Solving level crossing problems in built up areas through wider urban redevelopment

[Falcon1200]

We don't have 'Stop at the red light' signs on every road traffic light because it isn't necessary, the response is known and automatic.

Presumably you did not see earlier posts pointing out that motorists routinely ignore red traffic lights, Emergency service vehicles routinely pass them at red, Police Officers routinely authorise motorists to pass them at red - None of which can or should possibly, ever, apply to the road traffic signals at railway level crossings, and the other locations where similar systems are used. If motorists do not understand that red flashing lights mean stop, that is a major failing on driver tuition, examination and competence.

 

[NotATrainspott]

So instead of boring a tunnel or digging a trench for a couple of kilometres your solution is to tear down half the town and rebuild it?

An Alameda corridor style trench is surely a better option, let alone going whole hog for a Barcelona style single bore metro line.


There is no need to resort to massive property expropriation to build more housing.

The state just has to loosen the garotte it places on planning permissions to restrict the housing supply.

The answer is not some massive clearance programme - it is a 21st Century Super Milton Keynes

Yes. The reason being being the replacement for the town centre would have a higher value than what came before. A square kilometre of flats is worth more than a square kilometre of semis or detached houses in a built-up area, especially in the South East where demand for property is so intense. Every single replacement flat and house would end up being sold or rented out very quickly. The difference in total property value before and after could actually cover a lot of the costs of the scheme. Just rebuilding the railway to be above or below ground does not deliver anywhere near enough benefit to cover its cost.

We have a problem here that loosening planning policy will not solve, because the problem is how the land ownership boundaries are all divided up. When you have a big, empty plot it's possible for a developer to come in and set up the urban layout to match modern market demands. Taller buildings require larger plots and wider streets to be efficient. This is easy when you are building on former farmland, or brownfield industrial sites like Stratford.

It is not easy when you are developing in the middle of an existing area of split up owner occupation. A private developer can come up with a plan to replace a row of private houses. Let's use Rusham Road, next to the Egham railway station as an example. It could plan to replace 58-63 Rusham Road with a denser row of townhouses where each house will be narrower than the plot before, or a block of flats. In either case, all of the land titles would need to be purchased and combined together before being split up again into the new properties (if planned to be sold). The owner at number 61 might not want to move out, and won't sell, despite all the other owners agreeing. That means it's not possible to create one big plot with maximum redevelopment potential. What do we do?

The Policy Exchange report dressed it up as a sort of local democracy where streets could vote to give planning approval to replace their own properties with higher density. The carrot would be that the existing property owners would profit as their property would be more valuable if the land could be redeveloped as a wider scheme (naturally, as larger plots are easier to develop). However, the idea of a majority vote means implicitly that the minority will lose out and they will be forced to move out and sell up against their wishes. That, in principle, is a compulsory purchase. It just happens that elected governments normally make the decision to CPO rather than defined groups of neighbours.

It's really not possible to do good urban design without the land boundaries being a blank canvas. Simple things like widening streets can require major land boundary changes in order for development plots alongside to be viable. People are going to continue to complain about creaking infrastructure if we aren't ever given the opportunity to fix it. A scheme like this in a town like Egham could give you a full boulevard road with bus and cycle lanes and wide pavements. More density in the town centre near the railway station means more viability for improved public transport.

Once the principle of compulsory redevelopment of desirable owner-occupied areas is there, you can still go and apply restrictions to the design of the completed properties. The new flats could be designed to fit in with the existing town fabric - e.g. being made of local brick, with local vernacular design features. Modern flats don't have to be terrible to look at. Private developers will build nice looking properties if that is a requirement for the scheme to go ahead.

 

[BayPaul]

Yes. The reason being being the replacement for the town centre would have a higher value than what came before. A square kilometre of flats is worth more than a square kilometre of semis or detached houses in a built-up area, especially in the South East where demand for property is so intense. Every single replacement flat and house would end up being sold or rented out very quickly. The difference in total property value before and after could actually cover a lot of the costs of the scheme. Just rebuilding the railway to be above or below ground does not deliver anywhere near enough benefit to cover its cost.

