|
|
Post by stapler on Apr 11, 2019 15:30:24 GMT
The National Association of Residents' Associations has put out a letter which claims that the Mayor has given instructions to TFL to close all station car parks.
I can't find anything on this. I'm aware of the current controversy over Stanmore and Harrow LB more generally.
Anyone have any ideas where this has come from?
What effect would it have on the system and on local communities near railheads?
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Apr 11, 2019 15:51:59 GMT
The National Association of Residents' Associations has put out a letter which claims that the Mayor has given instructions to TFL to close all station car parks. I can't find anything on this. I'm aware of the current controversy over Stanmore and Harrow LB more generally. Anyone have any ideas where this has come from? What effect would it have on the system and on local communities near railheads? I wouldn't be at all surprised. Thinking about it anyone who for example parks at Stanmore, probably lives outside the jurisdiction of the Mayor, and not eligable to vote for him.  <<superteacher: post edited to alter reference to the Mayor.>>
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Apr 11, 2019 15:54:06 GMT
Related to this? Utter lunacy, of course, seeing as how these car parks are used for the rail replacement coaches. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 11, 2019 16:58:07 GMT
Related to this? Utter lunacy, of course, seeing as how these car parks are used for the rail replacement coaches. I believe Rail Replacement coaches are not provided for TfL services - and as such the inability to handle those procured by mainline train operators has nothing to do with TfL
TfL has major cashflow problems and London as a whole lacks housing (particularly of the 'affordable type') are far more important to the GLA / Mayor than indulging the whims of non Londoners who drive to TfL stations to save money (rather than pay higher National rail fares) ir providing occasional backup for NR problems / engineering work.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattdickinson on Apr 11, 2019 17:01:16 GMT
Related to this? Utter lunacy, of course, seeing as how these car parks are used for the rail replacement coaches. Not so.... |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Apr 11, 2019 17:14:31 GMT
I think the logic of this proposal - if it is a proposal - is as JT says. With land in the classier suburbs at £5million an acre, the shortfall caused by the fare freeze 2016-20 (and 2020-2024???) has to be made up from somewhere, and say 25 acres at the 5 car parks in the Epping Forest district, alone, would make a sizeable contribution. And not a person affected there would be eligible to vote for or against SK!
But if anyone has sight of any definite proposal please do set the source down...
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Apr 11, 2019 17:15:02 GMT
TfL is more than just the Tube, of course. They are responsible for roads and certain rail services now. If they WANT the roads clogged up by coaches coming in from Hemel, for example, that's up to them of course. As for "non-Londoners"... by the time you get out to the ends of the lines, tube stations can be pretty far from houses. Of course, buses are an option, but again, out in the sticks there can be quite a walk to the nearest bus route. As for the statement that they plan to retain commuter parking... do they plan to retain all of it or just some of it? Reduce it to just disabled? Expand it, even? What about landing zones for the air ambulance? Minor consideration of course, but still worth thinking about. Or it could be related to THIS news article... |
|
|
|
Post by croxleyn on Apr 11, 2019 17:58:01 GMT
Croxley Metropolitan station car park is always included in the Three Rivers building land assessments, so it's not just SK! There have even been rumours to build right across the tracks + platforms. Remember Tesco at Gerrards Cross?
|
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Apr 11, 2019 19:03:31 GMT
Croxley Metropolitan station car park is always included in the Three Rivers building land assessments, so it's not just SK! There have even been rumours to build right across the tracks + platforms. Remember Tesco at Gerrards Cross? Didn't it collapse? |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 11, 2019 19:10:17 GMT
Croxley Metropolitan station car park is always included in the Three Rivers building land assessments, so it's not just SK! There have even been rumours to build right across the tracks + platforms. Remember Tesco at Gerrards Cross? Didn't it collapse?
It did - but the entire thing was rebuilt to an alternative design. The Tesco's store was therefore built and has now been open for quite a while now....
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 11, 2019 19:30:10 GMT
TfL is more than just the Tube, of course. They are responsible for roads and certain rail services now. If they WANT the roads clogged up by coaches coming in from Hemel, for example, that's up to them of course. As for "non-Londoners"... by the time you get out to the ends of the lines, tube stations can be pretty far from houses. Of course, buses are an option, but again, out in the sticks there can be quite a walk to the nearest bus route. As for the statement that they plan to retain commuter parking... do they plan to retain all of it or just some of it? Reduce it to just disabled? Expand it, even? What about landing zones for the air ambulance? Minor consideration of course, but still worth thinking about. Or it could be related to THIS news article...
Outer London is hardly short of open spaces to land the air ambulance if needed.
For example in the vicinity of Stanmore station a check on satellite imaginary shows Alward Primary school playing fields, Stanmore Country Park, Stanmore Recreation Ground, Collegiate School playing fields or Cannons Park as having space to land a helicopter.
As regards rail replacement coaches 'clogging up' London's roads - just as with the Air ambulance its not as if such things are routinely scheduled and in any case its far more likely that said coaches would run from Hemel to Watford Junction in the event of a WCML blockage between Watford and Milton Keynes.
