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

[Bletchleyite]

I don't care about farmland. What I care about is that housing is actually sustainable. One of the biggest problems of car-dependent suburbs is that they are awful, awful places to live if your ability to drive a car is taken away. That is a major problem now that many of the early car-dependent suburban dwellers are getting to the age and physical condition where driving is inadvisable or prohibited completely. Take away your car, and your lovely suburban home with a driveway and space to live becomes a prison.

Only because in the UK we have the wrong approach to public transport. The answer to these suburbs is to charge a proper rate of Council Tax for these estates to fund a proper quality public transport service. This is what the Dutch do - they are house dwellers just like us.

The fundamental problem with suburbs is not suburbs, it's this ridiculous idea that in the UK bus services are expected to be profitable (yet we throw money hand over fist into rural railways which will carry fewer people in a year than a subsidised suburban bus service would in a week).

Early suburbs within walking distance of public transport (more buses than trains, as buses take you to the things you visit every day) are still viable but newer ones have little or no capacity to sustain public transport. Even taxis are difficult and expensive due to low demand; when everyone has a car, no one needs a taxi!

This is not really true. Private hire taxis tend to be town based, not based in a particular area of a town, so there are generally plenty of them. MK for example is hard to serve by public transport because of its layout, but taxis are plentiful and very cheap, and easy to get with an app on your phone.

There is I think an element of "I'm all right Jack" in your situation (I'm very surprised you are a homeowner - and you do seem to be asking people to do thing you won't), but I think that also means you really don't understand the positions others are in.

It is extremely difficult to build new non-car dependent suburbs if all you can do is add housing onto the outskirts of the existing development. When brownfield sites exist, they can be redeveloped, but they will not be available forever.

Yes, that does pose a challenge, but you can make them less car dependent by providing quality cycle provision and public transport.

Building an entirely new town out in the countryside is fine if it's built with high density in the centre. The ideal setup for an urban area is to have flats fronting onto major thoroughfares, but then stepping down to terraced housing in between. You have enough density for services and public transport to thrive on the major roads, but you can still have a more quiet suburban-style life in a terrace nearby. Family houses, flats for young people, flats and assisted living for older people, shops and jobs are all within walking distance of one another.

The perfect structure for a public transport based new build town is more "beads on a string", i.e. built up areas around public transport stations. You are right that you want to go high density near the station but can get less dense as you go out. Runcorn could be worth a look, as the concepts in it are pretty much perfect for a public transport based medium sized town.

 

[NoRoute]

You’d end up with a dark hole in the ground. They did this with Espinno station in Portugal and it’s beyond bleak.

The other approach which I've seen in a number of towns in Germany is to raise the railway above street level, it passes through the city centre elevated sufficiently to allow roads and pavements to pass under it unobstructed, it allows a bigger station because it has the platforms on the 1st floor and the whole space underneath for shops and facilities. Many of the German stations are quite good at incorporating useful shops like small supermarkets into train stations, making it easy to pick up items on the way home from work in a way you don't see in most UK stations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How important would it actually be if people were paid enough to get something bigger/better?

Less important, certainly, though it depends on the individual.

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

The other approach which I've seen in a number of towns in Germany is to raise the railway above street level, it passes through the city centre elevated sufficiently to allow roads and pavements to pass under it unobstructed, it allows a bigger station because it has the platforms on the 1st floor and the whole space underneath for shops and facilities. Many of the German stations are quite good at incorporating useful shops like small supermarkets into train stations, making it easy to pick up items on the way home from work in a way you don't see in most UK stations.

There is a sneaky reason for that - the only way you can have Sunday opening in Germany is if the business is in a railway station for passenger use (though there doesn't have to be enforcement of it being for passengers only, I seem to recall you do see signage to that effect).

It is useful to co-locate Tesco Express type stores with public transport nodes, yes, I agree. Indeed what you ideally want is your "local centre" (to use an MK term) to be around the station as a general thing.

 

[Bald Rick]

This has all drifted away spectacularly from replacilevel crossings to urban planning.

Putting my mod hat on* Back to the subject!

The premise of this was that to replace level crossings in urban areas you need to generate funds, and demolish property, therefore put the two together. The main issue with this (other than needing a change in the law) is that there are lots of other worthy causes that need public funding in urban areas. Healthcare, social care, education, and so on. Look at it another way - if we are to use compulsory purchase to enable development that generates funding for public use, would replacing a level crossing be top of the list?


