My idea to address the Housing shortage - build over railways?

[adamedwards]

I heard another news story today about the need to build more homes, particularly in London. I think there are plenty of places where building over the railway might release useful pockets of land, not cheap, but with the average 3 bed semi in London now costsing £500,000 according to this programme, may be the new land might be worth money for Network Rail and TfL.

On my commuting routes I would suggest:

• Finchley Central could go subsurface with four story blocks facing local roads.
• New Southgate was planned to have a tunnel with supermarket. Assuming any covgering over allowed for Crossrail 2 there could be something big here.
• Finally, the cutting south of Oakleigh Park station could be covered over too.

There are probably plenty of other locations where this could be done.

I would guess not only would the propery development earn money, but I would assume covering the tracks means less problems with snow, leaves and maintenance.

Which line would you cover over?

Cheers

Adam

 

[Simon11]

After the Gerard cross incident, that might put off TfL/ NR due to the major risks if it goes wrong.

 

[6Gman]

I would suspect that outside the absurd land values of London the cost of roofing over the railway would far exceed the cost of purchasing land elsewhere.

 

[najaB]

Which line would you cover over?

None. I've a more radical idea - using brownfield land near the railway (or even green field land outside cities) and building a station so that people can use the railway to get where they need to be.

 

[AndrewE]

None.

Agree. Given the slow pace of electrification I would veto it anywhere. Even the car park or whatever it is over the line on the down approach to Plymouth spoils things. Bham New St has been horrible ever since I have known it & got worse when the tunnel was extended North, Liverpool St has been spoilt by too low a headroom, but I remember Basel trainshed as high, light and airy.

Difficult track inspections and poisoning of staff during maintainance are the long-term downsides of this short-sighted short-term search for money.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Railways will be one of the last places to be developed because the costs involved in retro-actively providing for over-site development are enormous. One of the sticking points involved in over-site development at Euston is that to make the cost of building the foundations through the railway zone worthwhile, the height of the buildings above has to be much higher than many local areas would tolerate. Therefore, the cost of decking over cannot actually be justified fully. In the most recent plans for the site, there are areas of over-site development but there will be reasonably large gaps, presumably as these areas are particularly difficult to make ready for worthwhile over-site development. It may be the case in the end that they are decked over to provide public realm, allowing the deckable areas to be used solely for buildings.

If you want to consider building houses on top of transport infrastructure the best thing to do is to close London City Airport and turn it into a new London borough. Without aircraft movements it would be possible to build up across a much wider area of East London. The whole area could be filled with skyscrapers without having much of an impact on the rest of the London skyline since they would be in-line with the existing towers of the City and Canary Wharf when seen from Central London. The public transport is already in place in the form of the DLR and the Elizabeth Line and the place is a blank canvas for future lines since stations can be built Canary Wharf-style in the docks.

 

[johnnychips]

close London City Airport and turn it into a new London borough.

This won't happen. Heathrow at capacity and any solution years ahead. Business people for Canary Wharf having to get Crossrail?

 

[Jamesb1974]

Deleted

 

[The Ham]

Over the railway, not a great idea.

Over car parks at train stations would be better. Especially if it increased parking, either by going down a level or up a level with housing over the top. In doing so the railways benefit (even if they get paid nothing for the buildings), first of extra parking spaces attracting more people to travel by train, secondly more customers in the form of residents from the new homes.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

New Southgate was planned to have a tunnel with supermarket. Assuming any covgering over allowed for Crossrail 2 there could be something big here.

What I like about this particular website is the use of little-used (or known) technical words that appear in print to increase our knowledge.

What exactly does covgering entail?

 

[jopsuk]

On the one hand, it's an awful idea for all the reasons listed- though of course if you're building houses you can build all the schools etc as well. On the other- it would weather proof the rail network....

 

[306024]

Have a look at what MTR do in Hong Kong, building huge shopping malls over railways. It is a major source of income and helps keep fares at levels we can only dream of.

As for closing London City Airport, save that one for 1st April.

 

[Bald Rick]

There are very few places the numbers stack up. The cost of rafting over a live railway is rather high.

To make the numbers work, you need a lot of property above any given square metre of railway land, and that means height. Which is generally not welcome; see the arguments in Guildford for the station redevelopment for an example, and that is merely next to the railway rather than over it.

There are some prime sites in central and inner London that look ripe for development, but they unfortunately don't stack up. My pet favourite is above the Bakerloo depot in Lambeth.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Have a look at what MTR do in Hong Kong, building huge shopping malls over railways. It is a major source of income and helps keep fares at levels we can only dream of.

The difference there is that when MTR get the planning consent to build the metro, the Governemnt also grant development rights and, crucially, the additional land, they need for the development. They get that land at the value it is before the development, not after. Not something that Government here will remotely entertain.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Solution: abolish the green belt! That is the reason why houses are so expensive, not because of migrants.