Yes folk may have to walk further to get to the stations (good exercise) or uses buses but we are hardly talking miles here.
Oh and by 'non- Londoners' I mean those not residing in a London borough and thus who have no right to dictate what the Maylor / GLA / TfL decide to do with regards station parking - which is there to serve the needs of said borough residents, not those who travel in from outside (e.g. Hemel Hempstead) because they find national rail fares / parking too expensive.
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Apr 12, 2019 7:23:51 GMT
All the 5 station car parks are included in the Epping Forest Local Plan too, but during the approval process, the District Council have said they want to maintain current levels of car parking AND put several hundred dwellings on them. Unless you go up 7-8 storeys in low rise areas, I just don't see that.
Re any possible displacement to coaches; wouldn't TFL have a say in that by declining to issue London licences for them and denying parking spaces in the centre?
If the car parks were closed, wouldn't the parking autorities (NEPP, in Epping Forest) just impose blanker resident parking schemes?
Perhaps a concerned London Assembly member might ask a Question?
|
|
|
|
Post by PiccNT on Apr 12, 2019 7:29:51 GMT
Strong rumour that Cockfosters car park is being sold off, along with our 3 year old train crew accommodation. Can't imagine the chaos that will cause on the local roads with the extra parking required.
|
|
|
|
Post by 35b on Apr 12, 2019 7:36:02 GMT
Strong rumour that Cockfosters car park is being sold off, along with our 3 year old train crew accommodation. Can't imagine the chaos that will cause on the local roads with the extra parking required. That, rather than providing what should be cost neutral facilities for “outsiders”, is what should matter. People will travel considerable distances to save time and money on the Tube. My father lives in Southfields, and one of the reasons for the residents’ permit scheme in the area was the amount of commuter parking, with people coming from a long way out. Those living on those streets are within the Mayor’s electorate, and also deserve consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Apr 12, 2019 7:44:24 GMT
The National Association of Residents' Associations has put out a letter which claims that the Mayor has given instructions to TFL to close all station car parks. I can't find anything on this. I'm aware of the current controversy over Stanmore and Harrow LB more generally. Anyone have any ideas where this has come from? What effect would it have on the system and on local communities near railheads? I just Googled the "National Association of Residents' Association" and it doesn't seem to exist. There is a National Organisation of Residents Association (http://www.nora-uk.co.uk/) although they only have four small RAs in London and no updates on their website since November last year. Perhaps a link to your source for this information would be helpful |
|
|
|
Post by John Tuthill on Apr 12, 2019 9:59:07 GMT
Strong rumour that Cockfosters car park is being sold off, along with our 3 year old train crew accommodation. Can't imagine the chaos that will cause on the local roads with the extra parking required. Surely the answer is for the developer to build a car park ABOVE the tracks, prior to the existing car park being redeveloped? Costs to be negotiated. If the developer wants the car park land so badly why not? |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,377
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 12, 2019 10:20:34 GMT
The problem is that you can't build over a car park while the car park is open - at least not until you've built the foundations (which is often circa half to development time) and a crash deck. Even if you're building over tracks some car park capacity will be required for construction vehicles, and there will be somewhere between a little and a very major amount of disruption to train services during construction.
|
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Apr 12, 2019 11:22:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Apr 12, 2019 16:27:23 GMT
There you go. It really did not take long for the "local opposition" to kick off.. I suspect that the Piccadilly line sites mentioned up-thread are among those mentioned in the recent "construction enquirer" article I linked to recently in this thread districtdave.proboards.com/thread/30500/joint-developments-tfl-stationsLike it or not - inherently developers always seek to maximise profit. So do not be surprised if many existing parking spaces get severely curtailed - not just during the construction phase. Once commuters are diverted elsewhere, the developers will have a strong incentive to squeeze in a further units on their construction compound once most of the development is complete. The UK planning process provides endless entertainment to planning experts. Indeed it is now common practice for developers to intentionally announce grandiose plans which can be guaranteed to stir up a huge outcry. Then, after a while, they announce revised plans (which were probably the plans they really wanted in the first place) but that way the locals think they have won big concessions. Another tactic is to secure planning permission ostensibly to build affordable housing. Then stall the project for years leaving an eyesore blighting a town centre location, only resuming work on the site after the planning approval is revised to delete most if not all of the affordable housing element and build high end flats instead. Game theory is wonderful. |
|
londoner
thinking on '73 stock
Posts: 478 
|
Post by londoner on Apr 12, 2019 17:23:18 GMT
There have not been any emails regarding Rayners Lane car park to any of its commuters. I personally don't see how they will be able to build houses over it. Rail replacement buses have never used the car park as far as I am aware so that is not an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 12, 2019 18:20:28 GMT
I believe Rail Replacement coaches are not provided for TfL services The posters I saw for the Wimbledon branch closure on the District Line last weekend mentioned there would be rail replacement buses. |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Apr 12, 2019 20:44:11 GMT
Sorry, National ORGANISATION of residents Associations.
