Scrap HS2 or we'll take you to court, Government told (From This Is Local London)

I wish Tett would take a running jump.

And who is going to pay for this little exercise of yours Tett??????

Just who do you think you are???

I wish the goverment would take you tocourt for waisting tax payers money.

It'll be interesting to hear exactly what decision a judicial review is being sought.
.
HM Government is entitled to decide that it's going to enact a piece of legislation, which goes through the traditional readings, assent, approval to move it from a Bill to an Act. During this process there is considerable opportunity to review, revise or cull the proposal.
.
What seems to be being proposed is that the Government's decision to create legislation is being disputed.
.
Begs the simple question of whether the Government has legitimate powers and processes to enact legislation. Up until now I think it's been assumed that it does and therefore not quite sure the purpose of a JR. Perhaps a counter-argument could be whether a County Council has legitimate authority to force a Judicial Review against a Government proposal to amend or enact State legislation. That'd keep the lawyers busy for a while!

The Government need to follow a proper legal process when they decide to blow a large amount of our money on a vanity project. They should not pull the wool over our eyes, use misleading or out of date information to distort the business case. Nor should they set up a consultation riddled with leading questions and then completely ignore it. Where there is doubt, it is only right that the people are able to ask an impartial judge to review the Government's actions.

I love and wholeheartedly agree with the comments made by miccles. Tett has failed to stop HS2 so far and now he wants to waste money on a court challenge. We need new blood now to spearhead the campaign and a much more dynamic/realistic approach.

I love and wholeheartedly agree with the comments made by miccles. Tett has failed to stop HS2 so far and now he wants to waste money on a court challenge. We need new blood now to spearhead the campaign and a much more dynamic/realistic approach.

A judicial review can be made against a decision if it is deemed, illegal, irrational or flawed. After a consultation that was one of the biggest the country has had with 55,000 responses where the majority were against HS2, it is definately a flawed decision. In fact out of the thousands of businesses in the UK only 439 bothered to respond to the consultation, this seems to go against the governments arguments that the business sector is crying out for high speed rail. A gov poll in December 2011 also found that 64% of people asked were against HS2. I agree that it is a lot of money to waste mounting a legal challenge but when you have a government that cannot listen to sense, what can you do, and it the money wasted will be nothing compared to what will be wasted if HS2 goes ahead. A vanity project for the Tories

Nick1042 wrote:
A judicial review can be made against a decision if it is deemed, illegal, irrational or flawed. After a consultation that was one of the biggest the country has had with 55,000 responses where the majority were against HS2, it is definately a flawed decision. In fact out of the thousands of businesses in the UK only 439 bothered to respond to the consultation, this seems to go against the governments arguments that the business sector is crying out for high speed rail. A gov poll in December 2011 also found that 64% of people asked were against HS2. I agree that it is a lot of money to waste mounting a legal challenge but when you have a government that cannot listen to sense, what can you do, and it the money wasted will be nothing compared to what will be wasted if HS2 goes ahead. A vanity project for the Tories

Correct, I think that people are missing the point as to what a JR actually is.

I prefer taking trains to any other form of transport - but HS2 is wrong on so many levels that I have to support its opposition. Better by far to stretch the trains and lengthen the existing platforms than spend £32m to get back from Birmingham 40 minutes earlier.

Mr Tett is, I believe, making the correct choice in escalating the issue in this way. I support him wholeheartedly.

wayneo wrote:

Nick1042 wrote: A judicial review can be made against a decision if it is deemed, illegal, irrational or flawed. After a consultation that was one of the biggest the country has had with 55,000 responses where the majority were against HS2, it is definately a flawed decision. In fact out of the thousands of businesses in the UK only 439 bothered to respond to the consultation, this seems to go against the governments arguments that the business sector is crying out for high speed rail. A gov poll in December 2011 also found that 64% of people asked were against HS2. I agree that it is a lot of money to waste mounting a legal challenge but when you have a government that cannot listen to sense, what can you do, and it the money wasted will be nothing compared to what will be wasted if HS2 goes ahead. A vanity project for the Tories

Correct, I think that people are missing the point as to what a JR actually is.

Which ties in with my point that the only decision that appears to have been made is to enact legislation. Clearly that decision is not considered to be illegal or irrational.
.
The flawed argument is presumably being used by objectors on the grounds of the consultation process but again how can you argue that it is flawed for Government to wish to enact legislation (part of which will involve considerably more consultation) ?

I strongly object to my council taxes being wasted and used for this hopeless legal challenge. We all know the only ones who will benefit from this are the lawyers. Ironically all this from local and Bucks CC that claim they are short of money and so are reducing services. Yet they can afford to misuse my taxes on something that only a tiny vocal minority support. My council taxes were paid to provide vital services NOT legal fees. If you want to fight the government and HS2 than use voluntary contributions NOT my taxes.

piran wrote:
I strongly object to my council taxes being wasted and used for this hopeless legal challenge. We all know the only ones who will benefit from this are the lawyers. Ironically all this from local and Bucks CC that claim they are short of money and so are reducing services. Yet they can afford to misuse my taxes on something that only a tiny vocal minority support. My council taxes were paid to provide vital services NOT legal fees. If you want to fight the government and HS2 than use voluntary contributions NOT my taxes.

Well, I resent MY taxes being wasted on a White Elephant.
Just how many Brummies will use HS2?
Its lot like Londoners are rushing to go to Birmingham.
As it stands, its only of use to anyone living in one of the cities, and working in the other.
Tell me the point of having to travel into London, from say Gerrards Cross, the picking up HS2?
Spending an extra 40 minutes, to save 20?

Get real people!
HS2 IS a huge waste of public money.

gpn01 wrote:

wayneo wrote:

Nick1042 wrote: A judicial review can be made against a decision if it is deemed, illegal, irrational or flawed. After a consultation that was one of the biggest the country has had with 55,000 responses where the majority were against HS2, it is definately a flawed decision. In fact out of the thousands of businesses in the UK only 439 bothered to respond to the consultation, this seems to go against the governments arguments that the business sector is crying out for high speed rail. A gov poll in December 2011 also found that 64% of people asked were against HS2. I agree that it is a lot of money to waste mounting a legal challenge but when you have a government that cannot listen to sense, what can you do, and it the money wasted will be nothing compared to what will be wasted if HS2 goes ahead. A vanity project for the Tories

Correct, I think that people are missing the point as to what a JR actually is.

Which ties in with my point that the only decision that appears to have been made is to enact legislation. Clearly that decision is not considered to be illegal or irrational. . The flawed argument is presumably being used by objectors on the grounds of the consultation process but again how can you argue that it is flawed for Government to wish to enact legislation (part of which will involve considerably more consultation) ?

If decision from a consultation or process were deemed by a Court to be unlawful, then any subsequent Bill having been derived from said breach will also fail.

I've got no doubt at all that the Gov response to a judicial review will be that 3 months before the 2010 general election the route and costings were published; the 3 main parties all included support for HSR in their election manifestos and more than 26 million people voted for them.
.
With this background do you really think the judge is going to be sympathetic to claims HS2 is too expensive, the trains run too fast or a route up the M1 or M40 corridors is preferable on the say so of about 50k objectors spread over the whole country?

piran wrote:
I strongly object to my council taxes being wasted and used for this hopeless legal challenge. We all know the only ones who will benefit from this are the lawyers. Ironically all this from local and Bucks CC that claim they are short of money and so are reducing services. Yet they can afford to misuse my taxes on something that only a tiny vocal minority support. My council taxes were paid to provide vital services NOT legal fees. If you want to fight the government and HS2 than use voluntary contributions NOT my taxes.

I strongly object to my taxes to be used for HS2 and a lot more of my taxes will be needed if this hugely expensive vanity project were to go ahead. Granted Bucks CC need this money for over things but also central government cannot afford £32 billion plus to build HS2 at this time either!
You keep saying that there is a tiny minority against HS2 but I say it is a tiny minority that is for HS2. I keep asking supporters of HS2 to explain why out the HS2 consultation where there were only 55,000 responses out of the millions of UK residents and the majority of the respondents were aginst HS2. Also why also were there are only 439 businesses that responded to the consultation? The truth is that there is not the demand for High Speed rail that the government try to make out and that people for HS2 are the minority!

Windsorian wrote:
I've got no doubt at all that the Gov response to a judicial review will be that 3 months before the 2010 general election the route and costings were published; the 3 main parties all included support for HSR in their election manifestos and more than 26 million people voted for them. . With this background do you really think the judge is going to be sympathetic to claims HS2 is too expensive, the trains run too fast or a route up the M1 or M40 corridors is preferable on the say so of about 50k objectors spread over the whole country?

I believe that there is a very strong case a Judge would find the government's decision to press on with HS2 flawed and Irrational. The consultation provided a response of 55,000 replys one of the biggest responses to a consultation that this country has ever seen and a staggering majority said no to HS2 but the goverment does not listen. Also the department of transport has already said there is a cheaper better alternative to HS2 with rail package 2 but MPS are ignoring their own experts. HS1 has not been a success with passengers numbers a third of the forecast and train sizes and services have been cut. Don't forget the Judge will be a tax payer to and I am sure he won't his taxes been wasted on such a vanity project that has no business case.

It is relevant how many people voted in the current government, you weigh up what each party are pledging and you vote for the least worst option. In any case nobody got what they wanted in the last election because nobody wanted a coalition.Lib Debs voters are feeling particulary cheated as they see their party in office but that party has gone back on their pledges such as tuition fees and a VAT increase etc. So just because you vote for a party it does not mean that they will fulfill on their promises.

wayneo wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

wayneo wrote:

Nick1042 wrote: A judicial review can be made against a decision if it is deemed, illegal, irrational or flawed. After a consultation that was one of the biggest the country has had with 55,000 responses where the majority were against HS2, it is definately a flawed decision. In fact out of the thousands of businesses in the UK only 439 bothered to respond to the consultation, this seems to go against the governments arguments that the business sector is crying out for high speed rail. A gov poll in December 2011 also found that 64% of people asked were against HS2. I agree that it is a lot of money to waste mounting a legal challenge but when you have a government that cannot listen to sense, what can you do, and it the money wasted will be nothing compared to what will be wasted if HS2 goes ahead. A vanity project for the Tories

Correct, I think that people are missing the point as to what a JR actually is.

Which ties in with my point that the only decision that appears to have been made is to enact legislation. Clearly that decision is not considered to be illegal or irrational. . The flawed argument is presumably being used by objectors on the grounds of the consultation process but again how can you argue that it is flawed for Government to wish to enact legislation (part of which will involve considerably more consultation) ?

If decision from a consultation or process were deemed by a Court to be unlawful, then any subsequent Bill having been derived from said breach will also fail.

But is that a valid argument to pursue? I'm sure there's a significant amount of legislation that is pushed through without any of us even being aware of it, yet alone feeling properly consulted on it. The time to challenge it is when it's going through the passage of parliamentary review NOT when the Government first announces that it's proposing a new bill.
.
A couple of, rather relevant, examples being the Planning Act 2008 and the amendments to it following the enactment of the Localism Act 2011. I'm particularly thinking of the revised processes referred to in Chapter 6 - "NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS".

gpn01 wrote:

wayneo wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

wayneo wrote:

Nick1042 wrote: A judicial review can be made against a decision if it is deemed, illegal, irrational or flawed. After a consultation that was one of the biggest the country has had with 55,000 responses where the majority were against HS2, it is definately a flawed decision. In fact out of the thousands of businesses in the UK only 439 bothered to respond to the consultation, this seems to go against the governments arguments that the business sector is crying out for high speed rail. A gov poll in December 2011 also found that 64% of people asked were against HS2. I agree that it is a lot of money to waste mounting a legal challenge but when you have a government that cannot listen to sense, what can you do, and it the money wasted will be nothing compared to what will be wasted if HS2 goes ahead. A vanity project for the Tories

Correct, I think that people are missing the point as to what a JR actually is.

Which ties in with my point that the only decision that appears to have been made is to enact legislation. Clearly that decision is not considered to be illegal or irrational. . The flawed argument is presumably being used by objectors on the grounds of the consultation process but again how can you argue that it is flawed for Government to wish to enact legislation (part of which will involve considerably more consultation) ?

If decision from a consultation or process were deemed by a Court to be unlawful, then any subsequent Bill having been derived from said breach will also fail.

But is that a valid argument to pursue? I'm sure there's a significant amount of legislation that is pushed through without any of us even being aware of it, yet alone feeling properly consulted on it. The time to challenge it is when it's going through the passage of parliamentary review NOT when the Government first announces that it's proposing a new bill. . A couple of, rather relevant, examples being the Planning Act 2008 and the amendments to it following the enactment of the Localism Act 2011. I'm particularly thinking of the revised processes referred to in Chapter 6 - "NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS".

