Yet another call to re-open Woodhead

[ashkeba]

The thread you have linked to is about the pros and cons of a guided busway and does not corroborate your assessment of the attitude of motorists.

Attitude of some motorists. The "some" is important, isn't it?

It does mention some wanting "opening the whole thing up for cars (which was actually a genuine concern in the Cambridge case)" and similar remarks.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Transpennine electrification is dead

Maybe NOT if the DFT get their way!

"However, officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) are pushing for the cheapest option which would ignore Bradford and take the line through Huddersfield above ground via the so called Diggle route."

'Leeds to Manchester train line could beat HS2 - major infrastructure boost' ttps://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1230260/Leeds-to-manchester-train-line-northern-powerhouse 19th January 2020

Obviously I'm assuming NPHR will be electrifed as some part of it for HS2 will certainly have to be! Anyway back to the Woodhead route before I get shouted at!

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Attitude of some motorists. The "some" is important, isn't it?

It does mention some wanting "opening the whole thing up for cars (which was actually a genuine concern in the Cambridge case)" and similar remarks.

That some motorists believe a dilapidated guided busway in need of rebuilding should be changed to a normal road does not in any way corroborate your ludicrous generalisation that "From their slow-moving cars on the bendy A road across the lake, they see the freaks on the Trans Pennine Trail which uses parts of old Woodhead route and imagine forcing them into cars on a new motorway along that route. Alternatively, force them into trains, which many motorists think are worse than cars. Anything to stop these tourists having any fun in the countryside without using motors!"

 

[ashkeba]

That some motorists believe a dilapidated guided busway in need of rebuilding should be changed to a normal road does not in any way corroborate your ludicrous generalisation that "From their slow-moving cars on the bendy A road across the lake, they see the freaks on the Trans Pennine Trail which uses parts of old Woodhead route and imagine forcing them into cars on a new motorway along that route. Alternatively, force them into trains, which many motorists think are worse than cars. Anything to stop these tourists having any fun in the countryside without using motors!"

I'll agree with you when the government says that the M67 through Woodhead pass will never be built.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I'll agree with you when the government says that the M67 through Woodhead pass will never be built.

. . . . which has nothing to do with your ludicrous generalisation.

 

[ashkeba]

. . . . which has nothing to do with your ludicrous generalisation.

...except the same "fully car" (did the UK have that or was "tout automobile" a France-only thing?) throwbacks are the main ones pushing for the M67 (or whatever its latest more politically correct public name is) to take over the Woodhead route from the hiking trail.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

...except the same "fully car" (did the UK have that or was "tout automobile" a France-only thing?) throwbacks are the main ones pushing for the M67 (or whatever its latest more politically correct public name is) to take over the Woodhead route from the hiking trail.

This is becoming tiresome. Your obfuscation and goal post moving tactics are obvious so this is the last time I'm going to respond to you.

Any new major road project is subject to the same scrutiny and public consultation procedures as a major rail proposal. Your idea that a motorway will secure the go ahead merely due to a dislike of cyclists and hikers is absurd, even by your standards. I know nothing about an M67 proposal but I do know it will not justify your ludicrous generalisation.

 

[Killingworth]

The full weight of the National Park Authority, Friends of the Peak Park, CPRE, Ramblers, National Trust and lots more will be mobilising to object to virtually any route, rail or road! That base tunnel idea may be the cheapest and quickest course in the long run, or something near it.

By 2050 earliest, but possibly 22nd Century at current rate of progress! We need to think big, like the Norwegians - they don't see mountains as big enough challenges any more, now to tackle the wider fjords;

 

[ashkeba]

This is becoming tiresome. Your obfuscation and goal post moving tactics are obvious so this is the last time I'm going to respond to you.

Any new major road project is subject to the same scrutiny and public consultation procedures as a major rail proposal. Your idea that a motorway will secure the go ahead merely due to a dislike of cyclists and hikers is absurd, even by your standards. I know nothing about an M67 proposal but I do know it will not justify your ludicrous generalisation.

Yes, of course, you know nothing about a 50-year-old road project which has had its eyes on the permanent way since the day trains stopped https://pathetic.org.uk/unbuilt/m67_manchester_to_sheffield_motorway/

In general, find any railway used by riders and hikers and I will show you a railway coveted by some motorists. That alone does not mean it will succeed but British democracy is often tyranny of the majority and there are more motorists than riders and hikers so politicians favour them, even to their own harm. As I wrote earlier, if you do not know any such covetous motorists, you are very lucky.

 

[Meerkat]

but British democracy is often tyranny of the majority

I would argue that the problem is the opposite - noisy minorities have hugely disproportionate influence.
There are loads of motorists but they grumble, they don’t protest. But some hippies will climb in the trees and bring the whole thing to a halt.