On a forum for members
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,377
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 12, 2019 21:03:43 GMT
I believe Rail Replacement coaches are not provided for TfL services The posters I saw for the Wimbledon branch closure on the District Line last weekend mentioned there would be rail replacement buses. I wonder if phil is making a distinction between buses and coaches? Rail-replacement buses are common for TfL services outside zone 1 (possibly even the norm) but I don't recall ever seeing a TfL replacement coach. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Apr 13, 2019 4:33:17 GMT
I believe Rail Replacement coaches are not provided for TfL services The posters I saw for the Wimbledon branch closure on the District Line last weekend mentioned there would be rail replacement buses. I wonder if phil is making a distinction between buses and coaches? Rail-replacement buses are common for TfL services outside zone 1 (possibly even the norm) but I don't recall ever seeing a TfL replacement coach. I was under the impression that thanks to the relatively extensive bus network in London (which is also organised by the same folk who run the Underground) TfL took the view that dedicated ‘rail replacement services’ were not usually needed when bits of the tube were shut for engineering work. On the national rail network the rules mandate replacement bus / coach services and telling folk to use local busses is not permitted. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Apr 13, 2019 5:32:18 GMT
The previously heavily used Blackhorse Road station car park has been closed for a housing development.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 13, 2019 6:07:19 GMT
I wonder if phil is making a distinction between buses and coaches? Rail-replacement buses are common for TfL services outside zone 1 (possibly even the norm) but I don't recall ever seeing a TfL replacement coach. I was under the impression that thanks to the relatively extensive bus network in London (which is also organised by the same folk who run the Underground) TfL took the view that dedicated ‘rail replacement services’ were not usually needed when bits of the tube were shut for engineering work. On the national rail network the rules mandate replacement bus / coach services and telling folk to use local busses is not permitted. Rail replacement buses are still common when sections outside of Central London are closed. However, they are a little more creative with their routings, often linking to other lines which are open. What is now rarer are services which exactly mirror the closed route, and of course the absence of any replacements in zone 1. Anyway, we digress . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Apr 13, 2019 6:20:17 GMT
Sorry, National ORGANISATION of residents Associations. On a forum for members Now got extract from the item, not on a forum, but circulated for comment: ...[is] there is a consensus as to what action NORA should take? 1.The Mayor of London has instructed Transport for London to close all station car parks and use the sites for housing developments. He has stated that commuters should bike, walk or use public transport to the stations. 2. The draft London plan states that housing developments within 500 metres of a London station will not have to provide residents with parking facilities. .....[Harrow] |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Apr 13, 2019 6:26:25 GMT
There you go. It really did not take long for the "local opposition" to kick off.. I suspect that the Piccadilly line sites mentioned up-thread are among those mentioned in the recent "construction enquirer" article I linked to recently in this thread districtdave.proboards.com/thread/30500/joint-developments-tfl-stationsLike it or not - inherently developers always seek to maximise profit. So do not be surprised if many existing parking spaces get severely curtailed - not just during the construction phase. Once commuters are diverted elsewhere, the developers will have a strong incentive to squeeze in a further units on their construction compound once most of the development is complete. The UK planning process provides endless entertainment to planning experts. Indeed it is now common practice for developers to intentionally announce grandiose plans which can be guaranteed to stir up a huge outcry. Then, after a while, they announce revised plans (which were probably the plans they really wanted in the first place) but that way the locals think they have won big concessions. Another tactic is to secure planning permission ostensibly to build affordable housing. Then stall the project for years leaving an eyesore blighting a town centre location, only resuming work on the site after the planning approval is revised to delete most if not all of the affordable housing element and build high end flats instead. Game theory is wonderful. Another ploy is to pay a commutation value for affordable housing (AH) - in other word, give the council money to build it (...perhaps...) elsewhere. That happened with the big Landmark (which locals call "Eyesore") development near Debden station. But on station car park's I'd guess AH would be built on site, as the market value of a flat near a railway with 20 or 24hr service is going to be lower that in a leafy setting. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Apr 13, 2019 8:36:52 GMT
Like it or not - inherently developers always seek to maximise profit. So do not be surprised if many existing parking spaces get severely curtailed - not just during the construction phase. Once commuters are diverted elsewhere, the developers will have a strong incentive to squeeze in a further units on their construction compound once most of the development is complete. The UK planning process provides endless entertainment to planning experts. Indeed it is now common practice for developers to intentionally announce grandiose plans which can be guaranteed to stir up a huge outcry. Then, after a while, they announce revised plans (which were probably the plans they really wanted in the first place) but that way the locals think they have won big concessions. Another tactic is to secure planning permission ostensibly to build affordable housing. Then stall the project for years leaving an eyesore blighting a town centre location, only resuming work on the site after the planning approval is revised to delete most if not all of the affordable housing element and build high end flats instead. Game theory is wonderful. Except it isn't a developer announcing "grandiose plans", its TfL announcing they have awarded a contract to a developer to build affordable housing. TfL isn't going to stall the project so they can reduce the amount of affordable housing or squeeze further units to maximise profits, the whole point is to get affordable housing built as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Apr 15, 2019 10:36:23 GMT
|
|
