4 ms·

UK is so densely populated that something like this affects a LOT of people. Also people's "back yards" are tiny enough as it is. Small changes have a big impac

UK is so densely populated that something like this affects a LOT of people. Also people's "back yards" are tiny enough as it is. Small changes have a big impact and people living in such cramped spaces are living in constant fear of that. If you happen to come across any part of HS2 in some random village you've never heard of it's quite incredible the impact it's having on the locals. Locals who live miles away from the nearest station and therefore unable to use the line, by the way. We also have very little wildlife left and we don't really want to live in concrete jungles. Suffice to say, it's not difficult to see why it's like this in the UK if you actually come and see.

energy123 9mo ago
The taller the concrete jungle, the more spare land there is for people like you outside of it.
- globular-toast 9mo ago
  I don't live outside it. "People like you" shows that you're no better than the "NIMBYs" you so hate. Just complete refusal to accept that anyone might be different from you or have problems that aren't yours.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
- cs02rm0 9mo ago
  HS2 is more sprawl than tall.
  - panick21_ 9mo ago
    Except it isn't, its designed to get people between city centers much faster, making living in cities much more attractive. Often the highest density areas are around train stations.
gambiting 9mo ago
>> If you happen to come across any part of HS2 in some random village you've never heard of it's quite incredible the impact it's having on the locals. Locals who live miles away from the nearest station and therefore unable to use the line, by the way. Because people inherently misunderstand the benefit of HS2, and how could they not if it's constantly being misrepresented by our media and politicians. UK has one of the highest proportion of freight transported by road in Europe. That is fundamentally because our rail infrastructure is overloaded and unable to take any more freight. All non-perishable stuff that in other countries just goes on rail, in the UK is moved by trucks on our roads. Which as you can imagine, is causing tens of billions of pounds worth of damage to our roads, which we - taxpayers - pay for. All of these locals that live miles away from the train station are already affected by the lack of rail infrastructure - because every time they drive somewhere they have to contend with massive potholes and insane amount of heavy cargo traffic anywhere they go. If HS2 is ever finished, it will reduce congestion and our roads and reduce the wear and tear which again, is costing us billions in upkeep every year. But according to our media, it's all about saving london commuters 2 minutes on a train from Birmingham, so every Dick and Harry is against it, because like you said - they live miles from the nearest station, why would they care?
- xioxox 9mo ago
  Isn't the problem that the requirements for line were "gold plated"? If they'd put in another standard rail line instead, it would have increased capacity, taken up much less space, would have been much cheaper, would have caused less disruption and would have had a clearer business case.
  - 9Mfhf34U 9mo ago
    The high speed lets you build the Y shape to serve London to both north east and north west, as well as cross country journeys from Birmingham to the north east with the minimum amount of new track. With more standard rail lines you'd need to build a lot more. Plus there's many other benefits to high speed.
  - pjc50 9mo ago
    Japan built the first Shinkansen while British Rail was still running steam services. Can't stay on the Victorian era rail constraints forever. (it's very British to say "this is too good, can we have something cheap and nasty instead please?")
youngtaff 9mo ago
Even in the South East, the UK isn’t that densely populated — apparently golf courses take up more space than housing (excluding roads) HS2 benefits pretty my everyone along it’s route path through increases local services as capacity is released from the current lines Midland Connect have a good overview of what it enables them to do – https://www.midlandsconnect.uk/media/1602/hs2-released-capacity-table.pdf https://www.midlandsconnect.uk/media/1602/hs2-released-capac... There’s also a document somewhere that covers how HS2 increases short distance services from Euston somewhere Local rail transport should benefit hugely from HS2
panick21_ 9mo ago
What nonsense. As if there was a desperate need for land in rural Britain. Southern England is densely populated compared to countries, but its still incredibly rural. In most places it barley effects people at all and when it does 99% of the time its a minimal visual impact. > therefore unable to use the line, by the way. This is a complete misunderstanding on the system effects of these lines. The point is that all other train lines can be used much more efficiently because the high-speed trains don't have to use those lines anymore. Making it much easier to run more rural trains. And it will also reduce car use on these routes, meaning the much, much worse highways will be used less. So in actual fact, the new lines are massively positive in terms of overall impact for rural areas. And I say this living in a country with some of the most dense rail networks in the world. > We also have very little wildlife left and we don't really want to live in concrete jungles. Another bunch of nonsense. Rail lines are very small and highly efficient. If you didn't build rail lines, you would almost certainty have to extend highways and those are infinity worse for wildlife. Railways and specially high-speed rail have the best impact vs effect calculation of almost anything you can build.