From what I have read on numerous websites, a legal challange has to be made within 3 months so before April and this is why Bucks CC are hurrying through this demand.

gpn01 wrote:
wayneo wrote: gpn01 wrote: wayneo wrote: Nick1042 wrote: A judicial review can be made against a decision if it is deemed, illegal, irrational or flawed. After a consultation that was one of the biggest the country has had with 55,000 responses where the majority were against HS2, it is definately a flawed decision. In fact out of the thousands of businesses in the UK only 439 bothered to respond to the consultation, this seems to go against the governments arguments that the business sector is crying out for high speed rail. A gov poll in December 2011 also found that 64% of people asked were against HS2. I agree that it is a lot of money to waste mounting a legal challenge but when you have a government that cannot listen to sense, what can you do, and it the money wasted will be nothing compared to what will be wasted if HS2 goes ahead. A vanity project for the ToriesCorrect, I think that people are missing the point as to what a JR actually is.Which ties in with my point that the only decision that appears to have been made is to enact legislation. Clearly that decision is not considered to be illegal or irrational. . The flawed argument is presumably being used by objectors on the grounds of the consultation process but again how can you argue that it is flawed for Government to wish to enact legislation (part of which will involve considerably more consultation) ?If decision from a consultation or process were deemed by a Court to be unlawful, then any subsequent Bill having been derived from said breach will also fail.But is that a valid argument to pursue? I'm sure there's a significant amount of legislation that is pushed through without any of us even being aware of it, yet alone feeling properly consulted on it. The time to challenge it is when it's going through the passage of parliamentary review NOT when the Government first announces that it's proposing a new bill. . A couple of, rather relevant, examples being the Planning Act 2008 and the amendments to it following the enactment of the Localism Act 2011. I'm particularly thinking of the revised processes referred to in Chapter 6 - "NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS".Unfortunately one has three months to pursue a Judicial Review once a decision is made, one does not wait for a Bill to be submitted to Parliament. As for the localism act:
!
!
Schedule 13: Infrastructure Planning Commission: transfer of functions to Secretary of State.337.Schedule 13 makes amendments consequential to the abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission including amendments transferring its functions to the Secretary of State. In particular, the amendments enable the Secretary of State to appoint an inspector, or a panel of three to five inspectors, to examine an application and make a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to the decision to be made on the application. The Secretary of State must decide the application in accordance with any relevant national policy statement, subject to specified exceptions

!
National policy statements.(1)The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows. .
(2)In section 5(4) (statement may be designated as national policy statement only if consultation, publicity and parliamentary requirements have been complied with) after “have been complied with in relation to it” insert “and—
(a)the consideration period for the statement has expired without the House of Commons resolving during that period that the statement should not be proceeded with, or .
(b)the statement has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons— .
(i)after being laid before Parliament under section 9(8), and .
(ii)before the end of the consideration period.

Section 133: Pre-application consultation with local authorities.347.Sect
ions 42 to 44 of the Planning Act 2008 require the applicant to consult certain persons and categories of person about a proposed application for an order granting development consent, including certain local authorities. Section 133 amends section 43 to alter the local authorities required to be consulted. Prior to this amendment being made where development is sited in a two-tier local authority area, all authorities which share a boundary with the upper-tier authority must be consulted. The effect of the amendments to section 43 is that, where development is sited in a two-tier local authority area, lower-tier district authorities will only need to be consulted if they share a boundary with the lower-tier district authority in whose area the development is sited.

gpn01 wrote:

wayneo wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

wayneo wrote:

Nick1042 wrote: A judicial review can be made against a decision if it is deemed, illegal, irrational or flawed. After a consultation that was one of the biggest the country has had with 55,000 responses where the majority were against HS2, it is definately a flawed decision. In fact out of the thousands of businesses in the UK only 439 bothered to respond to the consultation, this seems to go against the governments arguments that the business sector is crying out for high speed rail. A gov poll in December 2011 also found that 64% of people asked were against HS2. I agree that it is a lot of money to waste mounting a legal challenge but when you have a government that cannot listen to sense, what can you do, and it the money wasted will be nothing compared to what will be wasted if HS2 goes ahead. A vanity project for the Tories

Correct, I think that people are missing the point as to what a JR actually is.

Which ties in with my point that the only decision that appears to have been made is to enact legislation. Clearly that decision is not considered to be illegal or irrational. . The flawed argument is presumably being used by objectors on the grounds of the consultation process but again how can you argue that it is flawed for Government to wish to enact legislation (part of which will involve considerably more consultation) ?

If decision from a consultation or process were deemed by a Court to be unlawful, then any subsequent Bill having been derived from said breach will also fail.

But is that a valid argument to pursue? I'm sure there's a significant amount of legislation that is pushed through without any of us even being aware of it, yet alone feeling properly consulted on it. The time to challenge it is when it's going through the passage of parliamentary review NOT when the Government first announces that it's proposing a new bill. . A couple of, rather relevant, examples being the Planning Act 2008 and the amendments to it following the enactment of the Localism Act 2011. I'm particularly thinking of the revised processes referred to in Chapter 6 - "NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS".

Sorry GPN, will post again with quotes :-)
!
Unfortunately one has three months to pursue a Judicial Review once a decision is made, one does not wait for a Bill to be submitted to Parliament. As for the localism act, I have to confess i've only had a brief look at it but I'm now sure that the SoS does not have carte blanche to give effect to any planning application. Consultation is still King and is no doubt why pro-HS2 supporters do not want a challenge to it:
!

Schedule 13: Infrastructure Planning Commission: transfer of functions to Secretary of State.337.Schedule 13 makes amendments consequential to the abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission including amendments transferring its functions to the Secretary of State. In particular, the amendments enable the Secretary of State to appoint an inspector, or a panel of three to five inspectors, to examine an application and make a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to the decision to be made on the application. The Secretary of State must decide the application in accordance with any relevant national policy statement, subject to specified exceptions

National policy statements.(1)The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows. .
(2)In section 5(4) (statement may be designated as national policy statement only if consultation, publicity and parliamentary requirements have been complied with) after “have been complied with in relation to it” insert “and—
(a)the consideration period for the statement has expired without the House of Commons resolving during that period that the statement should not be proceeded with, or .
(b)the statement has been approved by resolution of the House of Commons— .
(i)after being laid before Parliament under section 9(8), and .
(ii)before the end of the consideration period.

Section 133: Pre-application consultation with local authorities.347.Sect

ions 42 to 44 of the Planning Act 2008 require the applicant to consult certain persons and categories of person about a proposed application for an order granting development consent, including certain local authorities. Section 133 amends section 43 to alter the local authorities required to be consulted. Prior to this amendment being made where development is sited in a two-tier local authority area, all authorities which share a boundary with the upper-tier authority must be consulted. The effect of the amendments to section 43 is that, where development is sited in a two-tier local authority area, lower-tier district authorities will only need to be consulted if they share a boundary with the lower-tier district authority in whose area the development is sited.
”

@wayneo - thanks for clarifications (& for indenting in the latter posting to make it more readable).

I strongly object to my expensive council taxes being used as part of the political Anti HS2 campaign. I understand that the County Council has week confirmed it has spent £40,000 on the fight against HS2, having previously agreed to make £500,000 available over a 3 year period. You need to reconsider spending so much on the legal battle to stop the project going ahead and consider very carefully any further expenditure of this scale bearing in mind the dangerous state of Buckinghamshire County Council finances and the pressures on local services to a majority in the current economic climate.
If objectors want to democratically oppose something then they should pay for it - personally. It is totally wrong to use council taxes to fund such a campaign. By all means ask for voluntary contributions but there must not be a misuse of general taxes that I have paid for education, housing, libraries, police/fire etc.

@Nick1042
Following the consultation, the DfT asked Network Rail to investigate and report on the Rail Package 2 proposals put forward by a number of local authorities; their November 2011 report was very clear that it would fail to provide sufficient long term capacity for either passengers or freight.
.
Anyway the DfT are already committed to extending many of the Pendolinos to 11 car from April this year. Also the new WCML franchisees are able to put forward proposals to convert one of the existing 1st class carriages to standard class; this would not need government permission but is a purely financial consideration for the new TOC. The existing Virgin franchise is due to end in December this year, so any proposal could be implemented years before HS2 is due to open in 2026.
.
Finally I suspect that HS2 Ltd have completed a very detailed breakdown on the reasons people gave for supporting or objecting to HS2; it will be intersting to see how many of these responses were people just opposed to the principle of HSR rather than being actually affected by the proposals.

piran wrote:
I strongly object to my expensive council taxes being used as part of the political Anti HS2 campaign. I understand that the County Council has week confirmed it has spent £40,000 on the fight against HS2, having previously agreed to make £500,000 available over a 3 year period. You need to reconsider spending so much on the legal battle to stop the project going ahead and consider very carefully any further expenditure of this scale bearing in mind the dangerous state of Buckinghamshire County Council finances and the pressures on local services to a majority in the current economic climate. If objectors want to democratically oppose something then they should pay for it - personally. It is totally wrong to use council taxes to fund such a campaign. By all means ask for voluntary contributions but there must not be a misuse of general taxes that I have paid for education, housing, libraries, police/fire etc.

Reading through some of the comments I see that this is turning into a bit of an argument – which normally gets you nowhere on the internet unless you like getting upset for no result. Can I ask that if any of the “nays” can come up with any alternative ways forward for “the small vocal minority” that they share them?

Earmarking such a small amount from the County’s budget is a mere bagatelle - I'm all for investing the money in delaying or stopping the project.

What else would you have us do? Go all French about the whole thing and spray bovine waste product against the walls of Westminster? Have chanting protests outside the DoT - only to be moved on by someone creatively applying the anti-terrorist laws? Put up a few tents outside a London landmark? No, there's only one thing left to do these days and that's to mount a legal challenge - on whatever grounds can be laid by the legal boffins. It’s an investment of our taxes to stop this ridiculous waste of an even larger sum ~ a sprat to catch a mackerel.

Why is the poll slowly going AGAINST a legal challenge???????????
????

Trainlover wrote:

piran wrote:
I strongly object to my expensive council taxes being used as part of the political Anti HS2 campaign. I understand that the County Council has week confirmed it has spent £40,000 on the fight against HS2, having previously agreed to make £500,000 available over a 3 year period. You need to reconsider spending so much on the legal battle to stop the project going ahead and consider very carefully any further expenditure of this scale bearing in mind the dangerous state of Buckinghamshire County Council finances and the pressures on local services to a majority in the current economic climate. If objectors want to democratically oppose something then they should pay for it - personally. It is totally wrong to use council taxes to fund such a campaign. By all means ask for voluntary contributions but there must not be a misuse of general taxes that I have paid for education, housing, libraries, police/fire etc.

Reading through some of the comments I see that this is turning into a bit of an argument – which normally gets you nowhere on the internet unless you like getting upset for no result. Can I ask that if any of the “nays” can come up with any alternative ways forward for “the small vocal minority” that they share them?

Earmarking such a small amount from the County’s budget is a mere bagatelle - I'm all for investing the money in delaying or stopping the project.

What else would you have us do? Go all French about the whole thing and spray bovine waste product against the walls of Westminster? Have chanting protests outside the DoT - only to be moved on by someone creatively applying the anti-terrorist laws? Put up a few tents outside a London landmark? No, there's only one thing left to do these days and that's to mount a legal challenge - on whatever grounds can be laid by the legal boffins. It’s an investment of our taxes to stop this ridiculous waste of an even larger sum ~ a sprat to catch a mackerel.

By all means do a legal challenge - that is your right BUT you and the Anti-HS2 minority should personally pay NOT council tax payers in Buckinghamshire. It is totally wrong and immoral to steal my council taxes to fund such a campaign. Espacially when budgets are under so much pressure and vital serices are being cut. By all means ask for voluntary contributions but there should not be misuse of council taxes that I paid in good faith for services not Anti HS2 legal fees. My taxes are for education, housing, libraries and, police/fire etc. Anyway I predict the challenge will be a complete waste of time and money. HS 2 will be built for the national interest and not stopped by a vocal minority.

piran wrote:

Trainlover wrote:

piran wrote: I strongly object to my expensive council taxes being used as part of the political Anti HS2 campaign. I understand that the County Council has week confirmed it has spent £40,000 on the fight against HS2, having previously agreed to make £500,000 available over a 3 year period. You need to reconsider spending so much on the legal battle to stop the project going ahead and consider very carefully any further expenditure of this scale bearing in mind the dangerous state of Buckinghamshire County Council finances and the pressures on local services to a majority in the current economic climate. If objectors want to democratically oppose something then they should pay for it - personally. It is totally wrong to use council taxes to fund such a campaign. By all means ask for voluntary contributions but there must not be a misuse of general taxes that I have paid for education, housing, libraries, police/fire etc.

Reading through some of the comments I see that this is turning into a bit of an argument – which normally gets you nowhere on the internet unless you like getting upset for no result. Can I ask that if any of the “nays” can come up with any alternative ways forward for “the small vocal minority” that they share them? Earmarking such a small amount from the County’s budget is a mere bagatelle - I'm all for investing the money in delaying or stopping the project. What else would you have us do? Go all French about the whole thing and spray bovine waste product against the walls of Westminster? Have chanting protests outside the DoT - only to be moved on by someone creatively applying the anti-terrorist laws? Put up a few tents outside a London landmark? No, there's only one thing left to do these days and that's to mount a legal challenge - on whatever grounds can be laid by the legal boffins. It’s an investment of our taxes to stop this ridiculous waste of an even larger sum ~ a sprat to catch a mackerel.

By all means do a legal challenge - that is your right BUT you and the Anti-HS2 minority should personally pay NOT council tax payers in Buckinghamshire. It is totally wrong and immoral to steal my council taxes to fund such a campaign. Espacially when budgets are under so much pressure and vital serices are being cut. By all means ask for voluntary contributions but there should not be misuse of council taxes that I paid in good faith for services not Anti HS2 legal fees. My taxes are for education, housing, libraries and, police/fire etc. Anyway I predict the challenge will be a complete waste of time and money. HS 2 will be built for the national interest and not stopped by a vocal minority.

Well said Piran


TETT SHOULD RESIGN, he is obviously not doing COUNCIL work, to which he was employed to do, he was ONLY elected because he is against HS2, nothing else, the council work has become so shoddy since he has become leader, what about the pot holed roads?????? the money they received is definately not being used to fix the roads, they are a disgrace, and people call tis ANOB, do something with the roads, then it might be.

List of local authorities who say they will be taking legal action.