We have a problem here that loosening planning policy will not solve, because the problem is how the land ownership boundaries are all divided up. When you have a big, empty plot it's possible for a developer to come in and set up the urban layout to match modern market demands. Taller buildings require larger plots and wider streets to be efficient. This is easy when you are building on former farmland, or brownfield industrial sites like Stratford.

It is not easy when you are developing in the middle of an existing area of split up owner occupation. A private developer can come up with a plan to replace a row of private houses. Let's use Rusham Road, next to the Egham railway station as an example. It could plan to replace 58-63 Rusham Road with a denser row of townhouses where each house will be narrower than the plot before, or a block of flats. In either case, all of the land titles would need to be purchased and combined together before being split up again into the new properties (if planned to be sold). The owner at number 61 might not want to move out, and won't sell, despite all the other owners agreeing. That means it's not possible to create one big plot with maximum redevelopment potential. What do we do?

The Policy Exchange report dressed it up as a sort of local democracy where streets could vote to give planning approval to replace their own properties with higher density. The carrot would be that the existing property owners would profit as their property would be more valuable if the land could be redeveloped as a wider scheme (naturally, as larger plots are easier to develop). However, the idea of a majority vote means implicitly that the minority will lose out and they will be forced to move out and sell up against their wishes. That, in principle, is a compulsory purchase. It just happens that elected governments normally make the decision to CPO rather than defined groups of neighbours.

It's really not possible to do good urban design without the land boundaries being a blank canvas. Simple things like widening streets can require major land boundary changes in order for development plots alongside to be viable. People are going to continue to complain about creaking infrastructure if we aren't ever given the opportunity to fix it. A scheme like this in a town like Egham could give you a full boulevard road with bus and cycle lanes and wide pavements. More density in the town centre near the railway station means more viability for improved public transport.

Once the principle of compulsory redevelopment of desirable owner-occupied areas is there, you can still go and apply restrictions to the design of the completed properties. The new flats could be designed to fit in with the existing town fabric - e.g. being made of local brick, with local vernacular design features. Modern flats don't have to be terrible to look at. Private developers will build nice looking properties if that is a requirement for the scheme to go ahead.

I sort of like this as an idea - I too wish there was a way to replace huge areas of low density housing with well designed, high quality mid density housing. I really don't think this could be a rail-led scheme, though - it really needs a dedicated government body - something like the docklands development corporation to look at every aspect of the development area, rather than just starting at a level crossing and working outwards from there. And then it all starts to go wrong, like that ideal form of government, the benign dictator, it's great at first, but then you get scope creep, and incompetence, and corruption, and you end up with an area that still isn't what was wanted, but with all the original inhabitants kicked out and replaced with much richer incomers.

 

[Bald Rick]

Generally the designer accepts some responsibility for how users interact with their product

Agreed, but wig wags, Yellow boxes, signage etc is all from the Highways design manual.

 

[zwk500]

So only on crossings which can be very rare, so many drivers do not encounter them frequently. Unlike steady red stop lights which they encounter every day.
A flashing red light is rarely encountered, you can go months or years between seeing one.

Hence why you would be expected to treat it with greater severity.

Zebra crossing - proceed with caution if no one crossing or waiting to cross. Pelican crossing - proceed with caution if no one crossing. Obstacles or obstructions - proceed with caution around hazard. Flashing lights = proceed with caution in every other situation.

I notice you didn't address my point that the LX is a steady amber, which means 'Stop if safe to do so' anywhere you can encounter it on the road.

Generally the designer accepts some responsibility for how users interact with their product, if a significant number of users do not understand the meaning of a safety critical sign or signal light, then 'read the Highway Code' isn't an adequate response, blaming the user is less accepted now than 50+ years ago. Theres a duty on the designer to consider the quality of their design, aiming for lights which are unambiguous and universally understood is a better response.

User manuals exist for this purpose, and the Highway code is the road network (and therefore signal's) user guide.

Ahh yes, the red flashing lights for lane closures, which are also not very well adhered to or understood.

Disagree - they are very well understood, just ignored by those Drivers who think they can get away with it. I'd imagine that if pulled up for driving past a red X they'd plead ignorance to the Police officer, but when the ticket comes through the post they pay it and chalk it down to bad luck in getting caught.

