The applicants haven't accounted for how the extra trains will fit in the UK carbon budget (which I had never heard of until I read it either). So it is more that it is theoretically open to challenge, and the government want to avoid it going to court
Doing the assessment stops it being open to challenge, the delay is so the work can be done (whatever it involves)
I assumed it was a typo
Perhaps twitter isn't a great sample, but the number of "railways will be obsolete" comments (arguing against HS2 and other new-build such as EWR) is astounding. With the same people often arguing in the favour of cars instead - electric or otherwise.
We shouldn't assume that rail - let alone heavy rail - is the right solution for every potential flow.
Agree entirely, but electric cars is an argument I've heard as to why EWR shouldn't be built in South Cambridgeshire.
You would think... but that is the reason for the delay
I don’t know about pro-road environmentalists, but there are certainly pro-air environmentalists. One of them is called Chris Packham.
A sobering thought. What tactics do we, as the allies of the railways have to use against our old enemy, other than a “neutral jing” type deferral under section 107(3) of the planning act 2008, which only causes more delays for the residents of Portishead and Pill who desperately need to use the line to get to Bristol?
First of all, we should entirely reframe the debate from 'trains vs roads' to 'the best form of connectivity'. Then we should make sure we advance proposals that actually have good cases, like this, instead of peddling nostalgic fantasies.
Whilst I understand the preference to avoid an uncontrollable delay by the matter going to court and people closer to this will probably put me straight. It feels like an oversight that should have been picked up before now.
Seconded (thirded, fourthed) if those are even a thing). FFS
And all those Beeching worshippers can join them.
Wikipedia records that in 2019, Packham stated he would no longer take internal flights and that he had purchased an electric car, which is clearly more environmentally beneficial than old diesel trains.
Beeching made a few mistakes, in part because of rough-and-ready passenger statistics and a desire by certain rail managers to force through some closures, but on the whole he was an asset to British Railways by promoting modernisation and a focus on rail's main role for high volume passenger traffic and bulk freight loads. One aspect that was not considered was potential demographic change. Passenger services to Portishead were discontinued in 1964 following the Reshaping of British Railways report. However, since then it has become a major dormitory town for Bristol and it is this, combined with the marked population growth, that provides the case for its re-opening. That could not have been predicted 60 years ago.
Well yes, that can't be overlooked. There is also the fact that railway emissions are obviously concentrated around railway lines, which aren't normally as close to people's lungs as a busy street.
There are currently no proposals to replace most Sprinters (which are now nearer 40 years old), let alone the Turbos I had in mind. That is a massive procurement exercise and I suspect that even if you started it tomorrow with a blank cheque, you would be hard pressed to have them all replaced in 10 years.
