"Ollie - these "minor nature reserves" are hardly Minsmere, but they are some of the most bird-rich areas in South Yorkshire. They are also important wildlife corridors through a urbanised landscape, providing pitstops for migrant birds and habitat for breeding birds. The reserves will not win prizes for beauty, and are not renowned for rare breeding species (although I can think of a couple of S1s), but they not only provide habitats for nature to reclaim post-industrial areas, but green spaces for people in less well off areas. And the very people who live in these areas, and will see these spaces destroyed (along with, in some instances, their houses, business and amenities) are often the people least likely to be swanning backwards and forwards to London doing business on a high speed train."
But for most of these sites, and species effected, it will be relatively easy to create new habitats and offset disturbance. The largest breeding populations of house sparrow where I used to live always used to be along railway lines, presumably due to lack of human disturbance- so it might even create some benefits. They are not planning on destroying any sites that are truly irreplaceable, or hold hugely significant numbers.
As for which people are most likely to be using them, that is necessarily the case for all peices of national infrastructure. Everyone in society has to pay some costs, as well as gaining the benefits of being in that society (I'm not saying this is anywhere near perfect or equitable in this country). This argument could be equally used against all and any future largescale developments.
"While I appreciate I'd much prefer rail travel to air travel, is it than important to create this at the expense of all the SSSIs, ancient woodland and other wildlife corridors that it's going to destroy on the way? I will miss some of the South Yorkshire sites that may be lost, but I also appreciate that a couple of wildlife-rich brownfield sites on the outskirts of Rotherham are nothing compared to some of the losses that will be felt by wildlife further down the route."
But these sites, and the wildlife within them, are going to be far more adversely affected by global warming in the long term. Whilst I agree that there are some problems (sometimes fairly serious) with HS2/3, windfarms, various other green initiatives, isn't it far worse for wildlife if we turn every 'green' initiative in to such a political no-go zone that no party ever dares attempt any of them. Is it not far better for people such as ourselves who should be at the forefront of this, when we can see the effects on birds and wildlife ourselves quite easily, to overlook some short term problems/mistakes/setbacks in order to allow momentum to build behind a proper program to tackle global warming?
"If I get the right train I can get to London in just over two hours. I fail to see how shaving an hour off this journey is worth carving the country up for. It does gall me a little bit that if you have 33 billion quid to spend on making the North better, the best way people can think of is to simply make it so we can leave it quicker."
I hadn't realise the trains were only running one way?!? As someone who has moved from the South to the North, I'm far from convinced that this is how it will necessarily work.
"Fighting climate change is important, but destroying networks of small nature reserves that conservationists have so much spent time and money creating seems counterproductive. Technology means people don't need to be physically in the same room any more to deal with each other, and it's changing the corporate mindset that we have to jet about all over the place to make business happen that we need to work on, not an expensive scar down the country that no-one can currently give a straight answer on whether or not ordinary people can even afford to travel on it."
I agree in an ideal world this would be the case, especially if we were discussing a new airport or similar. But I don't think we will rule out the need for transport in the foreseeable future (and that time will always be at a premium), and given that, this is surely a big step in the right direction. Support from conservation groups would not only mean that further green projects would not only be more likely to go ahead, but that they would have more influence on ensuring mitigation for this project and future projects.