Though interesting to note that even the motorways don't use just red flashing lights, they use a large red 'X', presumably because the designers thought the red flashing lights alone weren't sufficiently unambiguous.

In the same way LX designers don't just use red flashing lights, but big red and white barriers that physically secure the railway from the road?

Anyway, we've digressed from the topic of replacing LX with bridges by flattening acres of town centres.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Just stop indulging cars. This is 2021 and there’s a climate emergency, we should be way past the stage of designing town centres to fit the whim of the motorist.

Close the LCs. Put in bridges/underpasses for pedestrians and cyclists. If absolutely necessary then retain a single-lane LC, default closed to traffic, for exclusive use of the emergency services.

 

[BayPaul]

Just stop indulging cars. This is 2021 and there’s a climate emergency, we should be way past the stage of designing town centres to fit the whim of the motorist.

Close the LCs. Put in bridges/underpasses for pedestrians and cyclists. If absolutely necessary then retain a single-lane LC, default closed to traffic, for exclusive use of the emergency services.

But level crossings (ideally with adjacent bridge/underpass) are also much, much better for pedestrians and cyclists, compared to the huge climb (and tedious zig zagging ramps), or dank unattractive descent into an underpass. If you want to avoid designing town centres for the whim of the motorists, surely you should also avoid designing them with arbitary straight impenetrable lines slicing them in half, and also bury the railway lines.

 

[zwk500]

But level crossings (ideally with adjacent bridge/underpass) are also much, much better for pedestrians and cyclists, compared to the huge climb (and tedious zig zagging ramps), or dank unattractive descent into an underpass. If you want to avoid designing town centres for the whim of the motorists, surely you should also avoid designing them with arbitary straight impenetrable lines slicing them in half, and also bury the railway lines.

Much more convenient, but much less safe. It's possible to design more appealing underpasses and footbridges.

 

[BayPaul]

Much more convenient, but much less safe. It's possible to design more appealing underpasses and footbridges.

Do you have any examples? I've never seen a footbridge where the road and rail are at roughly the same level that doesn't act as an impediment to the journey - the only way I think would be acceptable would be to provide double escalators at both ends, and even that doesn't solve the issue for wheelchair users and bikes. It is obviously possible to provide long ramps, but these are terrible in practice, or elevators, but using two lifts on a journey of just a few meters isn't exactly pedestrian friendly!

I admit I have seen a few halfway decent below ground public underpasses, the below one in Sitges, Barcelona is about the best, with escalators and elevator at both ends, but it still acts as a significant impediment to moving between the two sides of the town.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/0...2bb4e12a7a34d69f!8m2!3d41.2389536!4d1.8112139

If it is possible to design more appealing underpasses and footbridges, is it not also possible to design fundamentally safe pedestrian level crossings? I am imagining replacing the rattling half-height gates with proper full-height sliding doors, similar to platform edge doors, and perhaps having fold-down gates to stop pedestrians getting further onto the tracks. Good road design is moving away from relegating pedestrians to unpleasant detours through the sky or ground, and surely good railway design should also avoid needing to do this.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Just stop indulging cars. This is 2021 and there’s a climate emergency, we should be way past the stage of designing town centres to fit the whim of the motorist.

Close the LCs. Put in bridges/underpasses for pedestrians and cyclists. If absolutely necessary then retain a single-lane LC, default closed to traffic, for exclusive use of the emergency services.

Since there are no other grade-separated crossings, you're talking about cutting the town in two. It's fine to deprioritise private road traffic, but it still needs to be possible to do a journey. That's why closing the LC at Egham hasn't been possible before. If there were a bridge or tunnel that could handle all cross-railway traffic, then we wouldn't have the problem.

I sort of like this as an idea - I too wish there was a way to replace huge areas of low density housing with well designed, high quality mid density housing. I really don't think this could be a rail-led scheme, though - it really needs a dedicated government body - something like the docklands development corporation to look at every aspect of the development area, rather than just starting at a level crossing and working outwards from there. And then it all starts to go wrong, like that ideal form of government, the benign dictator, it's great at first, but then you get scope creep, and incompetence, and corruption, and you end up with an area that still isn't what was wanted, but with all the original inhabitants kicked out and replaced with much richer incomers.

