Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)

[Ianno87]

But there is plenty of capacity from London to Birmingham in the mornings, so these businesses could move now, as are HSBC, they are moving now and won't benefit from hs2 for 10 years, so it's just bigging up hs2.

See if you still say the same thing getting on the 0743 off Euston on a weekday morning. I've had to sit in the luggage rack before now...

 

[Noddy]

Surely, if its going to be that big, then unless it sees itself purely for Birmingham and London commuters, then it would make sense to move businesses there to avoid unnecessary travel?

What on earth is ‘unnecessary travel‘? And who exactly ‘moves businesses there’.

Businesses and individuals choose to base or live somewhere on a whole host of reasons. Travel time and travel cost is just one factor and nothing is going to stop people travelling. I don’t live close to my place of work because my partner works in a city in the opposite direction. We’ve chosen to live in between. If we want to travel to see friends or family all over the U.K. why shouldn’t we?

There is a massive ethical argument that travelling by car or plane isn’t good for the planet which I totally agree with. However over the massive lifespan of HS2 (potentially 100s of years judging by the age of our existing rail infrastructure) and by running electric trains on renewable or nuclear energy from the word go, it means travelling on HS2 will create a tiny impact. Likewise the existing electrified railway.

And while we’re talking about the environmental impact perhaps freeing up a few paths on the WCML and elsewhere might allow a bit more freight to be carried. Everyone on this thread is talking about what it means for passengers, whether it’s long or short distance, but no one is mentioning the possibility of moving additional freight and the environment benefits that will bring. Freight was, after all, what our Victorian railways were built to carry.

 

[TrafficEng]

It doesn't deliver those improvements because that's outside the scope (there's enough stuff tacked onto the price tag as it is). It does 90% of the work to deliver the improvements on certain corridors, but the final 10% on getting enough trains (more service = more trains) and perhaps some minor infrastructure work (electrification, turnbacks, new stations) will need to be done by a different entity as a different project.

The cost/benefit justification of HS2 is predicated on releasing capacity on parts of the other network to cater for growth.

If nobody understands the benefits (i.e. how that capacity will be used), nor understands the additional costs involved in delivering it, then it becomes impossible to quantify the benefit value and so they should be excluded from the HS2 project justification.

You cannot decide that other improvements are "outside the scope" only when it comes to costs, but include them on the benefits side.

 

[jfowkes]

@TrafficEng and others have made the point that there don't appear to be developed plans for the classic network to take advantage of the opportunities HS2 creates.

I think this a fair point, especially where HS2 might drastically alter service patterns (e.g. the East Mids Hub will need rail services feeding it).

So we should certainly have much more of a joined up rail strategy, but the question is, is the lack of one sufficient reason to can HS2? I'd say no. Even with no plan at all, HS2 will improve things by capacity release alone.

 

[matacaster]

But moving those ministries will make virtually no difference to anything?
Just how many civil servants do you think are in London?

It's something like 85,000 across all central government ministries.

London will still carry all before it after that has happened.
Unless you force hundreds of thousands of private sector staff to move nothing will change.


And it didn't change the simple economic realities of those.
The richest portions of Germany are still the richest portions, and the economy of Brazil is still dominated by the Rio complex.

There is no need to force any people to move, just encourage some companies. You can do this by punitively taxing buildings, company car parking, introducing a transport congestion tax applicable to places like parts of London etc. Alternatively, one can offer companies grants to move to a less congested area and rate rebates etc. Sure some firms might take umbrage and even move to the continent, but this is great as a threat, but less likely in reality. Note that HSBC and I think BT are already moving to Birmingham without any threats or cajoling. People will not commute if the price of commuting is significantly raised - companies would then either have to relocate or pay more - that would reduce commuting.

Of course London is and always will be the most popular destination in Uk for visitors, but part of the domestic reasoning involves a fairly simple equation

Cheaper house in sticks + Rail Fare and do-able but long travel time < Expensive London House + short commute

So, this means that the greater commuting distance that people feel they can manage, then places with much cheaper housing and gardens etc become more attractive to commuters to London. Put on faster commuter trains, more people work in London for higher salaries, better networking, better entertainment etc. That's why improving London's transport actually attracts more people to London, just like building more motorways generates more traffic. People will and do relocate to London even now, let alone commute because of the shortage of good jobs in the north. If MP's were in say Middlesbrough, then for sure transport in Middlesbrough would soon improve as would the whole place. The BBC moved some operations to Manchester, but they have virtually built a mini replica of London and brought up quite a lot of their London staff. The top bods stayed in London and some top presenters feel it is beneath them to move to Manchester. The implication being that the staff in Manchester just weren't good enough to do the best jobs. (As an aside I am unclear as to why the BBC needs 2 presenters to do any news item when most news TV stations manage with one).

