The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.
There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).
Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.
Sigh.... As reported the CPRE's arguments just don't add up - save maybe restricting HGVs on Woodhead - though that would really only work if there was an alternative route to Sheffield that wasn't right around the houses. Objectors are as per usual gaming the system, waiting until the last moment to cause maximum delay to a project. As I've said before on more than one occasion how these projects are considered needs to be looked at because as it stands the nay sayers get bite after bite after bite, costing millions.
I can only hope the High Court reject their application out of hand but there'll still be several months delay.
There should be a law that limits legal challenges to bona-fide residents and not pander to somebody sat 100's of miles away with their hands on a pile of donations enabliing them to have a laugh, whilst the residents have to suffer more.
AAndy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 16:03
There should be a law that limits legal challenges to bona-fide residents and not pander to somebody sat 100's of miles away with their hands on a pile of donations enabliing them to have a laugh, whilst the residents have to suffer more.
Well, if this was done by Act of Parliament as per HS2, there is a committee stage when petitioners can be heard. However the committee stage comes after 1st and 2nd readings so petitioners cannot argue against the Bill itself, only aspects that directly affect them. What is needed is something similar for smaller schemes like this where the cost of an Act would make the project uneconomic. As you say, the croakers game the system, so high time to change the rules of the game !
AAndy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 16:03
There should be a law that limits legal challenges to bona-fide residents and not pander to somebody sat 100's of miles away with their hands on a pile of donations enabliing them to have a laugh, whilst the residents have to suffer more.
By that argument then only arguments for anything should be permissable from residents too.
AAndy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 17, 2023 16:03
There should be a law that limits legal challenges to bona-fide residents and not pander to somebody sat 100's of miles away with their hands on a pile of donations enabliing them to have a laugh, whilst the residents have to suffer more.
By that argument then only arguments for anything should be permissable from residents too.
Essentially, yes.
Under the Parliamentary process, the separate HS2 Acts for Phase 1, and Phase 2a had to undergo a lengthy process, (the Bill for Phase 2b is at Committee stage). They first must pass 1st and 2nd Readings. It is at 2nd Reading that arguments against the Bill proposals as a whole must be made. In the committee stage, petitioners directly affected by the Bill are allowed to petition to the Committee concerning proposal that affect them adversely. Once the Committee have finished their deliberations and hearing petitions they can, and usually do, propose alterations to the Bill at the Report Stage. The Bill then passes to the Lords where petitions can also be heard, before being passed back to the Commons for the final (3rd) Reading. If the Lords have made changes, these are discussed for acceptance, and other changes can also be made. FInally after a vote, the Bill goes forward for Royal Assent.
Clearly a process like this, under which almost all our Victorian railways were built is needlessly complex and costly and there are other routes like Transport and Works Act procedures that should take less time and cost less. However the problem with schemes not involving Parliamentary Acts is that the decisions are made by government ministers, and these are always open to challenge in the courts, unlike an Act of Parliament. That is it in a nutshell.
Just to say as an aside, that I am a complete railway nerd, because I have read all the petitions for the current HS2 Acts, and watched most of the petitions being heard at Committee. Very interesting if you like that sort of thing !
CPRE wrote:
It will do nothing to relieve the noise, pollution and intimidation which blights the lives of the people who live along the trunk road through Hollingworth and Tintwistle, where lorries thunder past their doorsteps, rattling their windows.
That sounds like an argument for building the whole project rather than just the first half of it, not an argument for cancelling it completely, which will do nothing for residents of Hollingworth and Tintwistle either.
"blights the lives of the people who live along the trunk road"
It's been there for so long, those people chose to move there *knowing* the road was there.
Would CPRE be satisfied with kicking those people out and flattening everything along the existing route instead?
jgharston wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 22:15
I'm sure this would satisfy all the pearl-clutchers:
An American city coming next to you... soon... soonish? I dunno, let's wait for the latest legal challenge to be overturned in a few days. No, weeks- hold on, how long has this been going on for?
They do have a point though, but are approaching from the entirely wrong angle.
NH have designed a half bypass which will objectively make it worse in Tintwistle. The one "advantage" of where the M67 currently dies is that the queue is further west.
This whole scheme really needed to bypass both places, but I'll take what's on offer over nothing.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
AnOrdinarySABREUser wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 23:01
let's wait for the latest legal challenge to be overturned in a few days. No, weeks- hold on, how long has this been going on for?
Well, this thread has been going on here for nearly 20 years.
One of the overall issues of Mottram is it is so bad there is a lot of suppressed demand doing other ways - via M62/M1, through Buxton, whatever. Improve Mottram, even partially, and this demand will just noticeably add to the Woodhead volumes.
Well the high court rejected the bid to halt the project see here. Also on another note relating to the area. Does anyone know when Roe Cross Road bypass was built ? And why ? Its always been a curiosity of mine.
As reported the CPRE's arguments just don't add up - save maybe restricting HGVs on Woodhead - though that would really only work if there was an alternative route to Sheffield that wasn't right around the houses. Objectors are as per usual gaming the system, waiting until the last moment to cause maximum delay to a project. As I've said before on more than one occasion how these projects are considered needs to be looked at because as it stands the nay sayers get bite after bite after bite, costing millions.