The railway has a very powerful influence on the development of towns in the South East. Without public transport links to central London, many people just won't consider living there. The railways were responsible for developing many of the leafier suburbs and exurbs across the UK.

I do think it needs to be managed locally by a development body. It could be a collaboration with the railway operators. The railway identifies problematic areas (like the Southern Rail Access to Heathrow level crossings) and sets up the terms of reference for local development companies to redesign the towns to solve them. From the railway's perspective, all it directly cares about is that the level crossing is closed. Extra housing density near the station leading to more public transport usage is a nice bonus, but it's not that important. The local development company can worry about configuring the roads and houses to meet local needs.

 

[zwk500]

Do you have any examples? I've never seen a footbridge where the road and rail are at roughly the same level that doesn't act as an impediment to the journey - the only way I think would be acceptable would be to provide double escalators at both ends, and even that doesn't solve the issue for wheelchair users and bikes. It is obviously possible to provide long ramps, but these are terrible in practice, or elevators, but using two lifts on a journey of just a few meters isn't exactly pedestrian friendly!

Not off the top of my head. Round my way the railway is below the level of the roads, so the footbridges just go directly over. But keeping subways well lit and wide really helps.

If it is possible to design more appealing underpasses and footbridges, is it not also possible to design fundamentally safe pedestrian level crossings? I am imagining replacing the rattling half-height gates with proper full-height sliding doors, similar to platform edge doors, and perhaps having fold-down gates to stop pedestrians getting further onto the tracks.

Fundamentally, no. Once somebody has access to the railway the risk is there, and the gap between rail and road that is necessary for the trains pose a risk to cycles, prams and anybody else with a small contact patch such as canes or heels.

Good road design is moving away from relegating pedestrians to unpleasant detours through the sky or ground, and surely good railway design should also avoid needing to do this.

Good railway design should absolutely be making it as easy as possible for people to cross from one side to the other, but unfortunately we are left struggling with the legacy of those who built the railways first, and so made lots of beginner's errors, so to speak. It'd be lovely if we could raise the railway up, but the M25 and the next LX east prevent that. It'd be lovely if we could drop the railway down, but the houses right on top of the fence, soil conditions and water table probably make that a non-starter as well. So we are left with only 2 options: accept the crossing (causes traffic, massive safety risk), or close it and provide a sub-optimal replacement.

 

[BayPaul]

Fundamentally, no. Once somebody has access to the railway the risk is there, and the gap between rail and road that is necessary for the trains pose a risk to cycles, prams and anybody else with a small contact patch such as canes or heels.

But they have this access at stations... Designing out all risk is rarely a good option. These objections are also things that could be worked around - for example having a draw-bridge type path surface that is lowered down across the tracks from both sides, so there is absolutely no need for pedestrians to touch the rails.

 

[zwk500]

But they have this access at stations... Designing out all risk is rarely a good option.

'As low as reasonably practical' is the current mantra, I believe. If the crossing is unavoidable it is an acceptable risk, but if there is an alternative then there must be a good argument not to eliminate the risk entirely.

These objections are also things that could be worked around - for example having a draw-bridge type path surface that is lowered down across the tracks from both sides, so there is absolutely no need for pedestrians to touch the rails.

Cost, and the safety risk of potentially having an obstruction fail over the track/effectively mounting a derailer on a passenger line. Yes you could work around anything given time and money, but it very quickly adds up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know, and that's a problem.

No, it's not. It is not right to be forcing people to sell their homes just to allow for a redevelopment project to satisfy someone's political whim.

For necessary things like actual transport, yes, but absolutely not to knock down houses to build more houses.

This simply isn't going to happen in a country like the UK. You might as well save your effort, and suggest it for a city with the same problem (there are quite a few in Germany, for instance) which has a renting culture and so you can actually do that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2021 ==

So instead of boring a tunnel or digging a trench for a couple of kilometres your solution is to tear down half the town and rebuild it?

An Alameda corridor style trench is surely a better option, let alone going whole hog for a Barcelona style single bore metro line.