 

[matacaster]

Interesting point. If we could see a properly-functioning health service, well-maintained roads, railway investment such as the electrification of the Midland main line and the Trans-Pennine line and the proper sorting out of the Castlefield Corridor, Sheffield station, and other problem areas all being pressed ahead, how many of those of us who object strongly to HSL2 (at least in its present form) would actually be content to see it going ahead. But when it looks as if it's going to be the single massive investment and when so many people seem to have serious objections, that against the general background really does invite complaint.

You may well have a point there!

 

[TrafficEng]

<Snip>
London's problems are caused by the state deliberately strangling it with the Green Belt, not inherent problems in the idea of a city.
We should stop trying to fight simple economic reality and figure out how to live with the new world in which we live.

Stop blowing money trying to ressucitate small towns and instead couple them to nearby cities.
STop trying to restrain london and use projects like HS2 to allow it to spread its influence over the southern half of England.

This would go against almost all of the current Spatial and Transport planning approach London has adopted. (London's plans, not ones imposed by the state).

Spreading out over the green belt exacerbates the problem of transporting people to where they work. London's strategy is densification - to move people into denser development near to employment, or near to high capacity transport corridors that have spare capacity.

The bigger London has grown (spatially) the greater the problems have become. The solution is to make it denser, and to reduce the need to travel.

The same principles should be applied to the other large cities.

 

[The Ham]

But the point Robertj21a is making (I think) is that although HS2 creates the opportunity to "improv[e] commuter networks" by freeing up track capacity, it doesn't deliver those improvements.

The improved commuter networks will only happen if there is a lot of additional investment in trains, drivers, maintenance workers, depots, station improvements etc etc. There is no promise or commitment this will happen.

And it isn't difficult to see how a sceptical public might take the view that having spent one or two hundred billion on building HS2 the pot of railway funding might be exhausted for a while.

The video camflyer posted is great and very well produced. But one of the flaws in the argument presented is it appears to be the view that our ability to build all the extra bits of railway is only limited by the number of rail infrastructure engineers we have.

Questions about all the other resources required to expand rail services are not being addressed.

Let's look at the points listed as requiring investment one at a time:

trains, these are organised by TOC's and whilst it is signed off by the DfT it doesn't have a material impact on its budget and so they are happy to approve it, especially if the TOC thinks that it's likely to increase the premium they get.

drivers, longer trains rarely need more drivers, however if we are talking about extra services this is the same as extra trains.

maintenance workers, again a TOC thing

depots, whilst this is a Network Rail thing the cost of depots are cheap compared to upgrades to the rest of the network.

station improvements, given that HS2 will improve the big major city stations there's probably not a load of stations which need much work, especially if you provide ASDO at the quieter stations.

 

[The Planner]

a, Nowhere, they start and end at Curzon Street. Passengers in the Midlands have high speed services to the great Northern Cities, and the great Northern Cities have high speed services to the great Midlands Engine towns and cities.
b, Alight at Bham Intl for air transport to destinations worldwide, or for onward train travel to London on WCML. Connect from Bham Intl Airport or railway station to high speed rail to Northern Cities and Scotland, or fast trains to London.

Right, so you are building the western side of 2B, Phase 2A and one of the most difficult bits of Phase 1 to do in the grade separated junction at Water Orton and the route into Birmingham plus a dead end spur to get to Birmingham Interchange. So not Phase 2 first then, look at a HS2 route map.

 

[TrafficEng]

There is a massive ethical argument that travelling by car or plane isn’t good for the planet which I totally agree with. However over the massive lifespan of HS2 (potentially 100s of years judging by the age of our existing rail infrastructure) and by running electric trains on renewable or nuclear energy from the word go, it means travelling on HS2 will create a tiny impact. Likewise the existing electrified railway.

If there is a massive ethical argument not to travel by car or plane then there is also a massive ethical argument not to travel by train.

The differentiation between Rail=Good and Road/Air=Bad is a false one if it is based only on the type of fuel used. The argument presumes rail will become more low-carbon whilst road and air will remain high-carbon. There is no evidence to support that presumption.

