if we stick within this forum's remit of "airlines, airports and routes"
we shouldn't discuss HS2 at all!
Quote:
The public are generally hostile because the proponents of HS2 are doing a lousy job of presenting their case whereas the nimbys - especially the Bucks/Chilterns ones are becoming masters at half truths and mis-information.
That in itself is a ridiculous half truth! I have tried numerous times to get some simple figures out of HS2 Ltd re: air to rail modal share, and they hide behind claims they don't have such figures (they are in important part of the case), or they give me figures which imply the only way they could have been concocted is by assuming HS2 will go to EDI & GLA from day 1!
I totally agree with the original quote - putting aside whther you are for or against the scheme; if you had to say which side had done a better job at communicating their views, then it would be the anti HS2 groups. And in some cases they have used inaccurate information - the Telegraph's Cheryl Gillan article is full of incorrect information.
In terms of mode split; Manchester - London Rail has about 2/3 of the market.
We're focussing on the wrong think really - network or route, for the sake of this issue the basic point is the same.
The plans to link to HS1, and the wider European High Speed network, have always been an after thought. Through services from the British regions were originally planned, but there's just not the demand for regular services on routes such as Manchester - Amsterdam, Birmingham - Paris by rail
very concept of integrated transport the government is trying to promote.
Politicians and government always talk about integrated transport but do very little to actually implement this.
City centre stations are in perfectly easy walking or cycling distances of major offices, shops and residential areas. The same cannot be said of out-of-town locations.
I believe I said central stations were preferred, however, in terms of 'parkway' type stations, unfortunately most journeys in the UK are made by car, and for them, out of centre locations are attractive.
wider than the UK and the reason we can’t have double deck trains
I apologise if it caused confusion - I was referring to the exisiting, classic network.
In what way does this constitute best can be?
This has to be considered for the UK as a whole, rather than just the places with stations. Its the current political systme we have where cities and regions have to compete with each other for investments etc, and unless we become a communist system this won't change.
For the greater good of Britain, the routes presented so far, and next week, are the best in terms of topography, cost of construction, serving the most people, creating economic benefits for the whole of the UK and providing an opportunity for new services on the exisiting network .
HS1 was the start of specifically designed High Speed Lines in the UK, this will be followed by HS2, and I hope in the future, albeit a long time, we'll have a complete network of HS3,4,5 etc which will mean the entire country served by High Speed rail.
Just to put a question out there to everyone?
If this was a classic railway would the objections still be there? I am genuinely interested as in terms of cost the difference isn't that much.