HS2

[Ron Ron Ron]

An animation showing how the Colne Valley viaduct spans will be constructed.

 

 

 

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

11 hours ago, melmerby said:

Realistic is not part of their vocabulary.

They're in Staffordshire now, trying to stop the land possesions.

 

I just looked at Paul Bigland’s blog, covering HS2 and the faded and hopeless protests.

They’ve been on their last legs for quite a while now.

 

 

https://paulbigland.blog/category/hs2/

 

 

.
 

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[KingEdwardII]

On 01/06/2022 at 11:15, Ron Ron Ron said:

the faded and hopeless protests

There are folk in the UK who I consider "professional protesters", who seem to do nothing else other than protest against major infrastructure projects. It pretty well does not matter what the project is, nor how necessary the project may be. "Rent a riot" will turn up and cause varying degrees of mayhem around the project, doing nothing other than increase project costs.

 

Yours,  Mike.

[JeffP]

They also turn up for royal celebrations watched on the world stage.

[DK123GWR]

11 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

There are folk in the UK who I consider "professional protesters", who seem to do nothing else other than protest against major infrastructure projects. It pretty well does not matter what the project is, nor how necessary the project may be. "Rent a riot" will turn up and cause varying degrees of mayhem around the project, doing nothing other than increase project costs.

 

Yours,  Mike.

Nobody is getting rich from protesting. Protest is a political tactic used by the side with less resources against a more powerful group. If I had enough money to 'rent a riot' (which would be a quite substantial amount - everyone can earn the minimum wage, so I would have to pay at least that plus a premium for the risks involved to protestors multiplied by the number of people I hire) and I wanted political influence, I would spend that money on PR campaigns and lobbying. It would be far more cost effective. The only reason that you would protest is because you don't have the money or social connections for any other option. I think it's therefore reasonable to assume that most protestors are there because they really believe in the cause.*

It may be the case that people who are already wealthy and well-educated are more likely to be regular protestors, but this is because they are able to support themselves on a reduced (or no) income, so they are able to dedicate their time to supporting causes they believe in. This option simply isn't available to people on the poverty line, no matter how strongly they believe in something, because they need to work a full-time job (or several jobs) just to keep themselves alive.

 

 

 

*Yes, there are some people who are thugs out to cause trouble, but that shouldn't be used to discredit the majority who are sincere about their intentions, just as the fact that there are some thugs who go out to cause trouble at football matches shouldn't be used to discredit regular supporters.

18 minutes ago, JeffP said:

They also turn up for royal celebrations watched on the world stage.

Which makes sense. If you are a protest group trying to punch above your weight in terms of economic and social resources then you need to stay in the headlines. In reality, most people aren't active citizens so the only way that you can get their attention is by disrupting something they're interested in, whether that's traffic, a football match, or the jubilee. A group whose intention is to run a sustained campaign of civil disobedience until sufficient action is taken to address their concerns would be failing if it didn't show up for an event as big as this.

[corneliuslundie]

I agree that most protestors believe in what they are protesting about. The main problem usually is that they are abysmally poorly informed about the whole project/whatever they are focusing on, either intentionally because they don't want to believe what they don't like (as happened with Covid) or simply because they don't know all the facts. (for example complaining about destruction of  "ancient woodland" without understanding that it merely means that woods were there when the first OS map was drawn up, and there may be no old trees at all, depending on the species). And it is often quite hard to get ALL the facts.

Sometimes the protestors do have a good case. For example, near me there is a planning application which is greatly disliked by the locals because of the wider effects it will have - smell and possible pollution. I read all the planning documents and attended the virtual community council meeting. There were two aspects which horrified me. First, just before the meeting started two of the elected councillors said to each other, and to the others, something along the lines of "We must support this because he is a fellow farmer". That didn't surprise me. The other was that there is a large fishing lake within a short distance of the site and downhill from it, just where any pollution from the project would end up. The environmental "consultants" in their report stated blandly that they had not visited the lake or spoken to the owners because of Covid. And that seemed to be accepted by the Councils, both Community and County. I could easily have started protesting about that.

Off piste, but I wanted to point out that not every proposed development is perfect and there are many "consultants" and councillors as well as protestors who will ignore facts if it suits them.

Jonathan

[Northmoor]

3 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

There are folk in the UK who I consider "professional protesters", who seem to do nothing else other than protest against major infrastructure projects. It pretty well does not matter what the project is, nor how necessary the project may be. "Rent a riot" will turn up and cause varying degrees of mayhem around the project, doing nothing other than increase project costs.

 

Yours,  Mike.

I agree Mike and while I also entirely agree with the description of the rights to protest given by@DK123GWRthere is certainly a group amongst HS2 protesters (and on other protests) for whom the cause is genuinely less important than enjoying "activism".  I have seen young people - well, younger than me - explicitly stating this.   It is ironic that they are in many ways as conservative (small "c") about anything new as the traditional Conservative (large "C"), while also wanting a form of societal change that only a tiny minority will vote for, hence their disruptive protest.  As a friend of mine once said, the deeper you look into many Green protest organisations (not just the Green party), the Redder they look.

[KingEdwardII]

3 hours ago, Northmoor said:

societal change that only a tiny minority will vote for

That's my real beef with these people - they are tiny minorities, yet seem to take the view that everyone else should bend to their beliefs. We live in a democratic society and the general idea is that things get done that the majority want. These protesters may have sincerely held beliefs, but they have not convinced me or many like me, yet they think that their beliefs gives them the right to disrupt law abiding folk in any way they see fit.

 

Ultimately, this can lead to civil strife, since ordinary folk will only put up with so much messing about - as we have seen in some recent cases involving Extinction Rebellion and fellow travelers.

 

Yours, Mike.

[nightstar.train]

16 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

 

 

 

What an amazing set of photos. To me this is the most impressive part of the current construction. Far more interesting than the tunnels. 

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

5 hours ago, nightstar.train said:

 

….,, To me this is the most impressive part of the current construction. Far more interesting than the tunnels. 

So you think tunnels are boring?

 

 

,

[nightstar.train]

1 hour ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

So you think tunnels are boring?

,

 

[DY444]

23 hours ago, DK123GWR said:

Nobody is getting rich from protesting. Protest is a political tactic used by the side with less resources against a more powerful group. If I had enough money to 'rent a riot' (which would be a quite substantial amount - everyone can earn the minimum wage, so I would have to pay at least that plus a premium for the risks involved to protestors multiplied by the number of people I hire) and I wanted political influence, I would spend that money on PR campaigns and lobbying. It would be far more cost effective. The only reason that you would protest is because you don't have the money or social connections for any other option. I think it's therefore reasonable to assume that most protestors are there because they really believe in the cause.*

It may be the case that people who are already wealthy and well-educated are more likely to be regular protestors, but this is because they are able to support themselves on a reduced (or no) income, so they are able to dedicate their time to supporting causes they believe in. This option simply isn't available to people on the poverty line, no matter how strongly they believe in something, because they need to work a full-time job (or several jobs) just to keep themselves alive.

 

 

 

*Yes, there are some people who are thugs out to cause trouble, but that shouldn't be used to discredit the majority who are sincere about their intentions, just as the fact that there are some thugs who go out to cause trouble at football matches shouldn't be used to discredit regular supporters.

Which makes sense. If you are a protest group trying to punch above your weight in terms of economic and social resources then you need to stay in the headlines. In reality, most people aren't active citizens so the only way that you can get their attention is by disrupting something they're interested in, whether that's traffic, a football match, or the jubilee. A group whose intention is to run a sustained campaign of civil disobedience until sufficient action is taken to address their concerns would be failing if it didn't show up for an event as big as this.

