Make homes and retail near underused pre-existing railways

[richieb1971]

In other threads i've touched on things that don't make sense to me, usually the answer is politics or laws or some such blockade stopping something pretty good happening.

So here we are. I'd like to know since its soooo long, expensive and hard to make a railway in the 21st century why homes are not built around pre-existing stations that get hardly any customers?

Not just homes. The latest retail parks are so far away from railways these days in the middle of nowhere. Then you look right next to the nearest railway and it could have slotted in right next to it. Voila, you have a rail connected retail park.

Industrial distribution centres. Why put one 10 miles away from the railway. Put it right next to it.

I think you get my meaning here. There is always land next to railways. If we cannot make use of it so the railway can make use of it, perhaps we are not smart at all. Or am I am wrong?

If someone wanted planning permission for something, shouldn't there be a question that promotes rail in order to get that permission? Makes sense to me.

 

[MrPIC]

Probably a protected newt or something blocking it

 

[jon0844]

I do wish we'd spread out building a bit more than we do, and using existing stations does sound like a good idea (assuming it could then cope with the uptake in usage).

Obviously there are other issues like gas, electricity and water upgrades and road infrastructure, but we do seem to love over developing areas and making them pretty horrible places to live, especially when they become so crowded that it just raises tensions in communities.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[gsnedders]

Access to other existing infrastructure (water, electricity, road network) and cost of land are both going to contribute to decisions (both by the developer and by the planning committee).

When it comes to distribution centres, there's no use in building next to the railway if it's more cost efficient to use roads (either because of reduced storage demands with smaller just-in-time deliveries or because the actual transport itself is cheaper).

Retail parks as far as I'm aware are generally built based on land availability and price; even those that are rail connected tend to have relatively small numbers of people coming by rail which doesn't give a good business case for building future ones next to the railway.

 

[johnkingeu]

Because a huge amount of it happens to be in the Green Belt. There is 20,000 hectares of undeveloped Green Belt land within 10 minutes walk of a London station excluding land that is of amenity value, SSSI, etc (that is, land that is not actually very green, basically industrial farmland or waste land) - enough to solve the London housing crisis for decades.

See this map and blog post

Other than that, to build on land you have to own it. Not everyone wants to sell.

 

[IanXC]

I think this is a more mixed story, there are some very well rail connected schemes, take a look at the old site of Kellingley Colliery for instance, or the Kirkstall Forge scheme.

What really strikes me as wasteful is that it rarely seems that Council Local Plans take advantage of existing infrastructure. Villages chosen for development are rarely those with existing rail connections, and those which have such connections are usually not developed at all!

 

[eastdyke]

I am of the view that there should be a presumption against planning permission for large/very large housing and commercial (office) developments unless it can be shown that it is rail connected.

By rail connected I do not mean 'must be within a mile of a railway station' I mean that the residents/employees can use the rail network without using a car. Could be an efficient light rail/tram/proper bus service to access useful mainline rail services.

 

[neonison]

Some of our blighted town centres with derelict buildings and boarded up shops could be the ideal places for new housing. These already have the infrastructure to provide the utilities but also the transport connections. Places like Rochdale and Oldham could see their traditional centres rejuvenated by building new housing or converting commercial properties to residential use.

 

[Robertj21a]

For most planners, and much of the general public, logistics companies etc it's far more important to be in a location that's appropriate to the local road infrastructure. The proximity to motorways, dual carriageways or general trunk roads is usually far more important than whether a railway station is close by.

 

[richieb1971]

Retail parks and distribution centres have employees. Some could get jobs if they did not drive. Seems very short sighted. Lets all drive to work on those congested roads and get lifts and taxis when we are carless.

 

[ABB125]

If new towns are built up and down the country, I think they should definitely be built on or next to a railway. As they would be new build, I would have thought that installing a tram network would be really cheap: no utilities to divert etc, you just build the town around the tram system. Public transport solved.

However, for smaller developments, it would be a lot harder to find a location suitable next to a railway, as there will be less inhabitants and thus less rail usage.

 

[route:oxford]

Retail parks and distribution centres have employees. Some could get jobs if they did not drive. Seems very short sighted. Lets all drive to work on those congested roads and get lifts and taxis when we are carless.

Then you need to highlight successful business models that have embraced rail connectivity in order to promote new or upgraded stations.

Bicester Village is one of them. Bit of investment and the number of users jumps from around 200,000 per annum to 1,000,000 per annum.

