HS2

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, D1059 said:

 

But

 

New Road - is of direct use by MP's local constituents

New Railway Line - is of no direct benefit to MP's local constituents

 

Bigger picture doesn't interest many local voters

Hence my acronym from a few pages back.  These people don't want/need HS2, so they are YoSHIEs (You Shan't Have It Either).

[black and decker boy]

2 hours ago, lmsforever said:

Whilst waiting in a queue of traffic last Saturday entering the town I noted that a house directly were the bridge will take HS2 over the A418 to Thame had been partially demolished .Maybe the bridge will be starting soon ?

No. Clearing obstructions is part of the advance works which have been on the ground for a year or two.

 

Building the new permanent railway incl embankments and structures is part of the forthcoming ‘Main Civils’ packages which I understand are 12months away from starting on the ground.

[Ron Ron Ron]

On 28/02/2020 at 20:29, Mike Storey said:

.......The new, potential court action concerns the New Roads plan. So the implication from Mr MacDonald is that HS2 could also face a similar court action.

 

The fact that it would not stand a prayer, because HS2 clearly has intentions to reduce harmful climatic effects (primarily by modal switch), would mean little to objectors. .........

 

 

On 28/02/2020 at 20:50, Ron Ron Ron said:

......There are those who believe they can still hamper or stop HS2, particularly the later stages, through legal action.....

 

.......Only an hour ago, I was in the kitchen listening to a talk radio station and there was a campaigner being interviewed on there, hailing the Heathrow decision as a great victory and saying they now need to move on to blocking progress on HS2.

 

 

 

Didn't take them long.

 

"HS2 legal challenge launched by Chris Packham"

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/03/hs2-legal-challenge-launched-by-chris-packham

 

 

 

.

[caradoc]

47 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Didn't take them long.

 

"HS2 legal challenge launched by Chris Packham"

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/03/hs2-legal-challenge-launched-by-chris-packham

 

 

I used to quite like Chris Packham.

 

(Will he now be launching legal challenges to every single building project in the UK; And does he not know that HS2 will be an electric railway ?)

[jamie92208]

I've just read the item on the BBC website. It doesn't make good reading and there seems to be some disparity between his claim of damage to 700 sites and the 62 quoted by HS2. He went down very badly in my estimation s few years ago when he seemed to start believing in his own self image.

 

Jamie

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

 

I used to quite like Chris Packham.

 

 

So did I, but he's starting to act like a total plonker.

[Trog]

1 minute ago, melmerby said:

So did I, but he's starting to act like a total plonker.

 

He's not that good.

[KeithMacdonald]

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

I used to quite like Chris Packham.

 

One may agree. Or even wonder what is motivating him.
 

[melmerby]

2 minutes ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

One may agree. Or even wonder what is motivating him.
 

Fame?

[Edwin_m]

I look forward to his challenge to the Lower Thames Crossing, which impacts far more ancient woodland relative to its length than HS2 does.  https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2019/12/31/the-misguided-environmental-protests-against-hs2/amp/

[Zomboid]

As always, I'd like to see the credible alternative to HS2.

[Trog]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

As always, I'd like to see the credible alternative to HS2.

 

Well if we are not allowed to use new land, probably can not afford new electrification, and are not allowed to build new diesels.

 

The only way I can see to free up capacity between London and Birmingham is to quadrify the GW route via High Wycombe as a lot of the over bridges are already built for four tracks, so hopefully the railway already owns enough land. Not going to be a high speed route so perhaps it should specialise on freight thus allowing some more passenger paths on the WCML. As for locos presumably to avoid new builds existing locos with grandfather rights will be required.  I can hear it now as double headed class 37's power heavy night time freightliners over the Chiltern hills. If there are not enough 37's available to de-preserve, perhaps some could be rebuilt perhaps basing the rebuild on the cabside number panels some enthusiasts used to collect.

 

PS I may not be 100% serious about this suggestion. But it might be amusing to feed the idea to the Chiltern NIMBYs when they have a beer or two on board as the likely result of HS2 being cancelled. 

[Mike Storey]

4 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

 

 

Didn't take them long.

 

"HS2 legal challenge launched by Chris Packham"

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/03/hs2-legal-challenge-launched-by-chris-packham

 

 

 

.

 

The Almighty alone knows why Packham and his coterie (crowdfunded, no less) are pursuing this. Does he own a house or property on the route?

 

It is true that the primary Environmental Impact Assessment for Phase 1 of HS2, was concluded in 2013. And the Paris Climate Accords were agreed in 2016.

 

But that is where fact divides from fiction.

