HS2

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
plodder
Dorkwood
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

HS2

Post by plodder » Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:48 am

Is a good idea, especially from an environmental perspective, and the environmental protestors tunneling under a park in Euston have spectacularly missed the point.

Discuss.

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
After Pie
Posts: 1917
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: HS2

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:21 pm

I agree. Though I'd mention that we did have another HS2 thread somewhere around here.

Obviously, there are some environmental downsides, that goes without saying. You can't build a massive concrete long thing over (in some areas) pristine field or forest without that. But humans have to travel, and in a market where they have choice between slow trains and fast aeroplanes for internal travel, they'll choose the aeroplanes. Reducing the environmental impact of that travel is a good thing. The thing is, they need to extend it to Scotland, and do a different one to the south west. And reduce the price/force the increase in price of domestic air travel.
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

plodder
Dorkwood
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: HS2

Post by plodder » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:23 pm

For me the big advantage isn't replacing short-haul flights, it's the increased capacity it creates in the rest of the network that allows UK rail to be more competitive against road haulage / road transport. AIUI transport is #1 when it comes to UK's emissions.

bagpuss
Catbabel
Posts: 893
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:10 pm

Re: HS2

Post by bagpuss » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:28 pm

Declaration of interest: 1. The HS2 route is going very close to my home and the HS2 contractors seem to be doing their absolute best to be the exact opposite of the "Good Neighbours" that they claim they will be. 2. My brother is working on the project, although sadly not the bit near here (I say sadly because it would be quite nice to have someone I could directly communicate with about the cruddy behaviour of the contractors). I will endeavour to ignore all of this and be as objective as possible.


I believe that, in the before times, there was a reasonable environmental case for HS2 although I struggled to figure out, without devoting my entire life to reading around the subject, just how much of that was real and how much was somewhat invented/exaggerated to back up the "Business Case". Finding an objective informed opinion has been challenging.

I now wonder, however, whether the environmental case for it (assuming there was one) will still exist and be enough to counterbalance the environmental damage caused, in the after times. We have simply no idea what demand there will be for long-distance-within-the-UK travel in the next few years. Will the increase in working from home and video conferencing persist to some extent? Will people be so desperate for face to face contact that we don't just go back to how we were before but actually try to have even more face to face meetings and work from home even less than before? Who bl..dy knows right now? Whether it would be right to pause HS2 until the future becomes clearer, I simply don't know. It feels like it would be the right thing to do but the consequences of doing that would be very far reaching and a fair amount of environmental damage has already been done and is irreversible anyway.

If they don't bother with Phase 2, or whatever it is, the bit north of Birmingham anyway, which I have heard mooted as a possibility, then surely the environmental case falls flat on the floor? Building Brum to London and then not going any further would surely be the worst possible option?

As for whether the environmental campaigners at Euston have spectacularly missed the point, I can't comment. If the contractors have been as sh.tty neighbours there as they have here, if they have ridden as roughshod over the environmental requirements* as they have round here, then I think they may well have a valid point to make - at least about how the work is done. But I don't know whether that is the case or not.


*eg destroying a privately-owned hedgerow while the owners were away, without any prior consultation or notice. It's not clear whether they were supposed to remove this hedgerow or not but if they were, it was certainly not acceptable to do it the way they did. And the survey they did of the hedgerow appears to have been suspect.

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
After Pie
Posts: 1917
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: HS2

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:40 pm

Obviously passenger numbers are well down on where they were in 2019. Once the prospect of lockdowns and hospitalisations from socialising is over, we expect that passenger number will recover to something like 80-90% of where they were before the pandemic. Adding my own forecast on top of that, I'd then expect that number to slowly increase again, just as we've seen in the last twenty years or so. Maybe by the end of this decade, we might have surpassed the passenger numbers we saw.

Railways are long-term investments. Parts of the Tees Valley line are coming up to 200 years old. The bulk of the railway that exists today was in place during both world wars, major financial crashes (at least one of which was caused by the railway itself, but never mind), terrorist threats, past pandemics and the rise of personal transport, during which passenger numbers dropped massively. Assuming we never reach the Star Trek stage of being able to transport people between far away locations, or travel faster than light, it's reasonable to expect that HS2 will have a long life as a piece of infrastructure, and that during that life, passenger numbers will further fluctuate.