Notably that was done by AKN in north Hamburg in a very similar situation - put the single line railway down in a concrete-sided trench as a double-track one with a sub-surface station.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2021 ==

Presumably you did not see earlier posts pointing out that motorists routinely ignore red traffic lights, Emergency service vehicles routinely pass them at red, Police Officers routinely authorise motorists to pass them at red - None of which can or should possibly, ever, apply to the road traffic signals at railway level crossings, and the other locations where similar systems are used. If motorists do not understand that red flashing lights mean stop, that is a major failing on driver tuition, examination and competence.

No, just familiarity. I would expect those professionals to know that a LC was different (heck, you could even have a sign indicating that), but the wig-wags are indeed unfamiliar to most drivers and that presents a risk. You can shout all you like about what drivers should do, but road and rail safety measures have to be based on what people will do.

As another unfamiliarity example, there are about 2 junctions in MK where a green doesn't give you a flow in all directions - these were so unfamiliar to locals that they caused lots of accidents and warning signs "give way to oncoming traffic when turning right" had to be added.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2021 ==

The answer is not some massive clearance programme - it is a 21st Century Super Milton Keynes

There's still plenty of land around the existing MK to expand it

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2021 ==

Once the principle of compulsory redevelopment of desirable owner-occupied areas is there

It won't ever be. It would be politically impossible and is completely undesirable. Again this is not China.

 

[BayPaul]

No, it's not. It is not right to be forcing people to sell their homes just to allow for a redevelopment project to satisfy someone's political whim.

For necessary things like actual transport, yes, but absolutely not to knock down houses to build more houses.

This simply isn't going to happen in a country like the UK. You might as well save your effort, and suggest it for a city with the same problem (there are quite a few in Germany, for instance) which has a renting culture and so you can actually do that.

Interestingly it does happen from time to time...

https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/downloads/file/461/view_the_notice_of_confirmation_of_the_order

This is a CPO for the redevelopment of a substatial part of Hounslow town centre, which included replacing a line of terraced houses with a new retail and residential development. It certainly would have been possible to build a similar development with a little less residential, without the loss of this terrace.

 

[Meerkat]

There are projects which use CPO to replace housing with higher density housing, but obviously they dont do it to their mates in the posh houses!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interestingly it does happen from time to time...

https://www.hounslow.gov.uk/downloads/file/461/view_the_notice_of_confirmation_of_the_order

This is a CPO for the redevelopment of a substatial part of Hounslow town centre, which included replacing a line of terraced houses with a new retail and residential development. It certainly would have been possible to build a similar development with a little less residential, without the loss of this terrace.

Interesting. I certainly would not want to see any more of this; it is an affront to the idea of freehold. It is unavoidable sometimes (e.g. if you need to build a railway) but it is totally wrong to do it as a method of changing round a residential layout you just happen not to like or building a shopping centre.

Of course if it's not a nice area, what would be morally better would be to make excellent, above-value offers to the residents, or even consider offering them quality temporary rental accommodation and one of the new units for free which they might then take voluntarily. That's a morally acceptable way to achieve the same thing, but with less developer profit. Almost invariably, compulsory purchase leaves the former owners in a worse position than they were in, often unable to afford an equivalent replacement.

 

[Meerkat]

Really should be a way of ensuring that the ‘victim’ of a CPO gets a cut of any profit on a development or the developer is forced to rehome them in a bigger house in close proximity.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Interesting. I certainly would not want to see any more of this; it is an affront to the idea of freehold. It is unavoidable sometimes (e.g. if you need to build a railway) but it is totally wrong to do it as a method of changing round a residential layout you just happen not to like or building a shopping centre.

Of course if it's not a nice area, what would be morally better would be to make excellent, above-value offers to the residents, or even consider offering them quality temporary rental accommodation and one of the new units for free which they might then take voluntarily. That's a morally acceptable way to achieve the same thing, but with less developer profit. Almost invariably, compulsory purchase leaves the former owners in a worse position than they were in, often unable to afford an equivalent replacement.

Mass redevelopments happened quite a lot when property values in urban areas were lower. No one complained about freeholds then!

To be clear, this isn't about expropriation either. People would be compensated fairly for their property. If your house is worth £500k on the open market, then you will get at least £500k. You do not lose out financially.

