Comment by akoboldfrying
13 hours ago
What a predictably one-sided take from... one of the sides.
Your link claims, technically correctly, that the bat tunnel was not forced by conservationists or wildlife protection laws. What it does not ever admit is that those laws forced something to happen, and that it was already known more than 10 years ago that the least expensive "something" was the bat tunnel.
Specifically your link says regarding the tunnel:
> HS2 Ltd, a government-owned company, proposed the structure. You can read what they have to say about it here (https://www.hs2.org.uk/building-hs2/environmental-sustainabi...).
That link says, under the section "Which other options did HS2 look at?":
> In 2021, a ‘first principles’ review was undertaken by the Department for Transport, DEFRA and Natural England, but did not identify any better solution that was able to both fulfil the requirements of the relevant legislation relating to species protection whilst also reducing cost.
> The most feasible engineering options were also subject to an additional independent design review by the consultants Arup, which concluded that the solution now being taken forward provided the best balance of value for money and risk mitigation, from the four viable options that were shortlisted.
> Choosing any of the other options would have opened-up the risk of legal challenge, delay and subsequent extra cost.
> Options considered included a bored tunnel beneath this area, a shallower ‘cut and cover’ tunnel and rerouting the railway away from the wood altogether. Consideration was even given to permanently slowing down trains as they run past the area.
Regarding my earlier "known 10 years ago" claim, it says:
> The need for the structure was identified by HS2 Ltd more than 10 years ago, following extensive surveying of bat populations by our own ecologists.
Finally, it also says:
> Despite the passing of the 2017 Act, HS2 Ltd still had to gain almost 8,500 environmental or planning consents along the 140-mile route from London to the West Midlands.
8500 consents. Your link claims that other causes, like "underfunding" and "bad project management" are to blame for cost and time overruns, and that environmental consents are being used as a scapegoat. That would be easier to believe if that consent number was, say, two orders of magnitude smaller.
They picked the route. HS2 wanted the train to travel at 400km which seems not to be motivated by practicality. The whole project has been managed abysmally in so many dimensions. Most of the route is covered tunnels.
As one of your citations points out, they could have just slowed down briefly.
Are 8500 environment consents a lot for a 140 mile incredibly fast rail system? How much work does each consent require? Could the planning process have started earlier and mitigated the need to get so many environmental consents? Have environmental requirements caused as much delay and consternation as residents along the route have?
> Are 8500 environment consents a lot for a 140 mile incredibly fast rail system?
That’s about one consent every 26.5 metres. A modern intercity train carriage is about 25 metres long.
It seems like a crazy number of consents for the distance.
And the end result of this attitude is that people who want to get between places will continue to fly in airplanes.