Decarbonisation of the country by using rail

[HSTEd]

The problems of the supply of treated water to certain areas of the country with lesser annual rainfall has been noted in recent times and water abstraction from rivers is having an effect in the environment where this occurs.

Israel and Singapore have demonstrated that desalination is now sufficiently cheap to permit mass deployment without a drastic cost increase in domestic and commercial water costs.

And that ignores the fact that it is considerably cheaper to move water than people.

The North West conurbation is very large and surprisingly built up - it's far less rural than the South East outside the London Zones. Just needs more work.

The north west is not a conurbation.

Even if Liverpool-Manchester was one it has a drastically smaller population than the true size of the London Urban Complex. Probably less than half.

The north west has a lower population density than the non London South Eastern region

London's urban belt is estimated to have a population of 14 million.

The north west statistical region including rural Cumbria manages about 7.5 million.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The north west is not a conurbation.

It pretty much is. Look at how little space there is between the parts of it, particularly in the triangle of Liverpool, Manchester and Preston.

The north west has a lower population density than the non London South Eastern region

Only because of London. Buckinghamshire is vastly more rural than Lancashire, for instance. This was the biggest surprise I found when I moved, about 20 years ago, from the latter to the former.

 

[HSTEd]

Only because of London. Buckinghamshire is vastly more rural than Lancashire, for instance. This was the biggest surprise I found when I moved, about 20 years ago, from the latter to the former.

Bucks has a population of about 800k on 724 square miles, Lancashire has a population of about 1.5 million on about 1190 square miles.
The difference is not that big. But the North West has something like half the population of the London complex

 

[Ken H]

Bucks has a population of about 800k on 724 square miles, Lancashire has a population of about 1.5 million on about 1190 square miles.
The difference is not that big. But the North West has something like half the population of the London complex

lancashire has a vast areas of nothing. North of the M65 there there is the forest of Bowland. and some socking great great hills round Rochdale/bury/Burnley too.

 

[HSTEd]

lancashire has a vast areas of nothing. North of the M65 there there is the forest of Bowland. and some socking great great hills round Rochdale/bury/Burnley too.

Yes, but when you select a mixed rural urban county like Bucks as a comparator, you don't get to chop out inconvenient parts out of the mixed urban rural county you are comparing it to.

 

[158756]

Why would it be?
City dwellers have far lower impacts than rural dwellers per unit GDP generated.
London is not "feather bedded", indeed it pays for it's transport infrastructure and more in generated tax revenues.
What you are actually suggesting is the strangulation of London, which will make everyone poorer and likely drive transport emissions ever higher.

It would be better to grow London further, or to produce a similar London sized conurbation out of another city in the North of England or Scotland.
If the population density in the rest of the country falls the environmental impacts in those areas can be reduced, and overall carbon emissions will fall.

Attempting to force people to move to random parts of the country is not a solution to this problem.

Concentrating the whole UK economy in London isn't reducing travel though, because the number of people wanting to live or work in London has long since surpassed the capacity of London to house them, so commutes are just getting longer and longer.

 

[Meerkat]

Need to get employment back into town/city centres, or at least built around stations.
The employment end of a commute is much denser than the housing end so easier to make walkable.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Israel and Singapore have demonstrated that desalination is now sufficiently cheap to permit mass deployment without a drastic cost increase in domestic and commercial water costs.

How many European countries have coastline plans at present for large commercial desalination plants?

 

[apk55]

Not all employment can be concentrated in city centers.
Manufacturing (there is still lot going on) often demands large specialist premises with good road transport links, something which is almost impossible to find in the central London area. Same with distribution centers. They also employ people at a lower density than city center office space and a lot of workers will use cars to get to work especially since many work shift systems. Hence most located in the regions .

 

[PartyOperator]

Concentrating the whole UK economy in London isn't reducing travel though, because the number of people wanting to live or work in London has long since surpassed the capacity of London to house them, so commutes are just getting longer and longer.

The population density of most of London is rather low - there are vast areas of two-storey housing where the land could easily support double the population without overcrowding given improved transport etc.

I’m not saying it would be a good thing, but you could fit the entire UK population inside the London metropolitan area (8000 square km) and you’d only be at 8,000 people per square km (similar to Brent or Lewisham).

 

[158756]

The population density of most of London is rather low - there are vast areas of two-storey housing where the land could easily support double the population without overcrowding given improved transport etc.

I’m not saying it would be a good thing, but you could fit the entire UK population inside the London metropolitan area (8000 square km) and you’d only be at 8,000 people per square km (similar to Brent or Lewisham).

That 8000sqkm definition of London stretches as far as Tunbridge Wells, Haywards Heath, Basingstoke, Aylesbury, Letchworth and Southend. Realistically, even redevelopment of any significant area of privately owned suburbia within Greater London is very unlikely.

 

[Meerkat]

A clear solution to the London housing crisis and increasing the use of public transport would be to demolish the vast swathes of thirties semi detached suburbia and replace it with denser town housing.

Would be a politically ‘brave’ decision though.....

 

[HSTEd]

Concentrating the whole UK economy in London isn't reducing travel though, because the number of people wanting to live or work in London has long since surpassed the capacity of London to house them, so commutes are just getting longer and longer.

London could easily house the entire population if you remove the garotte that is the green belt.

