why all the hate for hs2?

[Werewolf]

Nah this is misleading AF - you're not talking about something that was planned for and budgeted well in advance, you're just highlighting that the incident being referred to occurred 10 years ago - and in that case so what? This is a big project over many years, this being used as an example of initially unforeseen expenditure is still valid no?

HS2 was announced as going ahead 12 years ago, so this would be 2 years into that process and seems like it's still a legitimate example of something they'd not have initially estimated right? Or if not then provide an actual explanation of why as simply saying the event happened 10 years ago doesn't negate anything here.

2 years into the process would likely have been after they hired their experts and did the study, there would have been zero point doing the study before the route was finalised as they could have ended up doing hundreds of studies for areas they didn't end up going near.
At the very minimum with any ecological study you tend to need to do it over the space of a full year, or the time frame in which the animals you are checking on would be in the area, it's utterly pointless to see if something might affect the migration route of an animal that is there for 3 months in winter, if you do the study in the summer, and for animals that might be in the area year round you need to allow time to see how they behave in that area all year round as a lot tend to change habits with the seasons (they might travel much further in the winter to reach a different food source, or change where they spend the night so they're more protected from the elements).

 

[Minusorange]

Nah this is misleading AF

The only thing misleading are the CEO's comments

 

[dowie]

2 years into the process would likely have been after they hired their experts and did the study, there would have been zero point doing the study before the route was finalised as they could have ended up doing hundreds of studies for areas they didn't end up going near.

Is there anything substantial contradicting the claim that this is an example of an unforeseen cost?

The only thing misleading are the CEO's comments

If that's true then why can't you address the point made?

 

[Minusorange]

If that's true then why can't you address the point made?

What is the point being made ? That you can't accept that it was planned for over 10 years ago ? They didn't hand out the civil engineering contracts until 2017 so it hadn't even started being constructed when these things were planned

 

[dowie]

What is the point being made ? That you can't accept that it was planned for over 10 years ago ? They didn't hand out the civil engineering contracts until 2017 so it hadn't even started being constructed when these things were planned

That whether this happened last year or 10 years ago seems irrelevant to the central point re: it being an example of yet another additional expenditure that pushes the project over budget.

 

[Werewolf]

Is there anything substantial contradicting the claim that this is an example of an unforeseen cost?



If that's true then why can't you address the point made?

It might be unforeseen, but that would be about the only bit that he might have got right.

On the flip side, having to make provisions for the wildlife and nature is not in any form unforeseen and hasn't been for decades.

 

[dowie]

It might be unforeseen, but that would be about the only bit that he might have got right.

But that's the central point - everything else is just fluff.

The fact is that the vast majority of people find spending 100 million on a bat tunnel to be completely absurd and even the bodies involved have felt the need to immediately issue statements going on the defensive as they know it's ridiculous.

Human lives are valued at like 1.-something million yet here we are spending 9 figures on some bats - this is a species that has increased recently, perhaps a better solution might have been some much smaller amount of funding for a project to help the species elsewhere in the country - like pay £1 million for that and job done, not £100 million for a tunnel.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1857698080168050904

https://twitter.com/x/status/1857698083682840643

https://twitter.com/x/status/1857698088275558886

 

[adam cool dude]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1857698088275558886

That is because it is not their money is it. It is all the taxpayers being thrown down the drain. I am sure these private companies working for the government lick their lips when some environmental thing gets in their way.

 

[Harlequin]

The statement made by Natural England :

Natural England's role in High Speed 2

There has been inaccurate coverage about Natural England’s involvement in the development of HS2's bat tunnel. Natural England has not required HS2 Ltd to build the reported structure, or any other structure, nor advised on the design or costs. The …

naturalengland.blog.gov.uk

Has very much been run past lawyers, the lingo used is very very supportive of that. By saying

Natural England has not required HS2 Ltd to build the reported structure, or any other structure, nor advised on the design or costs.

followed by

The need for the structure was identified by HS2 Ltd more than 10 years ago, following extensive surveying of bat populations by its own ecologists in the vicinity of Sheephouse Wood.

There is a huge `however` in that statement - that is the

It is for HS2 Ltd to make choices, consider risks and factor in costs when deciding how to comply with environmental law

Who enforces that named law?

Natural England :

Enforcement laws: advice on protecting the natural environment in England

Get advice from Natural England to help you comply with laws that protect wildlife and the natural environment.

www.gov.uk

and ofc course :

that could be by choosing a route which avoids species and sites protected for nature or by investing in mitigations to limit the harm when the route passes through sensitive sites.

So yes, Natural England very much told them what to do