|
|
Post by jimbo on Aug 8, 2019 1:53:25 GMT
TfL is working to develop their land holdings to provide funding for future service developments in a tight financial environment. There is danger that development of land will prevent future development of services when funds eventually become available. This is currently a concern with the possibility of future funding for the World Class Capacity upgrades on the Jubilee and Northern lines, plans for additional trains having been "paused" in October 2017. Surely it is only a matter of time before 36tph has to be achieved on these lines. Northern World Class Capacity with 42 Picc style trains and a new Camden Town station could provide 36tph split service; 60% uplift north of Kennington, 35% to Morden when existing trains also replaced, say at 30 years in 2026. Signalling will require tweaking. Releases current trains to boost Jubilee to 36tph also, matching PEDs. Trains cost £2.4bn But recent property developments have been mentioned at High Barnet, Finchley Central and Stanmore, which were essential sites for stabling of additional trains required for 36tph. The Northern line will need up to 42 extra trains. The Feasibility Study said 13 of these could be stabled at Finchley Central, and 5 more at High Barnet. Stanmore could have been redeveloped for additional stabling and train maintenance on part of the car park site according to the Feasibility Report. Three or four double-length roads, or four shorter sidings at the south end of Stanmore car park were considered. Up to 18 extra trains were required, although JLU2 proposed to order 10 trains, as to stable more would require up to eight additional sidings on the site of the current Stanmore car park. But TfL Commissioner’s Report 24 July 2019 states: We are working with Taylor Wimpey to deliver 1,000 new homes in the London Borough of Barnet, with 40 per cent of those being affordable. Across the two sites, Finchley Central and High Barnet, we are proposing to provide new commercial units, improvements to the public realm and better connections for pedestrians. And Ian Visits Stanmore www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2019/07/24/stanmore-tube-station-to-convert-car-park-into-flats/ |
|
|
|
Post by philthetube on Aug 8, 2019 5:56:49 GMT
No idea if this is the case but would it be possible to build with space below to allow stabling later if needed
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Aug 8, 2019 9:39:12 GMT
I agree that the dire financial situation has crowded out most of the long term upgrade plans due to take place in the next 10 to 20 years. Rapidly hiving off of parcels of land has the echoes of what BR was doing in the 70's and 80's selling land above and around its stations.
Of course there is immense pressure on housing in London, but we will rue the day when money is found for capacity projects and there is no surface space available. In the case of the Jubilee line I think there will be nothing left for expansion other than something hideously expensive such as turning the Charing X branch into a City Sidings Mk2.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Aug 8, 2019 18:37:28 GMT
It must always be remembered that the population of London has spread outwards from the centre. Whereas the Metroland project was to build on virgin land, there is now pressure to house a growing number of people extending beyond the M25.
You only have to go back to the 1980s to read how the whole Marylebone station area was planned to be demolished for a coach park coachway on the ground level and with multi-storey offices above. 40 years on and if that was planned today, it would be for housing as so much office space in central London is not so urgently needed. But the pressure points have moved outwards, and "pleasant 1930s" style train termini take a lot of resources that could be used for housing.
In this century, 80 year old railway infrastructure will always give way to housing needs
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Aug 8, 2019 20:42:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris L on Aug 8, 2019 21:44:19 GMT
Mayor Khan's policy is to get rid of station car parks.
Blackhorse Road went for housing.
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Aug 9, 2019 12:29:24 GMT
Mayor Khan's policy is to get rid of station car parks. Blackhorse Road went for housing. Yes,so I understand. Is this a declared policy? I can't find it written down! However, Mr Khan's policy is of little effect outside Greater London, where different rules (the Local Plans) apply |
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Aug 9, 2019 13:27:34 GMT
Mayor Khan's policy is to get rid of station car parks. Blackhorse Road went for housing. Yes,so I understand. Is this a declared policy? I can't find it written down! However, Mr Khan's policy is of little effect outside Greater London, where different rules (the Local Plans) apply I have a feeling the law of unintended consequences will apply here and eventually this policy will be seen to have very bad affects with vehicles currently parked in station car parks ending up clogging up local roads all around outlying stations (so thoroughly ticking off people who can vote for the mayor). It seems inevitable that virtually all the people currently using these car parks will still need to get to work somehow, and they will not simply disappear in a puff of smoke. Hence I suspect that Khan's policy to close down all station car-parks could well have a significant effect outside Greater London. Certainly car parking at a lot of the end of line locations seems to attract a very significant number of commuters with many driving in from outside and quite possibly well outside Greater London. In the main the availability of a predictable place to park ensures that a lot of these non-London voters nevertheless choose to park and buy tube tickets to ride into the centre rather than ploughing on into the centre of the city and adding to the central area traffic chaos. I am sure more housing is needed, but the correct answer is to insist that the existing car parking area is retained with any housing built on a raft sitting above the car park level. If Tesco and ASDA can do this sort of structure, surely it is not beyond the Mayor to require developers to only construct housing above these car park rather than directly on them. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Aug 9, 2019 13:41:36 GMT
Indeed as I've stated on another thread on this or a similar topic, these car park areas have more value than just "places customers store tin boxes on wheels whilst at work". For example during planned maintenance or service disruptions, they can form rallying points for coaches and buses, or act as marshalling yards and transfer points for HGVs bringing metals, aggregate etc to be shifted on to rolling stock for rail projects which would otherwise have to come right into the heart of London.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterc on Aug 9, 2019 17:01:58 GMT
Part of the trouble is that the low fares on the underground distort travel pattens with the fare freeze making driving to a tube station more attractive every year.
