I note that DfT» uses the American spelling "meters" for the unit of measurement rather than the English "metres". Is this a deliberate anti-European policy from the new Secretary of State?
I doubt if JRM would approve. He would probably insist on the measurements being given in cubits.
I hope it was a typo. If not, I too shall be outraged. We have never used meters for a unit of measurement in theis Septic Isle, not even before we joined the
EU» . If there is a change, I may well appeal AGAINST the decision.
I wonder with Chris Packham - how much of what he says is merely self-publicity? Also, where is the line between legitimate protest and his role at the
BBC» ? He was warned after calling hunts the "nasty brigade", but here he is actively campaigning againgst the policy of the last three governments at least. He hasn't done it on BBC headed notepaper, but if I had written the same article, nobody would have noticed.
Anyway, that's a job for somebody else. Let's consider what he says.
The route will "devastate more than 100 wildlife rich ancient woodlands". He doesn't say which ones, and later downgrades the warning to "destroyed or damaged", and I don't know if he is including the areas where "cut and cover" tunnels will enable replanting to take place after the work is done. For sure, that is not going to replace ancient woodland, at least not for a couple of hundred years, but HS2 are taking the normal steps to mitigate the loss. Seven million trees are being planted over the whole project, although admittedly it hasn't gone well, with many dying in the recent dry weather. I have yet to eat an omelette that didn't cause serious damage to the eggs involved, though, and the argument must be made on whether the benefit outweighs the damage. The government, rightly or wrongly has decided that in this case, it does, and has altered parts of the scheme to make that more so, such as tunnels in places where cuttings were originally planned.
Next, "HS2 may enable an enormous growth in airport expansion" - this is because of HS2's link to Heathrow via Old Oak Common, according to other articles I have read. The argument that being able to get to Heathrow quickly means we most of the population of the North will start going there to fly to places they wouldn't otherwise have gone doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I don't know if Mr P plans to ever visit the bleak industrial wasteland that is England north of Watford, but if he ever does, he may be surprised to find that Birmingham and Manchester have major international airports these days, with flights across Asia and the Americas as well as the normal bucket and spade trips. Anyone needing to get from Rochdale to Hong Kong or Vancouver for business, to take an example, would probably much rather get the tram to Manchester Airport, and if they were going to somewhere that isn't served by airlines there, would travel to Heathrow anyway. At present, there are at least 7 non-stop flights to Heathrow from Manchester, with the alternatives being coach, train to Euston, tube to Paddington, then train to Heathrow, or car. It may well be that with the advent of HS2, a lot of passengers on those flights or in a car because of the faff of getting three trains may decide that a 250mph rail journey with an easy transfer at
OOC▸ is preferably. Similarly, foreign visitors whose final destination is not London may choose rail rather than internal flight if it is fast and frequent. Personally, I think that HS2 will accomplish its objective of reducing aviation within Britain.
As an aside, I have on occasion begun a long haul journey with a short hop - such as Bristol to Los Angeles via Schipool, or Heathrow to Vancouver via Keflavik. In the first case, it was a lot easier than making the schlep to Heathrow, and in the second I got a stopover in Reykjavik on the way back from Seattle. In both, it cost a lot less because I didn't have to pay the long-haul tax. If aviation tax is increased further, Londoners may find it cost effective to catch Eurostar to Paris - perhaps Mr P would like to campaign for closure of the Channel Tunnel?
And finally, he lambasts the environmental groups for going along with the idea that a fast electric railway could actually be a way of reducing journeys by car and aeroplane. The Green Industry has been doing its thing much longer than has Chris Packham, and has access to many more experts, some of them even unbiased.
So while I don't like the idea of chopping down any trees (with the possible exception of my neighbour's sycamore), I do not think the arguments put forward really hold water. I do, however, see that Mr P could find himself with a lot more time for campaigning were the BBC to take a dim view of his use of his celebrity to make them. Again.