 

[cb a1]

It's been fascinating to watch the progress at the Dundee Waterfront over the last few years.

It started with lots of slabs of new concrete on top of the existing tunnel just to the north of where Tayside House used to be. This now carries one of the new principal roads of the area rather than new housing though.

From an office where I hot-desk occasionally, I've been watching all the work for the foundations for first the new roads and now the new station go in.

Ultimately, I don't think there is much being covered that wasn't already covered, but it's been a lot of work to get to where it is at the moment.

 

[jonhewes]

Solution: abolish the green belt! That is the reason why houses are so expensive, not because of migrants.

This man speaks the truth!

The planning system is in desperate need of overhaul, and, along with government initiatives to inflate/maintain high house prices, is one of the reasons that house prices and rents are so high in relation to earnings.

With less than 3% of land actually built on, we have plenty of room to expand. Releasing just 1% of greenbelt land for development would solve the housing needs for a generation.

Sadly, little of any substance will be done to address this issue. The government relies on house price inflation to skew economic indicators in a favourable manner - it increases money supply, and ostensibly the wealth of a significant proportion of the voting demographic (mainly older people). It also positively impacts GDP; House prices and rents are both included in GDP. Even imputed rents for home owners (what a home owner would be paying in rent to live in their house) are included.

We have an artificially induced supply side shortage, caused by an outdated and over restrictive planning system. The existing legislation was devised in an era when the state was building hundreds of thousands of council houses per year, and there was less reliance on private construction. This has seen little change since it's inception, bar the pretty much wholesale abolition of council house construction.

Getting back to the original question ; We've already lost countless transport corridors due to housing development. Local to where I grew up ; Lincoln's high level avoiding line (which is now desperately needed) was permanently lost to housing development within a decade of it's closure.

Had we had a more liberal approach to expanding urban/suburban boundaries, perhaps there would have been less of a tendency to build on transport corridors, some of which would have proven to be very valuable.

 

[najaB]

The difference there is that when MTR get the planning consent to build the metro...

Of course, the other big difference is that in Hong Kong there's largely no choice - the only sizable tracts of undeveloped land have the disadvantage of currently being under several metres of sea water!

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Network Rail (their supervising adult the DfT) would want to extract assurances that the developer would stump up for the cost of later widening the railway (if it were required) and would be fully responsible for all delay costs that the developer's structure and construction works ever caused.

The structure would have to provide fully compliant headroom for OLE (about 6m) and 4.5m clear space on both sides of the line.

Since is inevitable that the foundation works would often be inside NR's boundary this is going to need complex wayleaves or for NR to sell land - highly unlikely in today's rail market.

 

[Haydn1971]

None. I've a more radical idea - using brownfield land near the railway (or even green field land outside cities) and building a station so that people can use the railway to get where they need to be.

Agreed, brownfield land is still plentiful, cheaper and generally carries less long term hassle specifically with consideration to CDM regulations that require designers to consider not just construction, but also lifetime maintenance and ultimate demolishing of the structure.

 

[AndrewE]

On the one hand, it's an awful idea for all the reasons listed- though of course if you're building houses you can build all the schools etc as well. On the other- it would weather proof the rail network....

Can you imagine doing track inspections or repairs in a pitch-dark diesel exhaust-polluted atmosphere?
Unfortunately the bits of the railway most in need of protection (complex junctions) need the most attention, while the most exposed (Shap, Dawlish, Saltcoats - add your own choices) aren't very likely to be wise choices or to be allowed a linear layer of buildings above.

 

[Alfie1014]

Can you imagine doing track inspections or repairs in a pitch-dark diesel exhaust-polluted atmosphere?
Unfortunately the bits of the railway most in need of protection (complex junctions) need the most attention, while the most exposed (Shap, Dawlish, Saltcoats - add your own choices) aren't very likely to be wise choices or to be allowed a linear layer of buildings above.

I've often wondered about this, the throat at Liverpool Street is pretty much all covered now and recently the West Anglia side seems to have had numerous signalling/track faults and on occassions when I've been on a GE service passing the maint gang working in gloomy artificial light I've wondered if their job is harder or easier than working out in the daylight but away from the elements?

 

[Blindtraveler]

Another huuuuuuge mistake I personally think has been made is the demolition of so many old council tower blocks. Whilst I appreciate high rise living isnt for everyone and that there is a popular and sometimes I feel unproven belief that such developments promoted anti social behavure/crime and am well aware many had fallen into a sad state these perfectly good blocks could have been modernised and retennanted. Whilst I know plenty of housing snobs who want social housing but are picky with it, I also know many including me who are grateful for anything and, without being nasty but we need to put the imigrants somewhere dont we?