The key is whether the extra capacity HS2 provides is both necessary and sufficient. I think it will prove necessary, as I explained above - I think passenger numbers are very likely to eventually rise above where they were a year ago. It is likely to prove sufficient for a fair length of time as well, if and only if they extend it up north as far as possible. And I think the government, even with the very high stupidity quotient that we've come to expect, is unlikely to f.ck up the messaging of Levelling Up by cancelling phase 2. But let's see.
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

plodder
Dorkwood
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: HS2

Post by plodder » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:43 pm

Some good concise answers here: https://twitter.com/derJamesJackson/sta ... 0736162817

Check Gareth Dennis' replies and links, he's excellent on this.

e.g. https://garethdennis.medium.com/a-remar ... 22ff83b024

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Light of Blast
Posts: 6390
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Iceland

Re: HS2

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:24 pm

The protestors who are against HS2 on principle have made the mistake of believing HS2 Ltd when they say that avoiding biodiversity loss would be prohibitively expensive.

It wouldn't. The Wildlife Trusts have costed net-benefit habitat works at £150m extra. Even allowing that to triple as a fudge factor, we're talking well under 1% of the total budget.

Increasing train capacity is almost certainly a good idea, even if high-speed trains are way more carbon intensive per km. The problem isn't the concept of HS2, it's that HS2 Ltd are c.nts, happily trashing irreplaceable ecosystems, trespassing, pissing off local residents etc etc all to save a few quid of what's ultimately public money, even though spending it would actually enable the government to meet some of its other policy targets.

At the very least, I'm hoping there's enough of a stink over the unnecessary cuntiness of the current phase of HS2 that the next bits are done properly.
He has the grace of a swan, the wisdom of an owl, and the eye of an eagle—ladies and gentlemen, this man is for the birds!

plodder
Dorkwood
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: HS2

Post by plodder » Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:34 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:24 pm
The protestors who are against HS2 on principle have made the mistake of believing HS2 Ltd when they say that avoiding biodiversity loss would be prohibitively expensive.

It wouldn't. The Wildlife Trusts have costed net-benefit habitat works at £150m extra. Even allowing that to triple as a fudge factor, we're talking well under 1% of the total budget.

Increasing train capacity is almost certainly a good idea, even if high-speed trains are way more carbon intensive per km. The problem isn't the concept of HS2, it's that HS2 Ltd are c.nts, happily trashing irreplaceable ecosystems, trespassing, pissing off local residents etc etc all to save a few quid of what's ultimately public money, even though spending it would actually enable the government to meet some of its other policy targets.

At the very least, I'm hoping there's enough of a stink over the unnecessary cuntiness of the current phase of HS2 that the next bits are done properly.
That is bollocks and they are wrong.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Light of Blast
Posts: 6390
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Iceland

Re: HS2

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:54 pm

Care to elaborate?

Which bit is bollocks?

I'm definitely right, btw.
He has the grace of a swan, the wisdom of an owl, and the eye of an eagle—ladies and gentlemen, this man is for the birds!

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Light of Blast
Posts: 6390
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Iceland

Re: HS2

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:03 pm

Here's the Wildlife Trusts' report for your scrutiny https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/de ... Report.pdf

Figure is actually £130 million btw.
He has the grace of a swan, the wisdom of an owl, and the eye of an eagle—ladies and gentlemen, this man is for the birds!

bagpuss
Catbabel
Posts: 893
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:10 pm

Re: HS2

Post by bagpuss » Wed Feb 03, 2021 3:04 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:40 pm
Obviously passenger numbers are well down on where they were in 2019. Once the prospect of lockdowns and hospitalisations from socialising is over, we expect that passenger number will recover to something like 80-90% of where they were before the pandemic. Adding my own forecast on top of that, I'd then expect that number to slowly increase again, just as we've seen in the last twenty years or so. Maybe by the end of this decade, we might have surpassed the passenger numbers we saw.

Railways are long-term investments. Parts of the Tees Valley line are coming up to 200 years old. The bulk of the railway that exists today was in place during both world wars, major financial crashes (at least one of which was caused by the railway itself, but never mind), terrorist threats, past pandemics and the rise of personal transport, during which passenger numbers dropped massively. Assuming we never reach the Star Trek stage of being able to transport people between far away locations, or travel faster than light, it's reasonable to expect that HS2 will have a long life as a piece of infrastructure, and that during that life, passenger numbers will further fluctuate.