Why are random agricultural fields that have no special interest beyond happening to be near London protected when this leads to urban sprawl somewhere else?

There should not be Underground stations within a hundred yards of open fields, but there are.

 

[HSTEd]

How many European countries have coastline plans at present for large commercial desalination plants?

To a large degree that depends on the definition of European.
But Israel delivers desalination at 58 US cents per cubic metre.
Even at double that it won't lead to impossibly high water/sewerage charges.

 

[Ken H]

To a large degree that depends on the definition of European.
But Israel delivers desalination at 58 US cents per cubic metre.
Even at double that it won't lead to impossibly high water/sewerage charges.

Desalination is easy when you have lots of direct sunlight. But at 50 degrees north you would have to use some other energy source. And thats getting scarce.

 

[HSTEd]

Desalination is easy when you have lots of direct sunlight. But at 50 degrees north you would have to use some other energy source. And thats getting scarce.

Energy sources aren't scarce.
Even using desalination for all UK domestic water would only consume something like 1650MWe.

So one large nuclear reactor.
Compared to other energy demands it is negligible.

 

[apk55]

How many people WANT to live in London. Given an opportunity of a half decent job outside London many would jump at the opportunity. The people who seem to like London are often on super salaries (£100K+) so they can smash their way into the housing market
Also look at the Monday Friday peaks on intercity trains and the roads which in many cases is people going home to see their family.
I know many people who have not been to London for years and I have only been once in the last 20years (and that was more passing through)

 

[HSTEd]

How many people WANT to live in London. Given an opportunity of a half decent job outside London many would jump at the opportunity.

But those jobs in large part only exist because of the enormous economic aggregation effects associated with the existence of London.
This is why large cities were able to survive the coming of the motor car which was believed to herald their complete destruction, by conversion into never ending suburbia.
Even Los Angeles county has more a much higher population density than Lancashire (800 vs 484 per sq. km), and that is a poster child for urban sprawl gone mad, and includes stretches of protected parkland.

The people who seem to like London are often on super salaries (£100K+) so they can smash their way into the housing market
Also look at the Monday Friday peaks on intercity trains and the roads which in many cases is people going home to see their family.

People only do the 5 in London and 2 at home thing because they cant afford to house their family in reasonable conditions in London.
They can't afford this because the housing supply in the London urban complex is artificially restricted by planning permission limitations and by restrictions on the growth of the settlement - which are designed to preserve random farmland that just happens to be near London, whilst farmland which is just as, or more valuable in environmental terms, further from London is developed.

 

[AndrewE]

People only do the 5 in London and 2 at home thing because they cant afford to house their family in reasonable conditions in London.
They can't afford this because the housing supply in the London urban complex is artificially restricted by planning permission limitations and by restrictions on the growth of the settlement - which are designed to preserve random farmland that just happens to be near London, whilst farmland which is just as, or more valuable in environmental terms, further from London is developed.

Could it also be because the jobs they do aren't hiring outside London?
I would say all [surviving] farmland is precious - but clearly needs protection all round the country, so that economically-starved local authorities don't cave in to the sweeties supposedly offered by developers.

 

[HSTEd]

Could it also be because the jobs they do aren't hiring outside London?

Yes, those jobs aren't hiring outside London because those jobs only exist in London.
And it is likely they only exist because of aggregation affects in London.

I would say all [surviving] farmland is precious - but clearly needs protection all round the country, so that economically-starved local authorities don't cave in to the sweeties supposedly offered by developers.

If farmland is precious I would prefer we stop the Environment Agency abandoning it to the sea to save a few quid on sea walls and flood defences rather than stopping people from building reasonable housing in a place where people want to live.

 

[AndrewE]

Yes, those jobs aren't hiring outside London because those jobs only exist in London.
And it is likely they only exist because of aggregation affects in London.

Exactly. Isn't it a shame that there isn't another centre of employment in the UK? Do you think the government should have headed off this situation? After all they collect taxes from all of us, wherever we live and work...

If farmland is precious I would prefer we stop the Environment Agency abandoning it to the sea to save a few quid on sea walls and flood defences rather than stopping people from building reasonable housing in a place where people want to live.

Land lost to the sea is probably trivial compared with the amount of land disappearing under development. Cheshire East didn't have a development plan, so by default (and in law) there was no way of anyone stopping rich farmland around Congleton, Nantwich, Sandbach (add your own location) being built over.
As has been pointed out lots of times, UK government just doesn't do joined-up thinking!

 

[HSTEd]

Exactly. Isn't it a shame that there isn't another centre of employment in the UK? Do you think the government should have headed off this situation? After all they collect taxes from all of us, wherever we live and work...

It seems unlikely that a city could provide the same aggregation effects as London without being of comparable scale.
And there simply isn't the population for more than two or three London sized cities, even if the entire rest of the country was depopulated.

If optimising solely for economic growth the best bet would be to simply expand London to house the entire UK population.

Land lost to the sea is probably trivial compared with the amount of land disappearing under development. Cheshire East didn't have a development plan, so by default (and in law) there was no way of anyone stopping rich farmland around Congleton, Nantwich, Sandbach (add your own location) being built over.
As has been pointed out lots of times, UK government just doesn't do joined-up thinking!

Well the Environment Agency is fond of proposing retreat everywhere, so just watch it become more commonly suggested in future.