6
Ideally, it'd be Morley that closed rather than Cottingley- with Morley being an ideal terminus for the tram/light-rail that Leeds has been crying out for for decades. The present station is poorly-sited, as suggested by the old name, Morley (Low). There's even a viaduct from the nearby M621 junction to the immediate vicinity of Leeds City station that could be used to segregate said light-rail from much of the congestion...
I've long believed that trams would be a better solution to serving White Rose than a heavy-rail station. For example multiple tram stops could be built to serve the various different areas, rather than one station trying to serve a fairly large area with multiple traffic sources and sinks. The line could even run up the hill to Morley town centre and reduce much of the demand at the poorly-sited Morley (Low) station.
What's the maximum distance a station can be relocated without invoking a formal closure procedure? In the last five years or so, three stations have been "moved" - Rochester by 500m, Bromsgrove by 350m and Forres by 230m, in each case retaining the same name of course. Did any of these require a closure procedure for the old station? Meridian Road is only 300m from the former Angel Road station, but in this case there was a change of name. Is that significant?
The closure procedure was followed for Rochester. I'm not sure about Bromsgrove or Forres.
Yes, it's still open. It was slated to be on one of the original (Super)tram lines from 20 years ago that funding wasn't forthcoming for, even though West Yorkshire was told "Just the one line? Why not have three?" - which is why the original line south to Stourton gained the ones north to Headingley and east to Whinmoor. But I digress...
That's a good thought, but the new station would never be called Cottingley. Cottingley is Ye Olde PTE and for people on a Council estate, whereas White Rose is for business, and thus totally sexy in the eyes of WYCA. Yes, I'm cynical, but I firmly believe that the upper reaches of the CA are full of the kind of people who would demolish St Pancras because "it's old".
The consultation period runs until Monday, 4th October 2021.
Roughly...
As I understand it (for England & Wales at least) , a relocated station that shares any part of the footprint with the old station does not need to go through the closure process. However, if the new build is on a completely new site then the closure consultation does have to take place; whether or not the new station uses the same name or a different name.
Churwell was just south of Elland Road; I'd say 600m away from Cottingley, 150m away from White Rose. Co-ordinates from Churwell's Wikipedia page.
I think it's only taken a while to surface in your usual channels! I saw this in early March and noted in late May that Cottingley station was almost wallpapered in copies of the letter. It appears to be carefully worded that opening White Rose does not necessarily have to happen first or concurrently.
No, there is the implication that White Rose will be available before / when Cottingley closes. There is a paragraph by West Yorkshire Combined Authority in a document which suggests that will be the case but not an undertaking that it will be the case. Simple enough to write a clause that A will not happen unless and until B happens. I do like a good undertaking, even if it is prohibitively expensive to enforce. An undertaking tends to sharpen the minds of the boundary pushers and shape-shifters who knowingly speak with forked tongues. There was an article in the press this week suggesting that we really shouldn't be relying nowadays on someone being the jolly decent chap and always doing the right thing.
I assume that in that case, the lack of accessibility between the platforms would no longer be grandfathered in. Therefore any resumption of service would require the footbridge be replaced with an accessible one. When there's a new station built with full accessibility just a few hundred yards away this would seem to me to be an unwise use of limited funds.
There is an implication, yes, but this is carefully avoided in the ORR ratification letter.