The key is whether the extra capacity HS2 provides is both necessary and sufficient. I think it will prove necessary, as I explained above - I think passenger numbers are very likely to eventually rise above where they were a year ago. It is likely to prove sufficient for a fair length of time as well, if and only if they extend it up north as far as possible. And I think the government, even with the very high stupidity quotient that we've come to expect, is unlikely to f.ck up the messaging of Levelling Up by cancelling phase 2. But let's see.
Thanks for this. I'm seeing far too much one-sided (anti) information at the moment and not much, if anything, of the other side, so it's good to get a considered view from that direction. I'm doing my best to be objective but it's not easy, especially when I can't help but resent the trashing of our local environment.

And let's very much hope they do have the sense not to cancel phase 2. With other people in government, I'd be reasonably confident but with this shower, I have no faith.

(Edited to expand on briefer version)

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Light of Blast
Posts: 6390
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Iceland

Re: HS2

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:29 pm

plodder wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:48 am
Is a good idea, especially from an environmental perspective, and the environmental protestors tunneling under a park in Euston have spectacularly missed the point.

Discuss.
Ok, in the interests of discussion, your "environmental perspective" is too vague a term to be useful. "The environment" covers a bunch of things - pollution, climate, biodiversity, etc. (I know you know this!)

AFAICT the environmental objections are on biodiversity grounds. There's no question that the chosen HS2 route is pretty bad for biodiversity, in terms of habitat loss but, especially, fragmentation and impacts on landscape connectivity.

It will probably deliver some carbon savings, if it results in people making journeys by train that they would otherwise have made by car or plane, as long as the grid decarbonises and it doesn't encourage extra travel (eg by expanding the commuter belt). There's also the 'last mile' problem of getting people to train stations, which will probably need investment in buses and parkways and stuff. There hasn't been any actual life-cycle carbon analysis, we're all just guessing, but I reckon it's probably likely HS2 will save a bit of carbon once it's up and running, eventually enough to offset construction and operation.

(Of course, the government could just ban short-haul flights altogether - perhaps excepting special cases, like islands).

In terms of pollution, if HS2 means fewer vehicles in city centres that'll help air quality until EVs become a thing. It'll also make towns a bit safer, free up space from roads and car parks, and I think commuting by train is nicer than driving because you can read a book more safely. Lots of positives.


So, HS2 is asking people to accept a tradeoff: lose some nature in exchange for some carbon reduction. It's not an uncommon trade-off, nor one that environmentalists are unprepared to make. The two biggest conservation organisations in the country, the RSPB and the Wildlife Trusts, both started off supporting the development and working with HS2 Ltd. - but both have now walked away due to HS2's intransigence.

It is of course possible to deliver infrastructure schemes with net biodiversity benefits. Network Rail do it. The Environment Agency do it. HS2 Ltd., don't want to do it, because the price-tag of supporting habitat connectivity alongside construction is deemed excessive (an extra £150m on top of the current £100,000m budgeted for phases 1 and 2).

Is it really "missing the point" to ask that an ambitious infrastructure project commonly touted as a 'green' solution actually has some ambitious environmental targets within its business case?
He has the grace of a swan, the wisdom of an owl, and the eye of an eagle—ladies and gentlemen, this man is for the birds!

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Light of Blast
Posts: 6390
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Iceland

Re: HS2

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:35 pm

For an alternative vision of the kinds of things environmentalists have been asking for, Network Rail's environment page is worth a look.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/communiti ... th-nature/

For instance, last I heard local conservation groups were pretty happy with how the new East-West Rail link is going to fit into the landscape. https://eastwestrail.co.uk/latest-news/ ... nvironment


Trains aren't inherently green, but can be quite easily. HS2's destructiveness is a deliberate choice, and IMO a disappointing one.
He has the grace of a swan, the wisdom of an owl, and the eye of an eagle—ladies and gentlemen, this man is for the birds!

plodder
Dorkwood
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: HS2

Post by plodder » Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:48 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:24 pm
The protestors who are against HS2 on principle have made the mistake of believing HS2 Ltd when they say that avoiding biodiversity loss would be prohibitively expensive.