Buckinghamshire County Council
Aylesbury Vale District Council
Chiltern District Council
South Bucks District Council
Wycombe District Council
London Borough of Hillingdon
Oxfordshire County Council
Cherwell District Council, Oxfordshire
Lichfield District Council, Staffordshire
South Northants District Council
Warwick District Council
North Warwickshire Borough Council
Warwickshire County Council
Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Warwickshire
Leicestershire County Council
Harborough District Council, Leicestershire
Three Rivers District Council, Hertfordshire
Coventry City Council

Quite a few - so it is not just Bucks "nimbys" who are objecting :)

Mr Tett and his 51m colleagues should continue their campaign by lobbying Parliament as the bill goes through its various stages. I don't care what anybody says if a judge stops HS2 it will be the first time the courts have ever prevented any government from presenting a bill for something that was in their election manifesto.

I should add that if they do proceed with the judicial review then we ought to know how much it will cost to instruct the lawyers and what ceiling (if any) 51m are prepared to put on the whole thing. I am not challenging their right to object, even though I don't agree with it, but not with money that should be backing up local services. I have staarted tweeting on the subject (carlshillitoUK) and was amazed to find I have picked up a follower. Mr Tett has just reached 500, so only another 499 to go and we will be on level terms!

demoness the second wrote:
List of local authorities who say they will be taking legal action. Buckinghamshire County Council Aylesbury Vale District Council Chiltern District Council South Bucks District Council Wycombe District Council London Borough of Hillingdon Oxfordshire County Council Cherwell District Council, Oxfordshire Lichfield District Council, Staffordshire South Northants District Council Warwick District Council North Warwickshire Borough Council Warwickshire County Council Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Warwickshire Leicestershire County Council Harborough District Council, Leicestershire Three Rivers District Council, Hertfordshire Coventry City Council Quite a few - so it is not just Bucks "nimbys" who are objecting :)

There are 439 local authorities in the UK of which just 18 are objecting to HS2.

Carl@Denham wrote:
Mr Tett and his 51m colleagues should continue their campaign by lobbying Parliament as the bill goes through its various stages. I don't care what anybody says if a judge stops HS2 it will be the first time the courts have ever prevented any government from presenting a bill for something that was in their election manifesto.

But that won't resolve whether the processes or Consultation were followed correctly and therefore whether the the SoS's decision was lawful as a result. With this being a manifesto pledge, which has no legal effect at all, it could be argued that Transport Secretary's decision was not derived from any hard evidence presented from facts or the from the Consultation results, but that her decision was swayed by the external presssure of Government Policy or pledges which would be unlawful.

demoness the second wrote:
List of local authorities who say they will be taking legal action.

Buckinghamshire County Council
Aylesbury Vale District Council
Chiltern District Council
South Bucks District Council
Wycombe District Council
London Borough of Hillingdon
Oxfordshire County Council
Cherwell District Council, Oxfordshire
Lichfield District Council, Staffordshire
South Northants District Council
Warwick District Council
North Warwickshire Borough Council
Warwickshire County Council
Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Warwickshire
Leicestershire County Council
Harborough District Council, Leicestershire
Three Rivers District Council, Hertfordshire
Coventry City Council

Quite a few - so it is not just Bucks "nimbys" who are objecting :)

As said before; a tiny but vocal minority of NIMBYs. Only 18 out of 439 - and even within those 18 councils many people support the HS2 project! Here is a fact often over looked by the Buckinghamshire vocal minority - HS2 will run through 13 miles of the Chilterns Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) but less than 2 miles will be at or above surface level.

Today I got a reply from Cllr Tett (via my MP because Cllr Tett could not be bothered to reply to my emailed questions). Notice in his reply Cllr Tett states that I am only 1 of 2 who have not supported the Bucks CC using council taxes to campaign against HS2!!!
Yet he has had “hundreds of letters, e-mails, telephone calls and personal representations on this issue”. I am not sure I believe him, based on what I have seen on this site. Time for those of you who object to council taxes being misappropriated (even if it is from reserves) for political campaigning against HS2. You need to write, email, and phone or speak to Cllr Tett. He seems to be in a dream world of NIMBYs!!

Dear Mr ***,
Mr (My MP) has now received a reply from Cllr Tett concerning your email of 1 February and I have copied the relevant sections below.

“Thank you very much for the copy of the letter from Mr ***. As I understand it he objects to the county council along with all the local District Councils in Buckinghamshire opposing High Speed 2.

Perhaps I should firstly explain that opposition to HS2 is based on an extremely thorough review of the project and its business case and it is our considered view that the project represents extremely poor value for money for the UK taxpayer. In the latest figures published with the announcement, when account is taken for factors such as the latest economic forecasts etc. the Business Cost Ratio (BCR), a good indication of ‘value for money’, drop to a dire 0.9 i.e. for every one pound of the £34, 000, 000,000 spent by the taxpayer 10 pence is lost. This is below the level at which the DfT would normal consider proceeding with a project.

I note Mr *** objection to the County Council campaigning on behalf of it affected residents. In a representative democracy councillors are elected to represent their constituents and to make policy decisions on behalf of the county council. The issue of HS2 has been debated three times at full county council meetings and has overwhelmingly been rejected (twice unanimously) by elected members. I would also add that, in the two years since this project was announced, I have received many hundreds of letters, e-mails, telephone calls and personal representations on this issue. With only two exceptions (of which Mr *** is one) they have all supported the county council’s stance on this issue.

I do not accept that BCC finances are in a ‘dangerous state’. We are a very well run council which, in admittedly tough financial times, has always run a sound financial budget and continues to do so. Expenditure on opposing HS2 has been drawn from Reserves, rather than day to day revenue expenditure, specifically so that it does not impact negatively on day to day services.

We have decided as an alliance of councils to issue a ‘letter before action’ requesting the Secretary of State to reconsider her decision on HS2. We do this with reluctance but see no alternative given that the 55,000 responses to the public consultation, who overwhelmingly against this project, have effectively been ignored. I would remind you that the existing Secretary of State, Justine Greening, stated in the House of Commons whilst speaking in opposition to the previous Government’s Heathrow proposals: “At every stage the Government has ignored public opinion and shamelessly ignored the grave environmental risk…Battle will continue, because preserving our quality of life is so important…If the Government will not listen in Parliament, then ministers will find they have to listen in the courts”

I hope that I have satisfactorily addressed all the points that you have raised. I clearly recognise that Mr *** is unlikely to agree with the stance of his local councils. No doubt there are many voters in other cities who equally oppose the large sums of money that have been spent by their councils supporting and advocating HS2. These differences of opinion are inevitable in a democracy.

In conclusion, the Government is committed to spending some £750 million on consultants, public relations etc. in advancing their scheme during this parliament. Therefore, I do not feel it unreasonable that local authorities should continue to represent not only their local residents but also the interests of the vast majority of UK taxpayers (as evidenced in repeated national surveys). We, like them, believe that, at a time of national austerity, when far better value alternatives exist, HS2 is a poor use of hard pressed taxpayers’ money.”

Piran,

I understand you're livid about your taxes being used to fight HS2. I know exactly how you feel, that's how I feel about a portion of my taxes being used to build it. But unless we can come up with an alternative for the council then we'll just keep coming back to the same issue with no resolution.

We're arguing against the same thing - a waste of public money that should be invested elsewhere. The only point we disagree on is how to get to best value.

I still fail to see how attempting to block the construction of white elephant is a waste of a small proportion of our taxes. It's not like we can't afford to fight it - unlike central governement that certainly can't afford to build the wretched thing without going further into hock.

Best to let this all got to court but not spend too much on it. Otherwise it will be one more very lovely beanfeast for barristers.

With 1001 other spending priorities now in the UK, and vital services being cut, this rail line sounds like it should be shelved for the moment.
After open bidding, foreign firms will probably get the contracts and foreign workers could be brought in to build it. A further financial blow for Britain.

Scarletto wrote:
Best to let this all got to court but not spend too much on it. Otherwise it will be one more very lovely beanfeast for barristers.

With 1001 other spending priorities now in the UK, and vital services being cut, this rail line sounds like it should be shelved for the moment.
After open bidding, foreign firms will probably get the contracts and foreign workers could be brought in to build it. A further financial blow for Britain.

But construction of HS2 does not start until Crossrail is finished. Start work due in 2019 (7 years), opening of phase 1 is 2026 and phase 2 in 2033.
This is a long term infrastructure investment for capacity and an integrated transport network to allow our economy to grow.

By the way less than 30 % of the predicted HS passengers will be businessmen. And HS2 will run through only 13 miles of the Chilterns Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) but less than 2 miles will be at or above surface level.

In response to wayneo:

If the judicial review is going to focus on the public consultation then I must point out:
that the consultation process was never constituted as a legally binding referendum on the project,
that it was something that the Government chose to go through with voluntarily,
that it was not constitutionally obliged to do so at all,
and that it could therefore have proceeded legislating for HS2 without even suggesting consultation if it had so wished.

As it happens very significant concessions were made to the design of the route as a result of the consultation process, though there was actually no obligation to do so.

So I really don't see how on earth supposedly not taking the consultation into account will hold up as a reason for the courts to stop the Government from proceeding to introduce a Bill.

As I pointed out in a previous thread if it was so easy to block legislation that people feel is contrary to their interests the unions would have found a way to block industrial relations legislation, the country sports lobby would have blocked the Hunting Bill, and so on and so forth. Mr Tett obviously thinks he can make history, but he won't, but how much of our money he spends finding this out I dread to think.

piran wrote:

Trainlover wrote:

piran wrote: I strongly object to my expensive council taxes being used as part of the political Anti HS2 campaign. I understand that the County Council has week confirmed it has spent £40,000 on the fight against HS2, having previously agreed to make £500,000 available over a 3 year period. You need to reconsider spending so much on the legal battle to stop the project going ahead and consider very carefully any further expenditure of this scale bearing in mind the dangerous state of Buckinghamshire County Council finances and the pressures on local services to a majority in the current economic climate. If objectors want to democratically oppose something then they should pay for it - personally. It is totally wrong to use council taxes to fund such a campaign. By all means ask for voluntary contributions but there must not be a misuse of general taxes that I have paid for education, housing, libraries, police/fire etc.

Reading through some of the comments I see that this is turning into a bit of an argument – which normally gets you nowhere on the internet unless you like getting upset for no result. Can I ask that if any of the “nays” can come up with any alternative ways forward for “the small vocal minority” that they share them? Earmarking such a small amount from the County’s budget is a mere bagatelle - I'm all for investing the money in delaying or stopping the project. What else would you have us do? Go all French about the whole thing and spray bovine waste product against the walls of Westminster? Have chanting protests outside the DoT - only to be moved on by someone creatively applying the anti-terrorist laws? Put up a few tents outside a London landmark? No, there's only one thing left to do these days and that's to mount a legal challenge - on whatever grounds can be laid by the legal boffins. It’s an investment of our taxes to stop this ridiculous waste of an even larger sum ~ a sprat to catch a mackerel.

By all means do a legal challenge - that is your right BUT you and the Anti-HS2 minority should personally pay NOT council tax payers in Buckinghamshire. It is totally wrong and immoral to steal my council taxes to fund such a campaign. Espacially when budgets are under so much pressure and vital serices are being cut. By all means ask for voluntary contributions but there should not be misuse of council taxes that I paid in good faith for services not Anti HS2 legal fees. My taxes are for education, housing, libraries and, police/fire etc. Anyway I predict the challenge will be a complete waste of time and money. HS 2 will be built for the national interest and not stopped by a vocal minority.

You may be against Bucks CC using tax payers money to fight a legal challenge against HS2 but that is because you are supporting HS2. I like others in the area are happy that Bucks CC use this money to nake a legal challenge as we feel it will save a lot of money in the future if it stops this hugely expensive vanity project. I am a tax payer and I feel it is more of an outrage that our government is going to squander over £32 billion on this flawed project than our local council using upto £500,000 on legal expenses

Nick1042 wrote:

piran wrote:

Trainlover wrote:

piran wrote: I strongly object to my expensive council taxes being used as part of the political Anti HS2 campaign. I understand that the County Council has week confirmed it has spent £40,000 on the fight against HS2, having previously agreed to make £500,000 available over a 3 year period. You need to reconsider spending so much on the legal battle to stop the project going ahead and consider very carefully any further expenditure of this scale bearing in mind the dangerous state of Buckinghamshire County Council finances and the pressures on local services to a majority in the current economic climate. If objectors want to democratically oppose something then they should pay for it - personally. It is totally wrong to use council taxes to fund such a campaign. By all means ask for voluntary contributions but there must not be a misuse of general taxes that I have paid for education, housing, libraries, police/fire etc.

Reading through some of the comments I see that this is turning into a bit of an argument – which normally gets you nowhere on the internet unless you like getting upset for no result. Can I ask that if any of the “nays” can come up with any alternative ways forward for “the small vocal minority” that they share them? Earmarking such a small amount from the County’s budget is a mere bagatelle - I'm all for investing the money in delaying or stopping the project. What else would you have us do? Go all French about the whole thing and spray bovine waste product against the walls of Westminster? Have chanting protests outside the DoT - only to be moved on by someone creatively applying the anti-terrorist laws? Put up a few tents outside a London landmark? No, there's only one thing left to do these days and that's to mount a legal challenge - on whatever grounds can be laid by the legal boffins. It’s an investment of our taxes to stop this ridiculous waste of an even larger sum ~ a sprat to catch a mackerel.

By all means do a legal challenge - that is your right BUT you and the Anti-HS2 minority should personally pay NOT council tax payers in Buckinghamshire. It is totally wrong and immoral to steal my council taxes to fund such a campaign. Espacially when budgets are under so much pressure and vital serices are being cut. By all means ask for voluntary contributions but there should not be misuse of council taxes that I paid in good faith for services not Anti HS2 legal fees. My taxes are for education, housing, libraries and, police/fire etc. Anyway I predict the challenge will be a complete waste of time and money. HS 2 will be built for the national interest and not stopped by a vocal minority.