The average age of cars registered in the UK is about 8 or 9 years. This means natural churn of cars could replace the whole of the existing fleet in less time than it takes to build HS2. Given the right conditions in the year HS2 finally opens we could have something like 70% or more of UK cars running on 'clean' renewable or nuclear energy.

Meanwhile swathes of the rail network - including many main lines - still won't be electrified and will be operating 'dirty' diesels, some of them many decades old.

If the rail industry promotes the idea that Rail=Electric=Good and Car=Diesel/Petrol=Bad then it needs to prepare for the situation where in fact it has a greater need for diesel than cars do.

Or spend extra billions on electrification and/or hydrogen and battery technology which is where road and air transport is likely to be heading.

And while we’re talking about the environmental impact perhaps freeing up a few paths on the WCML and elsewhere might allow a bit more freight to be carried. Everyone on this thread is talking about what it means for passengers, whether it’s long or short distance, but no one is mentioning the possibility of moving additional freight and the environment benefits that will bring. Freight was, after all, what our Victorian railways were built to carry.

See my previous post. What are the priorities?

 

[jfowkes]

If there is a massive ethical argument not to travel by car or plane then there is also a massive ethical argument not to travel by train.

The differentiation between Rail=Good and Road/Air=Bad is a false one if it is based only on the type of fuel used. The argument presumes rail will become more low-carbon whilst road and air will remain high-carbon. There is no evidence to support that presumption.

The average age of cars registered in the UK is about 8 or 9 years. This means natural churn of cars could replace the whole of the existing fleet in less time than it takes to build HS2. Given the right conditions in the year HS2 finally opens we could have something like 70% or more of UK cars running on 'clean' renewable or nuclear energy.

Meanwhile swathes of the rail network - including many main lines - still won't be electrified and will be operating 'dirty' diesels, some of them many decades old.

If the rail industry promotes the idea that Rail=Electric=Good and Car=Diesel/Petrol=Bad then it needs to prepare for the situation where in fact it has a greater need for diesel than cars do.

Or spend extra billions on electrification and/or hydrogen and battery technology which is where road and air transport is likely to be heading.

This analysis ignores the environmental costs of car/battery construction and disposal, not to mention the various negative social effects of car use coming from congestion, land use, accidents etc. Taken as a whole, even when comparing a diesel to the same people carried in individual electric cars, I'd be surprised if the overall negative impact of the train was greater, but of course it's very hard to define and measure.

 

[TrafficEng]

Let's look at the points listed as requiring investment one at a time:

(a) trains, these are organised by TOC's and whilst it is signed off by the DfT it doesn't have a material impact on its budget and so they are happy to approve it, especially if the TOC thinks that it's likely to increase the premium they get.

(b) drivers, longer trains rarely need more drivers, however if we are talking about extra services this is the same as extra trains.

(c) maintenance workers, again a TOC thing

(d) depots, whilst this is a Network Rail thing the cost of depots are cheap compared to upgrades to the rest of the network.

(e) station improvements, given that HS2 will improve the big major city stations there's probably not a load of stations which need much work, especially if you provide ASDO at the quieter stations.

(a) They still cost money.
(b) They still cost money.
(c) They still cost money.
(d) They still cost money.
(e) They still cost money.

The way in which things are procured is irrelevant, other than how it gets added to the public sector spending pile. Paying for all the additional 'stuff' either needs more subsidy or greater fare revenue.

If there is significant growth in ridership then fare revenue will increase without ticket prices needing to increase. But initially we are just talking about decanting passengers from the three main lines onto HS2. The growth will hopefully come later, although only if fare levels can be controlled to make rail an attractive option. (see 'They still cost money')

Two specific points. (d) Depots ideally need to be in places where staff can get to them easily. That tends to be land in towns and cities which has development potential and therefore significant economic value. Even if already in railway ownership there is an economic cost involved in utilising that land for depot space rather than alternatives.

(e) Stations need to be upgraded to cope with passenger growth (e.g. stairs, gatelines, exits), and for that matter to make them accessible. ASDO isn't the answer to everything. To fully utilise the spare capacity created by HS2 it is inevitable that longer trains (see (b)) will need to be stopped at stations with shorter platforms, there is a limit to the acceptability of long trains not opening all their doors. The very existence of ASDO is a demonstration that railway planning/funding priorities have departed from what the general public might call 'common sense'.

