Housing development funding new stations, services and lines

[The Ham]

Given the large number of houses which "need" (we can discuss elsewhere whether they are really needed) to be built and the disire to be sustainable, is there any justification for either the DfT or (due to scale of doing it nationally) local passenger transport authorities to have funding provided to look at improved rail travel which could be funded by development.

For instance, it is fairly well known how much a new station costs and so it's not uncommon for developers to offer these. What is less well known is what works would be required to increase the stopping frequency at stations, what it would cost to reopen a line or build a new line, how services could fit into the existing timetable and whether services would likely be cost effective to run.

If developers had some of the basic information then they could fund more useful alterations to the network and/or discuss with TOC's about altering service frequency.

It would also, if the report was to cover some of the more borderline suggestions, give councils the information to develop a fairly long term plan as to where improvements could happen rather than just focusing on one or two pet projects. The pet projects could still be those that are the most in need of doing, but if a new town is proposed the other end of the county to the schemes they are going to be of little use.

 

[fgwrich]

The two most recent I can think of are both future Devon Metro stations - Newcourt on the Exmouth Branch / Avocet Line and Cranbrook on the West of England line. Cranbrook was part developer funded along with Devon County Council, Newcourt however I'm not so sure about - it was built however largely to serve the housing developments within that area (built on part of the former Royal Navy Stores Depot).

 

[muddythefish]

The Tavistock reopening was supposed to be financed or part-financed by a developer I believe. The scheme has been in the pipeline for years but is still not built (unlike the houses presumably).

 

[charley_17/7]

Wasn't this how Buckshaw Parkway was funded/built?

The Wixams (near Bedford) has been recently built, but nothing of the proposed station! Instead the A6 has been dualled and bus services incorporated into a Bedford P&R service.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Tavistock reopening was supposed to be financed or part-financed by a developer I believe. The scheme has been in the pipeline for years but is still not built (unlike the houses presumably).

The houses aren't built, yet, but one development for 750 homes (Bovis) has got outline planning permission. This includes a £13.2m contribution towards reopening the railway, which is a very significant infrastructure contribution for a development of that size. As a result, the developer has been permitted to build only half the number of affordable homes than would normally be required, and has got away with 'contributions' to new education and health facilities, as there is apparently spare capacity in Tavistock, at least in the former.

The council appear to be under the impression that the £13.2m will pay for more than half the construction cost of the railway, based on a worst case cost of £6m a mile. As sure as night follows day, that will be shown to be a woeful underestimate. Who keeps the cash in the event the railway is not built, and what it can be used for, is not clear.

It is also unclear who will pay for the operating subsidy of the route, although one rather hopes Devon CC have deep pockets.

Nevertheless, it does show what can be done if local authorities are willing to use green belt land to release development gain.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Wixams (near Bedford) has been recently built, but nothing of the proposed station! Instead the A6 has been dualled and bus services incorporated into a Bedford P&R service.

They couldn't afford it.

 

[muddythefish]

Wasn't this how Buckshaw Parkway was funded/built?

The Wixams (near Bedford) has been recently built, but nothing of the proposed station! Instead the A6 has been dualled and bus services incorporated into a Bedford P&R service.

Of course! Watch out for the Tavistock scheme to go the same way.

 

[The Ham]

The two most recent I can think of are both future Devon Metro stations - Newcourt on the Exmouth Branch / Avocet Line and Cranbrook on the West of England line. Cranbrook was part developer funded along with Devon County Council, Newcourt however I'm not so sure about - it was built however largely to serve the housing developments within that area (built on part of the former Royal Navy Stores Depot).

Newcourt was "funded" by 2 developments, the first (RNSD) gave the land for the station under the first phase of construction, although I don't recall if future phases had to pay towards the station. The second which was a separate development to the south funded the station, as without it their car usage would have been too high for the roads.

 

[deltic]

Major developments in London have contributed significantly to new rail lines eg Barking Riverside, Nine Elms. All development requires transport impact assessments which are undertaken by specialist firms which will have both road and rail expertise available to advice on costs and feasibility. Given the price tag and time it takes to do anything on the rail network the advice is generally steer clear of any rail related enhancements other than offering a finacial contribution. Sticking on a new bus service for a few years which few people will use is cheaper, easier and you know it can be delivered.

Unless rail projects can be delivered more easily developers will be steered well away from any project which requires alteration to signalling or track work.

 

[DarloRich]

There seems to have been a lot of promised infrastructure at Wixhams that has yet to be delivered. There is is till no GP but the school has now been built.

The development is around 2 years ( perhaps more) behind schedule.There are supposed to be 5 "villages" built. So far only one has been finished When ( if?) the station comes is anyone's guess but it will not be for a while as these amenities tend to come last. The station does, however, form one of the "key transport priorities" for Bedfordshire council - they will have to hold the developers to account to get it delivered!

As an aside this uncertainty around the supporting infrastructure was one of the reasons i decided not to buy a house there.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Tavistock reopening was supposed to be financed or part-financed by a developer I believe. The scheme has been in the pipeline for years but is still not built (unlike the houses presumably).

