Environment versus, well, environment!
Discussion
The well know environmental campaigner, Chris Packham, has weighed in with a legal challenge to HS2.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51722251
If the mass transit of the population is to be achieved via persuading folk to use 'high speed' rail or public transport instead of their 'personal' transport, or whatever system of public travel such as E Trams, something needs to give.
It's all well and good protecting delicate ecosystems but the majority of wildlife will adapt and this block to development has been used and abused for years. Does that outweigh what the people want and are prepared to pay the price for alternative solutions?
It's been the same old argument for decades, however, I do wonder if the people are tired of this 'obstruction' to the immediate and future development?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51722251
If the mass transit of the population is to be achieved via persuading folk to use 'high speed' rail or public transport instead of their 'personal' transport, or whatever system of public travel such as E Trams, something needs to give.
It's all well and good protecting delicate ecosystems but the majority of wildlife will adapt and this block to development has been used and abused for years. Does that outweigh what the people want and are prepared to pay the price for alternative solutions?
It's been the same old argument for decades, however, I do wonder if the people are tired of this 'obstruction' to the immediate and future development?
More railway infrastructure is definitely a good thing - after all it should free up the roads for the rest of us 
But the cost of this bloody line is obscene, if it "only" costs 100bn and opens in 2030, it would have cost the same to simply make all rail travel free for the next 10 years...
THAT would make a real difference!
Or just spend a lot less on a 125mph line and spend the difference on other rail improvement projects, especially commuter lines in congested towns and cities, where it is really needed.
(Total revenue from tickets is about £10bn per year)
But the cost of this bloody line is obscene, if it "only" costs 100bn and opens in 2030, it would have cost the same to simply make all rail travel free for the next 10 years...
THAT would make a real difference!
Or just spend a lot less on a 125mph line and spend the difference on other rail improvement projects, especially commuter lines in congested towns and cities, where it is really needed.
(Total revenue from tickets is about £10bn per year)
Crumpet said:
I guess going after the issue of over-population wouldn’t paint him in such a good light. Five million extra people (as an example) and all the associated infrastructure and housing would be far more damaging to the environment than a strip of train track.
He presented a documentary all about over-population a few weeks ago.https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000dl6q
Randy Winkman said:
Crumpet said:
I guess going after the issue of over-population wouldn’t paint him in such a good light. Five million extra people (as an example) and all the associated infrastructure and housing would be far more damaging to the environment than a strip of train track.
He presented a documentary all about over-population a few weeks ago.https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000dl6q
Randy Winkman said:
He presented a documentary all about over-population a few weeks ago.https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000dl6q
pequod said:
The well know environmental campaigner, Chris Packham, has weighed in with a legal challenge to HS2.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51722251
If the mass transit of the population is to be achieved via persuading folk to use 'high speed' rail or public transport instead of their 'personal' transport, or whatever system of public travel such as E Trams, something needs to give.
It's all well and good protecting delicate ecosystems but the majority of wildlife will adapt and this block to development has been used and abused for years. Does that outweigh what the people want and are prepared to pay the price for alternative solutions?
It's been the same old argument for decades, however, I do wonder if the people are tired of this 'obstruction' to the immediate and future development?
He’s also trying to ban I’m a celebrity due to cruelty to bugs https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51722251
If the mass transit of the population is to be achieved via persuading folk to use 'high speed' rail or public transport instead of their 'personal' transport, or whatever system of public travel such as E Trams, something needs to give.
It's all well and good protecting delicate ecosystems but the majority of wildlife will adapt and this block to development has been used and abused for years. Does that outweigh what the people want and are prepared to pay the price for alternative solutions?
It's been the same old argument for decades, however, I do wonder if the people are tired of this 'obstruction' to the immediate and future development?
George Smiley said:
pequod said:
The well know environmental campaigner, Chris Packham, has weighed in with a legal challenge to HS2.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51722251
If the mass transit of the population is to be achieved via persuading folk to use 'high speed' rail or public transport instead of their 'personal' transport, or whatever system of public travel such as E Trams, something needs to give.
It's all well and good protecting delicate ecosystems but the majority of wildlife will adapt and this block to development has been used and abused for years. Does that outweigh what the people want and are prepared to pay the price for alternative solutions?
It's been the same old argument for decades, however, I do wonder if the people are tired of this 'obstruction' to the immediate and future development?
He’s also trying to ban I’m a celebrity due to cruelty to bugs https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51722251
If the mass transit of the population is to be achieved via persuading folk to use 'high speed' rail or public transport instead of their 'personal' transport, or whatever system of public travel such as E Trams, something needs to give.
It's all well and good protecting delicate ecosystems but the majority of wildlife will adapt and this block to development has been used and abused for years. Does that outweigh what the people want and are prepared to pay the price for alternative solutions?
It's been the same old argument for decades, however, I do wonder if the people are tired of this 'obstruction' to the immediate and future development?
t together on this one sharpish. Forget Brexit and US trade deals, this sort of bullshine will cost us dear far longer term. 
Plymo said:
More railway infrastructure is definitely a good thing - after all it should free up the roads for the rest of us
But the cost of this bloody line is obscene, if it "only" costs 100bn and opens in 2030, it would have cost the same to simply make all rail travel free for the next 10 years...
THAT would make a real difference!
Or just spend a lot less on a 125mph line and spend the difference on other rail improvement projects, especially commuter lines in congested towns and cities, where it is really needed.
(Total revenue from tickets is about £10bn per year)
making rail travel free wouldn't make any difference because the railways are already full up. We need more capacity and that is what HS2 provides.But the cost of this bloody line is obscene, if it "only" costs 100bn and opens in 2030, it would have cost the same to simply make all rail travel free for the next 10 years...
THAT would make a real difference!
Or just spend a lot less on a 125mph line and spend the difference on other rail improvement projects, especially commuter lines in congested towns and cities, where it is really needed.
(Total revenue from tickets is about £10bn per year)
HS2 will ease congestion on existing lines by removing fast non-stop trains from local and regional lines
grumbledoak said:
I hope he succeeds. HS2 is a stupid white elephant. An unimaginable amount of money and permanent environmental destruction to make a particularly stupid rail journey slightly faster.
Whilst I agree that a high speed rail link from London to the North via Brum was an idea that previous Govt's cooked up to link the whole of the EU via fast train travel, we still require more capacity and an updated railway system for both passenger and freight, with a new line north/south and oop north, west/east is much needed in the C21st.How that new railway is powered is another question although, I believe, there is ongoing research into various options, including hydrogen.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff