Today, The Observer reported “High-speed rail opponents ‘portrayed as posh nimbys’ by peer’s lobbying firm”, following the Spinwatch report “Scaring the living daylights out of people” which we reported on earlier in the week.
Below is an interview from the Mark Forrest Programme, broadcast in February on all BBC local radio stations, where Joe Rukin discusses how those for HS2 have tried to label the Stop HS2 campaign as nimbies, and why this is wrong.
What was wrong was to have the command paper in 2010 before a public consultation. The public consultation included 7 questions telling what had been done and the methods of review and aggregation failed to produce a methodology to remedy the Y network which could have been noded near Stevenage not Birmingham.
Remedy is the one work DFT and HFS has missing from their dictionary.
This project has more examples of no-can-do-ism than Nimbyism.
By not including detailed post code lists alongside the key issues and chainages the DFT and HS2 have failed to demonstrate how few local people were involved in the alledged 56K submissions many of which were cloned yes or no or wider corridor requests from compensation.
There has not been a comparative study on the two main alternative route configurations the current Y noded on Birmingham and the proposed difficult route from BIrmingham to Leeds/York north and an alternative configuration noded near Stevenage branching to Milton Keynes Coventry and Birmingham with the longer distant branch to Peterborough and north to York Newcastle and Scotland. Both configurations including the branch from Birmingham to Manchester but Staffordshire without the node splitting currently in the HS2 Phase 1 and Phase 2 Y.
If the Government had the intention to determine the better routes and configurations it would reappraise why it went to Old Oak Common and towards the Chilterns and through the rural countrysides of three Counties with no rail benefits.
HS2 is a very poor railway with limited usefulness currently with the one track each way and was not planned to remedy directly the legacy weaknesses of the British railway small loading gauges and build around inner city and town sections and some chronic bottlenecks.
ERTM has been found limited from the North Wales trial and this is also leading to recognition that it moving block is not sufficient to produce additional capacity on some routes. Adding some new tracks sections is required and instead of working to improve the current network and the main shortcomings DFT and HS2 produced a plan before defining the problem carefully and before clarifying and optioneering the scopes for additional capacities.
DFT and HS2 are now bunkered down with many questioning the priority Prime Minster Cameron is placing on this particular programme. If the UK wants to change from this stubborn and limited situation it will be wise to start again accept the complexity and work with ORR and Network Rail to reappraise what is required and can be achieved for an affordable budget and phasing.
The people on route 3 do not need propaganda and name calling from PR organisations adding more spin.
The DFT and HMTreasury with the PM could admit this flyer approach did not produce what England and Scotland want and can afford.