Jump to content


Photo

H S 2 - Approval Given


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 Matthew (MPJ/Admin)

Matthew (MPJ/Admin)

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,996 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2012 - 10:22 AM

No surpises?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16478954

They do seem to have added more tunnels.
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!

#2 Bawbag

Bawbag

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 366 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2012 - 10:26 AM

Good. I'm assuming all the signs, posters and car stickers will now vanish?

#3 PaulEden

PaulEden

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,690 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A spaceship

Posted 10 January 2012 - 11:19 AM

And hopefully, Bucks CC will stop spending OUR tax monies on opposing progress.

#4 sham75

sham75

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 10 January 2012 - 11:21 AM

Unfortunately, all the posters, car stickers, etc, etc were all a rather futile gesture, I think we can all safely assume thatthe opinions of the residents of the local area were never considered, 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!

#5 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,173 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 10 January 2012 - 01:12 PM

Plenty of opinion at the BFP too:
The main thing from a local point of view is that the train won't be in open view at the edge of Old Amersham: the tunnel under the town will extend to Little Missenden.

#6 struthie

struthie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 842 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 10 January 2012 - 01:27 PM

Car park full of tv crews and protestors down at The Chequers pub.

#7 Fran

Fran

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,173 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Amersham
  • Interests:Reading, writing about reading, theatre, film, restaurants, walking through woodland, Scrabble.

Posted 10 January 2012 - 02:01 PM

Car park full of tv crews and protestors down at The Chequers pub.


That seems like an odd location for a protest. They'd be better off protesting at a site that will be permanently blighted, rather than somewhere merely in the vague vicinity of tunnelling.

#8 David P

David P

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,731 posts

Posted 10 January 2012 - 02:08 PM

I think we can all safely assume thatthe opinions of the residents of the local area were never considered,


That is utter nonsense. Just because the opinions of the local nimbys are outweighed by the general good of the whole country does not mean that those opinions were not considered. You have had plenty of opportunity to put your views forward and the new transport secretary even delayed the decision so that she had time to consider the whole consultation. She has also made changes to the proposal as a result of local feedback amounting to £500,000 - well over £10,000 for each of the residents of Amersham, Missenden and Wendover combined.
David P

#9 PeterC

PeterC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 475 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2012 - 02:15 PM

Inadequate consultation = you didn't like the decision

However I am sure that, whatever your views on the scheme, it was a done deal and all the "consultation" would ever deliver would be a few sweeteners like the longer tunnel at Amersham.
PeterC aka Chilternbirder

#10 DeeJay

DeeJay

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2012 - 02:31 PM

Car park full of tv crews and protestors down at The Chequers pub.


I thought for a minute they'd come to film us playing darts tonight!

#11 147

147

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 10 January 2012 - 02:54 PM

I thought for a minute they'd come to film us playing darts tonight!


Not unless they are going to the Misty Moon. The ''Quality'' team from the Chequers are away tonight.

#12 DeeJay

DeeJay

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2012 - 03:00 PM

Not unless they are going to the Misty Moon. The ''Quality'' team from the Chequers are away tonight.


I know, I'm the captain of the aforementioned "Quality" team!

#13 404si

404si

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 10 January 2012 - 04:05 PM

Unfortunately, all the posters, car stickers, etc, etc were all a rather futile gesture, I think we can all safely assume thatthe opinions of the residents of the local area were never considered, 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!

All the posters, elephants, etc are eyesores far worse than the line would be (especially now it's been tweaked - having listened to the people of Hillingdon, Amersham, Wendover, etc).

Those calling it a massive waste of money and propose using the money on the existing WCML fail to remember that that is what happened in the mid-90s, with the scheme overrunning both time-wise and cost-wise. It ended up costing more than a high speed line (promoted by Branson), with little capacity and speed benefits, compared to a new build line.

Spending a paltry 2 billion a year average over 16 years (ie not a lot at the moment, in this time of economic downturn) - sure OK, it would be legit if these deficit hawks were against the increase in NHS spending (easily an extra HS2 *a year* over the next 16 years), bailing out countries to prop the Euro up (cost us more than an HS2 in the past three years), or the increase in our EU and IMF contributions (certainly an HS2 every year or two, and the EU one is likely to rise), but otherwise it's simply a cover for NIMBYism.

There are some legit grounds for complaints - they've listened to the 'Blott on the Landscape' one and radically changed the alignment through the Chilterns (which as the shortest, flattest route between Reading and Luton, had to be the option used) and some people will be massively inconvenienced by the line.

The main thing from a local point of view is that the train won't be in open view at the edge of Old Amersham: the tunnel under the town will extend to Little Missenden.

That's a big understatement - the tunnel under the town now doesn't go under the town (it clips the bypass at Whielden Street, with an emergency access point, but remains south of the bypass), and the portal will be beyond Little Missenden. Here's the new plan for that end of the tunnel (.pdf).