 

The Paris Accords required every signatory to develop processes, legislation and targets that would ensure a reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, and to ensure that all developments were sustainable (amongst other things). I cannot believe that the proposed court action would dare to challenge the bona fides of HS2 to reduce Co2 and other emissions, across the piece. So I would presume the challenge will be based on a supposed lack of sustainable development.

 

Given that every tree removed will be replaced elsewhere, and probably more, that all SSSI sites will be mitigated, that of the 62 woodland sites actually affected, all have alternatives and mitigations planned, and that all at-risk fauna have alternative welfare sites planned, I cannot see any successful challenge. It may prove a little irritating to prove that the spoil removal may not be compliant, but then, as much of it is chalk (which is pretty useless for re-use), that faces a practicality challenge, which would be hard to overcome.

 

It may therefore not get beyond a Magistrates court.....

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Zomboid said:

As always, I'd like to see the credible alternative to HS2.

Well according to some of the reply posts to that article:

 

"HS2 has a sole purpose of making long distance high speed commuting a normal part of people’s lives"

HS2 is too expensive because too much is in tunnels.

"The Chiltern Line which runs from Marylebone to Birmingham is very underutilised and could increase its capacity"

"The WCML could easily be upgraded for a fraction of the cost HS2"

"People in Rugby will have to travel to Birmingham to get to London."

"It's only being built to get more people to airports."

 

If those are truly some of the beliefs of the antis It beggars belief

 

[Mike Storey]

1 minute ago, melmerby said:

Well according to some of the reply posts to that article:

 

"HS2 has a sole purpose of making long distance high speed commuting a normal part of people’s lives"

HS2 is too expensive because too much is in tunnels.

"The Chiltern Line which runs from Marylebone to Birmingham is very underutilised and could increase its capacity"

"The WCML could easily be upgraded for a fraction of the cost HS2"

"People in Rugby will have to travel to Birmingham to get to London."

"It's only being built to get more people to airports."

 

If those are truly some of the beliefs of the antis It beggars belief

 

 

All of which also suggests the court challenge should be short lived. I guess the issue will be as to how long the legal process can hold up construction, but as the first construction (as opposed to prep works) is not due until next year, probably not too long. There may be some inhibition to letting contracts, but somehow, I doubt it.

 

The case against Runway 3 was far more damning, but will not take an awful lot of machination by HMG should they wish to pursue it anyway. Especially with the post-Brexit Environmental Legislation (proposed under Cameron and carried on by May, but little heard of under the present incumbent), which allowed for "strategic exceptions" to the rule.

 

It all depends whether it is another bulldozer, or ditch, that someone is prepared to roll away from.....

 

[Phil Parker]

4 hours ago, caradoc said:

I used to quite like Chris Packham.

 

(Will he now be launching legal challenges to every single building project in the UK; And does he not know that HS2 will be an electric railway ?)

 

He recently announced via Twitter (18 December): Good morning . I’m not getting on my high horse but Im also not getting high in the sky over the U.K. anymore . I know this will come at a cost in time , convenience and cash but that’s something I’ll have to adapt to because it’s #timeforchange to fight the #ClimateCrisis

 

Some of us couldn't see the point of internal flights in the UK anyway, what with it not being very large and there being trains that did the job perfectly well. Quite why a telly presenter felt he needed to rush around so much that the damage to the environment didn't matter is a bit of a mystery, maybe he didn't realise that flying was bad for the planet? Perhaps someone should tell him that electrically powered mass transit is actually quite a lot better for it.

 

My guess is that like the Green Party and Extinction Rebellion, he disapproves of public transport. Which is odd as that's exactly the position that the big oil companies take... #tinfoilhaton

 

[Mike Storey]

1 minute ago, Phil Parker said:

 

He recently announced via Twitter (18 December): Good morning . I’m not getting on my high horse but Im also not getting high in the sky over the U.K. anymore . I know this will come at a cost in time , convenience and cash but that’s something I’ll have to adapt to because it’s #timeforchange to fight the #ClimateCrisis

 

Some of us couldn't see the point of internal flights in the UK anyway, what with it not being very large and there being trains that did the job perfectly well. Quite why a telly presenter felt he needed to rush around so much that the damage to the environment didn't matter is a bit of a mystery, maybe he didn't realise that flying was bad for the planet? Perhaps someone should tell him that electrically powered mass transit is actually quite a lot better for it.

 

My guess is that like the Green Party and Extinction Rebellion, he disapproves of public transport. Which is odd as that's exactly the position that the big oil companies take... #tinfoilhaton

 

 

Perhaps a David Ike moment is approaching? It is all the fault of the Lizards, or similar?