 

Perhaps you'd enlighten us by citing a single example where these small groups of seemingly the same characters have actually stopped a national infrastructure project on which construction has started.  If there are any at all then it will be a very small list which brings futile to mind.  Their connection with facts is also generally very tentative.  I've never understood how annoying and inconveniencing everybody else does anything but alienate the wider public to whatever their cause is.  A green lobby that opposes electric railways tells me all I need to know about these people.

[DY444]

Oh and talking of protestors, I was reminded by a piece in a recent Modern Railways that in the 1970s a number of influential French organisations and commentators condemned the plans to build the first LGV line as "a waste of money", "a vanity project" and "a white elephant".  Any of that sound familiar at all?  I wonder if they still think that now?  Probably not would be my guess.   

Edited June 4, 2022 by DY444

[Mark Saunders]

There are lots of groups that have a seemingly larger influence than their membership .

 

Many political parties and groups on the internet!

 

I’d even go as far as that RMweb is punching above it’s weight!

[Ron Ron Ron]

 

[woodenhead]

4 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

Perhaps you'd enlighten us by citing a single example where these small groups of seemingly the same characters have actually stopped a national infrastructure project on which construction has started.  If there are any at all then it will be a very small list which brings futile to mind.  Their connection with facts is also generally very tentative.  I've never understood how annoying and inconveniencing everybody else does anything but alienate the wider public to whatever their cause is.  A green lobby that opposes electric railways tells me all I need to know about these people.

Slightly off topic, Poll Tax demos and Greenham Common ladies.

[Mike Storey]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

Slightly off topic, Poll Tax demos and Greenham Common ladies.

 

Poll Tax, yes. Greenham Common, definitely no! The works continued and the cruise missiles arrived. They were removed eventually only by the signing of the USA/Soviet Union INF Treaty, after 1987.

 

Newbury by-pass would be a better example. Although they did not stop it being built, the subsequent analysis (5 years after completion) showed that traffic in Newbury had barely reduced (the main reason given), road deaths had gone up, not down as predicted, but the most successful result was that most new road schemes were cancelled for a few decades.

 

[DY444]

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Slightly off topic, Poll Tax demos and Greenham Common ladies.

 

Not my definition of national infrastructure projects.  And anyway "Greenham Common ladies" made precisely no difference whatsoever.  The missiles were removed from there because Reagan and Gorbachev signed a treaty not because of anything protesters did.  

[woodenhead]

3 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

Not my definition of national infrastructure projects.  And anyway "Greenham Common ladies" made precisely no difference whatsoever.  The missiles were removed from there because Reagan and Gorbachev signed a treaty not because of anything protesters did.  

Why I said off topic, but they are examples where people have come together to protest something and it made a difference.  Greenham Common did have an impact, it led to debate about nuclear weapons and it was women only which was quite striking.

 

https://www.historyhit.com/greenham-common-protests/

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Poll Tax, yes. Greenham Common, definitely no! The works continued and the cruise missiles arrived. They were removed eventually only by the signing of the USA/Soviet Union INF Treaty, after 1987.

 

Newbury by-pass would be a better example. Although they did not stop it being built, the subsequent analysis (5 years after completion) showed that traffic in Newbury had barely reduced (the main reason given), road deaths had gone up, not down as predicted, but the most successful result was that most new road schemes were cancelled for a few decades.

 

However the reason traffic has increased in Newbury (is it now even worse than pre A34 By-Pass construction?) is because of the massive amount of housing development in the area which has added  large amounts of local traffic.  The Newbury commercial catchment, especially to the east, has expanded hugely, for example the population of Thatcham - now virtually contiguous with Newbury grew by more than 25% between 2001 and 2011.  In more recent years a lot of building work has a occurred on land at the racecourse, again east of the town centre plus housing developments in most directions around the town.  Add in the growth of businesses - again distributed around the area and with a principle road network which lies itself around the edge of the town centre and traffic congestion is inevitable and would be far worse if the A34 by-pass had not been built.

 

We occasionally go to Newbury to meet friends in the town centre and normally try to go by train- the journey is longer than driving but at least we don't have to fight our way into a car park when we get there - and the place has three multi-storey car parks (if you include the one at the station) plus quite a lot of other car parks.