You may be against Bucks CC using tax payers money to fight a legal challenge against HS2 but that is because you are supporting HS2. I like others in the area are happy that Bucks CC use this money to nake a legal challenge as we feel it will save a lot of money in the future if it stops this hugely expensive vanity project. I am a tax payer and I feel it is more of an outrage that our government is going to squander over £32 billion on this flawed project than our local council using upto £500,000 on legal expenses

But in percentage terms more of my local council tax money will be misused by Cllr Tett/51M and his lawyer friends in a completely hopeless bid to stop a national infrastructure project than UK tax payers are putting up for HS2 funding!
If you want to voluntarily fund the Anti HS2 go ahead but NOT in my name or my tax money.

And at least HS2 money is an investment in our transport capacity infrastructure and bring gains (benefit to cost ratio 1.8-2.5) not wasted council taxes (cost = huge legal bills vs benefits zero/lost case) on lawyers fees. I predict 51M will lose this challenge yet they know this and are still prepared to waste my coucil taxes! Now that is scandalous.

Bearing in mind a majority SEEM to be against this project, you would have thought if there was a poll to give your views, that the question given which is

"Is a legal challenge the right way to go" you would have thought the % would be high like 85% or 90%, but its not, it is only 58%, that is very low.

there are obviously alot of people commenting on this who are lying and trying to impress their friends with their in depth comments, its all mouth and no action, thats all.

TETT SHOULD STILL RESIGN, HE HASN'T GOT A HOPE IN WINNING THIS CASE, AND ALOT OF PEOPLE KNOW IT.

miccles wrote:
Bearing in mind a majority SEEM to be against this project, you would have thought if there was a poll to give your views, that the question given which is "Is a legal challenge the right way to go" you would have thought the % would be high like 85% or 90%, but its not, it is only 58%, that is very low. there are obviously alot of people commenting on this who are lying and trying to impress their friends with their in depth comments, its all mouth and no action, thats all. TETT SHOULD STILL RESIGN, HE HASN'T GOT A HOPE IN WINNING THIS CASE, AND ALOT OF PEOPLE KNOW IT.

Unfortunately you're incorrectly linking two seperate sets of data to derive an illogical conclusion. The people contributing to the debate may not be the same people responding to the survey.
.
A more interesting survey would be to ascertain whether Council ratepayers support the use of their money to fund a legal battle against themselves (on the basis that the majority of ratepayers are also taxpayers).

HS2 money is an investment in our transport capacity infrastructure and bring gains (benefit to cost ratio 1.8-2.5).

piran wrote:
HS2 money is an investment in our transport capacity infrastructure and bring gains (benefit to cost ratio 1.8-2.5).

Thank you for moving on to looking into return on investment. So if you went to a bank or a financial adviser and said, "If I invest £32bn over ten years what return will I receive?" And you received an answer of your initial investment plus 80% to 150% - less the effects of inflation at 3% compound, less the cost of borrowing the money over the following twenty years you'd be happy with that? Crickey, I think I'd want a bit of a breakdown on the figures and be a bit wary of the sales speil till I saw ALL the projections in black and white.

Never mind the impossibly broad guestimate of the returns, never mind the length of return on investment. The returns are pityful after you've added on the costs of borrowing and inflation. The figures do not stack up to even a cursory examination never mind closer scrutiny. Better to spend the money on something useful that will have a rapid impact and a lasting positive effect on the economy. I can't see HS2 providing that.

How many of you use HS1 (St Pancras to France) on a regular basis? Where are the figures to show how that's added truw deep and lasting value to our economy?

I cannot wait to see this happen - Greening has made a very bad decision in my opinion. For a smaller cost of replacement bus services, the existing network could accomodate the HS2. The billions of pounds spent will not be recuperated in employment, and how can you support such a low employment benefit for such a high monetary output? There is not enough money currently spent on that line to recoup the investment, it seems to be a real loss maker. PLUS Green spaces are at a premium with the latest changes in planning legislation. Green spaces should be protected - indeed that was the reason behind the original invention of the Green Belt, Sites of Scientific Interest and other protected states. Cuttings and tunnels do not protect the green spaces or wildlife.

Sadie.Darling-Hewitt wrote:
I cannot wait to see this happen - Greening has made a very bad decision in my opinion. For a smaller cost of replacement bus services, the existing network could accomodate the HS2. The billions of pounds spent will not be recuperated in employment, and how can you support such a low employment benefit for such a high monetary output? There is not enough money currently spent on that line to recoup the investment, it seems to be a real loss maker. PLUS Green spaces are at a premium with the latest changes in planning legislation. Green spaces should be protected - indeed that was the reason behind the original invention of the Green Belt, Sites of Scientific Interest and other protected states. Cuttings and tunnels do not protect the green spaces or wildlife.

Grren spaces yes. Here is a fact often over looked by the Anti HS2 vocal minority - HS2 will run through 13 miles of the Chilterns Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) but less than 2 miles will be at or above surface level.

Sadie.Darling-Hewitt wrote:
I cannot wait to see this happen - Greening has made a very bad decision in my opinion. For a smaller cost of replacement bus services, the existing network could accomodate the HS2. The billions of pounds spent will not be recuperated in employment, and how can you support such a low employment benefit for such a high monetary output? There is not enough money currently spent on that line to recoup the investment, it seems to be a real loss maker. PLUS Green spaces are at a premium with the latest changes in planning legislation. Green spaces should be protected - indeed that was the reason behind the original invention of the Green Belt, Sites of Scientific Interest and other protected states. Cuttings and tunnels do not protect the green spaces or wildlife.

Green spaces yes. Here is a fact often over looked by the Anti HS2 vocal minority - HS2 will run through 13 miles of the Chilterns Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) but less than 2 miles will be at or above surface level.

Sadie.Darling-Hewitt wrote:
I cannot wait to see this happen - Greening has made a very bad decision in my opinion. For a smaller cost of replacement bus services, the existing network could accomodate the HS2. The billions of pounds spent will not be recuperated in employment, and how can you support such a low employment benefit for such a high monetary output? There is not enough money currently spent on that line to recoup the investment, it seems to be a real loss maker. PLUS Green spaces are at a premium with the latest changes in planning legislation. Green spaces should be protected - indeed that was the reason behind the original invention of the Green Belt, Sites of Scientific Interest and other protected states. Cuttings and tunnels do not protect the green spaces or wildlife.

But construction of HS2 does not start until Crossrail is finished. Start work due in 201, opening of phase 1 is 2026 and phase 2 in 2033.
This is a long term infrastructure investment for capacity and an integrated transport network to allow our economy to grow.

Oh and to counter the lies of the Anti HS2 lobby it is expected that less than 30 % of the predicted HS passengers will be businessmen.

piran wrote:

Sadie.Darling-Hewitt wrote: I cannot wait to see this happen - Greening has made a very bad decision in my opinion. For a smaller cost of replacement bus services, the existing network could accomodate the HS2. The billions of pounds spent will not be recuperated in employment, and how can you support such a low employment benefit for such a high monetary output? There is not enough money currently spent on that line to recoup the investment, it seems to be a real loss maker. PLUS Green spaces are at a premium with the latest changes in planning legislation. Green spaces should be protected - indeed that was the reason behind the original invention of the Green Belt, Sites of Scientific Interest and other protected states. Cuttings and tunnels do not protect the green spaces or wildlife.

But construction of HS2 does not start until Crossrail is finished. Start work due in 201, opening of phase 1 is 2026 and phase 2 in 2033. This is a long term infrastructure investment for capacity and an integrated transport network to allow our economy to grow. Oh and to counter the lies of the Anti HS2 lobby it is expected that less than 30 % of the predicted HS passengers will be businessmen.

Crossrail isn't expected to complete until 2018 (and will possibly encounter delays). If HS2 doesn't start until 2018 then it's quite likely that the "economic situation" will be significantly different to how it is in 2012. Seems odd therefore to propose spending £32Bn on what's basically an economy stimulation infrastructure project when the economy probably won't need stimulating by then. Six years is a very, very long time. Particularly when elections are held every five years.

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote:

Sadie.Darling-Hewitt wrote: I cannot wait to see this happen - Greening has made a very bad decision in my opinion. For a smaller cost of replacement bus services, the existing network could accomodate the HS2. The billions of pounds spent will not be recuperated in employment, and how can you support such a low employment benefit for such a high monetary output? There is not enough money currently spent on that line to recoup the investment, it seems to be a real loss maker. PLUS Green spaces are at a premium with the latest changes in planning legislation. Green spaces should be protected - indeed that was the reason behind the original invention of the Green Belt, Sites of Scientific Interest and other protected states. Cuttings and tunnels do not protect the green spaces or wildlife.

But construction of HS2 does not start until Crossrail is finished. Start work due in 201, opening of phase 1 is 2026 and phase 2 in 2033. This is a long term infrastructure investment for capacity and an integrated transport network to allow our economy to grow. Oh and to counter the lies of the Anti HS2 lobby it is expected that less than 30 % of the predicted HS passengers will be businessmen.

Crossrail isn't expected to complete until 2018 (and will possibly encounter delays). If HS2 doesn't start until 2018 then it's quite likely that the "economic situation" will be significantly different to how it is in 2012. Seems odd therefore to propose spending £32Bn on what's basically an economy stimulation infrastructure project when the economy probably won't need stimulating by then. Six years is a very, very long time. Particularly when elections are held every five years.

Very good points

piran wrote:
Today I got a reply from Cllr Tett (via my MP because Cllr Tett could not be bothered to reply to my emailed questions). Notice in his reply Cllr Tett states that I am only 1 of 2 who have not supported the Bucks CC using council taxes to campaign against HS2!!! Yet he has had “hundreds of letters, e-mails, telephone calls and personal representations on this issue”. I am not sure I believe him, based on what I have seen on this site. Time for those of you who object to council taxes being misappropriated (even if it is from reserves) for political campaigning against HS2. You need to write, email, and phone or speak to Cllr Tett. He seems to be in a dream world of NIMBYs!! Dear Mr ***, Mr (My MP) has now received a reply from Cllr Tett concerning your email of 1 February and I have copied the relevant sections below. “Thank you very much for the copy of the letter from Mr ***. As I understand it he objects to the county council along with all the local District Councils in Buckinghamshire opposing High Speed 2. Perhaps I should firstly explain that opposition to HS2 is based on an extremely thorough review of the project and its business case and it is our considered view that the project represents extremely poor value for money for the UK taxpayer. In the latest figures published with the announcement, when account is taken for factors such as the latest economic forecasts etc. the Business Cost Ratio (BCR), a good indication of ‘value for money’, drop to a dire 0.9 i.e. for every one pound of the £34, 000, 000,000 spent by the taxpayer 10 pence is lost. This is below the level at which the DfT would normal consider proceeding with a project. I note Mr *** objection to the County Council campaigning on behalf of it affected residents. In a representative democracy councillors are elected to represent their constituents and to make policy decisions on behalf of the county council. The issue of HS2 has been debated three times at full county council meetings and has overwhelmingly been rejected (twice unanimously) by elected members. I would also add that, in the two years since this project was announced, I have received many hundreds of letters, e-mails, telephone calls and personal representations on this issue. With only two exceptions (of which Mr *** is one) they have all supported the county council’s stance on this issue. I do not accept that BCC finances are in a ‘dangerous state’. We are a very well run council which, in admittedly tough financial times, has always run a sound financial budget and continues to do so. Expenditure on opposing HS2 has been drawn from Reserves, rather than day to day revenue expenditure, specifically so that it does not impact negatively on day to day services. We have decided as an alliance of councils to issue a ‘letter before action’ requesting the Secretary of State to reconsider her decision on HS2. We do this with reluctance but see no alternative given that the 55,000 responses to the public consultation, who overwhelmingly against this project, have effectively been ignored. I would remind you that the existing Secretary of State, Justine Greening, stated in the House of Commons whilst speaking in opposition to the previous Government’s Heathrow proposals: “At every stage the Government has ignored public opinion and shamelessly ignored the grave environmental risk…Battle will continue, because preserving our quality of life is so important…If the Government will not listen in Parliament, then ministers will find they have to listen in the courts” I hope that I have satisfactorily addressed all the points that you have raised. I clearly recognise that Mr *** is unlikely to agree with the stance of his local councils. No doubt there are many voters in other cities who equally oppose the large sums of money that have been spent by their councils supporting and advocating HS2. These differences of opinion are inevitable in a democracy. In conclusion, the Government is committed to spending some £750 million on consultants, public relations etc. in advancing their scheme during this parliament. Therefore, I do not feel it unreasonable that local authorities should continue to represent not only their local residents but also the interests of the vast majority of UK taxpayers (as evidenced in repeated national surveys). We, like them, believe that, at a time of national austerity, when far better value alternatives exist, HS2 is a poor use of hard pressed taxpayers’ money.”

I am not sure why you would not believe that people in Bucks are supporting the Council's decision to raise a legal challenge to HS2. Surely it is not so shocking, you say in other posts how people in Bucks are 'Nimbys', so surely common sense would dictate that these so called 'nimbys' would support the action of their council to do anything to stop HS2. As for Mr Tett only receiving 2 letters for HS2 I very much believe him, look even at this one story the majority who are posting are against, I have counted and at least 7 people are definitely voicing out against HS2 with only yourself and Windsorian in favour. You keep saying that it is only a minority of people in Bucks which are against HS2 but this is completely wrong as pointed out before people in Oxford, Warwickshire, London, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire and Hertfordshire are coming out against HS2. And still the biggest question unanswered is why did only 55,000 people respond to the HS2 consultation and the majority were against it? If the country wants HS2 so badly why did they not complete the consultation and why out of all the businesses in UK did only 439 complete it? Its not needed, people don’t care for it and the money would be better off spent elsewhere.

