8 comments to “Bucks CC Leader Martin Tett’s response to HS2”
It takes a lot for Councils to put money to try to stop a government project.The idea of putting in money to do so at this time when they are having to make cuts more so.It is often difficault for Town and District Councils to agree.Therefore for them all to stand together against hs2 proves that it has a very strong case against it.
On another subject the train from Paddington to Salisbury on friday had 8 carriages 5 were overcrowded 3 (first class) had 3 people in.It happens a lot so where are allthese first class passengers to come from to fill the Hs2 every 4 minutes?
Would the money set aside by Bucks. CC for fighting HS2 be better spent on restoring the “closed” bridge at Twyford, where the road on the approach ramp has sunk. “Closed except for Access”.The only access is to two fields.The weight limit sign remains- 18 tons.
I made a return visit last week after several months. No change.
Meanwhile the locals have worked out the score;- 30 cars and light vans passed in 20 minutes. Yet , in the event of an accident,would their insurance be invalid?
Surely a “failed road” warning, a low speed restriction, a reduced weight limit or even a “stop/ go” temporary traffic light would regularise the situation while a long term solution is awaited.
In the meantime, it is to be hoped that Cllr. Tett , after his unfortunate foot in mouth claim that HS2 would result in a bare strip 220m(!) wide, “an urban motorway railway, will have his facts up to date when he addresses an important meeting this week.
Councils spending money on the case against HS2 is because the hugely expensive project is ging to cost their council tax nad business rate payers millions for years to come. The question to ask is why, with the condition of our roads a national disgrace , the government can afford to spend scarce financial resources on designing and promoting HS2 rather than ensuring our roads and railways are maintained to a reasonable standard, and whilst cutting services. At this rate by 2026 you won’t be able to get to an HS2 station anyway, let alone be able to afford to travel by the train.
Because inter-city roads (i.e. motorways) have had their day. They are a massively expensive and inefficient method of providing transport capacity on a crowded island.
Projects such as HS2 will reduce the UK’s hunger for destroying countryside and pouring concrete. You’ll need far less HS lines than you would motorways to meet future capacity.
Motorways have not had their day? Don’t be ridiculous. I do hope that within a few years the traffic using them will be less polluting though.
You are right that we live on a crowded island. It is also a very small one.Two good reasons why this governmnet should not be so obsessed with our trains going as fast as possible. Get rid of that obsession and you can start to deal with capacity whilst still paying proper attention to cost and the environment.
So, invest in roads simon?? Mmm!
it is understandable that the local councils will be against hs2 as it will not benefit them directly per se particularly those who arent even on the west coast main line either but use the chiltern lines.
it would be very interesting to see what bucks position would be if milton keynes were still in the county.
this video explains the process well but then falls to the ground rapidly with the usual inaccuracies.
first point hs2 will reduce investment in the existing network – not proven – electrification/crossrail/thameslink
second point rp2 doesnt provide the same benefits as hs2 nor could it be done immediately
third point – areas served by hs1 have benefitted economically
fourth point – hsr uses more energy then regular rail but less pollution by far then road or air. long haul flights are also less damaging and cannot easily be replaced.
fifth point – no evidence at all whatsoever that existing services will be reduced – hs2 increases capacity as existing network overcrowded. and if some services then lost money then surely this council would not subsidise them !!!
sixth point – hs2 isnt being built in a time of austerity nor is it being built just to provide jobs. the idea of dividing the cost by nbumber of jobs created is ludicrous as it ignores all the proven benefits. very poor video !
i find it quite amazing that someone who is the leader of a council can make such misleading statements !
Nick, you say HS2 is not being built for jobs. So just what are the alleged benefits of this supposedly “transformational” project? If it’s about capacity issues then there are plenty of cheper alternatives. The pro HS2 lobby are the ones who need to start finding some reliable facts to quote rather than sweeping statements.
It takes a lot for Councils to put money to try to stop a government project.The idea of putting in money to do so at this time when they are having to make cuts more so.It is often difficault for Town and District Councils to agree.Therefore for them all to stand together against hs2 proves that it has a very strong case against it.
On another subject the train from Paddington to Salisbury on friday had 8 carriages 5 were overcrowded 3 (first class) had 3 people in.It happens a lot so where are allthese first class passengers to come from to fill the Hs2 every 4 minutes?
Would the money set aside by Bucks. CC for fighting HS2 be better spent on restoring the “closed” bridge at Twyford, where the road on the approach ramp has sunk. “Closed except for Access”.The only access is to two fields.The weight limit sign remains- 18 tons.
I made a return visit last week after several months. No change.
Meanwhile the locals have worked out the score;- 30 cars and light vans passed in 20 minutes. Yet , in the event of an accident,would their insurance be invalid?
Surely a “failed road” warning, a low speed restriction, a reduced weight limit or even a “stop/ go” temporary traffic light would regularise the situation while a long term solution is awaited.
In the meantime, it is to be hoped that Cllr. Tett , after his unfortunate foot in mouth claim that HS2 would result in a bare strip 220m(!) wide, “an urban motorway railway, will have his facts up to date when he addresses an important meeting this week.
Councils spending money on the case against HS2 is because the hugely expensive project is ging to cost their council tax nad business rate payers millions for years to come. The question to ask is why, with the condition of our roads a national disgrace , the government can afford to spend scarce financial resources on designing and promoting HS2 rather than ensuring our roads and railways are maintained to a reasonable standard, and whilst cutting services. At this rate by 2026 you won’t be able to get to an HS2 station anyway, let alone be able to afford to travel by the train.
Because inter-city roads (i.e. motorways) have had their day. They are a massively expensive and inefficient method of providing transport capacity on a crowded island.
Projects such as HS2 will reduce the UK’s hunger for destroying countryside and pouring concrete. You’ll need far less HS lines than you would motorways to meet future capacity.
Motorways have not had their day? Don’t be ridiculous. I do hope that within a few years the traffic using them will be less polluting though.
You are right that we live on a crowded island. It is also a very small one.Two good reasons why this governmnet should not be so obsessed with our trains going as fast as possible. Get rid of that obsession and you can start to deal with capacity whilst still paying proper attention to cost and the environment.
So, invest in roads simon?? Mmm!
it is understandable that the local councils will be against hs2 as it will not benefit them directly per se particularly those who arent even on the west coast main line either but use the chiltern lines.
it would be very interesting to see what bucks position would be if milton keynes were still in the county.
this video explains the process well but then falls to the ground rapidly with the usual inaccuracies.
first point hs2 will reduce investment in the existing network – not proven – electrification/crossrail/thameslink
second point rp2 doesnt provide the same benefits as hs2 nor could it be done immediately
third point – areas served by hs1 have benefitted economically
fourth point – hsr uses more energy then regular rail but less pollution by far then road or air. long haul flights are also less damaging and cannot easily be replaced.
fifth point – no evidence at all whatsoever that existing services will be reduced – hs2 increases capacity as existing network overcrowded. and if some services then lost money then surely this council would not subsidise them !!!
sixth point – hs2 isnt being built in a time of austerity nor is it being built just to provide jobs. the idea of dividing the cost by nbumber of jobs created is ludicrous as it ignores all the proven benefits. very poor video !
i find it quite amazing that someone who is the leader of a council can make such misleading statements !
Nick, you say HS2 is not being built for jobs. So just what are the alleged benefits of this supposedly “transformational” project? If it’s about capacity issues then there are plenty of cheper alternatives. The pro HS2 lobby are the ones who need to start finding some reliable facts to quote rather than sweeping statements.