 

[TrafficEng]

This analysis ignores the environmental costs of car/battery construction and disposal, not to mention the various negative social effects of car use coming from congestion, land use, accidents etc. Taken as a whole, even when comparing a diesel to the same people carried in individual electric cars, I'd be surprised if the overall negative impact of the train was greater, but of course it's very hard to define and measure.

Agreed. I did specifically say "based only on the type of fuel used".

The argument is far more complicated and in these posts we have only scratched the surface of all the factors involved. We've not mentioned the positive social factors of car ownership/use, the impacts of each mode on employment opportunities, nor some of the negative factors of public transport such as availability (e.g. early hours, weekends and strikes)

The point being that if you strive to have an integrated transport system it is necessary to accept the value of all modes of transport (with all their benefits and disbenefits). Simply distilling everything down into Rail=Good/Road=Bad/Air=Bad leads us into a transport strategy dead-end.

 

[Mogster]

It’s not just about carbon...

Increasing car ownership is already bringing city centres to gridlock. The likelihood of self driving cars becoming commonplace in the near future leads to some interesting possible side effects. Self driving cars open up the nightmare scenario where users arrive at their city centre destinations only to be unable to park, they leave their vehicles circulating their destination while they go about their business leading to a massive increase in traffic surrounding popular destinations...

 

[HSTEd]

Spreading out over the green belt exacerbates the problem of transporting people to where they work. London's strategy is densification - to move people into denser development near to employment, or near to high capacity transport corridors that have spare capacity.

But we have open fields adjacent to tube stations.
The green belt prohibits proper development of those areas.

London's plans require densification because it is the only strategy available to them.

 

[Ianno87]

But we have open fields adjacent to tube stations.
The green belt prohibits proper development of those areas.

Though most tube lines (Bakerloo being a notable exception) don't have capacity to take any more passengers in the Central London section.

E.g. if the Central Line had to cope with a huge development at Grange Hill.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst HS2 will not achieve anything like that, it will permit the economic area that is referred to as "London" To expand drastically.
Birmingham is Tring, Manchester is Milton Keynes and Leeds is Norwich.
(Indeed Birmingham-Euston would have similar travel time to Bank-Epping)

It won't happen to that extent other than for a few people in very high value jobs because fares are unlikely to be substantially less than at present. So while commuting daily from Manchester to London on HS2 may be "time-affordable" it won't be financially affordable.

 

[HSTEd]

Though most tube lines (Bakerloo being a notable exception) don't have capacity to take any more passengers in the Central London section.

Well the passenger flow density issues that led to these problems in central london are made worse by the demand to densify everything.
If London was more spread out, peak traffic densities would be lower.

E.g. if the Central Line had to cope with a huge development at Grange Hill.

Well parts of the Central Line could be split as part of Crossrail 2 if it was required.

It won't happen to that extent other than for a few people in very high value jobs because fares are unlikely to be substantially less than at present. So while commuting daily from Manchester to London on HS2 may be "time-affordable" it won't be financially affordable.

Well that is largely due to operational and political choices made by the likes of HS2 Ltd.

If we take a look at commuter trains on similar length journeys, we would not be building spacious intercity trains.
We would be building 400m fixed formation double deck trains (probably with 3+2 seating).

Those will achieve drastically lower per-seat costs than the ones being proposed.

EDIT:

2 Avelia Horizons in a 400m formation are projected to have up to 1480 seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cheaper house in sticks + Rail Fare and do-able but long travel time < Expensive London House + short commute

Not only that, but the quality of life in the Home Counties is much better than in some zone 5 rathole. And if you can afford a 5 bedroom house in Gerrards Cross, what you get is hugely superior to the smallish flat you'd get if you moved to zone 1.

Living in London is for young people who want to enjoy London life. That won't change even if the costs changed a bit. I kind of wish I had lived there for a bit in my 20s (though it's very accessible from MK), but at 40 I have no interest in it.

 

[matacaster]

What on earth is ‘unnecessary travel‘? And who exactly ‘moves businesses there’.

Businesses and individuals choose to base or live somewhere on a whole host of reasons. Travel time and travel cost is just one factor and nothing is going to stop people travelling. I don’t live close to my place of work because my partner works in a city in the opposite direction. We’ve chosen to live in between. If we want to travel to see friends or family all over the U.K. why shouldn’t we?

