Topic: How HS2 will tear up rural England

[redbyrdz]

Self-evidently a new major railway line is an investment in the railways. You are wrong.

You are right that in itself, it does not transform the network. It might however act as a catalyst for transformation as technology and construction lessons are learned. A London to Birmingham only project wil have failed. But you have to start somewhere.

We can play the 'you are wrong' game all day if you want.

It isn't an investment into the existing railways, it is an add-on. It will likely take future money away from the exisitng railways to pay for its maintenance.

[So… Howard Philips]

We can play the 'you are wrong' game all day if you want.

It isn't an investment into the existing railways, it is an add-on. It will likely take future money away from the exisitng railways to pay for its maintenance.

Wouldn't it make more sense to put investment where there is a real need to assist economic development rather than a vanity project to try and catch up with the French and Italians, who are 50 years ahead anyway?

[Red-Soldier]

It is perfectly possible to care about nature, and support the second new major rail line in a hundred years.

The environmental schemes associated with HS2 are a matter of record – no doubt you will have consulted them in drawing your opinion.

Some ancient trees will go. Some new ones will be planted. It is amazing how quickly ground , trees and vegetation recover and develop. I did some work at Pooley Country Park in Staffs where there was coal mining and was astonished. Ironically silver birches, which some regard as amongst the oldest of our trees, flourished the quickest.  Google it if you wish. If you are in the “not a single tree to go” camp, that is fine, but let us not pretend that HS2 represents mass deforestation.

Nature is far more resilient than you may imagine. Train lines can create artificial borders which damage some habitats, but protect others. The banks and associated vegetation become rich in flora and wildlife.

Conservation of our natural heritage is important, but the HS2 line is not one of the great battles to fight. I hope  you find the HS2/Pooley stuff interesting. It won't change your mind I suspect, but it will offer some balance.

Again, you are talking rubbish, or, as Kelly-Anne Conway would say, 'alternate facts.'  Can you show me the 'people' who regard silver birch as some of our oldest trees?

Silver birch are a 'PIONEER' species, do you know what the word pioneer means?  They are fast growing, short living, early colonisers, they live to an average of 80 years.

Some verteran oaks are around 800 years old, and yews can live up to 2000 years old.

I've studied Countryside Management, worked for numerous conservation organisations, and I'm currently studying for my Bsc.

I hope you found that bit about the trees interesting 

[whiteboots]

Again, you are talking rubbish, or, as Kelly-Anne Conway would say, 'alternate facts.'  Can you show me the 'people' who regard silver birch as some of our oldest trees?

Silver birch are a 'PIONEER' species, do you know what the word pioneer means?  They are fast growing, short living, early colonisers, they live to an average of 80 years.

Some verteran oaks are around 800 years old, and yews can live up to 2000 years old.

I've studied Countryside Management, worked for numerous conservation organisations, and I'm currently studying for my Bsc.

I hope you found that bit about the trees interesting 

You are right to acknowledge that Silver Birches are believed to be amongst the oldest trees. You are wrong to confuse that with the life cycle of a tree. Their "pioneer" categorisation reflects their place in the development of trees. I hope that helps. (The Education Section on Pooley Country park has numerous contact points for you if you need them)

The Oak tree population in this country was artificially boosted by a planting and growing programme to support our shipbuilding industry.

On topic, there has always been natural, and man made, change to the countryside. The question is whether the impact of HS2 in terms of the balance of losses, and gains is particularly adverse. It isn't.

[Red-Soldier]

You are right to acknowledge that Silver Birches are believed to be amongst the oldest trees. You are wrong to confuse that with the life cycle of a tree. Their "pioneer" categorisation reflects their place in the development of trees. I hope that helps. (The Education Section on Pooley Country park has numerous contact points for you if you need them)

The Oak tree population in this country was artificially boosted by a planting and growing programme to support our shipbuilding industry.

On topic, there has always been natural, and man made, change to the countryside. The question is whether the impact of HS2 in terms of the balance of losses, and gains is particularly adverse. It isn't.

Can you point out where I have said that.

It feels like I'm speaking with an 11 year old.  Are you 'Show me the Mane?'

