Jump to content


Photo

H S 2 - Approval Given


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#31 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,500 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 17 January 2012 - 01:31 PM

I understand the depth of feeling from the local residents opposing the construction, but the decision was made to build it a long, long time ago!

“The Man” always wins!


I think you're right on that.Reading the consulation questions, you could see that they were hardly unbiased. It is what it is and I only hope that alot of the opposers to the new line are proved wrong once it's built.Great though they've introduced more green tunnels.

#32 SarahB

SarahB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 23 January 2012 - 11:28 PM

I saw this today :)


"Question: Who wants to save 30 mins on their train journey?


Answer:


Well, for a commuter,

30 mins per trip = 1 hour per day = 5 hours per week = 20 hour per month = about 3 working days.


3 working days each month = or in other words = one extra full bank holiday weekend per month (for free) = special time to spend with your loved ones.


Or lets add it all up. And then call it at least an extra 30 days annual leave per year. For free – on top of the annual leave you already get = a longer life!


I would love 30 minutes off each commute I do! Every minute counts when it comes to spending time with your loved ones."



#33 147

147

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:amersham

Posted 24 January 2012 - 12:53 PM

I've said it before and will say it again.
Where are these 7000 people an hour who are going to use this service ?
How when they get off the train at Old Oak Common are they going to access central london with the tube already at bursting point ?
I thought in this day and age with technology as it is we would be commuting less. Using conference calling to work from home.
Still what do I know ?
Todays papers say that the building of HS2 will employ 1 million people. I bet the unemployment register does not fall by a tenth of that during construction.

#34 David P

David P

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,760 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 02:05 PM

Where are these 7000 people an hour who are going to use this service ?

The latest paper on traffic estimates is here. 136,000 a day estimated for 2043.

How when they get off the train at Old Oak Common are they going to access central london with the tube already at bursting point ?

By staying on the train until it gets to Euston?

Todays papers say that the building of HS2 will employ 1 million people. I bet the unemployment register does not fall by a tenth of that during construction.

You have finally found something where I too can say 'I do not believe it'
David P

#35 147

147

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:amersham

Posted 24 January 2012 - 02:39 PM

Did somebody misplace the decimal point ? surely 13600 would be closer to the mark.

#36 David P

David P

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,760 posts

Posted 24 January 2012 - 03:27 PM

Did somebody misplace the decimal point ? surely 13600 would be closer to the mark.

Whoops. Now corrected - 136,000 a day.
David P

#37 ianbartlett

ianbartlett

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 76 posts

Posted 01 February 2012 - 04:58 PM

Where are these 7000 people an hour who are going to use this service ?
How when they get off the train at Old Oak Common are they going to access central london with the tube already at bursting point ?
I thought in this day and age with technology as it is we would be commuting less. Using conference calling to work from home.


Just to answer a couple of those points:

1) The line, on opening phase 1, will serve London - Glasgow and point in between. 'Classic compatible' trains will run on HS2 and then join the current network to reach their destination. I think 7,000 people/hour is easily reached.

2) The train will go to Euston after OOC but many will get off at OOC straight onto Crossrail (currently under construction and massive)

3) Regarding technology, we need to look at historical examples. All similar technological advances have resulted in the same thing: economic growth. This is because they enable greater operational efficiency which drives business growth. I haven't noticed a decline in travel demand following inventiion of the telephone, email, internet and the rise of the home computer and portable devices. Quite the contrary in fact. The belief that teleconferencing will somehow be different is just not realistic.

#38 SarahB

SarahB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 15 February 2012 - 10:54 PM

Hi Ian

I think in addition to your 2] above (and the thought that all people on HS2 will want to go to central London) is:

some trains will also go off, before Euston, via the HS1 link to via Kent to the continent. These people will not get off at OOC or Euston.
some trains will also not even reach as far as OOC as those will go direct off to Heathrow (a proposal being considered). These people will not be getting off at OOC or at Euston or be going via HS1.

Surprise surprise - this sounds like the making of a rail network!

#39 PeterC

PeterC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 492 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 February 2012 - 09:12 AM

some trains will also go off, before Euston, via the HS1 link to via Kent to the continent.

Only if full immigration facilities are provided at provincial stations. The UK Borders Agency does not permit on-train checks.

some trains will also not even reach as far as OOC as those will go direct off to Heathrow (a proposal being considered).