Have to be mindful that your very post is itself very short-sighted. The days of masses of people flocking to regular out-of-town retail parks is rapidly drawing to a close. Just yesterday, Wilko announced 3900 job cuts - many of which are in out-of-town locations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is this not roughly what was done with Buckshaw Village/Buckshaw Parkway, the site being selected next to the old Euxton ROF station?

 

[NSE]

It is a good point but I can't help remember the 'out of town' retail park I grew up using, Valley Park in Croydon, and most of the time we went there was for Ikea, Homebase or B&Q. I appreciate lots of employees and clothes shoppers etc went, but it's gonna be a blast seeing everyone and their flat pack furniture packing out the platforms haha

 

[xotGD]

On the plus side, I will cite Gateshead Metrocentre and Glasshoughton. Also lots of new houses being built in Pontefract on the old colliery land, and they have three stations to travel from.

Also the regeneration of the south side of Leeds is all close to the station (and indeed the city centre for those who work centrally).

And of course finally there will be a station serving the White Rose Centre and nearby office park.

However I agree that in many places residential and commercial development goes ahead with zero regard for rail accessibility. This needs to change.

 

[richieb1971]

There needs to be a body in the councils that talk between potential residential builders, retail builders, land owners and network rail.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Some of our blighted town centres with derelict buildings and boarded up shops could be the ideal places for new housing.

That's where you think people want to live is it? :roll: In some kind of semi-derelict urban wasteland?

 

[InOban]

1. Town centres. The best way to revitalise a town centre is to build flats for those who don't want or need houses with gardens. This brings back shops and nightlife.

2. Rural stations, especially in green belt stations. It has been suggested by others that there should be an exemption for social housing next to the station, as well as small industrial units. This would make it possible for the trades which service the expensive houses to be based in the area, while giving them access to the main towns for education and other services. There are pretty villages where, for example, the car servicing business is entirely staffed by people who have to travel out from the nearetown.

 

[coppercapped]

The issue that you have not addressed is that the road network is much finer grained than rail and therefore serves areas that the train cannot reach.

It is not possible to ensure that many/most/all people have a railway station nearby in order to travel by rail to the retail park - or any other traffic generating site.

Railways work by concentrating individual flows into a large 'trunk' flow. They do not, and cannot well, cater for the suburb-to-suburb or the suburb-to-employment-centre-with-800-employees flows that your model describes.

This does not mean that concentrating development around existing stations is not a good idea - but there are only 2,500 stations in the whole country. You will have to identify which stations could be used as a basis for such developments. You can rule out Paddington, Waterloo, St. Pancras, Glasgow Central and so on already - and probably also Shippea Hill. Even if you can identify 1,000 stations it won't make much difference in the great scheme of things.

 

[route:oxford]

They do not, and cannot well, cater for the suburb-to-suburb or the suburb-to-employment-centre-with-800-employees flows that your model describes.

Well, yes they can. As long as it is part of a diagram that contains multiple passenger flows.

 

[Bertie the bus]

1. Town centres. The best way to revitalise a town centre is to build flats for those who don't want or need houses with gardens. This brings back shops and nightlife.

No it isn't. It works in London and a small number of other major cities but it isn't going to work in places like Burnley or Bradford. There are many towns outside the SE of England that don't even have a housing shortage because there are few jobs and most people don't want to live there. These are the places with boarded up shops and decaying town centres.

 

[richieb1971]

All I am proposing is that if you have trains running almost empty in places, why not build homes and retail/industry in those areas so the trains can be better utilized. It doesn't matter if nobody who buys those homes doesn't use the train, it matters that you built in a place where the option is available.

 

[Bletchleyite]

1. Town centres. The best way to revitalise a town centre is to build flats for those who don't want or need houses with gardens. This brings back shops and nightlife.

Agreed, massively. Get people living in town centres and they'll stop dying.

 

[kevjs]

Some of our blighted town centres with derelict buildings and boarded up shops could be the ideal places for new housing. These already have the infrastructure to provide the utilities but also the transport connections. Places like Rochdale and Oldham could see their traditional centres rejuvenated by building new housing or converting commercial properties to residential use.

The first wave of people then move in, find the nighttime economy to noisey and either force the businesses to close down (i.e. due to heavy handed licencing restrictions) or causes the residential dwellings to fail as they are undesirable. In Nottingham it's only worked as the residential blocks switched to bring student digs - not itself too big a problem (as it clears inner city family homes of students) but did leave the city centre somewhat dead in summer.