 

Environmental challenge is very welcome, and essential in these times, but Celebrity Environmental Challenge sounds more like a game show.

 

In deference to those who dislike HS2, in concept, or in detail, I would defend to my last breath, your right to challenge the project. But come on......??

 

[caradoc]

2 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

I look forward to his challenge to the Lower Thames Crossing, which impacts far more ancient woodland relative to its length than HS2 does.  https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2019/12/31/the-misguided-environmental-protests-against-hs2/amp/

 

I look forward too to Chris Packham's legal challenge to the BBC's Autumn and Springwatch programmes, due to the emissions created transporting TV presenters, supporting staff and equipment to otherwise unspoiled parts of the countryside.

 

[Phil Parker]

3 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

I look forward too to Chris Packham's legal challenge to the BBC's Autumn and Springwatch programmes, due to the emissions created transporting TV presenters, supporting staff and equipment to otherwise unspoiled parts of the countryside.

 

 

Could be interesting. I understand the rules on types and amount of transport for TV production crews are not exactly parsimonious. But I'm sure he insisted on a bicycle rather than a Range Rover.

[4630]

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

The Almighty alone knows why Packham and his coterie (crowdfunded, no less) are pursuing this. Does he own a house or property on the route?

 

 

I don’t know how many properties Chris Packham owns, but I do know that he owns a property in the New Forest - so nowhere near the planned route for HS2. 

 

He doesn’t always get on with some of those who make a living off the land in the New Forest either and whose customs, practices and animal grazing rights have been traditional since the forest was established.  

Edited March 3, 2020 by 4630

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

 

The Paris Accords required every signatory to develop processes, legislation and targets that would ensure a reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, and to ensure that all developments were sustainable (amongst other things). I cannot believe that the proposed court action would dare to challenge the bona fides of HS2 to reduce Co2 and other emissions, across the piece. So I would presume the challenge will be based on a supposed lack of sustainable development.

 

If HS2 is not built, it would seem that once we run out of WCML capacity, the passenger and freight traffic growth will all be by road and to some extent by air.  This will lead to a significant, possibly substantial increase in CO2 and other emissions, disproportionately as existing congestion will be more more severe and for longer periods each day.

As this will not have been created as a result of any specific "project" or "development", will this be perfectly legal?

[KeithMacdonald]

1 hour ago, caradoc said:

 

I look forward too to Chris Packham's legal challenge to the BBC's Autumn and Springwatch programmes, due to the emissions created transporting TV presenters, supporting staff and equipment to otherwise unspoiled parts of the countryside.

 

 

Strangely, his long-distance luxury-travel holidays business has gone very quiet in 2020.

https://www.chrispackham.co.uk/category/travel-with-chris-packham

 

Last year's holidays included flights to the Antarctic, Alaska, etc
 

Quote

 

Funnily enough, Chris’s concerns with climate change and capitalism mysteriously vanish when it comes to his own “Travel with Chris Packham” business. It turns out Chris is quite happy to take punters thousands of miles round the world on luxury wildlife tours, pumping out hundreds of tonnes of carbon dioxide to fly there. Provided they’re paying several thousand pounds each:

This August you’ve got a “a rare opportunity to spend time in the company of Chris whilst surrounded by the spectacular wilderness of Alaska” on a Wildlife Photography Cruise – for a cool £7,195 per person excluding flights.

Over 11,000 miles return from London via Seattle. With 22 passengers on board that’ll be 75 tonnes of CO2 pumped into the fresh Arctic air…

In December 2018 you could have spent two weeks exploring Antarctica with Chris on the luxury RCGS Resolute, complete with gym, spa and steam room, all for the modest sum of £8,799 per person excluding flights.

It’s a 16,740-mile round trip to Ushuaia via Buenos Aires. If the full 110 people went that’s a staggering 588 tonnes of CO2 Chris has helped pump out…

etc

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/05/08/eco-loon-chris-packham-cashing-in-on-carbon-belching-luxury-wildlife-tours/

 

Different times? Or just different rules for rich elite folk?

[jjb1970]

I had never heard of this Packham chap before his name appeared in this thread. 

[melmerby]

35 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

I had never heard of this Packham chap before his name appeared in this thread. 

Thanks to RMWeb, you have now been introduced to one of the world's ultimate hypocrites.

 

 

[pete_mcfarlane]

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

Environmental challenge is very welcome, and essential in these times, but Celebrity Environmental Challenge sounds more like a game show.

Some kind of gameshow where you get given a random piece of Government policy, and have to launch a judicial review of it?