I live in such a block and theyr great and far nicer than some of the poor qualitty boxes the housing associations are flinging up now, most of whuch woant last 20 years. As I say it aint for everyone but we wouldnt have half the problem we have if a brain and a few quid had been wiseley used

 

[route:oxford]

Can you imagine doing track inspections or repairs in a pitch-dark diesel exhaust-polluted atmosphere?
Unfortunately the bits of the railway most in need of protection (complex junctions) need the most attention, while the most exposed (Shap, Dawlish, Saltcoats - add your own choices) aren't very likely to be wise choices or to be allowed a linear layer of buildings above.

However, on electrified routes - why not?

Oxford, for example, is in the midst of a housing crisis. A raised linear estate of apartments and 3 storey town houses with central service road from Garsington Road to Redbridge then onwards to Wolvercote/Oxford Parkway may work very well indeed. That could accommodate around 3000 generously sized homes with integrated double garage.

 

[AndrewE]

However, on electrified routes - why not?

Oxford, for example, is in the midst of a housing crisis. A raised linear estate of apartments and 3 storey town houses with central service road from Garsington Road to Redbridge then onwards to Wolvercote/Oxford Parkway may work very well indeed. That could accommodate around 3000 generously sized homes with integrated double garage.

Most things are easier when you can see what you are doing and even plain line needs attention. All the on- and off-track plant (think ballast excavation, sleeper renewal, rerailing) I can think of is diesel-powered and slow speed start-stop movement of a train by a diesel loco is the worst for fume generation Also niose echoes back from tunnel walls and roofs making that exposure worse than it would otherwise be too.

Then think of the reaction of people who bought houses backing on to railway lines: I know what I would feel about having a railway at the bottom of the garden replaced by a 4 or 5 metre vertical concrete wall then a 2-or 3-storey house and pitched roof above that instead. A bit like the Berlin wall, except that you are overlooked by the people living in it.

 

[najaB]

Another huuuuuuge mistake I personally think has been made is the demolition of so many old council tower blocks.

In many, though not all, cases they were nearing the end of their design lives so would have needed expensive/extensive refurbishments or replacement anyway.

 

[mr_jrt]

Another huuuuuuge mistake I personally think has been made is the demolition of so many old council tower blocks. Whilst I appreciate high rise living isnt for everyone and that there is a popular and sometimes I feel unproven belief that such developments promoted anti social behavure/crime and am well aware many had fallen into a sad state these perfectly good blocks could have been modernised and retennanted. Whilst I know plenty of housing snobs who want social housing but are picky with it, I also know many including me who are grateful for anything and, without being nasty but we need to put the imigrants somewhere dont we?

I live in such a block and theyr great and far nicer than some of the poor qualitty boxes the housing associations are flinging up now, most of whuch woant last 20 years. As I say it aint for everyone but we wouldnt have half the problem we have if a brain and a few quid had been wiseley used

On the subject of tower blocks, materials science has come on a long way since the 1960s. I think the biggest problem with those buildings was the structural need to have dingy, narrow warrens of corridors, which promote anti-social behaviour.

Given modern materials I'm sure if there was the will we could design much more suitable buildings with larger, open spaces internally which might help prevent antisocial behaviour developing and make them much more pleasant to live in. An immediate concept could be to "stack" the equivalent of a traditional housing "close", by building 5 or so double-storey dwellings fronting a large shared communal space with the open side allowing sunlight in (or maybe an entire street of facing dwellings with a street-wide shared space between them with semi-glazed ends to let light in).

Lower density than traditional housing blocks, but much higher density than normal surface homes. If you build the blocks large enough you could build facilities into them directly (think small shops, surgeries, etc. maybe even pubs!), which could further foster communities developing. Hell, if you build them in clusters you could even link these floors together by aerial walkways to spread facilities out a bit, and further reduce the workload on the lifts.

 

[richieb1971]

There are too many people is the problem, not that there are not enough houses.

If the population keeps growing land becomes more precious and life becomes more uncomfortable. I personally never want to see things worse than they are now.

Living on a railway is a 3rd world philosophy, not something I want to see or experience.

 

[najaB]

There are too many people is the problem, not that there are not enough houses.

I'm not so sure about that as you. The UK is still comparatively under-populated compared to the carrying capacity of the land. I'm not encouraging massive increases in the population, but we are nowhere near 'too many people'.

 

[furnessvale]

Don't you think passengers already spend quite long enough in tunnels without adding more?

HS2 is a case in point. Tunnelling has been continually added to pacify nimbys such that the pleasure of the journey for passengers is in danger of being seriously compromised.

 

[deltic]

This won't happen. Heathrow at capacity and any solution years ahead. Business people for Canary Wharf having to get Crossrail?

If house prices keep rising it is possible that the airport would be worth far more if redeveloped for housing. It is looked at every now and again by the property market. However the owners would probably also need to capture some of the value of the land that is presently blighted by the airport to make it work.