* I do not have a mod hat.

 

[NoRoute]

This has all drifted away spectacularly from replacilevel crossings to urban planning.

Putting my mod hat on* Back to the subject!

The premise of this was that to replace level crossings in urban areas you need to generate funds, and demolish property, therefore put the two together. The main issue with this (other than needing a change in the law) is that there are lots of other worthy causes that need public funding in urban areas. Healthcare, social care, education, and so on. Look at it another way - if we are to use compulsory purchase to enable development that generates funding for public use, would replacing a level crossing be top of the list?

Agree, for a variety of reasons it's unlikely we'll see significant demolition and redevelopment of town centres to address what are mainly railway problems, such as level crossings.

Which then points towards working with what the railways have already got, so keeping the level crossing and scrutinising the design and operation in fine detail to make it as safe as possible (I think there's still plenty of room for improvement), or doing something within the existing footprint of the railway, either raising the tracks and the station so it's elevated above street level, or digging down. Given the capital of cost and disruption of either raising or lowering tracks, I think that brings it back to improving the level crossing which is already there.

 

[Meerkat]

Demolition is the only answer if there is no way to redirect the ever increasing traffic.
just got to be fair to those who suffer.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Only because in the UK we have the wrong approach to public transport. The answer to these suburbs is to charge a proper rate of Council Tax for these estates to fund a proper quality public transport service. This is what the Dutch do - they are house dwellers just like us.

The fundamental problem with suburbs is not suburbs, it's this ridiculous idea that in the UK bus services are expected to be profitable (yet we throw money hand over fist into rural railways which will carry fewer people in a year than a subsidised suburban bus service would in a week).



This is not really true. Private hire taxis tend to be town based, not based in a particular area of a town, so there are generally plenty of them. MK for example is hard to serve by public transport because of its layout, but taxis are plentiful and very cheap, and easy to get with an app on your phone.

There is I think an element of "I'm all right Jack" in your situation (I'm very surprised you are a homeowner - and you do seem to be asking people to do thing you won't), but I think that also means you really don't understand the positions others are in.



Yes, that does pose a challenge, but you can make them less car dependent by providing quality cycle provision and public transport.



The perfect structure for a public transport based new build town is more "beads on a string", i.e. built up areas around public transport stations. You are right that you want to go high density near the station but can get less dense as you go out. Runcorn could be worth a look, as the concepts in it are pretty much perfect for a public transport based medium sized town.

The best public transport is the public transport which is inherently sustainable. Lothian Buses does not require ongoing public subsidy, so it has been protected from some of the worst of the Thatcher-era bus privatisation effects. That lack of need for subsidy is largely driven by the relatively high population density in Edinburgh and its surrounding areas. A bus costs a similar amount to run whether it's a little minibus that might have 10 people on it, or a double decker full to the brim heading down Leith Walk. Density means that people don't need a car to get about their daily lives, so they don't own one, which means they use buses and public transport more. It's a virtuous cycle which cannot be created artificially through subsidy alone.

If nothing else, the fact that there are so many bus users in Edinburgh means the council cannot cut bus services so easily. Cars are predominantly used by richer people who get more say in politics. In car-based areas, the majority of voters will think for themselves and won't advocate for bus services and improvements, which makes them worse for the people who need them the most. Subsidy can't stick around forever when it's not important for winning an election.

The Dutch design their cities and towns and suburbs properly. A suburban-style environment might be available but it will be based around walking distances to a Metro station. In a sense, they're designing suburbs in the same way we were back before cars because the default answer for transport policy.

This has all drifted away spectacularly from replacilevel crossings to urban planning.

Putting my mod hat on* Back to the subject!

The premise of this was that to replace level crossings in urban areas you need to generate funds, and demolish property, therefore put the two together. The main issue with this (other than needing a change in the law) is that there are lots of other worthy causes that need public funding in urban areas. Healthcare, social care, education, and so on. Look at it another way - if we are to use compulsory purchase to enable development that generates funding for public use, would replacing a level crossing be top of the list?


* I do not have a mod hat.

The idea is that the profit generated by comprehensive redevelopment of town centres near level crossings on congested routes is enough to cover the cost. That is, it might cost a total of £100m to CPO 200 houses in a relatively well-off area, and then another £100m to redevelop, but the total value of the redeveloped area would then be £250m. It wouldn't need to compete with other funding priorities. It could be a revenue generating measure.

