Things thousands asked HS2 for and didn’t get

As the new environmental statement is launched it feels like HS2 have sneaked out the results of the Draft Env consultation:

It’s got no good news for Hillingdon and for example 2,400 respondents mentioned HOAC but it gets no acknowledgment in the report.

Relevant bits for Hillingdon include –

7.3.14 The use of roads through and surrounding Ickenham and West Ruislip for construction traffic was highlighted by stakeholders as being of particular concern, given that local traffic routes are already heavily congested at peak times and the potential for additional traffic from HS2 to cause gridlock existed.

7.3.15 HS2 Ltd is looking to address this issue by using excavated material locally reducing
the need to transport it. This strategy would be used prior to the railhead in West
Ruislip becoming operational at which point excavated material would be transported
by rail on the Chiltern Line reducing construction traffic on local roads.

7.3.28 An extension of the Northolt Tunnel beyond Ickenham Road, to a point beyond
Breakspear Road South, was requested by stakeholders suggesting that this would
reduce operational noise effects on nearby residential dwellings as well as reduce effects
on Ruislip Golf Club.

7.3.29 HS2 Ltd have looked at the possibility of extending the tunnel and concluded that it
would cost significantly more than the Proposed Scheme, without substantial
environmental benefit. Noise barriers will be installed and extra vegetation planted to
mitigate the effects of noise on the nearby properties.

7.3.32 Concern was raised in the Ickenham and West Ruislip area by stakeholders over
construction noise effects, especially as the construction compound from which the
tunnelling activities will be run will be in operation on a 24 hour basis.
7.3.33 Construction noise will be managed as part of a package of measures designed to
reduce the effects of construction, contained within the draft CoCP. As a result, no
change has been made to the location of the construction compound.

7.4.19 Comments were also received regarding the alternative access arrangements and
provision of temporary slip roads onto the M25, including the potential need to include
traffic management between junctions 16 and 17.
7.4.20 The M25 slip road has been incorporated into the Proposed Scheme and offers a
means of reducing construction traffic on local roads. The implementation and use of
the slip roads would be undertaken in agreement with the Highways Agency and
would be designed to comply with relevant highway standards and to manage traffic
flow safety

7.4.32 Stakeholders stated a preference for locating the Proposed Scheme in a tunnel in various sections of the route –in this area including:
an extended bored tunnel under the Colne Valley rather than a viaduct;
7.4.33 The majority of these requests for tunnels have been received previously, generally
during Community Forums and bilateral meetings. These tunnel requests have been
considered by HS2 Ltd and it has been determined that whilst the design change
would result in some environmental benefits compared to the Proposed Scheme,
these could not be justified based on the increased costs and construction impacts
that would occur. Alternative mitigation in the form of noise fence barriers and
landscape screening has been incorporated into the Proposed Scheme design, where
reasonably practicable.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s