Glad that you brought this particular example up. There was a long-running , but now closed, thread called on the Infrastructure and Stations forum that had as many as 245 postings made upon it called "Re-opening of the Bere Alston to Tavistock Line" that commenced on 30th August 2011 and the final posting made before thread closure on 6th August 2013 asked "if the Jacobs Consultancy had been asked to prepare any further reports on that project"

 

[Cheshire Rover]

It is not just houses. In Elton, Cheshire, Quinn Glass (as they were) obtained planning permission for a glass factory in 2002ish so long as they put a new rail link into the factory to supply raw materials, mainly sand. The line went in last year after some years of legal wrangling. I am not sure whether the line has been fully commissioned yet but looks to be in good shape. But 13 years to install is pushing things. Perhaps the transport links should be done at the same time these developments are constructed.

 

[The Ham]

Major developments in London have contributed significantly to new rail lines eg Barking Riverside, Nine Elms. All development requires transport impact assessments which are undertaken by specialist firms which will have both road and rail expertise available to advice on costs and feasibility. Given the price tag and time it takes to do anything on the rail network the advice is generally steer clear of any rail related enhancements other than offering a finacial contribution. Sticking on a new bus service for a few years which few people will use is cheaper, easier and you know it can be delivered.

Unless rail projects can be delivered more easily developers will be steered well away from any project which requires alteration to signalling or track work.

Steering clear of rail is fair enough for up to 1,000 units fairly close to existing towns, but if the development is further away and for many more homes than that and it could work out that to invest in rail provides a better level of service.

It is not uncommon for each house to need to contribute £2,000 to £4,000 towards transportation. Lets for argument say we opt for half of the mid point (so £1,500 per unit) to invest in rail you would need 667 houses to raise £1 million. Whilst 4,000 houses would raise £6 million.

Now that isn't much in rail investment terms, but if there is little other transport improvements that are needed/they can do and by investing in rail it potentially opens up further development land. Then it can start to raise some reasonable levels of funding.

The other thing to bear in mind is that 2 people per house on a scheme of 4,000 houses is 8,000 people. If you assume that 5% travel by the new service/line then that is 800 two way movements in addition to any other existing population who would benefit from the service.

If a project costs £50 million and has a boarder line CBR but a housing scheme can provide funding of £10 million PLUS extra passengers (say 800 two way) to the service which would make the service more viable. As such the value of the project could go from boarder line to having a very good case.

Also, local councils are currently paid by central government to increase the number of houses that they have, add this to the extra money that will be coming in from council tax (which some of which is extra as not all costs increase proportionally to the number houses in the area although many do and some [i.e. subsidising leisure facilities] may even go down) and councils may have some of their own money that they could invest (especially if it releases capacity for further development, especially on their own land) to make the numbers stack up even more favorably.

 

[THC]

Also, local councils are currently paid by central government to increase the number of houses that they have, add this to the extra money that will be coming in from council tax (which some of which is extra as not all costs increase proportionally to the number houses in the area although many do and some [i.e. subsidising leisure facilities] may even go down) and councils may have some of their own money that they could invest (especially if it releases capacity for further development, especially on their own land) to make the numbers stack up even more favorably.

That would be the New Homes Bonus, currently under review following CSR2015, with a reduction of the overall £1.2bn bill by £800m p.a. being the Government's preferred option.

Further, councils just do not have the sorts of resources you allude to; reserves have been depleted dramatically since 2010 to make up for a 40% cut in block grant in that time.

Not quibbling with the rest of your numbers which, on the face of it, seem reasonable.

Local Enterprise Partnerships are however a potential replacement for local authorities as a means of funding rail service developments and (re)openings. While current budgets are largely committed, the Local Growth Fund could in future provide funding for rail reopenings but, as seen with East West Rail, the lead-in time is often lengthy.

THC

 

[bluenoxid]

The other comment to make is the potential price increase of each residential unit if a railway station is opened nearby.

 

[deltic]

Steering clear of rail is fair enough for up to 1,000 units fairly close to existing towns, but if the development is further away and for many more homes than that and it could work out that to invest in rail provides a better level of service.

It is not uncommon for each house to need to contribute £2,000 to £4,000 towards transportation. Lets for argument say we opt for half of the mid point (so £1,500 per unit) to invest in rail you would need 667 houses to raise £1 million. Whilst 4,000 houses would raise £6 million.

Developers are reasonably happy to do this - a typical station costs around £5-£6m as long as it does not require messing around with signalling and tracks which can add substanially to the cost and take time to deliver. However, a problem faced by many developers is cash flow so they are unable to pay upfront and the station can be delayed or not delivered at all if they can demonstrate the scheme is no longer viable if it has to contribute the promised amount
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The other comment to make is the potential price increase of each residential unit if a railway station is opened nearby.

Agreed - there was some work done by Network Rail or possibly even Railtrack on this - but unfortuantely it is the council that negotiates with the developer what the S106 contribution will be and what it will go towards. So a development might in theory be able to afford £10m in S106 and the developer might want £5m to go to a station but if the council wants £10m for a new school then the station is dumped

 

[civ-eng-jim]

Glad that you brought this particular example up. There was a long-running , but now closed, thread called on the Infrastructure and Stations forum that had as many as 245 postings made upon it called "Re-opening of the Bere Alston to Tavistock Line" that commenced on 30th August 2011 and the final posting made before thread closure on 6th August 2013 asked "if the Jacobs Consultancy had been asked to prepare any further reports on that project"

Jacobs carried out a GRIP 4 design in 2014 for a single-track line, civil engineering works, bridges and viaduct, the tunnel and a sub-contractor designer assessed the many rock faces. However, this has not been formally submitted as Devon County Council's BAPA with Network Rail expired.

I think the latest estimate was in the mid £30M.