So why in a recent local election did the candidate who was against HS2 come third? Not a real issue unlike economic growth jobs etc. Yet this is in Buckinghamshire!
HS2 will be built and I bet 2 years after it runs people will be wondering why there was so much fuss made (this happened with the M40 and HS1 anti lobbies) and money wasted (like 51M) trying to stop a vital national piece of transport infrastruture. How about a bit of vision for 2050 and building our nation's economy and stop being so short sighted.

I see a barrack room lawyer has posted that some council may not have been properly consulted over the HS2 proposals and this forms grounds for a judicial review.

It will be interesting to see what a judge makes of this, when evidence in the form of council minutes recording their discussions on the subject &/or their submisssions to the consultation are produced in court.

It's hard to believe that any council along the route was unaware of the HS2 proposals, unless the councillors were asleep for the whole of the 5 month consultation period !

piran wrote:
So why in a recent local election did the candidate who was against HS2 come third? Not a real issue unlike economic growth jobs etc. Yet this is in Buckinghamshire!
HS2 will be built and I bet 2 years after it runs people will be wondering why there was so much fuss made (this happened with the M40 and HS1 anti lobbies) and money wasted (like 51M) trying to stop a vital national piece of transport infrastruture. How about a bit of vision for 2050 and building our nation's economy and stop being so short sighted.

Its swings and roundabouts at the end of the day, an independant got in at Great Missenden a while back purely because he was against HS2. I notice how yet again you ignore my question about the consultation results. I have plenty of vision for this country and most people view less travel in the future a better alternative then spending a huge amount of money that as a country we cannot afford. Invest in the current infrastructure and in better communications like broadband because technology is the way forward not a rich man's vanity project. And I wouldn't be so sure that HS2 will be bulit, like I say the consultation was the biggest one in the country's history and the people against HS2 will not just go away because people call them childish names like 'NIMBYS'.

It's not swings and roundabouts because the candidate who was against HS2 came third. There are much more pressing political problems than HS2 (that will adversely effect so few people in Bucks and the UK).

It is NOT a rich mans vanity project - less than 30% of the passengers are expected to be businessmen.

It has considered the environment - Only 2 miles of HS2 will be above ground in the AONB.

The ridiculous argument to use more broadband does not consider moving people from the SE who want to visit the Midlands and the North. Also business meetings are still needed face-to-face meetings. Have you tried video conferencing - it is dire.

There was consultation - and many changes were made. However you still complain because you do not like the decison made by the Government.

The project is supported by all 3 main political parties.
HS2 will be built . It is a NATIONAL project because the economy needs to grow and we need an intergrated rail capacity in 2026+.
And yes most of the Bucks Anti HS2 lobby are selfish NIMBYs who are comfortably off. They/you do not want change, cannot or will not see the bigger picture and want to deny others the chance of economic growth and to be employed.

Nick1042 wrote:

piran wrote:
So why in a recent local election did the candidate who was against HS2 come third? Not a real issue unlike economic growth jobs etc. Yet this is in Buckinghamshire!
HS2 will be built and I bet 2 years after it runs people will be wondering why there was so much fuss made (this happened with the M40 and HS1 anti lobbies) and money wasted (like 51M) trying to stop a vital national piece of transport infrastruture. How about a bit of vision for 2050 and building our nation's economy and stop being so short sighted.

Its swings and roundabouts at the end of the day, an independant got in at Great Missenden a while back purely because he was against HS2. I notice how yet again you ignore my question about the consultation results. I have plenty of vision for this country and most people view less travel in the future a better alternative then spending a huge amount of money that as a country we cannot afford. Invest in the current infrastructure and in better communications like broadband because technology is the way forward not a rich man's vanity project. And I wouldn't be so sure that HS2 will be bulit, like I say the consultation was the biggest one in the country's history and the people against HS2 will not just go away because people call them childish names like 'NIMBYS'.

It's not swings and roundabouts because the Great Missenden candidate who was against HS2 came third. Amazing or what? There are much more pressing political problems than HS2 that will adversely affect so few people in Bucks and the UK.

It is NOT a rich man’s vanity project - less than 30% of the passengers are expected to be businessmen.

It has considered the environment - only 2 miles of HS2 will be above ground in the AONB.

The ridiculous argument to use more broadband does not consider travellers from the SE who want to visit the Midlands and the North. Also business still needs face-to-face meetings. Have you tried video conferencing - it is dire.

There was consultation - and many changes were made. However you are still complaining because you do not like the decision made by the Government.

The project is supported by all 3 main political parties.

HS2 will be built. It is a NATIONAL project needed in the future because the economy needs to grow and requires an integrated rail capacity in 2026+. Just like China and France and Germany.

And yes most of the Buckinghamshire Anti HS2 lobby are selfish NIMBYs who are comfortably off. They/you, do not want change, cannot or will not see the bigger picture and want to deny others the chance of economic growth and to be employed.

Councils were consulted on the HS2 route during the extensive engagement process prior to the initial route first being published by the last Government. I listened to a presentation by Colin Stewart, Global Rail Director at Arups, in October 2010 where he described the planning process and presented working maps showing all the constraints in the study area. There was a fantastic amount of detail that could only have come from the individual local authorities as there is no truly national database covering every conservation area or tree preservation order, for example.

The fact is that while a dialogue was going on at officer level councillors largely ignored it as they thought HS2 would be scrapped by an incoming Conservative Government. This shows how politically out of touch they are, because all the indications were that the Conservatives under Cameron had embraced high speed rail as an integral part of their transport policy.

If non-consultation with local authorities during initial planning is a key plank in the judicial review stategy then it will be a weaker and even more half baked effort than I had supposed. The lawyers will be rubbing their hands though, for them it's just a win win situation. For us it's the opposite!

piran wrote:

Nick1042 wrote:

piran wrote: So why in a recent local election did the candidate who was against HS2 come third? Not a real issue unlike economic growth jobs etc. Yet this is in Buckinghamshire! HS2 will be built and I bet 2 years after it runs people will be wondering why there was so much fuss made (this happened with the M40 and HS1 anti lobbies) and money wasted (like 51M) trying to stop a vital national piece of transport infrastruture. How about a bit of vision for 2050 and building our nation's economy and stop being so short sighted.

Its swings and roundabouts at the end of the day, an independant got in at Great Missenden a while back purely because he was against HS2. I notice how yet again you ignore my question about the consultation results. I have plenty of vision for this country and most people view less travel in the future a better alternative then spending a huge amount of money that as a country we cannot afford. Invest in the current infrastructure and in better communications like broadband because technology is the way forward not a rich man's vanity project. And I wouldn't be so sure that HS2 will be bulit, like I say the consultation was the biggest one in the country's history and the people against HS2 will not just go away because people call them childish names like 'NIMBYS'.

It's not swings and roundabouts because the Great Missenden candidate who was against HS2 came third. Amazing or what? There are much more pressing political problems than HS2 that will adversely affect so few people in Bucks and the UK. It is NOT a rich man’s vanity project - less than 30% of the passengers are expected to be businessmen. It has considered the environment - only 2 miles of HS2 will be above ground in the AONB. The ridiculous argument to use more broadband does not consider travellers from the SE who want to visit the Midlands and the North. Also business still needs face-to-face meetings. Have you tried video conferencing - it is dire. There was consultation - and many changes were made. However you are still complaining because you do not like the decision made by the Government. The project is supported by all 3 main political parties. HS2 will be built. It is a NATIONAL project needed in the future because the economy needs to grow and requires an integrated rail capacity in 2026+. Just like China and France and Germany. And yes most of the Buckinghamshire Anti HS2 lobby are selfish NIMBYs who are comfortably off. They/you, do not want change, cannot or will not see the bigger picture and want to deny others the chance of economic growth and to be employed.

Ignoring the rhetoric, Video conferencing works really well (have been using it for several years for multi-national team meetings). It'd work even better if broadband/internet connectivity throughout the UK was improved. That's what Malaysia and Singapore has invested in - so if you're looking for an infrastructure investment to keep pace with other countries, perhaps that would be a good one to consider?
.
In the 21st century it's investment in technology NOT transport that makes a difference. The connected & online World is shrinking because of the speed that ones and zeroes travel NOT the speed at which people can travel to Birmingham to go shopping. It's the former that helps businesses develop their international reach and make them competitive in the global economy.

piran wrote:
It's not swings and roundabouts because the candidate who was against HS2 came third. There are much more pressing political problems than HS2 (that will adversely effect so few people in Bucks and the UK). It is NOT a rich mans vanity project - less than 30% of the passengers are expected to be businessmen. It has considered the environment - Only 2 miles of HS2 will be above ground in the AONB. The ridiculous argument to use more broadband does not consider moving people from the SE who want to visit the Midlands and the North. Also business meetings are still needed face-to-face meetings. Have you tried video conferencing - it is dire. There was consultation - and many changes were made. However you still complain because you do not like the decison made by the Government. The project is supported by all 3 main political parties. HS2 will be built . It is a NATIONAL project because the economy needs to grow and we need an intergrated rail capacity in 2026+. And yes most of the Bucks Anti HS2 lobby are selfish NIMBYs who are comfortably off. They/you do not want change, cannot or will not see the bigger picture and want to deny others the chance of economic growth and to be employed.

"And yes most of the Buckinghamshire Anti HS2 lobby are selfish NIMBYs who are comfortably off. They/you, do not want change, cannot or will not see the bigger picture and want to deny others the chance of economic growth and to be employed."

As for this being a national project - I fail to see it delivering a national impact in the short term (the period it is being purportedly aimed at). Due to the completion dates I fail to see it delivering near term benefits for the north (the area it's aimed at). I fail to see it being the best use of this capital (the argument behind the scheme).

We urgently need enduring and supportive improvements to the whole transport infrastructure and economy - I said as much when I wrote to Justine Greening recently - but how on earth can anyone claim that this white elephant will deliver anything other than a boil on the face of Britain and a drain on our financial resources?

If looking at the issues and disagreeing with your conclusions makes me a NIMBY then please call me so it makes no difference to me. If being unemployed for the last six months and living in an ex-council house makes me "comfortably off" then again call me so, by all means. But you'd be facile, and more than a little insulting, to state that people who hold a different view to yours are not looking at the bigger picture or seeking change.

I want to see change and improvement and see it delivered now; I fail to understand how HS2 can possible deliver it. For so many reasons (mainly economic) Mr Tett's position is the correct one to follow for the time being.

I see that only 12 people have commented here.

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote:

Nick1042 wrote:

piran wrote: So why in a recent local election did the candidate who was against HS2 come third? Not a real issue unlike economic growth jobs etc. Yet this is in Buckinghamshire! HS2 will be built and I bet 2 years after it runs people will be wondering why there was so much fuss made (this happened with the M40 and HS1 anti lobbies) and money wasted (like 51M) trying to stop a vital national piece of transport infrastruture. How about a bit of vision for 2050 and building our nation's economy and stop being so short sighted.

Its swings and roundabouts at the end of the day, an independant got in at Great Missenden a while back purely because he was against HS2. I notice how yet again you ignore my question about the consultation results. I have plenty of vision for this country and most people view less travel in the future a better alternative then spending a huge amount of money that as a country we cannot afford. Invest in the current infrastructure and in better communications like broadband because technology is the way forward not a rich man's vanity project. And I wouldn't be so sure that HS2 will be bulit, like I say the consultation was the biggest one in the country's history and the people against HS2 will not just go away because people call them childish names like 'NIMBYS'.

It's not swings and roundabouts because the Great Missenden candidate who was against HS2 came third. Amazing or what? There are much more pressing political problems than HS2 that will adversely affect so few people in Bucks and the UK. It is NOT a rich man’s vanity project - less than 30% of the passengers are expected to be businessmen. It has considered the environment - only 2 miles of HS2 will be above ground in the AONB. The ridiculous argument to use more broadband does not consider travellers from the SE who want to visit the Midlands and the North. Also business still needs face-to-face meetings. Have you tried video conferencing - it is dire. There was consultation - and many changes were made. However you are still complaining because you do not like the decision made by the Government. The project is supported by all 3 main political parties. HS2 will be built. It is a NATIONAL project needed in the future because the economy needs to grow and requires an integrated rail capacity in 2026+. Just like China and France and Germany. And yes most of the Buckinghamshire Anti HS2 lobby are selfish NIMBYs who are comfortably off. They/you, do not want change, cannot or will not see the bigger picture and want to deny others the chance of economic growth and to be employed.

Ignoring the rhetoric, Video conferencing works really well (have been using it for several years for multi-national team meetings). It'd work even better if broadband/internet connectivity throughout the UK was improved. That's what Malaysia and Singapore has invested in - so if you're looking for an infrastructure investment to keep pace with other countries, perhaps that would be a good one to consider? . In the 21st century it's investment in technology NOT transport that makes a difference. The connected & online World is shrinking because of the speed that ones and zeroes travel NOT the speed at which people can travel to Birmingham to go shopping. It's the former that helps businesses develop their international reach and make them competitive in the global economy.

Quite agree. I think I somewhere I read a rather sloppy attack regarding Barrack Room lawyers" posting their thought on Judicial Review, I guess the Lawyers are indeed experts but with any case, 50% of them are found to be wrong.

piran wrote:

Nick1042 wrote:

piran wrote:
So why in a recent local election did the candidate who was against HS2 come third? Not a real issue unlike economic growth jobs etc. Yet this is in Buckinghamshire!
HS2 will be built and I bet 2 years after it runs people will be wondering why there was so much fuss made (this happened with the M40 and HS1 anti lobbies) and money wasted (like 51M) trying to stop a vital national piece of transport infrastruture. How about a bit of vision for 2050 and building our nation's economy and stop being so short sighted.