She has also made changes to the proposal as a result of local feedback amounting to £500,000 - well over £10,000 for each of the residents of Amersham, Missenden and Wendover combined.

You are missing three zeros off that first figure - £500 million. The second figure is right though (though you'd probably want to add Denham and so on, but we're still talking £500 million/100k (an over-estimate) = £5000 per person.

Then again, the extra cost of the Chilterns section is offset by savings up the line that come from the new route - extra spoil for instance to take up the track bed and use for embankments - they don't need to make a big pit somewhere now.

#14 DeeJay

DeeJay

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2012 - 01:23 AM

Can I just ask how many of you pro-HS2 lot are actually going to be affected by the line. I get the feeling that most of you are living away from the track, hence your support.

Just spare a thought for those of use living 100 yards away from the proposed line. It makes your 10 minute delays due to the new Met Line timetable seem pretty pathetic in my opinion,

#15 Kiff

Kiff

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 464 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 02:41 PM

Thought spared, you have my sympathy... No idea what this has to do with the Met line though...

#16 PeterC

PeterC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 475 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2012 - 03:38 PM

No idea what this has to do with the Met line though...

No, it is a reference to a different thread where the world seems to be coming to an end because some trains have been retimed a few minutes earlier.
PeterC aka Chilternbirder

#17 Bawbag

Bawbag

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 366 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2012 - 04:22 PM

Can I just ask how many of you pro-HS2 lot are actually going to be affected by the line. I get the feeling that most of you are living away from the track, hence your support.


Genuine question: Is that 100yds to the subterranean route, or an above ground section?

With the modification to the route to pass south of Old Amersham, HS2 will actually pass quite close to my house, albeit approximately 70m below ground at that point. Not quite 100yds away, but one of the proposed shaft sites is pretty close by.

From reading various studies of ground-borne noise and vibration from high speed rail I don't anticipate any impact to be detectable from by house, even during construction. In fact, from reading reports and feedback from HS1 it would seem that few in Amersham would be affected by the new tunnel route at all after construction ends, such is its depth underneath the town.

#18 Kiff

Kiff

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 464 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 04:27 PM

No, it is a reference to a different thread where the world seems to be coming to an end because some trains have been retimed a few minutes earlier.


You aren't exaggerating at all ? :) Sounds like sour grapes to me.

#19 David P

David P

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,731 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 05:01 PM

Can I just ask how many of you pro-HS2 lot are actually going to be affected by the line. I get the feeling that most of you are living away from the track, hence your support.

Just spare a thought for those of use living 100 yards away from the proposed line. It makes your 10 minute delays due to the new Met Line timetable seem pretty pathetic in my opinion,


I live about 200 yards horizontally (and about 100 feet vertically) from the originally proposed line. I have every sympathy for those few residents who will be seriously affected by HS2 and would fully support them being properly compensated.

However, if we take the line that nothing can be built if some people are adversely affected, then nothing would ever get built - no railways, no motorways, no by-passes, possibly not even your house.
David P

#20 SarahB

SarahB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 10:56 PM

I've just read the independent report done on the consultation replies (see DFT website).
What a very good read and contains interesting juicy facts.

Am i right in my understanding that ONLY 1269 people from across the whole UK (yes, that's 1-2-6-9!) even bothered to make comment about the impacts in the AONB? See page 125 .

Also Chiltern Conservation Board argue that 46 hectares ancient woodland lost along whole original route. But The Forestry Commission (who really should know the figures) state it is 29 hectares!!! No argument here- a big difference - it sounds like some exaggeration going on! Page 126.

It's really worth a read and so are the other new documents on the site too (loads!)

The one about a Review of comments on the appraisal of sustainability is good too - puts a few myths to bed perhaps and clarifies things like why you wouldn't do an environmental impact assessment at that stage of route.

Happy reading :).

#21 SarahB

SarahB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 11 January 2012 - 11:11 PM

All the posters, elephants, etc are eyesores far worse than the line would be (especially now it's been tweaked - having listened to the people of Hillingdon, Amersham, Wendover, etc).

Those calling it a massive waste of money and propose using the money on the existing WCML fail to remember that that is what happened in the mid-90s, with the scheme overrunning both time-wise and cost-wise. It ended up costing more than a high speed line (promoted by Branson), with little capacity and speed benefits, compared to a new build line.

Spending a paltry 2 billion a year average over 16 years (ie not a lot at the moment, in this time of economic downturn) - sure OK, it would be legit if these deficit hawks were against the increase in NHS spending (easily an extra HS2 *a year* over the next 16 years), bailing out countries to prop the Euro up (cost us more than an HS2 in the past three years), or the increase in our EU and IMF contributions (certainly an HS2 every year or two, and the EU one is likely to rise), but otherwise it's simply a cover for NIMBYism.