 

[158756]

No it isn't. It works in London and a small number of other major cities but it isn't going to work in places like Burnley or Bradford. There are many towns outside the SE of England that don't even have a housing shortage because there are few jobs and most people don't want to live there. These are the places with boarded up shops and decaying town centres.

There are some residential conversions or new builds being proposed in Burnley town centre. Most have a distinct whiff of being very small, cheap and nasty. I will be surprised if any local working people ever live in them, assuming any actually get built that is. Manchester Road station has extremely limited potential for surrounding development, even if the rail service was any good. The town centre shopping area isn't actually doing terribly at the moment - nearby Accrington and Nelson are doing really badly.

 

[Kettledrum]

Industrial distribution centres. Why put one 10 miles away from the railway. Put it right next to it.

I think you get my meaning here. There is always land next to railways. If we cannot make use of it so the railway can make use of it, perhaps we are not smart at all. Or am I am wrong?

If someone wanted planning permission for something, shouldn't there be a question that promotes rail in order to get that permission? Makes sense to me.

There's been quite a few cases recently of distribution centres being built on former agriculture land next to railways. It makes it so much easier to get planning permission if you call it a "rail distribution centre" Co-incidentally, they're also close to major roads, and guess what?

They never see a single train.

 

[al78]

Retail parks and distribution centres have employees. Some could get jobs if they did not drive. Seems very short sighted. Lets all drive to work on those congested roads and get lifts and taxis when we are carless.

Welcome to the UK. We have adopted the car-is-king U.S. mentality when it comes to urban planning, and developments are planned on the assumption that for most people the car is the primary choice of transport. This results in a viscious circle, where development is car-centric, forcing people in those developments to use cars, thus the car-centrism is enhanced, therefore people drive more because the alternatives are impractical, thus future developments are car-centric because most people use cars for transport etc etc etc. What you end up with is a load of urbanisation which are places to endure rather than enjoy, ugly concrete jungles interspersed by busy congested roads. Take a look at Holland amongst other European places to see how moch better we could have done.

 

[J-2739]

Welcome to the UK. We have adopted the car-is-king U.S. mentality when it comes to urban planning, and developments are planned on the assumption that for most people the car is the primary choice of transport. This results in a viscious circle, where development is car-centric, forcing people in those developments to use cars, thus the car-centrism is enhanced, therefore people drive more because the alternatives are impractical, thus future developments are car-centric because most people use cars for transport etc etc etc. What you end up with is a load of urbanisation which are places to endure rather than enjoy, ugly concrete jungles interspersed by busy congested roads. Take a look at Holland amongst other European places to see how moch better we could have done.

I don't see why you're using the U.S to compare. Outside of major cities like New York, there isn't a lot of population density, so public transport isn't viable. While countries like Holland are super dense with public transport everywhere. I'd say we're in the middle.

 

[Bertie the bus]

All I am proposing is that if you have trains running almost empty in places, why not build homes and retail/industry in those areas so the trains can be better utilized. It doesn't matter if nobody who buys those homes doesn't use the train, it matters that you built in a place where the option is available.

Because people want to live where they want to live. Not where somebody on an internet forum tells them they should live.

 

[jon0844]

Then you need to highlight successful business models that have embraced rail connectivity in order to promote new or upgraded stations.

Bicester Village is one of them. Bit of investment and the number of users jumps from around 200,000 per annum to 1,000,000 per annum.

Have to be mindful that your very post is itself very short-sighted. The days of masses of people flocking to regular out-of-town retail parks is rapidly drawing to a close. Just yesterday, Wilko announced 3900 job cuts - many of which are in out-of-town locations.

I rarely go to retail parks now. Most of what I'd go to one for I can now get on Amazon. I might click and collect occasionally, but I am not really one for going to a retail park to just browse on a wet Sunday afternoon as something to do.

I am far more likely to go to a town centre where I can walk around for no particular reason, have a coffee/cake/snack and relax. I think many high streets and town centres are seeing a bit of a resurgence (not all, as some are total dumps) if there's a good mix of retail and restaurants/cafes.

Bicester Village is a bit different as it's more like a shopping centre, and I am sure a great deal of people who go to either Westfield do so by public transport. Indeed, many shopping centres in towns.

I don't know about Bluewater and Lakeside and others, where it's probably 90-95% visitors by car?