Its swings and roundabouts at the end of the day, an independant got in at Great Missenden a while back purely because he was against HS2. I notice how yet again you ignore my question about the consultation results. I have plenty of vision for this country and most people view less travel in the future a better alternative then spending a huge amount of money that as a country we cannot afford. Invest in the current infrastructure and in better communications like broadband because technology is the way forward not a rich man's vanity project. And I wouldn't be so sure that HS2 will be bulit, like I say the consultation was the biggest one in the country's history and the people against HS2 will not just go away because people call them childish names like 'NIMBYS'.

It's not swings and roundabouts because the Great Missenden candidate who was against HS2 came third. Amazing or what? There are much more pressing political problems than HS2 that will adversely affect so few people in Bucks and the UK.

It is NOT a rich man’s vanity project - less than 30% of the passengers are expected to be businessmen.

It has considered the environment - only 2 miles of HS2 will be above ground in the AONB.

The ridiculous argument to use more broadband does not consider travellers from the SE who want to visit the Midlands and the North. Also business still needs face-to-face meetings. Have you tried video conferencing - it is dire.

There was consultation - and many changes were made. However you are still complaining because you do not like the decision made by the Government.

The project is supported by all 3 main political parties.

HS2 will be built. It is a NATIONAL project needed in the future because the economy needs to grow and requires an integrated rail capacity in 2026+. Just like China and France and Germany.

And yes most of the Buckinghamshire Anti HS2 lobby are selfish NIMBYs who are comfortably off. They/you, do not want change, cannot or will not see the bigger picture and want to deny others the chance of economic growth and to be employed.

I would like to point out that I live in Buckinghamshire but will not be affected by the route of HS2 so I am not a NIMBY. It is completely unacceptable to say that it is ok to destroy people's houses and their environment because they are comfortably well off. And by the way we are not all well off, believe me! Do you honestly believe that the average worker/man on the street will be able to afford the ticket prices IF HS2 is built? I object because the business case is flawed, the country cannot afford it and it will destroy the environment. Tunnels and cuttings do not appear overnight there is a lot of work, mess. noise involved, so saying it is ok because it goes underground through a PROTECTED AONB Is unacceptable. IF they build HS2 then where does it end? Perhaps a new airport in Dartmoor National Park all in the name of progress. HS2 is far from being a done deal and the three main parties may well be for High speed rail but the route and how we go about achieving it is hotly debated. Netherlands new high speed rail has just been bailed out by the taxpayer as it is making a huge loss each year and both Poland and France have halted high speed plans recently.
I am all for change but the right change and like I say many experts believe that investing in technology is far better than transport. Don’t forget we have a massive emission target set by Europe. Cars, planes and trains all contribute to this so we have to face travelling less in the future. The amount of jobs the government tell us will be created by HS2 is just as laughable as their predicted passenger numbers.
Finally I have to say that when a consultation is completed and the results come in and a huge majority is against a project and the government ignore the results then this is hugely undemocratic and this worries me the most. If the so called millions who wanted HS2 bothered to complete the consultation and the majority showed in favour then I wouldn't be on here now. Justine Greening complained when in opposition to the government that they were not listening to people when a consultation was done on the third runway at Heathrow. It now appears that Justine Greening is a major hypocrite by not listening to the people who could be bothered to fill in the HS2 consultation.

The consultation is much referred to by HS2 opponents but as I pointed out in an earlier post this was a completely voluntary exercise by the Government, they had no obligation to carry it out. In any event the route has been modified quite extensively as a response to the feedback so it can't really be argued that the results have been ignored.

That being said I do understand how people feel so passionately about this, but I can't accept the apocalyptic vision they seem to have about the scheme. The M40 and A41 through the Chilterns are far uglier, more polluting, and more land consuming than HS2 will be.

I hear the comments about investing in existing rail networks, but this is already being done on a vast scale compared to previous decades (Crossrail, Thameslink, Reading Rebuilding, Great Western Electrification, plus many other projects) and is only just keeping pace with present demand.

We need to be visionary and look to the mid 21st Century and beyond and that is what the Government is doing.

As for the time when we will all supposedly interact via video and Facebook and not need to travel and become a "stay at home" society, what a nightmare world that would be. I hope I don't live to see it.

Carl@Denham wrote:
The consultation is much referred to by HS2 opponents but as I pointed out in an earlier post this was a completely voluntary exercise by the Government, they had no obligation to carry it out. In any event the route has been modified quite extensively as a response to the feedback so it can't really be argued that the results have been ignored. That being said I do understand how people feel so passionately about this, but I can't accept the apocalyptic vision they seem to have about the scheme. The M40 and A41 through the Chilterns are far uglier, more polluting, and more land consuming than HS2 will be. I hear the comments about investing in existing rail networks, but this is already being done on a vast scale compared to previous decades (Crossrail, Thameslink, Reading Rebuilding, Great Western Electrification, plus many other projects) and is only just keeping pace with present demand. We need to be visionary and look to the mid 21st Century and beyond and that is what the Government is doing. As for the time when we will all supposedly interact via video and Facebook and not need to travel and become a "stay at home" society, what a nightmare world that would be. I hope I don't live to see it.

Have you considered the irony of your last comment when you realise that you've posted it on a webpage served up to your computer, iPad or mobile device from a webserver somewhere in the World?
.
The "conversation" you've engaged in is with people located remotely (potentially anywhere in the World) who may be at home, work, traveliing or in a coffee shop, tea room or anywhere else with a 2g, 3g or WiFi connection.
.
There hasn't been a need for anybody involved to travel anywhere in order to meet up to have the dialogue. - Thereby ably demonstrating how technology, rather than travel, can facilitate conversations and communications.
.
Looks like your nightmare has arrived, you're already part of it, and you don't even realise it's happened.

gpn01 wrote:

Carl@Denham wrote:
The consultation is much referred to by HS2 opponents but as I pointed out in an earlier post this was a completely voluntary exercise by the Government, they had no obligation to carry it out. In any event the route has been modified quite extensively as a response to the feedback so it can't really be argued that the results have been ignored. That being said I do understand how people feel so passionately about this, but I can't accept the apocalyptic vision they seem to have about the scheme. The M40 and A41 through the Chilterns are far uglier, more polluting, and more land consuming than HS2 will be. I hear the comments about investing in existing rail networks, but this is already being done on a vast scale compared to previous decades (Crossrail, Thameslink, Reading Rebuilding, Great Western Electrification, plus many other projects) and is only just keeping pace with present demand. We need to be visionary and look to the mid 21st Century and beyond and that is what the Government is doing. As for the time when we will all supposedly interact via video and Facebook and not need to travel and become a "stay at home" society, what a nightmare world that would be. I hope I don't live to see it.

Have you considered the irony of your last comment when you realise that you've posted it on a webpage served up to your computer, iPad or mobile device from a webserver somewhere in the World?
.
The "conversation" you've engaged in is with people located remotely (potentially anywhere in the World) who may be at home, work, traveliing or in a coffee shop, tea room or anywhere else with a 2g, 3g or WiFi connection.
.
There hasn't been a need for anybody involved to travel anywhere in order to meet up to have the dialogue. - Thereby ably demonstrating how technology, rather than travel, can facilitate conversations and communications.
.
Looks like your nightmare has arrived, you're already part of it, and you don't even realise it's happened.

So Carl@Denham has used the web to post a remark. This does not disprove the importance of the HS2 project. You must be getting desperate if your argument seems to be because someone has posted on a website, via a computer, then we do not need to travel in the future! Ever thought of the future and investing for our children and grandchildren? By 2026 we will need the extra transport infrastructure. If you chose to buy your head in the sand then so be it. I want a future for our children and grandchildren.

piran wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

Carl@Denham wrote: The consultation is much referred to by HS2 opponents but as I pointed out in an earlier post this was a completely voluntary exercise by the Government, they had no obligation to carry it out. In any event the route has been modified quite extensively as a response to the feedback so it can't really be argued that the results have been ignored. That being said I do understand how people feel so passionately about this, but I can't accept the apocalyptic vision they seem to have about the scheme. The M40 and A41 through the Chilterns are far uglier, more polluting, and more land consuming than HS2 will be. I hear the comments about investing in existing rail networks, but this is already being done on a vast scale compared to previous decades (Crossrail, Thameslink, Reading Rebuilding, Great Western Electrification, plus many other projects) and is only just keeping pace with present demand. We need to be visionary and look to the mid 21st Century and beyond and that is what the Government is doing. As for the time when we will all supposedly interact via video and Facebook and not need to travel and become a "stay at home" society, what a nightmare world that would be. I hope I don't live to see it.

Have you considered the irony of your last comment when you realise that you've posted it on a webpage served up to your computer, iPad or mobile device from a webserver somewhere in the World? . The "conversation" you've engaged in is with people located remotely (potentially anywhere in the World) who may be at home, work, traveliing or in a coffee shop, tea room or anywhere else with a 2g, 3g or WiFi connection. . There hasn't been a need for anybody involved to travel anywhere in order to meet up to have the dialogue. - Thereby ably demonstrating how technology, rather than travel, can facilitate conversations and communications. . Looks like your nightmare has arrived, you're already part of it, and you don't even realise it's happened.

So Carl@Denham has used the web to post a remark. This does not disprove the importance of the HS2 project. You must be getting desperate if your argument seems to be because someone has posted on a website, via a computer, then we do not need to travel in the future! Ever thought of the future and investing for our children and grandchildren? By 2026 we will need the extra transport infrastructure. If you chose to buy your head in the sand then so be it. I want a future for our children and grandchildren.

My observation was simply to point out that the previous poster was, by posting to the website, using the exact same technology that he was claiming couldn't replace the need to travel.
.
I didn't claim that this would obviate the need to travel but was using it as an illustration of why we don't actually always need to travel and can embrace technology when appropriate.

I too want a future for my children and this starts with not leaving with them with too much national debt to pay off. The money can be used elsewhere for greater benefits, not adding to the debt. I said before whether we like it or not we will have to travel less or Europe will fine us for not meeting our emissons targets. Carl@denham we are not talking about a stay at home society never leave your house like a hermit. We are talking about reducing travel for work. A lot of people do already work from home but a lot more could if the proper investment was made and this is what could really solve congestion on the roads and free up seats on trains.

The fastest growing sector for rail travel is actually leisure by the way. And although I use the web of course, there is nothing compared to seeing things first hand, a virtual world tour would not be quite the same. But I am actually not that IT aware. I missed the chance to vote in the poll for instance. Still, it was pretty even compared to previous ones on HS2.

The invention of the telephone and computer have done nothing to reduce peoples desire to travel and there is no evidence that video conferencing will do so either.

Nowadays it is possible to view pictures and videos of houses and flats on-line, so does it reduce peoples desire to visit several properties before buying?

Of course not, what this new technology does is to improve the selection process, but will never reduce the demand to actually visit several properties before renting or buying one. Infact all the evidence is that on-line advertising actually stimulates viewing figures on the ground.

Windsorian wrote:
The invention of the telephone and computer have done nothing to reduce peoples desire to travel and there is no evidence that video conferencing will do so either. Nowadays it is possible to view pictures and videos of houses and flats on-line, so does it reduce peoples desire to visit several properties before buying? Of course not, what this new technology does is to improve the selection process, but will never reduce the demand to actually visit several properties before renting or buying one. Infact all the evidence is that on-line advertising actually stimulates viewing figures on the ground.

Not sure how your comparing HS2 to buying or renting a house. Of course you would not buy a house without travelling to see it. You would not want to commit yourself to the biggest purchase of your life without seeing it in person and seeing as much as it as possible. Very rarely do estate agents print pictures of every room in a house or the surrounding area so you would be a fool not to check it out yourself. I am pretty sure that HS2 is not being proposed to create more capacity for househunters. But hey if that is the real reason then I am even more convinced it won't get built hooray!

Nick1042 wrote:

Windsorian wrote:
The invention of the telephone and computer have done nothing to reduce peoples desire to travel and there is no evidence that video conferencing will do so either. Nowadays it is possible to view pictures and videos of houses and flats on-line, so does it reduce peoples desire to visit several properties before buying? Of course not, what this new technology does is to improve the selection process, but will never reduce the demand to actually visit several properties before renting or buying one. Infact all the evidence is that on-line advertising actually stimulates viewing figures on the ground.

Not sure how your comparing HS2 to buying or renting a house. Of course you would not buy a house without travelling to see it. You would not want to commit yourself to the biggest purchase of your life without seeing it in person and seeing as much as it as possible. Very rarely do estate agents print pictures of every room in a house or the surrounding area so you would be a fool not to check it out yourself. I am pretty sure that HS2 is not being proposed to create more capacity for househunters. But hey if that is the real reason then I am even more convinced it won't get built hooray!

Being deliberately obtuse does your Anti HS2 camapaign no good at all! Unless you have accepted that HS2 will be built and you are being funny and ironic. But as a Bucks NIMBY , I think not.

@Nick1042 It all depends on your viewpoint.

I see video conferencing as an add-on to phone conference calls, made possible by expanded band-width; not as a substitue to feet on the ground.

How many people would want to look at an on-line holiday, when what they really want is to go away ?

piran wrote:

Nick1042 wrote:

Windsorian wrote: The invention of the telephone and computer have done nothing to reduce peoples desire to travel and there is no evidence that video conferencing will do so either. Nowadays it is possible to view pictures and videos of houses and flats on-line, so does it reduce peoples desire to visit several properties before buying? Of course not, what this new technology does is to improve the selection process, but will never reduce the demand to actually visit several properties before renting or buying one. Infact all the evidence is that on-line advertising actually stimulates viewing figures on the ground.