I have done a good job of debunking all your points, so I'll just leave it there.

[whiteboots]

Can you point out where I have said that. It feels like I'm speaking with an 11 year old.  Are you 'Show me the Mane?' I have done a good job of debunking all your points, so I'll just leave it there.

I do not doubt your sincerity, and you are entitled to your opinion. But when you do not understand what you yourself have said and resort to insults instead of argument you destroy the credibility of your position.

You rightly describe Silver Birches  as a pioneer species. Pioneer species are hardy species which are the first to colonize basic, previously disrupted or damaged ecosystems, beginning a chain of ecological succession that ultimately leads to a more biodiverse steady-state ecosystem. That is why it is believed that they may be amongst the oldest trees,

You have done nothing to substantiate your position beyond not liking the fact that a new rail line will damage and disrupt a tract of the countryside, while failing to acknowledge that any losses need to be counterbalanced by the gains.

Like you, I am happy to leave it there.

[SP]

The minutiae of the individual impact on specific sites are an implementation detail. At it's simplest, the railway destroys say a 50m wide path over a vast distance. It would be feasible to reroute that path to miss / tunnel under / bridge over any particular site of interest. The decision not to, is a decision to be challenged, but is not a reason to reject the whole project.

The Tories are generally arseholes that will pick the cheap destructive option every time.

In terms of the bigger picture, I am sat on the fence as to whether the big flashy project is the best way to invest in the railways. The journey time is a bit of a red herring, the capacity is what will really pay back the investment. The main lines are running so close to capacity that minor issues cause major disruption. There is little that can be done to upgrade capacity on the existing track. If the country wants to significantly increase rail traffic, projects like HS2 may be the only way.

[Roady]

I'm just not convinced by this project at all. The time it saves on a journey is pointless. By the time it is completed it will be outdated already. With regards to increasing capacity Better trains than we currently have will help somewhat. Also I do think for journeys to London from Manchester the capacity isn't currently a big deal? I've yet to get a train to London where I haven't got a seat. And whilst the infrastructure we currently have both track over head lines and third rail as well as the trains themselves suffer issues with the slightest issues. Those very same issues will put delays on the new line too. I cannot honestly see any benefit at all for it. If it's going to go ahead then do it properly. Even now it's outdated by other countries standards and it hasn't even been built yet.

[Jonathan Hall ☆☆☆☆☆☆]

We could just build big fuckoff new motorways instead. Give me a railway taking us less room any day, but the chilterns aren't happy as they're not getting a station. Didn't complain when the M40 got built though which probably destroyed a hell of a lot of local habitat.

[TepidT2O]

We could just build big fuckoff new motorways instead. Give me a railway taking us less room any day, but the chilterns aren't happy as they're not getting a station. Didn't complain when the M40 got built though which probably destroyed a hell of a lot of local habitat.

Well quite...

[CraigDS]

Phase 1 delayed a further 5 years, and budget likely to be between £81-88bn (up from £62bn) 


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49563549

Phase one of the HS2 high-speed railway between London and Birmingham faces a delay of up to five years, Transport Minister Grant Shapps has said.

The London to Birmingham stage was due to open at the end of 2026, but it could now between 2028 and 2031 before the first trains run on the route.

Mr Shapps said HS2's cost had risen from £62bn to between £81bn and £88bn.

HS2 chairman Allan Cook warned about the overspend while preparing a review of the project's cost and schedule.

Mr Cook, who started his role in December, told the Department for Transport last month that the scheme could not be delivered within its budget.

In July, Meg Hillier, chairwoman of the Public Accounts Committee, cast doubts on the 2026 opening target, calling it "unrealistic".

Earlier this month, the government said it planned to review the costs and benefits of the rail project, with a "go or no-go" decision by the end of the year.

"I want the House to have the full picture. There is no future in obscuring the true costs of a large infrastructure project - as well as the potential benefits," said Mr Shapps.

[Lusty]

Good day to release bad news...

[CraigDS]

Good day to release bad news...

Yep, was thinking the same.

[nayia2002]

Why don't thet just updrade/update the current train lines/carriages??!! Surely it will be cheaper and quicker??!!