Even if it isn't generating revenue, the cost savings coupled with benefits to other things (e.g. being able to run Southern Rail Access to Heathrow services, or other regionally/nationally relevant rail projects) would still come out ahead of the no-redevelopment alternative. Needing to spend a total of only £100m to cover the cost of CPO and redevelopment minus the new sale value would be better than spending £1bn on putting the railway in a cutting or tunnel. Plus, with more housing, the economy benefits more. Houses provided on a redeveloped railway side would be houses not needing built in other, less suitable places.

Another angle to this is to consider how to solve the problem of Oxford and Cambridge being economic superstars but having the infrastructure of a town. These two have now got essentially unlimited ability to generate new high-value businesses. However, the model up to now of putting these in some awful suburban business park is no longer acceptable. High value businesses are moving into city centres to better attract younger people who would rather have facilities around at the end of the night than a car park and an easy drive home to a suburban house. This is definitely happening in Edinburgh now - Edinburgh Park is now being transformed from a suburban office park to a mixed-use development based around the tram. Without densification, Oxford and Cambridge are going to struggle to handle all this demand for housing, commuting and office space. They can keep their original town centre cores, but the heavily congested roads around them need widened and rows of flats and terraces put up.

 

[Falcon1200]

I think that brings it back to improving the level crossing which is already there.

Please tell us how you think the level crossing should be improved.

 

[Highlandspring]

It's at Sumburgh on Shetland. The lights also have CCTV cameras to enforce compliance and woe betide anyone who passes them whilst showing. Similar at Gibraltar, although there the road is gated and manually controlled because of the volume of traffic, both vehicular and foot. The persons controlling the gates give the all clear to the control tower once the runway is clear, only then can an aircraft be instructed to make its move

Sorry I’m late to the party on this one but the Sumburgh runway crossing also has manually controlled gates. There’s an attendant at each side (in a garden shed) who opens and closes the gates and if you want to walk across they radio the air traffic control to ask permission first and watch you cross to make sure you don’t stray.

 

[alf]

Please tell us how you think the level crossing should be improved.

Read my post 70.

If you think my ideas impractical then we need CPOs to acquire the land needed to bridge over/under the rail line at the two crossings near Egham & the four crossings between North Sheen & Barnes.

I still think a strong rising bar as at the entrance to Downing Street would be an effective way of stopping even lorries in their tracks & keeping them off the railway’s tracks at level crossings.

 

[Falcon1200]

Read my post 70.

If you think my ideas impractical then we need CPOs to acquire the land needed to bridge over/under the rail line at the two crossings near Egham & the four crossings between North Sheen & Barnes.

Thanks for answering on behalf of someone else, however your 'solution' seems utterly impractical and will never happen. I was more interested in the suggestion that the existing LC, rather than being replaced at huge and impossible expense, could somehow be 'improved'.

 

[Bald Rick]

I still think a strong rising bar as at the entrance to Downing Street would be an effective way of stopping even lorries in their tracks & keeping them off the railway’s tracks at level crossings.

What happens if a vehicle tries though?

 

[miklcct]

Less important, certainly, though it depends on the individual.

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



There is a sneaky reason for that - the only way you can have Sunday opening in Germany is if the business is in a railway station for passenger use (though there doesn't have to be enforcement of it being for passengers only, I seem to recall you do see signage to that effect).

It is useful to co-locate Tesco Express type stores with public transport nodes, yes, I agree. Indeed what you ideally want is your "local centre" (to use an MK term) to be around the station as a general thing.

We have an Asda superstore just next to two of the major railway stations in my area, and a Lidl next to the third one. Isn't it a normal setup?

 

[Bald Rick]

We have an Asda superstore just next to two of the major railway stations in my area, and a Lidl next to the third one. Isn't it a normal setup?

Nope.

 

[NoRoute]

Please tell us how you think the level crossing should be improved.

As I'd suggested:
- Extend the pedestrian foot bridge with ramps at either end so all pedestrians, including those with disabilities, wheelchairs, pushchairs and easily cross and don't need to use the level crossing.
- Improve the signage and traffic lights, move away from wig-wags to conventional traffic lights with improved signage, to reduce probability of driver error.
- Paint a hashed box on the level crossing.
- Improve barriers, as mentioned above.