Not sure how your comparing HS2 to buying or renting a house. Of course you would not buy a house without travelling to see it. You would not want to commit yourself to the biggest purchase of your life without seeing it in person and seeing as much as it as possible. Very rarely do estate agents print pictures of every room in a house or the surrounding area so you would be a fool not to check it out yourself. I am pretty sure that HS2 is not being proposed to create more capacity for househunters. But hey if that is the real reason then I am even more convinced it won't get built hooray!

Being deliberately obtuse does your Anti HS2 camapaign no good at all! Unless you have accepted that HS2 will be built and you are being funny and ironic. But as a Bucks NIMBY , I think not.

As you seem to ignore important points on people's comments, I will say again that I am not a NIMBY, the route will not affect me at all. I am against HS2 because I believe it has a flawed business plan. I don't think it will bring in the jobs the government say it will, it will suck more people into London and money used for this project could be used better elsewhere at the moment and yes I do want to protect the countryside. I am just shocked that somebody is saying that we need to built extra railways because we don't buy houses online. By the way using childish names like NIMBYs does not do your pro HS2 campaign any good either. It seems that you cannot seem to comment without name calling. I wonder if when more consultations go through and more people in North start to protest because they realise that their right through the route of the second phase of HS2 you will be calling them names too.

I saw this and agree with it:

"What I want is: my local authorities speaking and working with HS2 to ensure the best scenario for where I live and especially for those living near the line and those that will be impacted by it.

I DO NOT SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS HAPPENING. This is how my local authority can best serve its local community and best use local funds. There is no question that tis is their role

Therefore can someone from HS2 ltd please answer this question:

Is Bucks County Council or Martin Tett having good dialogue with HS2 as I describe above?

Surely if not, this lack of engagement is also a case for legal challenge."

It is Central government's job to evaluate High Speed Rail in the full national context. It is not the job of a few local councils to do the overall evaluation.

The nation needs to build up green assets to make transition to a green economy possible, & in the process build up assets to improve the backing for the pound.

We need national engagement in discussing HSR, so that we have the maximum awareness of what future changes & opportunities are ahead. We need to understand our place in the national context in order to build this new future.

Nick1042 wrote:

piran wrote:

Nick1042 wrote:

Windsorian wrote: The invention of the telephone and computer have done nothing to reduce peoples desire to travel and there is no evidence that video conferencing will do so either. Nowadays it is possible to view pictures and videos of houses and flats on-line, so does it reduce peoples desire to visit several properties before buying? Of course not, what this new technology does is to improve the selection process, but will never reduce the demand to actually visit several properties before renting or buying one. Infact all the evidence is that on-line advertising actually stimulates viewing figures on the ground.

Not sure how your comparing HS2 to buying or renting a house. Of course you would not buy a house without travelling to see it. You would not want to commit yourself to the biggest purchase of your life without seeing it in person and seeing as much as it as possible. Very rarely do estate agents print pictures of every room in a house or the surrounding area so you would be a fool not to check it out yourself. I am pretty sure that HS2 is not being proposed to create more capacity for househunters. But hey if that is the real reason then I am even more convinced it won't get built hooray!

Being deliberately obtuse does your Anti HS2 camapaign no good at all! Unless you have accepted that HS2 will be built and you are being funny and ironic. But as a Bucks NIMBY , I think not.

As you seem to ignore important points on people's comments, I will say again that I am not a NIMBY, the route will not affect me at all. I am against HS2 because I believe it has a flawed business plan. I don't think it will bring in the jobs the government say it will, it will suck more people into London and money used for this project could be used better elsewhere at the moment and yes I do want to protect the countryside. I am just shocked that somebody is saying that we need to built extra railways because we don't buy houses online. By the way using childish names like NIMBYs does not do your pro HS2 campaign any good either. It seems that you cannot seem to comment without name calling. I wonder if when more consultations go through and more people in North start to protest because they realise that their right through the route of the second phase of HS2 you will be calling them names too.

NIMBY is not calling names but clearly stating that the small vocal minority in Buckinghamshire who are part of the Anti HS2 lobby, like you, are people that lack vison for the future of thsi nation, are often well-off, in their own nice houses who do not want any change brought about by HS2 and especially Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY)

Edwina Lee wrote:
It is Central government's job to evaluate High Speed Rail in the full national context. It is not the job of a few local councils to do the overall evaluation.

The nation needs to build up green assets to make transition to a green economy possible, & in the process build up assets to improve the backing for the pound.

We need national engagement in discussing HSR, so that we have the maximum awareness of what future changes & opportunities are ahead. We need to understand our place in the national context in order to build this new future.

Agree completely with your points about Central Government's role and about national engagement.
.
Disagree with the aspiration for a "green economy" as I believe that, like "climate change" and "carbon trading" it's a fad that'll fade away once the real issue emerges - that of having sufficient energy, at an affordable price, to keep the lights on.
.
Also don't understand the inferred connection between an asset build up backing the pound - an increase in PSBR as a percentage of GDP decreases the strength of the pound as it means that a higher percentage of UK Government's expenditure is on servicing the national debt.

The future is a crowded world competing for scare resource, & the way of adapting to this future is a green economy - a resource efficient sustainable economy.

How will our nation make a living? What will we as individuals be doing?

Infrastructures like high speed internet, high speed rail, pooled transport, . . . will be the building back bones of this efficient world.

This is what the nation & the world need to discuss.

Traditional accounting is not up to the job here. We need complex computer simulations resulting from combining many views.

Consider this. What is the future of the pound without a believable vision of our new future? Without those essential infrastructures, what will become the values of our assets?

If we have a believable bright future, our pound will recover, because of the green infrastructure we will invest in.

Investing our next quantitative easing is required, not using the new money to speculate on commodities or propping up import volume or asset prices.

piran wrote:

Nick1042 wrote:

piran wrote:

Nick1042 wrote:

Windsorian wrote: The invention of the telephone and computer have done nothing to reduce peoples desire to travel and there is no evidence that video conferencing will do so either. Nowadays it is possible to view pictures and videos of houses and flats on-line, so does it reduce peoples desire to visit several properties before buying? Of course not, what this new technology does is to improve the selection process, but will never reduce the demand to actually visit several properties before renting or buying one. Infact all the evidence is that on-line advertising actually stimulates viewing figures on the ground.

Not sure how your comparing HS2 to buying or renting a house. Of course you would not buy a house without travelling to see it. You would not want to commit yourself to the biggest purchase of your life without seeing it in person and seeing as much as it as possible. Very rarely do estate agents print pictures of every room in a house or the surrounding area so you would be a fool not to check it out yourself. I am pretty sure that HS2 is not being proposed to create more capacity for househunters. But hey if that is the real reason then I am even more convinced it won't get built hooray!

Being deliberately obtuse does your Anti HS2 camapaign no good at all! Unless you have accepted that HS2 will be built and you are being funny and ironic. But as a Bucks NIMBY , I think not.

As you seem to ignore important points on people's comments, I will say again that I am not a NIMBY, the route will not affect me at all. I am against HS2 because I believe it has a flawed business plan. I don't think it will bring in the jobs the government say it will, it will suck more people into London and money used for this project could be used better elsewhere at the moment and yes I do want to protect the countryside. I am just shocked that somebody is saying that we need to built extra railways because we don't buy houses online. By the way using childish names like NIMBYs does not do your pro HS2 campaign any good either. It seems that you cannot seem to comment without name calling. I wonder if when more consultations go through and more people in North start to protest because they realise that their right through the route of the second phase of HS2 you will be calling them names too.

NIMBY is not calling names but clearly stating that the small vocal minority in Buckinghamshire who are part of the Anti HS2 lobby, like you, are people that lack vison for the future of thsi nation, are often well-off, in their own nice houses who do not want any change brought about by HS2 and especially Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY)

Once again you have failed to READ posts properley. It is not just a small minority of people in Bucks that are against HS2, there are people in Warwick, Coventry, Oxford, Euston, Hillingdon etc. Dd you know these places are not in Bucks? Also I do not consider myself well off, just bout making ends meet at the moment like a lot people in Bucks and the whole of UK. I do have vision for the future of UK and i don't beleive HS2 will be as great for the econmy has the government have us believe. NIMBY is name calling and it is easy for people who will not have their lives ruined to spout out insults.

So do tell us how your life will be ruined by a national rail project?

I never said that a new rail project would 'ruin' my life. I have an opinion and I am against HS2 for reasons previously explained, I fail to see it generating the over inflated passenger numbers, I fail to see it generate the number of jobs offered, it will suck more people in London and it will damage a protected AONB. IF it goes ahead I will survive but as a UK taxpayer I object to this project. Now I wonder how HS2 will vastly improve your life?

Well the difference between us is quite clear. Because I have a vision for the future so my children and grandchildren will be employed in a vibrant economy that depends on national infrustructure projects. Our predecessors invested in our future by building canals, railways and motorways. We owe it to future generations to do the same and not bury our heads in the sand or be selfish as the NIMBYs along the HS2 route are being. Or would you prefer Britain to become a huge heritage park frozen in time?

piran wrote:
Well the difference between us is quite clear. Because I have a vision for the future so my children and grandchildren will be employed in a vibrant economy that depends on national infrustructure projects. Our predecessors invested in our future by building canals, railways and motorways. We owe it to future generations to do the same and not bury our heads in the sand or be selfish as the NIMBYs along the HS2 route are being. Or would you prefer Britain to become a huge heritage park frozen in time?

On that basis surely we should be investing heavily in 21st century capabilities that enable economic stimulation and growth? The Railway, as a form of transport, is hundreds of years old. Compare its rate of progress - passenger capacity and speed of journey and it isn't that much of an improvement on Stephenson's Rocket. You make mention of the canals and perhaps you could extend the argument of investing in that outdated mode of transport too?
.
If the Government is going to invest a substantial sum in something that is going to help economic devlopment then it would be fat better to spend it on improving the nation's communications channels. By making video-links and conferencing faster business people wouldn't need to spend so much time travelling. That would then free up EXISTING capacity on the road and rail network that could be absorbed by any possible growth in the domestic leisure travel market.
.
We owe it to future generations to invest in future capabilities not simply spend more money on old fashioned ones.

You just don't get it do you?
HS2 will "free up EXISTING capacity on the road and rail network that could be absorbed by any possible growth in the domestic leisure travel market."

piran wrote:
You just don't get it do you? HS2 will "free up EXISTING capacity on the road and rail network that could be absorbed by any possible growth in the domestic leisure travel market."

Am a tad confused if this is directed at my comment - wasn't it mentioned previously that much of HS2 would be used for leisure travel? If that's true then doesn't it undermine the argument of how much money would be saved by UK business in time saved by decreased journey time? So, would HS2 be primarily for business or for leisure?

Trainlover wrote:
I prefer taking trains to any other form of transport - but HS2 is wrong on so many levels that I have to support its opposition. Better by far to stretch the trains and lengthen the existing platforms than spend £32m to get back from Birmingham 40 minutes earlier.

Mr Tett is, I believe, making the correct choice in escalating the issue in this way. I support him wholeheartedly.

You might be a train lover but you are not a fact lover. The cost of HS2 is £17bn to Birmingham.

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote:
You just don't get it do you? HS2 will "free up EXISTING capacity on the road and rail network that could be absorbed by any possible growth in the domestic leisure travel market."

Am a tad confused if this is directed at my comment - wasn't it mentioned previously that much of HS2 would be used for leisure travel? If that's true then doesn't it undermine the argument of how much money would be saved by UK business in time saved by decreased journey time? So, would HS2 be primarily for business or for leisure?

That totally depends on which 'facts' fits the pro HS2 argument.
The genuine facts that for any of us to use the link, we would need to go INTO London to use it, are IMHO the important ones.
ie it will not get used as much as it should, bearing in mind the huge costs involved.

Tony.. wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote: You just don't get it do you? HS2 will "free up EXISTING capacity on the road and rail network that could be absorbed by any possible growth in the domestic leisure travel market."

Am a tad confused if this is directed at my comment - wasn't it mentioned previously that much of HS2 would be used for leisure travel? If that's true then doesn't it undermine the argument of how much money would be saved by UK business in time saved by decreased journey time? So, would HS2 be primarily for business or for leisure?

That totally depends on which 'facts' fits the pro HS2 argument. The genuine facts that for any of us to use the link, we would need to go INTO London to use it, are IMHO the important ones. ie it will not get used as much as it should, bearing in mind the huge costs involved.

Agreed. That's why I think it's a bit misleading to state things like how long the station-station journey time will take - without mentioning how long it currently takes or accepting that most people don't live at a station nor have a station as destination. So "journey time down to 49 minutes" looks quite good, until you realise that this is a saving of about 15-20 minutes. The add in that it takes (say) 30 minutes to get to London and 20 minutes to get to your destination in Birmingham after arrival.. Now the decrease in total journey time will be from 120 minutes down to 100 minutes. Not such a big saving is it?

demoness the second wrote:
List of local authorities who say they will be taking legal action.

Buckinghamshire County Council
Aylesbury Vale District Council
Chiltern District Council
South Bucks District Council
Wycombe District Council
London Borough of Hillingdon
Oxfordshire County Council
Cherwell District Council, Oxfordshire
Lichfield District Council, Staffordshire
South Northants District Council
Warwick District Council
North Warwickshire Borough Council
Warwickshire County Council
Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Warwickshire
Leicestershire County Council
Harborough District Council, Leicestershire
Three Rivers District Council, Hertfordshire
Coventry City Council

Quite a few - so it is not just Bucks "nimbys" who are objecting :)

No silly - these are the councils forming 51M. 51M IS LED BY BUCKS - so it IS mainly Bucks as they are the ones throwing money at it!!!!!!