The lack of common sense in politics is absolutely shocking!!

[TepidT2O]

Why don't thet just updrade/update the current train lines/carriages??!! Surely it will be cheaper and quicker??!!

The lack of common sense in politics is absolutely shocking!!

Don’t agree.

There’s a very good reason to do this.

Capacity.

Road travel has increased greatly since 2000.  Currently we have very slow haulage trains on the same main lines that transport people. This also slows trains down.

So, forget the high speed, there’s a very real need to increase capacity in the system, and whilst doing this it would be odd not to upgrade to high speed too.

[thejbs]

By the time this is complete, we’ll probably have electric autonomous vehicles on the road. Where will rail be? Hyper Loop? Maglev? Really seems 50 years too late.

[OneTouchFooty]

So stupid the way it was marketed as a time saver for commuters in and out of London as you just get idiots going “all THaT MONey to SAve 30 mins hurhur”, when there are so many more benefits to it that should have been front and centre of the project.

But hey let’s cancel it and fall even further behind the rest of the world and see how outdated and decrepit most of our rolling stock is in another 20 years of poor investment and hope that flying cars and teleportation is invented by 2050.

[Peabee]

By the time this is complete, we’ll probably have electric autonomous vehicles on the road. Where will rail be? Hyper Loop? Maglev? Really seems 50 years too late.

By that reasoning, we should never upgrade because it will be obsolete one day. You’ll be waiting a long long time for Elon’s “hyperloop”. And building a better rail network has nothing to do with autonomous vehicles. We could have driverless trains on the line. Whatever infrastructure is built will be better than the shite we have and it should be ensured that’s it upgradable.

Typically the right of the tories are making a populist rather than rational choice. 

[Nobby Reserve]

Anyway, silver birches....

[thaddeus]

Phase 1 delayed a further 5 years, and budget likely to be between £81-88bn (up from £62bn) 

I appreciate I'm comparing apples with oranges but HS1 'only' cost £5.8bn for 67 miles.  HS2 is now up at £80bn+ for 330 miles.  11.5 miles/£billion compared to 4 miles/£billion.

My understanding is that HS1 had some complexities - more tunnels than initially planned for, for example - so what is it about HS2 that makes it so proportionately more expensive?

I'm of the school that investment in transport is just generally a good thing and I'd happily to see HS2 go ahead.

If the blow out meant instead upgrading our existing lines, building an East to West motorway etc. then I'd be OK with that.  It seems unlikely that the £80bn for HS2 would be committed penny-for-penny to other new infrastructure programmes though - more likely we'd get an accounting trick with the money instead assigned against already approved projects!

[Andy @ Allerton!]

By the time this is complete, we’ll probably have electric autonomous vehicles on the road. Where will rail be? Hyper Loop? Maglev? Really seems 50 years too late.

Flying cars and shiny spacesuits more likely

[TepidT2O]

I appreciate I'm comparing apples with oranges but HS1 'only' cost £5.8bn for 67 miles.  HS2 is now up at £80bn+ for 330 miles.  11.5 miles/£billion compared to 4 miles/£billion.

My understanding is that HS1 had some complexities - more tunnels than initially planned for, for example - so what is it about HS2 that makes it so proportionately more expensive?

I'm of the school that investment in transport is just generally a good thing and I'd happily to see HS2 go ahead.

If the blow out meant instead upgrading our existing lines, building an East to West motorway etc. then I'd be OK with that.  It seems unlikely that the £80bn for HS2 would be committed penny-for-penny to other new infrastructure programmes though - more likely we'd get an accounting trick with the money instead assigned against already approved projects!

It’s 25 years since HS1 was built don’t forget, so at today’s prices it would be almost double.

That almost gives us parity.

I suspect that HS2 also travels through land that is more expensive to buy.  Also don’t forget the massive boom in property prices in the last 25 years which will also add to the cost.

Seems a fairly comparable cost when they are factored in

[thaddeus]

It’s 25 years since HS1 was built don’t forget, so at today’s prices it would be almost double.

That almost gives us parity.

