could be upgraded to HS2 speeds, we wouldn't be having this problem.

Even if such capacity is not vital right now, don't forget that the line is only due to start running in about 20 years or so. By then the amount of rail traffic in general will have increased substantially. Think of the line as future proofing for capacity needs.

I lived in the Chilterns for ten years, and my parents still live there; there's some beautiful countryside right on our doorstep. In that ten years, the number of cars on the roads increased dramatically and is still increasing, as more houses are opened on numerous greenfield sites. In my eyes, this is of much bigger concern than HS2, because it not only affects larger chunks of land but also impacts local infrastructure (congestion in the morning is terrible). Yes, the Chilterns is an AONB and efforts should be made to preserve it, but HS2 is a two track railway line; it's not going to lead to half the Chilterns being slashed and burned. (Although I seem to recall the anti campaign saying that the tracks would need to be 70m apart to prevent turbulence issues! :roll: )

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

Opposing something like HS2 because you don't like how someone talks about it? That's anything but sensible or rational.

Of course there will always be people who oppose something like HS2 (the NIMBYs of the Chilterns for example) but what does become clear is that so much of the anti argument is clearly irrational. It plays on fears or tries to cast doubts to do so. Still, it's interesting because it shows up a lot of the opposition for what it really is.

It's hardly a sophisticated rebuttal of the arguments about and the need for HS2.

Paul, we've been through the arguments for and against ad nauseam. Do you really think you can put it in any other fashion to convice me? I very much doubt it. And neither do I think I can convince you. But to say the anti-HS2 starts to play the man not the ball after endless rounds of arguments is hardly any different than Nigel Harris saying that I "need to engage with the debate", and that I have been "seduced by the propaganda of the NIMBYs". Both are personal attacks, the latter clearly implying that I am unable to form an independent opinion and "need convincing".

I'm sorry but I couldn't really care less about the people of the Chilterns. I'm not even concerned that it goes through an AONB. For once that is something I agree with you on. As you say, we've altered our own lanscape for millenia, a rail line is no different. But I oppose it for all the reasons I have previously stated, and which I see no point in endless repeating.

 

[Snapper]

Paul, we've been through the arguments for and against ad nauseam. Do you really think you can put it in any other fashion to convice me? I very much doubt it. And neither do I think I can convince you. But to say the anti-HS2 starts to play the man not the ball after endless rounds of arguments is hardly any different than Nigel Harris saying that I "need to engage with the debate", and that I have been "seduced by the propaganda of the NIMBYs". Both are personal attacks, the latter clearly implying that I am unable to form an independent opinion and "need convincing".

Personal attacks or telling it as it is? I'd suggest that your reaction to what Nigel has written rather proves that what he's saying is accurate.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

For every stupid or misinformed quote from a pro-HS2 spokesperson, I'm certain I can find an equally stupid or misinformed quote from an anti-HS2 spokesperson. There are idiots on both sides of the debate. Let's at least try to keep ourselves from sinking to their level.

True, but this is the editor of Rail magazine we're talking about, surely (one of) the figureheads for the campaign for HS2? Statements like that are hardly likely to engage people in the debate "agree with us or you're a NIMBY, or a NIMBY sympathiser, essentially".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Personal attacks or telling it as it is? I'd suggest that your reaction to what Nigel has written rather proves that what he's saying is accurate.

Sorry? Are you actually saying that I am opposed to HS2 because I have been seduced by the NIMBYs propaganda? Or have I misunderstood your point? I'm sorry if I have, sometimes the written word on a forum can easily be taken out of context, so could you just clarify that please?

 

[Snapper]

For every stupid or misinformed quote from a pro-HS2 spokesperson, I'm certain I can find an equally stupid or misinformed quote from an anti-HS2 spokesperson. There are idiots on both sides of the debate. Let's at least try to keep ourselves from sinking to their level.

The thing is - what Nigel has said is neither stupid nor misinformed. What he's done is inflame a few of the anti's because he won't do what they tell him to do - shut up!

It's a common problem with a lot of the anti' campaign. They really don't like being argued with and having some of the reasons for their opposition exposed to scrutiny and/or questioned - especially by a magazine like RAIL!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

True, but this is the editor of Rail magazine we're talking about, surely (one of) the figureheads for the campaign for HS2? Statements like that are hardly likely to engage people in the debate "agree with us or you're a NIMBY, or a NIMBY sympathiser, essentially".

Essentially?

In other words, that's not what he said. You've chosen to (mis)interpret it that way for your own ends. Plainly, Nigel was not talking to you personally.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

The thing is - what Nigel has said is neither stupid nor misinformed. What he's done is inflame a few of the anti's because he won't do what they tell him to do - shut up!

It's a common problem with a lot of the anti' campaign. They really don't like being argued with and having some of the reasons for their opposition exposed to scrutiny and/or questioned - especially by a magazine like RAIL!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Essentially?

In other words, that's not what he said. You've chosen to (mis)interpret it that way for your own ends. Plainly, Nigel was not talking to you personally.

Not really. "Time served railway supporters from the North". That's me, I fit that catogary perfectly. The quote was absolutely stating that the only reason I am objecting is because of how loudly the NIMBYs are shouting. I couldn't care less what the NIMBYs think.

I am actively opposed to it for many other reason (all previously stated).

However, please could you clarify if I was correct and you do think that I have been seduced by the NIMBYs propaganda? I may have misunderstood it, so please accept my apologies if I have.