My local stations are Chesham or Hemel. Using contactless I can save over a fiver for an off peak return to Euston by driving to Chesham rather than Hemel before considering the car park charges. Chesham is nearer but WMT are faster so it is the cost that really settles things.
Khan isn't the only one seeing car parks as "brown field sites" for redevelopment, we are seeing similar, if less spectacular, proposals in Bucks.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Aug 9, 2019 18:34:51 GMT
@ peterc
And in West Sussex.
People on the South Coast often drive to Wimbledon, SWT or LU stations.
A MASSIVE car park is planned for Ford Station, where there is minimal population, but 2>300 new homes planned for nearby Yapton.
Regular commuters say driving 50 miles each way is less stressful, and cheaper than using "Southern"
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Aug 9, 2019 19:43:07 GMT
Most things aare less stressful than using SR, as I had time to ruminate on when stranded in Littlehampton last!
The point about decking over retained car parks just increses the height of the development,which is one of the things the EF inspector declared against. And I thought the Mayor's intentions were to diminish car use in the suburbs by encouraging walking/cycling/bussing to his stations.
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Aug 9, 2019 19:45:45 GMT
Yes,so I understand. Is this a declared policy? I can't find it written down! However, Mr Khan's policy is of little effect outside Greater London, where different rules (the Local Plans) apply I have a feeling the law of unintended consequences will apply here and eventually this policy will be seen to have very bad affects with vehicles currently parked in station car parks ending up clogging up local roads all around outlying stations (so thoroughly ticking off people who can vote for the mayor). It seems inevitable that virtually all the people currently using these car parks will still need to get to work somehow, and they will not simply disappear in a puff of smoke. Hence I suspect that Khan's policy to close down all station car-parks could well have a significant effect outside Greater London. Certainly car parking at a lot of the end of line locations seems to attract a very significant number of commuters with many driving in from outside and quite possibly well outside Greater London. In the main the availability of a predictable place to park ensures that a lot of these non-London voters nevertheless choose to park and buy tube tickets to ride into the centre rather than ploughing on into the centre of the city and adding to the central area traffic chaos. I am sure more housing is needed, but the correct answer is to insist that the existing car parking area is retained with any housing built on a raft sitting above the car park level. If Tesco and ASDA can do this sort of structure, surely it is not beyond the Mayor to require developers to only construct housing above these car park rather than directly on them. The only stations I know without severe resident parking zones near them are Debden (for a few months more) and Southminster... |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Aug 10, 2019 2:05:59 GMT
I believe that the costs of building on rafts rather than solid land make rafts only viable for commercial developments, and then only in areas of high property values. At Hammersmith alongside the H&C station a development was specifically built to the west to allow two sidings beneath, but this was then used for car parking and is not part of the 4LM project!
|
|
|
|
Post by londonstuff on Aug 10, 2019 5:10:34 GMT
I believe that the costs of building on rafts rather than solid land make rafts only viable for commercial developments, and then only in areas of high property values. At Hammersmith alongside the H&C station a development was specifically built to the west to allow two sidings beneath, but this was then used for car parking and is not part of the 4LM project! Wow, I didn’t realise that there was provision for sidings there. Something similar to what you are referring to happened on the entrance/exit to Bank a couple of years ago: www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2017/08/28/dlr-tunnel-to-bank-station-being-extended/With this case, with the fact that this land will need to be used at some point, is there a case of it being one department not knowing what the other needs? Obviously it makes the whole future arrangements a lot more expensive if alternative provisions need to be found with everyone in the know saying ‘Why didn’t we use that land we used to have?’ It just seems terribly short-sighted. |
|
|
|
Post by Tomcakes on Aug 10, 2019 15:27:46 GMT
Could the land at High Barné be practically used for stabling? It strikes me as a little too small to be of much use. There is land on the east side of the existing sidings. I did read that the local council were considering expanding the current CPZ to encompass those streets not currently covered - there is an element of commuter parking during the day already. Probably more pressure would be put on Totteridge which has lots of free streets nearby.
|
|