I suspect that HS2 also travels through land that is more expensive to buy.  Also don’t forget the massive boom in property prices in the last 25 years which will also add to the cost.

Seems a fairly comparable cost when they are factored in

Good points!  I do tend to underestimate the impact of compounding inflation and underestimate how old I am  .

One of my former MPs - the detestable Andrew Bridgen - kicked up a bit of fuss when it was first announced because the line cut through his plans for a goods' yard in his constituency.  It was swiftly announced that an additional tunnel would be ran under the site.  I don't suppose he was the only MP acting likewise.  Oh, he also sold his house to HS2...

[Red-Soldier]

HS2 will destroy or damage hundreds of UK wildlife sites, says report

HS2 will destroy or irreparably damage five internationally protected wildlife sites, 693 local wildlife sites, 108 ancient woodlands and 33 legally protected sites of special scientific interest, according to the most comprehensive survey of its impact on wildlife.

Swaths of other irreplaceable natural habitat will be lost to the new high-speed line, with endangered wildlife such as willow tit, white-clawed crayfish and dingy skipper butterfly at risk of local extinction.

The study, drawn from data provided by 14 local Wildlife Trusts and other charities and landowners along the route including the National Trust and the Woodland Trust, says HS2 will also cut through 26 large landscape-scale conservation efforts and damage other wildlife-rich habitats including wetlands, veteran trees, wildflower meadows and historic wood pasture

Species at risk include the possible extinction of the dingy skipper butterfly in Derbyshire, barn owls, rare bats such as Bechstein’s, and otters in the Erewash and Trent.

Although HS2 has proposed a green corridor along the route, the Wildlife Trusts said it was inadequate and not ambitious enough. The charity said it was “deeply concerned” that HS2 had removed its intention to “minimise the combined effect of the project” on climate change and the environment from its policy.

Williams added: “The government has pledged to create a Nature Recovery Network – a commitment to reverse wildlife’s decline by creating more habitat and green arteries that allow nature to spread and thrive once more. Developments like HS2 should not be a permanent barrier to wildlife – they should be designed to enhance, not harm, the environment. It’s not too late to stop and rethink now – before HS2 creates a scar that can never heal.”

Lord Berkeley, the deputy chair of an independent review of HS2 commissioned by the government, said in his “minority” report: “Compared to improving existing lines, HS2 is not good for the environment, and HS2 Ltd has exacerbated the situation by its appalling treatment of stakeholders, residents, businesses and councils in the areas over which it plans to construct the lines.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/15/hs2-will-destroy-or-damage-hundreds-of-uk-wildlife-sites-report

[Andy @ Allerton!]

To be fair, 'rural areas' voted for Brexit, so as they've stuffed the UK, they probably had HS2 coming.

[Red-Soldier]

To be fair, 'rural areas' voted for Brexit, so as they've stuffed the UK, they probably had HS2 coming.

Nice logic their Andy.

If you read the article posted directly above, it is the wildlife and environment that will be stuffed the most, as in destroyed, which will in turn stuff the people.  HS2 also started before the Brexit vote.

Not just that, it is a huge waste of money.

[Red-Soldier]

HS2 late and billions over budget due to Tory failures, report finds

Government failed to understand risks of the project, NAO concludes


The planned construction of HS2 is billions of pounds over budget and years behind schedule because of the failure across government to understand the risks involved, according to a damning independent report.

In the first official indication that spending on the controversial rail project could escalate beyond £100bn, the National Audit Office has raised the possibility of a further increase by admitting that it is “impossible to estimate with certainty” how much it will eventually cost.

The NAO’s report was immediately greeted by Labour as evidence of “woeful” management. And it will add to the pressure already being heaped on Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson by Conservative backbenchers to drop the plan and spend the money on improving local transport networks instead.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/24/hs2-cost-impossible-to-estimate-with-certainty-says-nao

[TepidT2O]

The environmental issues over HS2 are interesting....

But the massive increase to the carbon easy public transport system which will lead to a reduction in carbon heavy car transport must be a positive overall?

[nayia2002]

HS2 late and billions over budget due to Tory failures, report finds

Government failed to understand risks of the project, NAO concludes


The planned construction of HS2 is billions of pounds over budget and years behind schedule because of the failure across government to understand the risks involved, according to a damning independent report.