[rockershovel]

7 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

However the reason traffic has increased in Newbury (is it now even worse than pre A34 By-Pass construction?) is because of the massive amount of housing development in the area which has added  large amounts of local traffic.  The Newbury commercial catchment, especially to the east, has expanded hugely, for example the population of Thatcham - now virtually contiguous with Newbury grew by more than 25% between 2001 and 2011.  In more recent years a lot of building work has a occurred on land at the racecourse, again east of the town centre plus housing developments in most directions around the town.  Add in the growth of businesses - again distributed around the area and with a principle road network which lies itself around the edge of the town centre and traffic congestion is inevitable and would be far worse if the A34 by-pass had not been built.

 

We occasionally go to Newbury to meet friends in the town centre and normally try to go by train- the journey is longer than driving but at least we don't have to fight our way into a car park when we get there - and the place has three multi-storey car parks (if you include the one at the station) plus quite a lot of other car parks.

I've heard this referred to as the "M25 Effect" whereby the new road attracts more traffic than it is designed to relieve. Certainly the recent works to extend parts of the M25 to 6 lanes have done little to relieve the peak congestion. 

[Mike Storey]

5 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

However the reason traffic has increased in Newbury (is it now even worse than pre A34 By-Pass construction?) is because of the massive amount of housing development in the area which has added  large amounts of local traffic.  The Newbury commercial catchment, especially to the east, has expanded hugely, for example the population of Thatcham - now virtually contiguous with Newbury grew by more than 25% between 2001 and 2011.  

 

True, but the report on the post-completion analysis was in 2002, when much of the new housing did not yet exist, but it drew the conclusions despite that.

 

Getting back to HS2, "corporate memory loss" is clearly evident with those in power now - an extraordinary number of new roads, many termed "by-passes", are now planned, after about 20 years of consensus that they rarely solve anything. At the same time, HS2 East was cut back, as not cost-effective. These are both despite govt "commitment" to environmental targets. Go figure?

 

[corneliuslundie]

So which of those in power are descendants of Ernest Marples?

Seriously, I cycled along the A48 between Cardiff and Newport the year after they opened that stretch of the M4. It was so quiet it was no problem being on a bike; many suburban roads in Cardiff were much busier. Within a decade the A48 was busier than before the M4 was built.

Wales has in fact declared a moratorium on new roads, as part of its climate emergency policy, though even there I am seeking a weakening of resolve. And Westminster has been threatening to build he widening of the M4 around Newport.

Jonathan

[rockershovel]

18 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

True, but the report on the post-completion analysis was in 2002, when much of the new housing did not yet exist, but it drew the conclusions despite that.

 

Getting back to HS2, "corporate memory loss" is clearly evident with those in power now - an extraordinary number of new roads, many termed "by-passes", are now planned, after about 20 years of consensus that they rarely solve anything. At the same time, HS2 East was cut back, as not cost-effective. These are both despite govt "commitment" to environmental targets. Go figure?

 

It's not hard. 2 miles of road may be a self-contained scheme; 2 miles of railway, all but useless in its own right. I travel by train perhaps two or three times a year; I think its a fair bet that two of my three children could not accurately identify the last time they took a train. None of my family commute, or any of my neighbours. But EVERYBODY travels by road, one way or another.

 

Roads can be built almost anywhere, surmounting gradients and curves no railway can tackle; they need no traction power supply, no government contracts to German or Japanese rolling stock manufacturers to cause embarrassment in the press. No sabre-rattling unions can threaten to bring them to a standstill; no management consortium can embarrass the government with incessant demands to support their profits from the tax-payers pockets. 

 

The government wishes to create the impression of stimulating growth by spending tax revenues, in all parts of the land but especially the rural areas and Shire towns of the North. Road building is ideally suited to the purpose. Social housing would serve even better, but that has long since been discarded as a policy.