energy123 9mo ago

The taller the concrete jungle, the more spare land there is for people like you outside of it.

globular-toast 9mo ago
I don't live outside it. "People like you" shows that you're no better than the "NIMBYs" you so hate. Just complete refusal to accept that anyone might be different from you or have problems that aren't yours.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
cs02rm0 9mo ago
HS2 is more sprawl than tall.
- panick21_ 9mo ago
  Except it isn't, its designed to get people between city centers much faster, making living in cities much more attractive. Often the highest density areas are around train stations.

gambiting 9mo ago

>> If you happen to come across any part of HS2 in some random village you've never heard of it's quite incredible the impact it's having on the locals. Locals who live miles away from the nearest station and therefore unable to use the line, by the way. Because people inherently misunderstand the benefit of HS2, and how could they not if it's constantly being misrepresented by our media and politicians. UK has one of the highest proportion of freight transported by road in Europe. That is fundamentally because our rail infrastructure is overloaded and unable to take any more freight. All non-perishable stuff that in other countries just goes on rail, in the UK is moved by trucks on our roads. Which as you can imagine, is causing tens of billions of pounds worth of damage to our roads, which we - taxpayers - pay for. All of these locals that live miles away from the train station are already affected by the lack of rail infrastructure - because every time they drive somewhere they have to contend with massive potholes and insane amount of heavy cargo traffic anywhere they go. If HS2 is ever finished, it will reduce congestion and our roads and reduce the wear and tear which again, is costing us billions in upkeep every year. But according to our media, it's all about saving london commuters 2 minutes on a train from Birmingham, so every Dick and Harry is against it, because like you said - they live miles from the nearest station, why would they care?

xioxox 9mo ago
Isn't the problem that the requirements for line were "gold plated"? If they'd put in another standard rail line instead, it would have increased capacity, taken up much less space, would have been much cheaper, would have caused less disruption and would have had a clearer business case.
- 9Mfhf34U 9mo ago
  The high speed lets you build the Y shape to serve London to both north east and north west, as well as cross country journeys from Birmingham to the north east with the minimum amount of new track. With more standard rail lines you'd need to build a lot more. Plus there's many other benefits to high speed.
- pjc50 9mo ago
  Japan built the first Shinkansen while British Rail was still running steam services. Can't stay on the Victorian era rail constraints forever. (it's very British to say "this is too good, can we have something cheap and nasty instead please?")

youngtaff 9mo ago

Even in the South East, the UK isn’t that densely populated — apparently golf courses take up more space than housing (excluding roads) HS2 benefits pretty my everyone along it’s route path through increases local services as capacity is released from the current lines Midland Connect have a good overview of what it enables them to do – https://www.midlandsconnect.uk/media/1602/hs2-released-capacity-table.pdf https://www.midlandsconnect.uk/media/1602/hs2-released-capac... There’s also a document somewhere that covers how HS2 increases short distance services from Euston somewhere Local rail transport should benefit hugely from HS2

panick21_ 9mo ago

What nonsense. As if there was a desperate need for land in rural Britain. Southern England is densely populated compared to countries, but its still incredibly rural. In most places it barley effects people at all and when it does 99% of the time its a minimal visual impact. > therefore unable to use the line, by the way. This is a complete misunderstanding on the system effects of these lines. The point is that all other train lines can be used much more efficiently because the high-speed trains don't have to use those lines anymore. Making it much easier to run more rural trains. And it will also reduce car use on these routes, meaning the much, much worse highways will be used less. So in actual fact, the new lines are massively positive in terms of overall impact for rural areas. And I say this living in a country with some of the most dense rail networks in the world. > We also have very little wildlife left and we don't really want to live in concrete jungles. Another bunch of nonsense. Rail lines are very small and highly efficient. If you didn't build rail lines, you would almost certainty have to extend highways and those are infinity worse for wildlife. Railways and specially high-speed rail have the best impact vs effect calculation of almost anything you can build.