And, unlike CPOs intended to install non-residential infrastructure (e.g. motorways, airports) you aren't prevented from living there either. You just won't live in the same bricks and mortar. If you like living in an area because it suits your lifestyle, your kids are at the local schools and so on, then you can be accommodated in the redeveloped area too.

This process would only happen in areas where the current supply of bricks and mortar does not meet housing market demands. As I mentioned above, the quality of living in these areas tends to go down as this happens, while it can be reset by replacing the housing. Too many people living on a street means too many cars trying to find spaces to park. Redevelop the whole street as flats and you can put in underground designated parking so that everyone has a guaranteed space without it ruining the streetscape.

Flats don't need to be small and pokey either. A driving factor for me and this idea is that Glasgow and Edinburgh don't appear to be struggling to the same extent as places in England with housing. One of the fundamental reasons for that is that people in Scotland are used to living in flats rather than terraces. Most urban areas have a traditional core of tenement housing, so it's very straightforward for developers to come in to build and sell/rent out more of them. While the flats for the working classes were very small, including single end rooms, the basic outline of tenement living applied all the way up to the upper middle classes. There are tenement flats in Hyndland and Morningside with 4-5 bedrooms, grand cornices and stained glass windows of equal prestige to those in detached and semi-detached villas elsewhere in the city. Flats in the Georgian New Town can be worth millions.

So, you could build flats which are actually larger than the properties that were demolished to make room for them. You can still have ground floor flats with direct garden access, then flats with private balconies above.

The specifics of the development aren't really as important as the principle. The railway has at least some interest in solving level crossing problems on busy commuter routes, and this could be the most economically efficient way of fixing it for everyone. The only people who actually lose out from this are people who would refuse to sell their property at market value, and only then to the extent that they lose the bricks and mortar they currently inhabit rather than any economic value. Everyone else wins - the country, the local area, rail passengers, and the other owners who are happy to sell up.

 

[Meerkat]

People would be compensated fairly for their property. If your house is worth £500k on the open market, then you will get at least £500k. You do not lose out financially.

Except….
If the Housing being replaced is cheap there might not be anywhere local available at the same price.
Market value doesn’t compensate for all the work you may have done making your home as you want it.
The developer should be forced to rehouse them in the development or very close by, in a bigger house as compo for the disruption.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Except….
If the Housing being replaced is cheap there might not be anywhere local available at the same price.
Market value doesn’t compensate for all the work you may have done making your home as you want it.
The developer should be forced to rehouse them in the development or very close by, in a bigger house as compo for the disruption.

Yes, you make sure that people aren't displaced any more than necessary. The development rolls in stages where the people who would prefer to stay get shuffled (as little as possible) between newly vacant properties earmarked for demolition, and completed parts of the replacement development.

Council housing schemes have been redeveloped this way for years.

You can spend lots of money on alterations, but unless the market values them higher too, then you don't have any special right to be compensated for them. We don't protect people against over-developing their homes.

The only way we can prevent people from being displaced geographically, or forced into inappropriately small accommodation, is to increase the supply of housing. Going in and redeveloping existing desirable towns means unlocking lots of options that don't currently exist. For instance, there are plenty of towns with plenty of family houses but very few homes for empty nesters. Finding a smaller, more suitable home without needing to move too far away (e.g. from grandchildren, for childcare responsibilities) is tough, so people stay put. That means a 4 bedroom house meant for a young and growing family ends up under-occupied, leaving that young and growing family struggling to find anywhere to grow into.

Flats and terraces provide the best way to break through housing monocultures. In the same building mass and behind the same facade, you can have everything from full height 5 bedroom luxury townhouses through to 1 bedroom flats. Housing types can be mixed and matched. For instance, behind what appears to be a terrace, you could have the ground floor as a main door property for a family with garden access, while the floors above are 1-2 bedroom flats for retirees and younger people. You want every possible type of housing you'd need throughout your entire life to exist within a tiny radius of each other, if not directly on top of each other.

The places that need this the most happen to be places on major commuter routes into London. The railway stations tend to be at the centre of these towns, which have sprawled out over the years and over-extended their original town centre infrastructure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be clear, this isn't about expropriation either. People would be compensated fairly for their property. If your house is worth £500k on the open market, then you will get at least £500k. You do not lose out financially.

