South Heath residents' fears over high speed train plan (From Bucks Free Press)

how close to holmer green exactly those links are working for me

MCarey wrote:
how close to holmer green exactly those links are working for me

No worries, this proposed route is no where near Holmer Green.

HST 2? Hooray!! - wait a minute, does it come near me? No? Hooray! What?? It DOES????? OUTRAGEOUS!! This is a clear case of an unnecessary destruction of the countryside to provide a ;service' that nobody wants and fewer will use, in an area of Special Scientific Interest or some such no less! Good grief, it can't be allowed!

Now, define NIMBY.

Eachban wrote:
HST 2? Hooray!! - wait a minute, does it come near me? No? Hooray! What?? It DOES????? OUTRAGEOUS!! This is a clear case of an unnecessary destruction of the countryside to provide a ;service' that nobody wants and fewer will use, in an area of Special Scientific Interest or some such no less! Good grief, it can't be allowed! Now, define NIMBY.

I think the term is 'NIABY'. Not In Anyone's Back Yard. It's not needed. Lets say for the sake of argument it was, surely the best route would be a terminus right on top of Millbank, sidings for cleaning out the toilets at what is currently Downing Street, then an elevated section along the helicopter flightpath to Chequers. I know of a made-to-measure tunnel it could squeeze into and travel along at 250mph in a vacuum from there...

Many of us who live in the Chilterns are – understandably – very upset about the proposed high-speed rail link. But before we are accused of NIMBYism, it is important to point out that the main reason for our distress is that the proposed route will pass through an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
Consider this: the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act was established as a means of protecting the UK's finest countryside. This paved the way for the creation of the 14 National Parks, 49 AONBs, 294 National Nature Reserves and 19 National Trails that exist today.
According to the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty website (www.chilternsaonb.o
rg), national planning law states that major development within an AONB can only be considered if
a)it is clearly in the national interest
and
b)it cannot go anywhere else.
Whether the proposed rail link is in the national interest is debatable (though this would probably be a very hard case to prove), but when it comes to the route, of course it could go somewhere else! And this should be one of the main points of any campaign.
For further reference, visit the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty website (www.chilternsaonb.o
rg), from which I took the following information:
Quote 1: ‘’AONBs, like National Parks, are designated as some of our finest countryside. National planning law states that major development within an AONB can only be considered if it is clearly in the national interest and cannot go anywhere else. The Conservation Board does not believe that High Speed 2 meets either of these tests.’’
Quote 2: ‘’In 2009 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the original Act of Parliament which established these two designations as the means by which the UK's finest countryside would be protected. The 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act paved the way for the creation of the 14 National Parks, 49 AONBs, 294 National Nature Reserves and 19 National Trails that we enjoy today.’’
Quote 3: ‘’In 1965, 833 square kilometres of the Chilterns were designated by the government as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). This recognises that the Chilterns countryside is amongst the finest in the country, on a par with National Parks. The main aim of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area, which means that the Chilterns is protected for future generations to enjoy. There are 40 other AONBs across England and Wales.’’
It seems extraordinary that the government’s proposal should seek to overturn an existing Act of Parliament.

middlemarch wrote:
Many of us who live in the Chilterns are – understandably – very upset about the proposed high-speed rail link. But before we are accused of NIMBYism, it is important to point out that the main reason for our distress is that the proposed route will pass through an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Consider this: the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act was established as a means of protecting the UK's finest countryside. This paved the way for the creation of the 14 National Parks, 49 AONBs, 294 National Nature Reserves and 19 National Trails that exist today. According to the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty website (www.chilternsaonb.o rg), national planning law states that major development within an AONB can only be considered if a)it is clearly in the national interest and b)it cannot go anywhere else. Whether the proposed rail link is in the national interest is debatable (though this would probably be a very hard case to prove), but when it comes to the route, of course it could go somewhere else! And this should be one of the main points of any campaign. For further reference, visit the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty website (www.chilternsaonb.o rg), from which I took the following information: Quote 1: ‘’AONBs, like National Parks, are designated as some of our finest countryside. National planning law states that major development within an AONB can only be considered if it is clearly in the national interest and cannot go anywhere else. The Conservation Board does not believe that High Speed 2 meets either of these tests.’’ Quote 2: ‘’In 2009 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the original Act of Parliament which established these two designations as the means by which the UK's finest countryside would be protected. The 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act paved the way for the creation of the 14 National Parks, 49 AONBs, 294 National Nature Reserves and 19 National Trails that we enjoy today.’’ Quote 3: ‘’In 1965, 833 square kilometres of the Chilterns were designated by the government as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). This recognises that the Chilterns countryside is amongst the finest in the country, on a par with National Parks. The main aim of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area, which means that the Chilterns is protected for future generations to enjoy. There are 40 other AONBs across England and Wales.’’ It seems extraordinary that the government’s proposal should seek to overturn an existing Act of Parliament.

Middlemarch, you are absolutely correct. This line is not in the national interest and never will be. UK plc is already £200bn in debt and counting. Should we spend another £30bn making it a bit easier for people to commute to London from the other end of the country? Of course not. Hopefully it is just electioneering by a doomed Government, at the taxpayers' expense, and will never see the light of day - at the end of this ludicrous tunnel or otherwise.

Fair enough.
.
However, people want to travel, and we can't realistically stop the from doing so.
.
Therefore we have choices.
.
Do you favour:
.
HST2
.
Widening motorways to accommodate increasing traffic.
.
More runways - Heathrow 3, Gatwick 2 etc
.
I'll give you one clue - none of the above is an invalid selection - you must select a plausible increase in capacity. The UK population is after increasing, and mobility is proven (admittedly by economists who can hardly be counted scientists) to be a good thing economically.
.
Now that will test whether this is a NIMBY thing or not.
.
By the way, I anticipate no particular personal benefit from this thing, as I can think of no good reason to go to Birmingham, and if I could, I can think of no particular reason to start my journey there from London.