There is a massive ethical argument that travelling by car or plane isn’t good for the planet which I totally agree with. However over the massive lifespan of HS2 (potentially 100s of years judging by the age of our existing rail infrastructure) and by running electric trains on renewable or nuclear energy from the word go, it means travelling on HS2 will create a tiny impact. Likewise the existing electrified railway.

And while we’re talking about the environmental impact perhaps freeing up a few paths on the WCML and elsewhere might allow a bit more freight to be carried. Everyone on this thread is talking about what it means for passengers, whether it’s long or short distance, but no one is mentioning the possibility of moving additional freight and the environment benefits that will bring. Freight was, after all, what our Victorian railways were built to carry.

I would be more than happy to have a properly-gauged freight network.

 

[HSTEd]

Not only that, but the quality of life in the Home Counties is much better than in some zone 5 rathole. And if you can afford a 5 bedroom house in Gerrards Cross, what you get is hugely superior to the smallish flat you'd get if you moved to zone 1.

Would people have to live in "some zone 5 rathole" if London was not being garrotted by the Green Belt?

To be honest I think that large-garden suburbia has better biodiversity than arable fields by virtue of the gardens not being thrashed to within an inch of their life to fit any kind of garden activities in them.

 

[matacaster]

It’s not just about carbon...

Increasing car ownership is already bringing city centres to gridlock. The likelihood of self driving cars becoming commonplace in the near future leads to some interesting possible side effects. Self driving cars open up the nightmare scenario where users arrive at their city centre destinations only to be unable to park, they leave their vehicles circulating their destination while they go about their business leading to a massive increase in traffic surrounding popular destinations...

Not only that, but the quality of life in the Home Counties is much better than in some zone 5 rathole. And if you can afford a 5 bedroom house in Gerrards Cross, what you get is hugely superior to the smallish flat you'd get if you moved to zone 1.

Living in London is for young people who want to enjoy London life. That won't change even if the costs changed a bit. I kind of wish I had lived there for a bit in my 20s (though it's very accessible from MK), but at 40 I have no interest in it.

Ironically in Huddersfield, bike usage is only really for the brave, its hilly! Nonetheless we keep getting our road width reduced by virtually unused cycle lanes and central bollards in roads etc, so that roads where you could get two cars side by side are now single lane. Plus bus lanes. Unsurprisingly, congestion follows with attendant frustration and pollution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would people have to live in "some zone 5 rathole" if London was not being garrotted by the Green Belt?

I doubt it would make any difference. Nobody has to live in "some zone 5 rathole" now, they could live in Milton Keynes (say) instead and have a far higher quality of life albeit with a slightly longer door to door commute (and only slightly - the Tube from the outer reaches is grindingly slow). Or a bit further in say Watford, which isn't *posh* but isn't a rathole either.

The green belt may have stopped London itself sprawling too much, but towns surrounding it have done anyway and have provided much the same thing as a greater sprawling suburban London would have done.

 

[TrafficEng]

But we have open fields adjacent to tube stations.
The green belt prohibits proper development of those areas.

London's plans require densification because it is the only strategy available to them.

In addition to Ianno87's point about capacity on the tube lines, the other factor is the limited spatial distribution of those transport facilities. The Central Line from Grange Hill is great if you want to head towards Stratford or Central London, but rubbish if you want to travel westwards and your ambition extends beyond Woodford.

Outer London (aka Green Belt) has terrible orbital public transport, the bus services don't help much and it can be quicker to travel in to Zone1/2 and back out than take a bus.

Hence a new development on the fields near Grange Hill would end up populated with car owning people using the tube to get to work in the city and the car for everything else. Not very sustainable. The planners could of course make the development car-free, but that would make the properties unattractive and create issues with social disconnection.

On the other hand, if you were to propose building homes on some of London's other 'green' bits like Hyde Park, then from a transport perspective it would make a lot more sense. But as Mayor you would be unlikely to get re-elected.

Returning to the thread topic. Rather than allowing London to sprawl further out and capture more surrounding towns in continuous development, the solution is to enhance rail services to allow the people living in those towns to easily access the employment opportunities in London. So for places to the north of London HS2 probably is a good thing.

 

[TrafficEng]

Well parts of the Central Line could be split as part of Crossrail 2 if it was required.

That was the plan at one time. Then people realised there was a lot of previously developed land that could be densified if only it had better public transport.

 

[HSTEd]

That was the plan at one time. Then people realised there was a lot of previously developed land that could be densified if only it had better public transport.

