I'm curious to know how much could have been saved on the project if it was basically built without environmental/NIMBYesque regulations/mitigations?
Let's assume that the government still had to pay any compulsory purchase costs at market rates - so they couldn't just bulldoze a new corridor of London etc for free. But things like "green tunnels" and "bat tunnels" could be avoided, and you would only do TBM tunneling if it was cost effective to avoid compulsory purchase, vs doing it purely to avoid visual impact for political reasons.
As a followup/bonus points for some analysis on the same if they had also built to 300km/h line speed Vs 400km/h?
Basically I'm interested to know what the major cost drivers were in design/regulation sense and if lessons can be learnt here.
Let's assume that the government still had to pay any compulsory purchase costs at market rates - so they couldn't just bulldoze a new corridor of London etc for free. But things like "green tunnels" and "bat tunnels" could be avoided, and you would only do TBM tunneling if it was cost effective to avoid compulsory purchase, vs doing it purely to avoid visual impact for political reasons.
As a followup/bonus points for some analysis on the same if they had also built to 300km/h line speed Vs 400km/h?
Basically I'm interested to know what the major cost drivers were in design/regulation sense and if lessons can be learnt here.