I don't see why the taxpayer should provide a rail link to give a Spanish airport operator a commercial advantage over its provincial rivals.
PeterC aka Chilternbirder

#40 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,204 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:07 PM

I don't see why the taxpayer should provide a rail link to give a Spanish airport operator a commercial advantage over its provincial rivals.

Passengers would benefit too: it would make multi mode journey more viable.

#41 Matthew (MPJ/Admin)

Matthew (MPJ/Admin)

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,065 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 March 2012 - 01:38 PM

According to a report at

http://www.buckingha...13046-30544912/

A resident of Ruislip has made a presentation of what benefits can be had if H S 2 is built.

Seems a sensible thing to think about, any ideas for our area and what Amersham could get out of the scheme?
Matthew P Jones
Web Master of www.amersham.org.uk and www.metroland.org.uk

Follow Amershan News & Views on Twitter

Amersham News Views & Information is also on Facebook


Don't forget to read the Forum Rules!

#42 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,204 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 15 March 2012 - 10:30 PM

Seems a sensible thing to think about, any ideas for our area and what Amersham could get out of the scheme?


Positive thinking is good, and I'm still agnostic about HS2 (high speed rail is good in principle, but I'm not convinced about the timing, costs and routing), but I struggle to see what Amersham will get out of it: it won't be stopping anywhere nearby, so the "best" we can hope for is a bit of extra custom in shops etc from site workers, to compensate for the congestion of all the construction traffic that will doubtless pass near by.

#43 Bawbag

Bawbag

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 March 2012 - 09:43 AM

Positive thinking is good, and I'm still agnostic about HS2 (high speed rail is good in principle, but I'm not convinced about the timing, costs and routing), but I struggle to see what Amersham will get out of it: it won't be stopping anywhere nearby, so the "best" we can hope for is a bit of extra custom in shops etc from site workers, to compensate for the congestion of all the construction traffic that will doubtless pass near by.


Yes, with the revised routing and new tunnel I think the overall impact to Amersham will be pretty minimal. The Ruislip chap has the right idea though, the anti-HS2 campaign has the potential to become a bit of a 'Flat Earth' crusade as time goes on.

#44 PaulEden

PaulEden

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A spaceship

Posted 16 March 2012 - 10:00 AM

I don't see why the taxpayer should provide a rail link to give a Spanish airport operator a commercial advantage over its provincial rivals.


You mean Gatwick, presumably as almost all the other airports in England are already owned by BAA? Heathrow is full, basically. Competing, among other things, means improving your standards, widening your range and increasing throughput, all of which Heathrow can't do because it is too small.

If you're suggesting that the management of 4 out of the 5 busiest airports in the UK shouldn't be in private hands (let alone Spanish ones) then I'd agree. Would that make your objection go away?

#45 Matthew (MPJ/Admin)

Matthew (MPJ/Admin)

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,065 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 March 2012 - 10:02 AM

The idea the Ruislip chap had was that HS 2 in itself won't bring benefits, but what positives can be gained from having to deal with it? For example, if the building will impact on our roads, should we be pressing for improvements to deal with the work and that will then benefit the area after it is all done? Now Amersham has a bigger tunnel around it, the obvious impact is reduced, but will anything have to be demolished, if so, can something better be built to replace it elsewhere? If access shafts cause things to have to move, can their replacements be better?
Matthew P Jones
Web Master of www.amersham.org.uk and www.metroland.org.uk

Follow Amershan News & Views on Twitter

Amersham News Views & Information is also on Facebook


Don't forget to read the Forum Rules!

#46 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,500 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 17 March 2012 - 10:24 PM

The idea the Ruislip chap had was that HS 2 in itself won't bring benefits, but what positives can be gained from having to deal with it? For example, if the building will impact on our roads, should we be pressing for improvements to deal with the work and that will then benefit the area after it is all done? Now Amersham has a bigger tunnel around it, the obvious impact is reduced, but will anything have to be demolished, if so, can something better be built to replace it elsewhere? If access shafts cause things to have to move, can their replacements be better?

Exactly!I wondered previously if BCC would push to get some other benefits from the build,such as funding towards the extra strain put on the existing infrastructure..

#47 hyposmurf

hyposmurf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,500 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 April 2012 - 08:15 PM

The Department for Transport has revised down its estimates of the economic benefits of the proposed High Speed 2 rail line to just £1.20 for every pound invested.

http://www.planningr...wngraded-again/

So their estimates have almost halved since they first came out. :) If they are revised that much it makes you wonder how accurate they are or why they have drastically changed.