It wouldn't. The Wildlife Trusts have costed net-benefit habitat works at £150m extra. Even allowing that to triple as a fudge factor, we're talking well under 1% of the total budget.
HS2 have gone to enormous lengths to minimise habitat impact. Making the line more wiggly increases CO2 emissions from increased acceleration.
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:24 pm
Increasing train capacity is almost certainly a good idea,
almost?
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:24 pm
even if high-speed trains are way more carbon intensive per km. The problem isn't the concept of HS2, it's that HS2 Ltd are c.nts, happily trashing irreplaceable ecosystems, trespassing, pissing off local residents etc etc all to save a few quid of what's ultimately public money,
silly
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:24 pm
even though spending it would actually enable the government to meet some of its other policy targets.
name a better carbon reduction proposal that could be funded
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:24 pm
At the very least, I'm hoping there's enough of a stink over the unnecessary cuntiness of the current phase of HS2 that the next bits are done properly.
I'm hoping there's stink over the huge expansion to the roads network that's planned and that is being completely ignored by environmental protestors.

plodder
Dorkwood
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: HS2

Post by plodder » Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:50 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:35 pm
Trains aren't inherently green, but can be quite easily. HS2's destructiveness is a deliberate choice, and IMO a disappointing one.
For a project of this scale it's remarkably un-destructive. The Lower Thames crossing destroys the same amount of ancient woodland for 14km of motorway. No protestors there though.

plodder
Dorkwood
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: HS2

Post by plodder » Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:51 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:29 pm
plodder wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:48 am
Is a good idea, especially from an environmental perspective, and the environmental protestors tunneling under a park in Euston have spectacularly missed the point.

Discuss.
Ok, in the interests of discussion, your "environmental perspective" is too vague a term to be useful. "The environment" covers a bunch of things - pollution, climate, biodiversity, etc. (I know you know this!)

AFAICT the environmental objections are on biodiversity grounds. There's no question that the chosen HS2 route is pretty bad for biodiversity, in terms of habitat loss but, especially, fragmentation and impacts on landscape connectivity.

It will probably deliver some carbon savings, if it results in people making journeys by train that they would otherwise have made by car or plane, as long as the grid decarbonises and it doesn't encourage extra travel (eg by expanding the commuter belt). There's also the 'last mile' problem of getting people to train stations, which will probably need investment in buses and parkways and stuff. There hasn't been any actual life-cycle carbon analysis, we're all just guessing, but I reckon it's probably likely HS2 will save a bit of carbon once it's up and running, eventually enough to offset construction and operation.

(Of course, the government could just ban short-haul flights altogether - perhaps excepting special cases, like islands).

In terms of pollution, if HS2 means fewer vehicles in city centres that'll help air quality until EVs become a thing. It'll also make towns a bit safer, free up space from roads and car parks, and I think commuting by train is nicer than driving because you can read a book more safely. Lots of positives.


So, HS2 is asking people to accept a tradeoff: lose some nature in exchange for some carbon reduction. It's not an uncommon trade-off, nor one that environmentalists are unprepared to make. The two biggest conservation organisations in the country, the RSPB and the Wildlife Trusts, both started off supporting the development and working with HS2 Ltd. - but both have now walked away due to HS2's intransigence.

It is of course possible to deliver infrastructure schemes with net biodiversity benefits. Network Rail do it. The Environment Agency do it. HS2 Ltd., don't want to do it, because the price-tag of supporting habitat connectivity alongside construction is deemed excessive (an extra £150m on top of the current £100,000m budgeted for phases 1 and 2).

Is it really "missing the point" to ask that an ambitious infrastructure project commonly touted as a 'green' solution actually has some ambitious environmental targets within its business case?
you do not understand this project. I will provide some links.

plodder
Dorkwood
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: HS2

Post by plodder » Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:57 pm

Gareth Dennis is well worth getting into.

https://garethdennis.medium.com/a-remar ... 22ff83b024

here he is taking down Chris Packham, well worth a watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0P4gOpKVm4

nezumi
Catbabel
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:43 pm
Location: UK

Re: HS2

Post by nezumi » Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:45 pm

I'm in favour of the concept of HS2, especially as my area (the North East) stands to gain a lot from phase 2. I share the general concerns about environmental factors, particularly BoaF's concerns about biodiversity. However, in terms of the volume of freight taken off the roads, it's worth it but only if the environmental protection measures are taken - I would argue that any large construction project should be required to allocate a percentage of the budget to conservation efforts to not just offset their own impact but contribute towards ecological improvement of the country, I wouldn't call it a tax - I'd do it more like a charitable donation which could even be offset against tax. I would let the project leaders have some leeway in their choice of conservation to support so that they could use it in their marketing, "this project supports the wetland project in x-place" for example.
Non fui. Fui. Non sum. Non curo.

plodder
Dorkwood
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: HS2

Post by plodder » Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:51 pm

HS2 has done enormous environmental mitigation work. Obviously ancient woodlands are irreplaceable, but HS2 tends to nibble away at fragments rather than plough them up completely as is often categorised. Mitigation is consisting of planting much greater areas of woodland than have been lost, including detailing exactly which species are most appropriate for each new woodland - they've been designed by ecologists and signed off by Natural England.