It's in the name = Bucks!

They are waisting big "Bucks" fighting a poorly organised battle they will not win!

I'm sure you'll find that Northants, Hertfordshire etc are actually sitting on the fence over HS2! So yes it is all about the NIMBYS

gpn01 wrote:

Tony.. wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote: You just don't get it do you? HS2 will "free up EXISTING capacity on the road and rail network that could be absorbed by any possible growth in the domestic leisure travel market."

Am a tad confused if this is directed at my comment - wasn't it mentioned previously that much of HS2 would be used for leisure travel? If that's true then doesn't it undermine the argument of how much money would be saved by UK business in time saved by decreased journey time? So, would HS2 be primarily for business or for leisure?

That totally depends on which 'facts' fits the pro HS2 argument. The genuine facts that for any of us to use the link, we would need to go INTO London to use it, are IMHO the important ones. ie it will not get used as much as it should, bearing in mind the huge costs involved.

Agreed. That's why I think it's a bit misleading to state things like how long the station-station journey time will take - without mentioning how long it currently takes or accepting that most people don't live at a station nor have a station as destination. So "journey time down to 49 minutes" looks quite good, until you realise that this is a saving of about 15-20 minutes. The add in that it takes (say) 30 minutes to get to London and 20 minutes to get to your destination in Birmingham after arrival.. Now the decrease in total journey time will be from 120 minutes down to 100 minutes. Not such a big saving is it?

100 minutes is a good saving of time in anyones book

piran wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

Tony.. wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote: You just don't get it do you? HS2 will "free up EXISTING capacity on the road and rail network that could be absorbed by any possible growth in the domestic leisure travel market."

Am a tad confused if this is directed at my comment - wasn't it mentioned previously that much of HS2 would be used for leisure travel? If that's true then doesn't it undermine the argument of how much money would be saved by UK business in time saved by decreased journey time? So, would HS2 be primarily for business or for leisure?

That totally depends on which 'facts' fits the pro HS2 argument. The genuine facts that for any of us to use the link, we would need to go INTO London to use it, are IMHO the important ones. ie it will not get used as much as it should, bearing in mind the huge costs involved.

Agreed. That's why I think it's a bit misleading to state things like how long the station-station journey time will take - without mentioning how long it currently takes or accepting that most people don't live at a station nor have a station as destination. So "journey time down to 49 minutes" looks quite good, until you realise that this is a saving of about 15-20 minutes. The add in that it takes (say) 30 minutes to get to London and 20 minutes to get to your destination in Birmingham after arrival.. Now the decrease in total journey time will be from 120 minutes down to 100 minutes. Not such a big saving is it?

100 minutes is a good saving of time in anyones book

Completely agree. However the saving isn't 100 minutes, it's just 20 minutes.

People/companies which need to use the service will adapt, so these numbers are speculative. In addition, it isn't just about Birmingham. It is all the cities in the north which will eventually impacted.

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

Tony.. wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote: You just don't get it do you? HS2 will "free up EXISTING capacity on the road and rail network that could be absorbed by any possible growth in the domestic leisure travel market."

Am a tad confused if this is directed at my comment - wasn't it mentioned previously that much of HS2 would be used for leisure travel? If that's true then doesn't it undermine the argument of how much money would be saved by UK business in time saved by decreased journey time? So, would HS2 be primarily for business or for leisure?

That totally depends on which 'facts' fits the pro HS2 argument. The genuine facts that for any of us to use the link, we would need to go INTO London to use it, are IMHO the important ones. ie it will not get used as much as it should, bearing in mind the huge costs involved.

Agreed. That's why I think it's a bit misleading to state things like how long the station-station journey time will take - without mentioning how long it currently takes or accepting that most people don't live at a station nor have a station as destination. So "journey time down to 49 minutes" looks quite good, until you realise that this is a saving of about 15-20 minutes. The add in that it takes (say) 30 minutes to get to London and 20 minutes to get to your destination in Birmingham after arrival.. Now the decrease in total journey time will be from 120 minutes down to 100 minutes. Not such a big saving is it?

100 minutes is a good saving of time in anyones book

Completely agree. However the saving isn't 100 minutes, it's just 20 minutes.

20 minutes is a good saving, on a lovely new comfortable and quiet train. and a chance to have a look out on the lovely English countryside. Shame so much will not be seen in the Chilterns due to tunnels built to stop the Bucks NIMBYs whinging.

piran wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

Tony.. wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote: You just don't get it do you? HS2 will "free up EXISTING capacity on the road and rail network that could be absorbed by any possible growth in the domestic leisure travel market."

Am a tad confused if this is directed at my comment - wasn't it mentioned previously that much of HS2 would be used for leisure travel? If that's true then doesn't it undermine the argument of how much money would be saved by UK business in time saved by decreased journey time? So, would HS2 be primarily for business or for leisure?

That totally depends on which 'facts' fits the pro HS2 argument. The genuine facts that for any of us to use the link, we would need to go INTO London to use it, are IMHO the important ones. ie it will not get used as much as it should, bearing in mind the huge costs involved.

Agreed. That's why I think it's a bit misleading to state things like how long the station-station journey time will take - without mentioning how long it currently takes or accepting that most people don't live at a station nor have a station as destination. So "journey time down to 49 minutes" looks quite good, until you realise that this is a saving of about 15-20 minutes. The add in that it takes (say) 30 minutes to get to London and 20 minutes to get to your destination in Birmingham after arrival.. Now the decrease in total journey time will be from 120 minutes down to 100 minutes. Not such a big saving is it?

100 minutes is a good saving of time in anyones book

Completely agree. However the saving isn't 100 minutes, it's just 20 minutes.

20 minutes is a good saving, on a lovely new comfortable and quiet train. and a chance to have a look out on the lovely English countryside. Shame so much will not be seen in the Chilterns due to tunnels built to stop the Bucks NIMBYs whinging.

A 20 minute saving on a 2h trip isn't likely to generate extra business is it? Just imagine...."ooh, I wouldn't have otherwise bothered but I think I'll go to Birmingham today because it's 20 minutes faster than it used to be" just doesn't resonate as being something you're likely to hear.
.
As you mention however, travelling on a lovely new comfortable and quiet train WOULD make the journey more worthwhile. So, doesn't that suggest that the solution is to instead invest in new rolling stock and you don't need to build a new line (or burrow into the countryside)?

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

Tony.. wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote: You just don't get it do you? HS2 will "free up EXISTING capacity on the road and rail network that could be absorbed by any possible growth in the domestic leisure travel market."

Am a tad confused if this is directed at my comment - wasn't it mentioned previously that much of HS2 would be used for leisure travel? If that's true then doesn't it undermine the argument of how much money would be saved by UK business in time saved by decreased journey time? So, would HS2 be primarily for business or for leisure?

That totally depends on which 'facts' fits the pro HS2 argument. The genuine facts that for any of us to use the link, we would need to go INTO London to use it, are IMHO the important ones. ie it will not get used as much as it should, bearing in mind the huge costs involved.

Agreed. That's why I think it's a bit misleading to state things like how long the station-station journey time will take - without mentioning how long it currently takes or accepting that most people don't live at a station nor have a station as destination. So "journey time down to 49 minutes" looks quite good, until you realise that this is a saving of about 15-20 minutes. The add in that it takes (say) 30 minutes to get to London and 20 minutes to get to your destination in Birmingham after arrival.. Now the decrease in total journey time will be from 120 minutes down to 100 minutes. Not such a big saving is it?

100 minutes is a good saving of time in anyones book

Completely agree. However the saving isn't 100 minutes, it's just 20 minutes.

20 minutes is a good saving, on a lovely new comfortable and quiet train. and a chance to have a look out on the lovely English countryside. Shame so much will not be seen in the Chilterns due to tunnels built to stop the Bucks NIMBYs whinging.

A 20 minute saving on a 2h trip isn't likely to generate extra business is it? Just imagine...."ooh, I wouldn't have otherwise bothered but I think I'll go to Birmingham today because it's 20 minutes faster than it used to be" just doesn't resonate as being something you're likely to hear.
.
As you mention however, travelling on a lovely new comfortable and quiet train WOULD make the journey more worthwhile. So, doesn't that suggest that the solution is to instead invest in new rolling stock and you don't need to build a new line (or burrow into the countryside)?

Nice idea but obviously you have not researched the problem of a lack of rail capacity from 2016+. So no point to have nice new trains if you cannot run them on the current tracks, is there?

piran wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

Tony.. wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote: You just don't get it do you? HS2 will "free up EXISTING capacity on the road and rail network that could be absorbed by any possible growth in the domestic leisure travel market."

Am a tad confused if this is directed at my comment - wasn't it mentioned previously that much of HS2 would be used for leisure travel? If that's true then doesn't it undermine the argument of how much money would be saved by UK business in time saved by decreased journey time? So, would HS2 be primarily for business or for leisure?

That totally depends on which 'facts' fits the pro HS2 argument. The genuine facts that for any of us to use the link, we would need to go INTO London to use it, are IMHO the important ones. ie it will not get used as much as it should, bearing in mind the huge costs involved.

Agreed. That's why I think it's a bit misleading to state things like how long the station-station journey time will take - without mentioning how long it currently takes or accepting that most people don't live at a station nor have a station as destination. So "journey time down to 49 minutes" looks quite good, until you realise that this is a saving of about 15-20 minutes. The add in that it takes (say) 30 minutes to get to London and 20 minutes to get to your destination in Birmingham after arrival.. Now the decrease in total journey time will be from 120 minutes down to 100 minutes. Not such a big saving is it?

100 minutes is a good saving of time in anyones book

Completely agree. However the saving isn't 100 minutes, it's just 20 minutes.

20 minutes is a good saving, on a lovely new comfortable and quiet train. and a chance to have a look out on the lovely English countryside. Shame so much will not be seen in the Chilterns due to tunnels built to stop the Bucks NIMBYs whinging.

A 20 minute saving on a 2h trip isn't likely to generate extra business is it? Just imagine...."ooh, I wouldn't have otherwise bothered but I think I'll go to Birmingham today because it's 20 minutes faster than it used to be" just doesn't resonate as being something you're likely to hear. . As you mention however, travelling on a lovely new comfortable and quiet train WOULD make the journey more worthwhile. So, doesn't that suggest that the solution is to instead invest in new rolling stock and you don't need to build a new line (or burrow into the countryside)?

Nice idea but obviously you have not researched the problem of a lack of rail capacity from 2016+. So no point to have nice new trains if you cannot run them on the current tracks, is there?

The points you highlighted were: (1) duration (disproved as there isn't a significant decrease in journey time); (2) new comfortable and quiet train. So my response was to those points. If you're now saying that there's insufficient forecast capacity then this can be addressed too:
.
Surplus capacity = Supply - Demand.
.
If you can't increase Supply then you decrease Demand (e.g. by providing alternatives or by increasing prices).

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

Tony.. wrote:

gpn01 wrote:

piran wrote: You just don't get it do you? HS2 will "free up EXISTING capacity on the road and rail network that could be absorbed by any possible growth in the domestic leisure travel market."

Am a tad confused if this is directed at my comment - wasn't it mentioned previously that much of HS2 would be used for leisure travel? If that's true then doesn't it undermine the argument of how much money would be saved by UK business in time saved by decreased journey time? So, would HS2 be primarily for business or for leisure?

That totally depends on which 'facts' fits the pro HS2 argument. The genuine facts that for any of us to use the link, we would need to go INTO London to use it, are IMHO the important ones. ie it will not get used as much as it should, bearing in mind the huge costs involved.

Agreed. That's why I think it's a bit misleading to state things like how long the station-station journey time will take - without mentioning how long it currently takes or accepting that most people don't live at a station nor have a station as destination. So "journey time down to 49 minutes" looks quite good, until you realise that this is a saving of about 15-20 minutes. The add in that it takes (say) 30 minutes to get to London and 20 minutes to get to your destination in Birmingham after arrival.. Now the decrease in total journey time will be from 120 minutes down to 100 minutes. Not such a big saving is it?

100 minutes is a good saving of time in anyones book

Completely agree. However the saving isn't 100 minutes, it's just 20 minutes.

20 minutes is a good saving, on a lovely new comfortable and quiet train. and a chance to have a look out on the lovely English countryside. Shame so much will not be seen in the Chilterns due to tunnels built to stop the Bucks NIMBYs whinging.

A 20 minute saving on a 2h trip isn't likely to generate extra business is it? Just imagine...."ooh, I wouldn't have otherwise bothered but I think I'll go to Birmingham today because it's 20 minutes faster than it used to be" just doesn't resonate as being something you're likely to hear. . As you mention however, travelling on a lovely new comfortable and quiet train WOULD make the journey more worthwhile. So, doesn't that suggest that the solution is to instead invest in new rolling stock and you don't need to build a new line (or burrow into the countryside)?

Nice idea but obviously you have not researched the problem of a lack of rail capacity from 2016+. So no point to have nice new trains if you cannot run them on the current tracks, is there?

The points you highlighted were: (1) duration (disproved as there isn't a significant decrease in journey time); (2) new comfortable and quiet train. So my response was to those points. If you're now saying that there's insufficient forecast capacity then this can be addressed too:
.
Surplus capacity = Supply - Demand.
.
If you can't increase Supply then you decrease Demand (e.g. by providing alternatives or by increasing prices).

Oh I now understand your ideas, how silly of me. The solution is to build more roads (canals perhaps too?) - wow great idea another M40 and M1 and put up prices to use the train, so no normal passengers can afford it.