HS2: Support or Scrap?

Alright, here we go:

Most of that is untrue, the stuff that is, is only half-true, and isn't anywhere near as big a deal as you're desperately trying to imply. and none of this comes close to the enormous economic, social and environmental benefits that HS2 will bring.

There you go, addressed.

16.7 hectares is a tiny amount on a national scale.

You're not basing this on actual research, because you don't have access to the actual research. You're basing it on prejudice, speculation and years-old documents that are totally out of date.

'Most of that is untrue' doesn't really address any of it, I'm afraid. Please do address it in more detail if you wish to continue this discussion, as well as provide some insight into the 'environmental benefits' that HS2 will bring.

We are all having a good chuckle at the irony of you telling someone to look at the actual research when they are demonstrating that they are obviously better informed about the subject than yourself.

You're the one making the bold and extravagant claims, its up to you to back them up, not up to me to do your googling for you.

HS2 will be entirely electrical. Combined with a radical switch to renewable energy, its planned to be carbon neutral. Combined with planned enabled tax rises on internal short-haul flights, it will become the default means of long-distance transport up and down the UK, and it is planned, even replace short-haul flights to Europe, taking thousands of planes out of the sky and billions of tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere.

TBH, we don't really have a choice. Climate change is accelerating faster than anticipated. The choice is either HS2 or extinction. Idiots whining about losing 0.1% of our ancient woodlands in order to ensure the survival of the species need their heads examining.

This is pretty funny, seeing as I'm a professional transport economist who has appraised the HS2 SOBC in the past, whereas Shadowdweller is, what, a TSR mod?

Your post is unintentionally hilarious.

I'm not asking you to google it for me, I'm asking you to give some figures on your own claims - I've been specific with my statements, I would expect you to do the same.

Let's be clear here, the choice is not 'HS2 or extinction' - there are many other options when it comes to climate change. I'd also not that it's not the woodland people are concerned about, it's the plant and animal species that will become significantly harmed, and could even become endangered as a result of this loss of woodland, and the 100 wildlife sites being impacted.

You've also not yet addressed the project creating 58 million tonnes of landfill; which equates to four times the total waste sent to landfill in the whole country annually, nor the diversion of nine rivers as part of the HS2's development.

It's also worth noting that the emissions saving from this scheme are relatively small at best, they're not anywhere near the level you're suggesting.

I would note two things here:

1) Being a TSR SL is a voluntary role, not my employment.
2) The question of your knowledge on the matter seems to be largely due to you not backing up your statements thus far with any facts/figures.

It sounds like you are able to offer good insight into the project, and I would be interested in hearing it. But not if you're not going to support it with anything.

You keep making these bizarre false claims. No species will be harmed, that's just nonsense. Enormous amounts of money are spent ensuring that that does not happen. (HS2 would be a lot cheaper to build if we didn't care about these things, but we do, quite rightly)

58 million tonnes of earth will be moved, most of it just a few metres. So the **** what. Trying to conflate this with what we normally think of as landfill - ie human household rubbish - is obviously disingenuous. You should be better than that.

Diverting rivers is pretty standard engineering practice the world over.



"It's also worth noting that the emissions saving from this scheme are relatively small at best, they're not anywhere near the level you're suggesting."

This is flat out wrong. Please - have a little humility. If you've previously seen smaller figures, then I am here to correct you. Consider yourself corrected, please don't repeat the same error again.

and your employment is?.... drum roll....

The money is spent to reduce the species being harmed, yes, but it is not being offset completely, nor will no species be harmed under the current plans. Currently for HS2 Phase 2b, there will be damage to 12 highly protected areas, 111 local wildlife sites, and 19 ancient woodlands.

You're correct that some of this landfill will be offset, but not that there won't be a large impact from it still; 360,000 tonnes of excavated material will be generated, beyond the amount being reused, 13,200 tonnes of demolition material, and 44,100 tonnes of construction waste will be generated - ignoring what is recyclable - and this is not encompassing all the waste produced.

Diverting rivers may be standard practice, but that's not what the question is here - despite how common it is to do, this does not change the fact that it has impact on the environment in its own right.

As I've said previously, I'm disinterested in continuing this conversation if you're not going to provide figures of your own; simply saying "I'm here to correct you" is meaningless without an actual correction in figures, or at least offering some when you make the original claim. Whilst the HS2 will have benefits when it runs, once you take into account the construction, this is largely offset.

Simply repeating things that an expert has already patiently explained to you are untrue is pretty appalling behaviour if I'm honest. You maintain this façade of intellectual curiosity but in reality you're no better than a flat-earther. You're not here to debate, or to learn, you're just here to blindly force your prejudices (which deep down you know are baseless) onto others. There's a word for that: a troll.

Simply repeating things that an expert has already patiently explained to you are untrue is pretty appalling behaviour if I'm honest. You maintain this façade of intellectual curiosity but in reality you're no better than a flat-earther. You're not here to debate, or to learn, you're just here to blindly force your prejudices (which deep down you know are baseless) onto others. There's a word for that: a troll.

If you have a problem with somebody's posts then report them. If you have evidence that can counteract what shadow has said feel free to link us to it. If you're only going to reply by calling somebody else's words nonsense then you're not being very helpful at all.

On the contrary, £2.30 is a massive underestimate. The costs of the scheme could triple and it would still be incredible value.

That's what Andrew Adonis, who originally dreamed up the scheme (actually, he was just fulfilling an EU directive on High Speed rail) keeps saying. No matter how high the cost claims, it's always 'excellent value for money'. It could consume the entire GDP of the country, leave everyone starving and homeless and it would still be 'great value'.