And, unlike CPOs intended to install non-residential infrastructure (e.g. motorways, airports) you aren't prevented from living there either. You just won't live in the same bricks and mortar. If you like living in an area because it suits your lifestyle, your kids are at the local schools and so on, then you can be accommodated in the redeveloped area too.

I assume you live in rented property, as you clearly don't have the emotional bond with your home that most people who own property as a place to live do. One's home is worth far more than its bricks and mortar value.

 

[Meerkat]

You can spend lots of money on alterations, but unless the market values them higher too, then you don't have any special right to be compensated for them.

But you said they would be compensated fairly - market value isn’t fair if they have no choice to move.
They could have just finished racking up debt improving their home to their desires, then you force them out of that home, leaving them with the debt but not the home of their dreams.
Not getting your money back on improvements is tough if you choose to move, but not fair if you get booted out to make other people money.

 

[Falcon1200]

You can shout all you like about what drivers should do, but road and rail safety measures have to be based on what people will do.

Which is precisely why the road lights at level crossings differ from normal traffic lights, and why, despite this, barriers are provided too (even nowadays at AOCLs in the middle of nowhere); Because motorists cannot be trusted to obey even multiple flashing red lights ! (How anyone can therefore expect them to obey normal red traffic lights instead at an LC is utterly beyond me).

 

[Meerkat]

I assume you live in rented property, as you clearly don't have the emotional bond with your home that most people who own property as a place to live do. One's home is worth far more than its bricks and mortar value.

The crude idea in my head is that you should get moved to a house with an extra bedroom. Most would appreciate the extra space as compo, and if they didn’t it would hopefully be worth more than their old house to sell. The development wouldn’t be happening if others weren’t gaining, so those losing their home should gain not just be ‘compensated’.

 

[zwk500]

The crude idea in my head is that you should get moved to a house with an extra bedroom. Most would appreciate the extra space as compo, and if they didn’t it would hopefully be worth more than their old house to sell. The development wouldn’t be happening if others weren’t gaining, so those losing their home should gain not just be ‘compensated’.

This is not always practical or reasonable. The solution is to establish a valuation that takes into account the value it would have achieved on the open market, and have disruption compensation as well as the cost of moving (solicitors fees, etc) covered separately.

 

[Meerkat]

This is not always practical or reasonable. The solution is to establish a valuation that takes into account the value it would have achieved on the open market, and have disruption compensation as well as the cost of moving (solicitors fees, etc) covered separately.

And that isn’t fair unless the disruption compo is significant.

 

[HSTEd]

These sorts of schemes might seem attractive in terms of avoiding the political capital cost of building super-Milton Keynes out in East Anglia or somewhere, but they have enormous costs in terms of political capital when you get the television showing endless interviews with photogenic people forced out of their family homes and dumped in flats with huge "management charges" that will inevitably bleed them dry with a far worse quality of life.

Especially as people now expect they will be semi regularly ordered locked into their houses by the state in the future.

It is much easier just to bury the railway (either into a trench or into a tunnel) and be done with this, not tear down millions of housing units to avoid building a new city somewhere.
(Even a polder in the North Sea is likely to be more cost effective than mass expropriation and demolition)

Flats don't need to be small and pokey either. A driving factor for me and this idea is that Glasgow and Edinburgh don't appear to be struggling to the same extent as places in England with housing. One of the fundamental reasons for that is that people in Scotland are used to living in flats rather than terraces. Most urban areas have a traditional core of tenement housing, so it's very straightforward for developers to come in to build and sell/rent out more of them.

The primary reason is the population of Scotland simply isn't growing significantly.

 

[zwk500]

And that isn’t fair unless the disruption compo is significant.

Agree 100%. It should be a lot, to focus minds on the need to avoid unnecessarily intrusive works.

 

[BrianW]

Sounding rather like 'cut-and-cover', which worked well enough on the then edge of built-up London? And some kind of 'echo' of Metroland where the progress of rails and houses went 'hand-in-hand'? Could something be envisaged as a kind of 'greenway' atop the railway where equal acreage (hectareage?) of fields are 'sacrificed', whether urban-edge fields or New Milton Keynes II? A bold decision Minister.