The CO2 benefits from the scheme allow a modal shift. In the video above (which is well worth half an hour of your time even if to enjoy freeze frames of Chris Packham looking smug whilst talking bollocks, with an added bonus on Jonathan Pie doing the same) the analogy used is Transport for London.

You know how in London you don't have to bother looking at the train timetable because you know the next one will be along in a minute? That's because the fast trains don't run on the local lines, so there's way more room for the local trains. HS2 provides the structural shift that allows similar levels of service across the Midlands and the North.

nezumi
Catbabel
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:43 pm
Location: UK

Re: HS2

Post by nezumi » Wed Feb 03, 2021 7:00 pm

I am definitely going to watch the video plodder - you had me at Jonathan Pie. But first! YouTube is talking about something Trump won't like and I am becoming distract...
Non fui. Fui. Non sum. Non curo.

User avatar
tenchboy
Catbabel
Posts: 918
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:18 pm
Location: Down amongst the potamogeton.

Re: HS2

Post by tenchboy » Wed Feb 03, 2021 7:01 pm

It's not just the trees, the lakes and the fields per se that are lost, it's what they represent and what they hold; saying that they will be replaced by a new field or that another field will be planted with row upon row of identical saplings and called a new wood-land to replace those lost or that so many replacement trees will be planted alongside the railway embankment so look how green we are being is to spectacularly miss the point: these places that they are destroying are the the vessels of the collective memory of thousands of people over hundreds of years: people leave their soul being in these places for safe-keeping, in the knowledge it is safe there, and knowing that they can come back to it. Whether it is fishing for tench at dawn or watching badgers at dusk, watching the light filter down through the beech trees or walking by moonlight in he dark, these are the places where people store their memories: the places they go back to again and again.
People go to these wood-lands, lakes and commons with their friends when they are happy and have something to celebrate and on their own when they are sad and need to be away from people; they take their first love there to show them the kingfishers or the deer or the remnants of the old park they discovered when they young; in time they take their own children to play there and then, later, their grandchildren too, just as they too were first taken there by their own grandparents when first they could walk; people hope to have their ashes scattered there to lie forever in the places that have shaped their lives and soothed their souls and to lie with the ashes of those loved ones whose ashes they scattered there themselves.
You can't just scrape up tons of woodland soil and dump it somewhere else and claim to be safeguarding the ecology; every lake drained, every heathland lost and every woodland cut down is it is a loss to the collective consciousness: every time some rubber desk johnny puts big red line through the countryside and says f.ck'em, that'll do, another ray of ancient sunlight is darkened forever.

Thank you for you indulgence; just wanted to write something: seem to be channeling Richard Jefferies.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Light of Blast
Posts: 6390
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Iceland

Re: HS2

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Feb 03, 2021 7:19 pm

plodder wrote:
Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:51 pm
HS2 has done enormous environmental mitigation work. Obviously ancient woodlands are irreplaceable, but HS2 tends to nibble away at fragments rather than plough them up completely as is often categorised. Mitigation is consisting of planting much greater areas of woodland than have been lost, including detailing exactly which species are most appropriate for each new woodland - they've been designed by ecologists and signed off by Natural England.
Still net negative according to their own biodiversity accounting figures, so they're not even trying to replace lost biodiversity.

The concern with habitat isn't the total area lost, but the division of big pieces into smaller pieces ("fragmentation").

I'm still at work but look forward to links later. The twitter thread earlier seemed to ignore the main points made by conservationists, but maybe I missed how HS2 is minimising its impacts on ecological connectivity.
He has the grace of a swan, the wisdom of an owl, and the eye of an eagle—ladies and gentlemen, this man is for the birds!

Lew Dolby
Fuzzable
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: Shropshire - Welsh Borders

Re: HS2

Post by Lew Dolby » Wed Feb 03, 2021 7:49 pm

Do these replacement woodlands get any special protection ? Or, when someone wants to put a railway/road/housing estate where one is, the politicians and/or developers will start arguing that they're not worth saving 'cos they're not ancient woodlands ??
If you bring you kids up to think for themselves, you can't complain when they do

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Light of Blast
Posts: 6390
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Iceland

Re: HS2

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:01 pm

So, I just read Gareth Dennis's piece. It's fine as far as he goes, but he doesn't address the criticisms I've seen from mainstream conservation at all. For anyone unconvinced that HS2 is a good idea in general, it's a useful read, but it doesn't acknowledge the problems large organisations are concerned about.

