On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:43:39 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
... from Mahwinney report. Available on DfT website.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/hi...whinneyreport/

"I recommend that serious consideration be given to making Old Oak Common
the initial London terminal for the high speed line - and that in the early
stages it be designated London-Old Oak Common (just as Euston would have
been designated London-Euston) - and that effective use be made of the £16
billion Crossrail project and other rail and tube connections to provide
access to passengers` final destinations including Heathrow. "

"I have concluded and recommend that, in the early stages of a high speed
rail network, there is no compelling case for a direct high speed rail link
to Heathrow, and that a London-Old Oak Common interchange could provide an
appropriate, good quality terminus and connection point to the airport.
(paragraph 46)"

etc etc.

Now this study was kicked off by Adonis, although the poisoned chalice was
handed to a Conservative. So will it be agreed by Hammond and his team?


Mawhinney's conclusions are based on what? This is just another
rushed report that takes a superficial look at a problem and draws
simplistic conclusions based on scant data.

What is desperately needed with HS2 is for it to be policy-driven.
Government first has to decide what its policy should be. Then, and
only then, government should invite consultants to design a route that
fulfils the policy objectives that have been set out.

Instead, the HS2 team has been given a dangerous combination of
(1) no strategic direction apart from "London-Birmingham" and
(2) apparently unlimited freedom to suggest whatever the team thinks
is appropriate. The result is that some idiot drew a straight line on
the map and, er, that's just about it.

Strategic decisions needed to be made *by government* on whether
Heathrow and/or other intermediate destinations should be served. This
should **never** have been left to HS2 to decide. And, having made
that glaring mistake, the worst possible course of action was to ask
Mawhinney to throw in his two penn'orth.

Government's duty is to govern and make strategic decisions. Whether
or not Heathrow should be served is a strategic decision. It should
have been decided on *before* HS2 were let loose, not after.

There is now a considerable danger that, in its rush to get any sort
of high speed rail project under way, Lord Adonis' series of serious
errors of judgment will be compounded by bringing in Mawhinney, Uncle
Tom Cobbleigh and all to fudge strategic decisions that should already
have been set in stone before HS2 was set up.

And who in the name of God chose Mawhinney for this review? A
thoroughly nasty man, he was a spectacularly bad Secretary of State
(for less than a year) who was definitely not missed. His tenure as
Chairman of the Football League has hardly been covered in glory.

First we had Foster (on the IEP) and now Mawhinney (on HS2). Lord
alone knows how these people were chosen for these tasks.