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.

A city-building game in which the city would prefer you didn't