All of these measures would cost a small fraction of anything involving demolishing buildings to build a road bridge, or raising/lowering the track.

 

[30907]

As I'd suggested:
- Extend the pedestrian foot bridge with ramps at either end so all pedestrians, including those with disabilities, wheelchairs, pushchairs and easily cross and don't need to use the level crossing.
- Improve the signage and traffic lights, move away from wig-wags to conventional traffic lights with improved signage, to reduce probability of driver error.
- Paint a hashed box on the level crossing.
- Improve barriers, as mentioned above.

All of these measures would cost a small fraction of anything involving demolishing buildings to build a road bridge, or raising/lowering the track.

Good things (mostly), but makes no difference to the fundamental problem that a busy level crossing has a significant impact on road traffic, whether at Egham, Crosshills or Cononley.

 

[HSTEd]

The obvious (if very expensive) solution is to do the Alameda corridor style trench.

Although in many places it would be politically difficult to close the railway for the months or years this would take.

A separate tunneled alignment avoids this but is even more expensive.

Both options also have the advantage of eliminating all gauging and similar issues along the sections rebuilt.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The obvious (if very expensive) solution is to do the Alameda corridor style trench.

Although in many places it would be politically difficult to close the railway for the months or years this would take.

A separate tunneled alignment avoids this but is even more expensive.

Both options also have the advantage of eliminating all gauging and similar issues along the sections rebuilt.

Yes, and these options would cost billions. However, there would be very little incremental gain for the railway. You'd be able to run more services, sure, but the limitations of local infrastructure and housing density would mean not many more passengers would be able to use them. Underground stations happen in places with high housing density, and these towns do not currently have high housing density. And, of course, the economy would still need to build more houses somewhere else in a less optimal location, like on the edge of an already-congested town.

The fact is that a major tunnelling or bridging scheme (like the one in Melbourne) is never going to happen. The level crossings are just going to stay around, forever, inhibiting progress. The towns would remain divided in two for much of the hour, causing difficulties for all residents and their economies. A CPO scheme, on the other hand, is economically entirely feasible. It's a bit of a mental stretch, but there's nothing about it which doesn't make sense. Towns used CPO policies with wild abandon to build out their postwar road networks, tearing down plenty of freeheld properties in the process. Why not use them again, for public transport this time? Why should it be fine to use CPO to build a high street bypass ring road but not a development-oriented bridge over the railway?

It's no accident that many of the rail projects in London are based around the promise of extra housing. The Overground extension to Barking Riverside is only happening because it is financially enabled by, and makes viable, a major housing project. The Bakerloo extension to Lewisham is based entirely on new housing on the Old Kent Road corridor. From a city and regional strategic perspective, why shouldn't the option of redeveloping existing developed areas not be considered alongside brownfield extensions?

One of those very nice things about redevelopment of existing areas around railway stations is that the railway already exists. It's very easy to incrementally deliver more housing at low risk. There's no need to put all your eggs in one basket and do all your development around one untested railway line that could take decades to come into service. A scheme like Royal Arsenal is entirely dependent on the Elizabeth line, so every day it isn't able to open is a day when the development can't meet its full potential. All the money the developer spent on building out the station box is money wasted until residents can actually use the trains. That risk can be shifted around, but someone needs to bear it (e.g. TfL), and that risk can only add to the costs of everything.

Meanwhile, a block of flats built next to an existing railway station can benefit from it immediately. In the long term, there might be a plan to improve services to match the new demand patterns, but that doesn't stop the services being usable immediately. The redevelopment work can also be spread much more widely so that the new passengers are distributed across different lines and services, rather than clumped together into one. In the Egham case, for instance, it may be necessary to do this level crossing town centre core rebuild in several towns before it's possible to run more services. Egham town could be rebuilt and completed before moving onto the next station. Or, the core of the redevelopment could be built in all the towns so the railway gets rid of its level crossings, but the housing could be left for the market to build later.

 

[Meerkat]

What happens if a vehicle tries though?