The Wildlife Report, for example, isn't even taking issue with the proposed route. They accept some loss of irreplaceable habitat as a given. The issue is that the mitigation and compensation works are inadequate.

I cringe when I see HS2 opponents make arguments points about "20 minutes to Birmingham, so what?": the point is about increased capacity. But equally cringeworthy is when HS2 proponents talk about acreage of sites with statutory protection as if designated sites are the sole silos within which conservation takes place. Again, the point is about connectivity and the capacity of the landscape. Regulations and best-practice guidelines recognise as much.

Conservation doesn't function just within islands of tiny SSSIs. As the Lawton Review in 2010 set out (explained here with HS2 context by the Woodland Trust), protected areas need to be connected to each other if they are to be resilient. Otherwise they're just open-air museums of slowly dying biota.

This is what the Wildlife Trust really specialise in, for instance via their Living Landscape scheme (started in 2005ish). They'll take a few SSSI fragments of ancient woodlands, and connect them up say with hedgerows through farmland, via a few veteran trees, and then onto a nearby patch of native broadleaf shelterbelt. Thus, many small fragments become one big one. Species diversity increases logarithmically with patch area (the classic MacArthur and WIlson 1964 paper), so the one big patch is worth much more than the sum of its parts.

NGOs do this using local landowners' goodwill, volunteer labour and donations. It requires a lot of pragmatism and compromise and hard work, and HS2 is ploughing right through it. Because a lot of the connecty-bits aren't designated, they aren't compensated, so the one big patch becomes several small ones again, in a way that talking about acres of trees planted doesn't capture: it also matters what was planted and where.

Here's the Woodland Trust take from that factsheet:
Where loss is deemed unavoidable, compensation must be put in place. This compensation should not simply be new woodland, equivalent in area to the ancient woodland lost. A more meaningful approach would be to look at the opportunities in the surrounding area to deliver the Lawton vision.

This might mean, for example, creation of new areas of native woodland, used to buffer and extend areas of ancient woodland and other semi-natural habitats. It should also include creation of new corridors and stepping stones, both woodland and areas of other habitat where this will deliver connectivity.

It might also mean restoration of degraded habitats in the ecological network, for example restoration of ancient woodland planted with conifers, restoration of hedgerows, and planting of new open-grown trees to form a new generation of ancients in parkland or wood pasture landscapes. The Lawton Review sets out a clear vision, moving away from the idea of wildlife contained in isolated reserves and towards whole landscapes that are vibrant, wildlife-rich, and ecologically functioning.

Large developments like HS2 create a tension, but it is therefore essential to use the Lawton vision to maximise any positive opportunities that arise.
These organisations would be more than happy to work with HS2 to develop better mitigation. The RSPB were working with them at one point. The Wildlife Trusts have even put together a costed proposal. They don't want HS2 cancelled - the message that HS2 is incompatible with conservation has come from HS2 themselves.

HS2 know that their mitigation is tokenistic and the bare minimum for regulatory approval. Given the enormous investment of public money, the unprecedented scale, and the fact that HS2 is supposed to be a flagship "green" development, I think it's entirely sensible to demand that the government follow their own guidelines. DEFRA commissioned the Lawton review to influence practice, not for a collection of ineffectual platitudes.

So, HS2 should be delivering a net benefit to biodiversity, whereas instead it's delivering a net loss. Environmentalists are entirely correct to be annoyed and to demand better.
He has the grace of a swan, the wisdom of an owl, and the eye of an eagle—ladies and gentlemen, this man is for the birds!

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Light of Blast
Posts: 6390
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Iceland

Re: HS2

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:02 pm

I'm aware that the above, much like the "20 mins to Birmingham = improved network capacity" argument, is a little bit more complex than people seem to expect.

The PhD paper I'm working on at the moment makes the same kind of argument a bit more quantitatively, so if anyone has questions or suggestions I'm up for putting in a bit of effort to improve my communication here.
He has the grace of a swan, the wisdom of an owl, and the eye of an eagle—ladies and gentlemen, this man is for the birds!

Post Reply