I do not favour ANYTHING that slaughters the countryside - no matter where it may be.

Eachban wrote:
Fair enough. . However, people want to travel, and we can't realistically stop the from doing so. . Therefore we have choices. . Do you favour: . HST2 . Widening motorways to accommodate increasing traffic. . More runways - Heathrow 3, Gatwick 2 etc . I'll give you one clue - none of the above is an invalid selection - you must select a plausible increase in capacity. The UK population is after increasing, and mobility is proven (admittedly by economists who can hardly be counted scientists) to be a good thing economically. . Now that will test whether this is a NIMBY thing or not. . By the way, I anticipate no particular personal benefit from this thing, as I can think of no good reason to go to Birmingham, and if I could, I can think of no particular reason to start my journey there from London.

Actually Eachban, 'none of the above' is a perfectly valid option. You could simply ration the travel options that are already there by making them more expensive. This would make people think twice about travelling in the first place (as, for example, does the cost of a flight to Australia or NZ for example) , and expose only the real NEED.

However, if some academic / apologist in the Government's think tank has 'proven' that there is a need for more journeys, then there are several other options. One is simply to increase the capacity (ie run more trains, longer trains) on the existing routes and make them more reliable. A new train line will have absolutely no impact on the number of vehicles using the M40 - never in history has the availability of trains taken traffic off the road.

I use the Chiltern Line daily Wycombe to London and there is plenty of spare capacity on it, especially on trains originating from / travelling to Birmingham and even at rush hour.

The main selling point for HS2 in in the title. It's about high speed. Why should we rip up more of the landscape simply to make it a bit quicker for people who can afford to spend hundreds of points flitting between Birmingham and London? This is not in the national interest - it is in the interests of politicians and big business and if you think either of those two groups have any real concern for joe public you are very much mistaken.

oh please will you all get over it. i have lived inthe chilterns my entire life and my house is situated very close to where one of the planned emergency exits is going to be situated if this thing goes ahead. the entire country is going to end up like this eventually. dont get me wrong, i love living in the chilterns and i love the countryside, but we are the most under developed country in europe when it comes to rail travel. and if this goes ahead we will just have to cope like everyone else in the world. its going to be mostly underground anyway, which is more than i can say for all ur smelly dirty cars.

sweetcheekz wrote:
oh please will you all get over it. i have lived inthe chilterns my entire life and my house is situated very close to where one of the planned emergency exits is going to be situated if this thing goes ahead. the entire country is going to end up like this eventually. dont get me wrong, i love living in the chilterns and i love the countryside, but we are the most under developed country in europe when it comes to rail travel. and if this goes ahead we will just have to cope like everyone else in the world. its going to be mostly underground anyway, which is more than i can say for all ur smelly dirty cars.

Thankyou Lord Adonis. With a name like that you probably do have sweet cheeks and are clearly something ocf a masochist. You may have owned a house in the Chilterns all your life, but at least you can move to one of your other 3 when the trains start running.

Ewartwhatyoubulldoze - please step away from the keyboard before you make even more of an embarrassment of yourself.
Either bring some relevant discussion points to the debate or shut up for fear of discrediting the entire process.
Less hysterical ranting about Downing Street sewage and random comments about political conspiracy and a bit more reality-based discussion, perhaps?
We need to improve our transport infrastructure as a nation because telling people not to travel is not an option. Mass transport like rail is ultimately going to be a better option for local and global environment compared to more roads. Not saying that the current HS2 plan is the best it could be but it's a better start point for debate than burying your head in the sand.

Theo Cupier wrote:
Ewartwhatyoubulldoze - please step away from the keyboard before you make even more of an embarrassment of yourself.
Either bring some relevant discussion points to the debate or shut up for fear of discrediting the entire process.
Less hysterical ranting about Downing Street sewage and random comments about political conspiracy and a bit more reality-based discussion, perhaps?
We need to improve our transport infrastructure as a nation because telling people not to travel is not an option. Mass transport like rail is ultimately going to be a better option for local and global environment compared to more roads. Not saying that the current HS2 plan is the best it could be but it's a better start point for debate than burying your head in the sand.

Cupier, sir. With this a great dishonour you have done me. Take up your finest handbag for I shall have my satisfaction on the Folly at West Wycombe before the sun rises.

Once your bulging neck veins have subsided, consider this. There will be an election within 10 weeks. Do you really believe this announcement is anything other than a shameless attempt to bolster the Labour vote in the marginal Midlands and North? Do you really believe it won't take decades to pay off the debt that will be required to pay for it? Do you really believe it won't take generations to achieve a CO2 payback on this scheme? Do you really think that this train will be affordable for anyone other than business commuters and the wealthy?So is there any genuine justification for the scheme at all? Personally I don't. If this Government had done anything meaningful to improve the public transport we all try to use every day, I might be able to take them seriously. Otherwise I see this fir what it is. An absurd proposal, timed to win votes at a general election and to play people off against each other. It is worthy of nothing but rudicule and so gets it with both barrells from me. I make no apology.

RIP Theo C. Cupier. Gods High Speed back to That Manchestoh (via Birmingham) from which thy came. Don't come back until you know what you're talkin' abowwwwwt.

In answer to the first comment, the alternative route 2.5 runs quite close to Holmer Green. You might well be able to hear it (see below).

This youtube video shows what a 185mph German train sounds like and what a high speed line looks like. Note that there is a tunnel sonic boom at 3:06 on this video

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=cosIGUN6l
DA

You may also see why you cannot use existing lines for this service, they are neither smooth enough nor straight enough for 200mph trains.