In the first official indication that spending on the controversial rail project could escalate beyond £100bn, the National Audit Office has raised the possibility of a further increase by admitting that it is “impossible to estimate with certainty” how much it will eventually cost.

The NAO’s report was immediately greeted by Labour as evidence of “woeful” management. And it will add to the pressure already being heaped on Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson by Conservative backbenchers to drop the plan and spend the money on improving local transport networks instead.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/24/hs2-cost-impossible-to-estimate-with-certainty-says-nao

Surely this will be cancelled now over the next few months

[TepidT2O]

Surely this will be cancelled now over the next few months

Why?

The country is crippled by lack of capacity on main rail routes...

We need more capacity.

How else do we get it?

[idontknow]

Surely this will be cancelled now over the next few months

Why, people are doing very well out of it.
It won't happen. It might half do but it will be crap, probably unsafe.
But that's  not the point, a lot of people are making a lot of money out of this, in more ways than you can think of.
Every bit of land that line is destined through has at least 20 people offering their help for its value.
And ultimately that's the only reason it's being proposed, let's grab that sweet virgin England, and whore it out.

Or, there might always be an or ...

[Red-Soldier]

Why?

The country is crippled by lack of capacity on main rail routes...

We need more capacity.

How else do we get it?

Because HS2 is a steaming pile of shit, that's why.  It will cost billions, destroy/affect many vital areas of green space and wont deliver the economical benefits it promised.

[TepidT2O]

Because HS2 is a steaming pile of shit, that's why.  It will cost billions, destroy/affect many vital areas of green space and wont deliver the economical benefits it promised.

What about the reduction in emissions by having a 21st century transport system to take traffic off the roads.?

HS2 IS the green option

[wampa1]

Why?

The country is crippled by lack of capacity on main rail routes...

We need more capacity.

How else do we get it?

Reduce demand. Most office jobs can be done from home, meetings and conferences can be done by Skype (probably by hologram by the time HS2 is finished), stagger working hours so everyone isn't 9-5...

[TepidT2O]

Reduce demand. Most office jobs can be done from home, meetings and conferences can be done by Skype (probably by hologram by the time HS2 is finished), stagger working hours so everyone isn't 9-5...

You don’t want to reduce rail, you want to increase it and reduce car travel.

Rail has increased year on year for 25 years.  This is a good thing for us all.

[Red-Soldier]

What about the reduction in emissions by having a 21st century transport system to take traffic off the roads.?

HS2 IS the green option

I hear your point, but I am not so sure that it will actually increase rail use by that much, whilst reducing road traffic.  The times they are quoting for arrival into London for example aren't that much improved from what they are now.

We do need huge invest in our public transportation systems, I am just very doubtful that this is a good way of doing it.

But there are always trade-offs when looking at large infrastructure projects.  Take the Seven Barrage for example, it's been scrapped for now, but I wouldn't be surprised if it starts to be debated again soon.  It will absolutely decimate most of the wildlife there, including international important populations of birds, but it offers low CO2 energy production.

[TepidT2O]

It’s not about time it’s about capacity.

The network is at capacity ........

It would greatly improve transport from North to south and east to west...

But if you’re doing a new rail network, you should go quick....madness not too.

[Elmo!]

I hear your point, but I am not so sure that it will actually increase rail use by that much.  The times they are quoting for arrival into London for example aren't that much improved from what they are now.

The main benefit from it though is not speed is it, despite the name. It's extra capacity, and taking the high speed trains off the old lines will allow more commuter trains to run.

I do agree with your point about reducing travel overall, as long as it is not at the expense of reducing car and air travel, there is no point in increasing rail travel for the sake of it. If people can use Skype for a meeting instead of travelling somewhere for it that is a good thing.

[Red-Soldier]

Well I disagree with you that we need this project. 

The costs and destruction are prohibitive.

[TepidT2O]

Well I disagree with you that we need this project.  We don't.

The costs and destruction are prohibitive.

The costs?  Who knows.... I’m no expert on that...

On the environmental issues it’s an absolute no brainier.