No mention of HS2 (what's left of it)?
Given the axe they've taken to politically sensitive things, such as the Winter Fuel Allowance, its possible that we can be more bullish on future HS2 prospects. If you were going to cancel the Euston extension say, what do they have to gain by kicking that bad press down the road, especially if they could continue to blame the Tories for it now.
The NAO report criticised the fact that no one has really got any view about the rail service that can be run once Phase 1 is built other than Old Oak Common to Curzon Street. Even then, there will still likely be 2tph from Euston to Birmingham via Weedon to continue Coventry having a fast service to London, 2tph on the Chiltern line and 2tph via Northampton, with lots of people from the West Midlands complaining that their Euston service has been slowed down.
Well quite, reminds me of
a certain proposal a few months ago that referenced this exact issue...
That was the one I was thinking of. I think those of us outside of London would feel pleased that Labour were taking on a rule which helps people in some of the nicer suburbs of London, but has no parallel in other cities*
* Manchester has an unofficial doughnut policy whereby the central area has limits on height and the bigger towers are on sites surrounding the "hole". However, that has been challenged by the St Michaels (or whatever it is called now) and some of the new developments on the old Manchester Central station approaches.
The Victorian Greenhouse that is Waverly station suggests Edinburgh has a fair few of those as well*
It's worth noting that the Protected Views of St. Paul's only entered into law in 1937; the railway is no stranger to redefining these protections, though the fact it would be for private development, rather than directly national infrastructure that the views might be given up on no doubt limits any arguments of public utility.
* In research I did regarding the NBR's line to Edinburgh, I did come across an 1845 proposal to expand the North Bridge (the bridge that crosses over the width of the station) by allowing shops on it. One of the magistrates in the council attempted to justify the proposal by reporting that 'upon trying, he found that the prospects would still be visible from the top of a coach, provided the person wishing to see stood up.'
The view in question obviously was not enshrined in law per se, merely protected under the subscription that the bridge widening proposal had been collected under. The fact we have such legally enshrined protections for public amenity today is not something we should be opposed to I would suggest. Contrast these protections to the more nebulous claims protecting plain fields (?) that have resulted in HS2's route closer resembling the Maginot Line than HS1 say, or the legacy WCML.
