That's very much a matter of opinion. The point MotCO made in post 291 about increasing congestion and air pollution is valid, particularly in Central London where, despite there now being fewer vehicles and many of those either electric or hybrid, vehicle emissions and deaths from respiratory problems have increased.
www.theguardian.com
That flies in the face of what I understood.
Deaths from air pollution do not stop immediately the source of the pollution has been reduced or eliminated. There’s a lag due to the medical condition continuing to progress after the critical trigger amount of pollutant has been absorbed by the subject. This can take years in the case of asbestos but days in the case of Covid-19. I know the latter is a virus but it’s an example of a substance which is foreign to the body. If you want another fast example, cyanide can kill within a few minutes of exposure.Evidence for that statement?
It seems the facts don’t support it.
‘Dramatic’ plunge in London air pollution since 2016, report finds
Exclusive: Number of people living with illegal pollution levels has fallen by 94% since Sadiq Khan became mayor
If your opinion is I'm a car driver and I want more space on this road to drive more quickly then yes it is. Hopefully that's not your view though and you agree that we need to look again at all of our road space to ensure that it is being distributed fairly
note that there's no real difference in air pollution from traffic that's slower to traffic that's faster, the only way to reduce air pollution from road traffic is to have less motorised traffic.
Clearly being fast tracked, but there's been a long build up to this point.
Indeed. There are actually four applications for orders open at present, this one has just about hit the targets under project "SPEED".
www.chroniclelive.co.uk
Aristocrat branded 'Scrooge McDuke' over demands that could scupper railway plan
The Duke of Northumberland is demanding a yearly rent that could bring a halt to plans to reinstate the Northumberland line
Ralph Percy, Duke of Northumberland, one of the richest men in the North East, is said to have demanded £600,000 a year in rent for trains to travel across his estates. Is this just media hype or is it a serious obstacle to reopening?
I would think that the railway would be built on land owned by NR so any such claim wouldn’t have any basis in law.Aristocrat branded 'Scrooge McDuke' over demands that could scupper railway plan
The Duke of Northumberland is demanding a yearly rent that could bring a halt to plans to reinstate the Northumberland line
Ralph Percy, Duke of Northumberland, one of the richest men in the North East, is said to have demanded £600,000 a year in rent for trains to travel across his estates. Is this just media hype or is it a serious obstacle to reopening?
According to the article that is not the case. NR merely have wayleaves.
A compulsory purchase order would sort that out. After all, NR is a government owned company.
Can anyone give a date when a compulsory service order was last made in respect of land access over land owned by the aristocracy?
Can someone explain the concept of wayleaves and how and why they were used by the North Eastern Railway and other railway companies? Presumably they were unable to purchase land in the 1840s but such inability should be of no consequence to the present day. Why is “Scrooge McDuke” trying to perpetuate such wayleaves and not able to come to a more modern agreement which may be the sale of land to Network Rail for £1 or it’s indefinite use by the railway rent-free.
Another very good question.
A wayleave is similar to an easement. They were already present for the Wagonways that moved coal from pit to coast and the dukes refused to sell the land when the railway took over those alignments.
Because he's obviously decided that the money is worth the negative reputation. I'm sure his castle is rather expensive to run, so I can understand why he might see holding the government to ransom as a good opportunity.
It was also not unheard of the landowners to force railways to run miles out of the way or through tunnels to avoid disturbing their estates, which proves how opposed some were to trains passing over their land.
I believe traditionally you do retain rights to all the minerals in the ground underneath your land.
In the 1860's, the Midland Railway met with implacable opposition from the Duke of Rutland, as they wished to cross his ancestral Haddon Hall estate in the Rowsley area at surface level. The Midland Railway were forced to build their line through the 1058 yard long Haddon tunnel instead, so the Duke could retain an unobtrusive view of his estate.
There's a problem because rent is charged on the wayleave, and the Duke is whacking it up. If the railway simply refused to pay it would, in theory, be required to stop running.
I suspect people touring a country house/castle are much, much more likely to drive than get a train and bus/taxi connection.
He could use the money to make more nuggets of pure green.
I can't imagine that even 0.1% of the visitors to Alnwick arrive by train.