There are some legit grounds for complaints - they've listened to the 'Blott on the Landscape' one and radically changed the alignment through the Chilterns (which as the shortest, flattest route between Reading and Luton, had to be the option used) and some people will be massively inconvenienced by the line.That's a big understatement - the tunnel under the town now doesn't go under the town (it clips the bypass at Whielden Street, with an emergency access point, but remains south of the bypass), and the portal will be beyond Little Missenden. Here's the new plan for that end of the tunnel (.pdf).
You are missing three zeros off that first figure - £500 million. The second figure is right though (though you'd probably want to add Denham and so on, but we're still talking £500 million/100k (an over-estimate) = £5000 per person.

Then again, the extra cost of the Chilterns section is offset by savings up the line that come from the new route - extra spoil for instance to take up the track bed and use for embankments - they don't need to make a big pit somewhere now.



I didn't think an actual Government statement has been made about how much they spent on extra tunnels. My understanding was that they had saved £500m (again only what newspaper said) and that Govt was looking at using some of this money for tunnels in AONB etc. That doesn't mean they've spent £500m .

#22 Matthew (Admin/MPJ)

Matthew (Admin/MPJ)

    Advanced Member

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amersham

Posted 12 January 2012 - 09:31 AM

I didn't think an actual Government statement has been made about how much they spent on extra tunnels. My understanding was that they had saved £500m (again only what newspaper said) and that Govt was looking at using some of this money for tunnels in AONB etc. That doesn't mean they've spent £500m .


It appears the actual cost is still a mystery, see

http://www.christian...media-coverage/

On another matter, the impact on those by the line. If the line was going to be close to me, I would be extremely annoyed to say the least and do everyting in my power to stop it. At the very least I would be wanting a lot of compensation. I would like to think I would be able to eventually see the bigger picture and accept the project as a benefit to others even if a hardship to me. I would like to think I would not have double standards and oppose this line, but then happilly use say the M25 and not think about those people who have twice lost parts of the gardens for the motorway's building and later expansion and then having constant noise. I would like to think I would be able to see beyond my loss, but to be hoenst I doubt I could. So those affected you have my sympathy, but I have the luxuary of seeing the bigger picture and so no matter what i say will always appear to be non caring for those affected.
Matthew P Jones
Web Master of www.amersham.org.uk and www.metroland.org.uk

Follow Amershan News & Views on src="http://twitter-badges.s3.amazonaws.com/twitter-a.png" alt="Follow Amersham News & Views on Twitter"/>

Amersham News, Views & Information Facebook Page

#23 SarahB

SarahB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 10:08 PM

I'm so full of interesting facts recently :)

An interesting perpective stated in the Evening Standard tonight from the City Editor on the cost of building HS2:

"...put into context, it is money that would pay for the NHS for just under four months."

#24 David P

David P

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,731 posts

Posted 12 January 2012 - 11:30 PM

Or, for HS2 Phase 1 the cost is:
  • half that of Trident replacement
  • about the same as the cost of the Afghan war
  • just over 40% of the bank bailout
  • about one year's worth of Government wasted spending (that's not even counting the items above as waste!)

David P

#25 Bawbag

Bawbag

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 366 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 January 2012 - 08:55 AM

An interesting perpective stated in the Evening Standard tonight from the City Editor on the cost of building HS2:

"...put into context, it is money that would pay for the NHS for just under for months."


I would've thought the Standard had better copy writers/proof readers than that...

#26 SarahB

SarahB

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 14 January 2012 - 03:34 PM

I would've thought the Standard had better copy writers/proof readers than that...


Okay. My typo - now corrected.

Genuine question: Is that 100yds to the subterranean route, or an above ground section?

With the modification to the route to pass south of Old Amersham, HS2 will actually pass quite close to my house, albeit approximately 70m below ground at that point. Not quite 100yds away, but one of the proposed shaft sites is pretty close by.

From reading various studies of ground-borne noise and vibration from high speed rail I don't anticipate any impact to be detectable from by house, even during construction. In fact, from reading reports and feedback from HS1 it would seem that few in Amersham would be affected by the new tunnel route at all after construction ends, such is its depth underneath the town.


Pay back ... "from by house"?
Ha ha

#27 Bluegrass

Bluegrass

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 14 January 2012 - 05:12 PM

I would've thought the Standard had better copy writers/proof readers than that...


I would've thought that The Standard.......

Both a pedant and a hypocrite. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

#28 PaulEden

PaulEden

    Advanced Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,690 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A spaceship

Posted 14 January 2012 - 07:40 PM

Stick to the topic please. That's enough of the pointing out of typos, thanks.

#29 Bawbag

Bawbag

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 366 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2012 - 12:03 PM

Pay back ... "from by house"?
Ha ha


:)

#30 flyssy

flyssy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts

Posted 16 January 2012 - 10:08 AM

I'm still massively opposed to HS2 on monetary and business grounds, but I have to say, looking at the new tunnel route I think Amersham has dodged a pretty big bullet..