I'm not convinced that, in the absence of Parker Morris, that densification is actually a good thing.

We just end up building endless stacks of awful housing units because they just shrink the units rather than trying to innovate better designs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not convinced that, in the absence of Parker Morris, that densification is actually a good thing.

We just end up building endless stacks of awful housing units because they just shrink the units rather than trying to innovate better designs.

The book "Transport for Suburbia" (which is a good read) argues that densification makes less difference than you would think.

I do agree with the point about high density housing being rubbish, though. We built ever-tinier wooden framed houses and miserable blocks of flats with no outdoor space etc and limited surface parking. We don't look at what the Europeans do - build up a bit, but build big, liveable family flats with decent balconies, large triple glazed windows and underground parking.

 

[HSTEd]

I do agree with the point about high density housing being rubbish, though. We built ever-tinier wooden framed houses and miserable blocks of flats with no outdoor space etc and limited surface parking. We don't look at what the Europeans do - build up a bit, but build big, liveable family flats with decent balconies, large triple glazed windows and underground parking.

I don't think we even need to build flats, we just have to innovate in the constrution of individual houses.
Roof gardens, integrated parking, extra story and probably basements etc etc etc.

Instead they just shrink the "conventional" house onto a smaller and smaller plot.

 

[Noddy]

If there is a massive ethical argument not to travel by car or plane then there is also a massive ethical argument not to travel by train.

The differentiation between Rail=Good and Road/Air=Bad is a false one if it is based only on the type of fuel used. The argument presumes rail will become more low-carbon whilst road and air will remain high-carbon. There is no evidence to support that presumption.

The average age of cars registered in the UK is about 8 or 9 years. This means natural churn of cars could replace the whole of the existing fleet in less time than it takes to build HS2. Given the right conditions in the year HS2 finally opens we could have something like 70% or more of UK cars running on 'clean' renewable or nuclear energy.

Meanwhile swathes of the rail network - including many main lines - still won't be electrified and will be operating 'dirty' diesels, some of them many decades old.

If the rail industry promotes the idea that Rail=Electric=Good and Car=Diesel/Petrol=Bad then it needs to prepare for the situation where in fact it has a greater need for diesel than cars do.

No, I disagree.

Flying is clearly an extremely energy inefficient way of travelling. Until aviation stops burning fossil fuels to get into the air it will always be horrendous. The laws of physics dictate that.

Car travel is also energy inefficient compared to other terrestrial methods of transport. It is also socially expensive. It causes congestion, is generally perceived to be unfriendly to other road users such as cyclists (which in pretty much every way is a beneficial mode of transport), and results in less public transport. I’m also uncertain as to what effect all these batteries will have on the environment in the future. Can the precious metals be extracted in an environmentally friendly way and are they recyclable? 70% of the particulate pollution of a car doesn’t come out of the exhaust, but the tyres, brakes etc. Last time I checked electric cars still had these.

By their very nature cars are always going to be less energy efficient than other modes of transport. You can fiddle with the stats to compare a car with 1.7 people in, with a train at 40% capacity but ultimately that’s just fiddling. The more people who use public transport the more efficient it becomes, the more people that use cars the more environmental and social problems arise.

 

[TrafficEng]

To be honest I think that large-garden suburbia has better biodiversity than arable fields by virtue of the gardens not being thrashed to within an inch of their life to fit any kind of garden activities in them.

Although some of London's green belt is arable land, a lot is meadow, woodland or sporting facilities (e.g. golf courses).

Some of the meadowland provides very high quality biodiverse habitats as they have existed for a very long time and been left undisturbed. Many of them were originally used for growing hay to feed London's horses (aka transport system). And the woodland is obviously a gem when it comes to biodiversity.

Also a lot of London's arable land is not as intensively farmed as might be imagined. It has an almost forgotten about feel to it in comparison to East Anglian prairies. In part this may be due to much of the land being in public ownership and farmed by tenant farmers who weren't as incentivised to grub out the hedges and fill in the ditches. If you look at the area immediately north of Grange Hill the field pattern is more pre-war than 2020.

I'm not convinced that, in the absence of Parker Morris, that densification is actually a good thing.

We just end up building endless stacks of awful housing units because they just shrink the units rather than trying to innovate better designs.

I completely agree with you. But for some inexplicable reason people seem to like cramming themselves into tiny boxes so they can claim to live in London and earn London wages to pay the vastly inflated cost of their box.