Sure I have seen dashcam videos showing Russian level crossings with solid pivoting barriers lifting out the ground that are going to stop pretty much anything

 

[Falcon1200]

As I'd suggested:
- Extend the pedestrian foot bridge with ramps at either end so all pedestrians, including those with disabilities, wheelchairs, pushchairs and easily cross and don't need to use the level crossing.
- Improve the signage and traffic lights, move away from wig-wags to conventional traffic lights with improved signage, to reduce probability of driver error.
- Paint a hashed box on the level crossing.
- Improve barriers, as mentioned above.

I agree with your points about ramps for the footbridge (although presumably there is a reason this has not already been done ?), and of course there should be a yellow box on the crossing - If there is not this is a failure of planning or maintenance. However, there is no way that conventional traffic lights can replace the wig-wags, for the reasons already explained earlier in this topic. And I'm not sure how the barriers could realistically be improved ? And as 30907 says, none of these measures would improve traffic flow for either road or rail (mobility-challenged pedestrians apart).

 

[Bletchleyite]

We have an Asda superstore just next to two of the major railway stations in my area, and a Lidl next to the third one. Isn't it a normal setup?

There are some, but no, it isn't the norm, just a coincidence rather than a planning decision.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jul 2021 ==

@NotATrainspott Quick question for you. Why do you keep using terms like "the fact that" in things which are your opinion, not fact? It does not help your argument, indeed it rather weakens it as an argument based on false premises does not tend to stand up very well.

You might rather argue that your option is preferable to those other options, but they have been done elsewhere (albeit I can't think of any UK examples) so that they could not be done is not fact.

And there is something about it that does not make sense - we do not live in an authoritarian dictatorship, so it is simply not the right thing to do.

 

[NotATrainspott]

There are some, but no, it isn't the norm, just a coincidence rather than a planning decision.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jul 2021 ==

@NotATrainspott Quick question for you. Why do you keep using terms like "the fact that" in things which are your opinion, not fact? It does not help your argument, indeed it rather weakens it as an argument based on false premises does not tend to stand up very well.

You might rather argue that your option is preferable to those other options, but they have been done elsewhere (albeit I can't think of any UK examples) so that they could not be done is not fact.

And there is something about it that does not make sense - we do not live in an authoritarian dictatorship, so it is simply not the right thing to do.

The cost of burying the railway here would be most comparable to the cost of building a new metro line. When the railway is sufficiently busy to justify us spending a lot of time upgrading it, it is also too busy for us to be able to afford the cost of closing it for months or years. Even burying it in a trench in on a closed railway alignment is going to be an expensive undertaking, as each station footprint would need to be enlarged to meet modern fire regulations. The amount of disruption to lineside neighbours along the route would be enormous from all the piling and support works. HS2 found it would be easier just to do a longer TBM run than to try a similar thing on the NNML alignment. That would mean totally new stations of a similar cost to those needed for the Elizabeth line or Crossrail 2, meaning costs in the billions.

The biggest killer by far is that all of this money would be spent but there would be no increase in housing supply in these areas. It's one thing to upgrade a core section of a commuter route to support higher frequencies, so that you can run more trains out to areas where you can build new housing. My understanding is that this has some part to play in the decisions of Melbourne and other regions to bury their urban railways. In these areas of suburban and exurban London there's no space to build more houses further along the route without demolishing existing ones. The political opposition to building on the greenbelt is high enough that it is not going to happen. If political opposition to densifying existing areas is also going to mean it's not going to happen, then there will be no increase in housing supply, and no economic justification for sorting out all these level crossings. Everything will just be left as-is, forever, leaving everything suboptimal for everyone. That's our alternative and that is not good.

If the properties near the railway were owned by an institution, and planning policy permitted, then this higher density redevelopment and level crossing closure would have happened years ago. Institutions, whether social housing or private investments, care about the economics rather than sentimentality. They'd look at the amount of rent they can receive for the buildings as they are at the moment, and the amount of rent they'd be able to receive after the redevelopment is done, and work out how much they'd be willing to pay to redevelop it.

If private owners did exactly the same thing, individually, they'd come to exactly the same conclusion. The reason they generally don't is that there are far too many individual landowners nearby for them to efficiently group together. Even if 90% of them did, it would be entirely economically rational for the remaining 10% to stall the scheme in an attempt to extract more money. This problem is why CPO exists. The state has the power to consider the needs of the majority over the needs of the few when it comes to common redevelopment policy. The "needs of many outweigh needs of few" principle does not extend to complete expropriation without compensation as that has chilling effects on the rest of the economy. When people know they have the right to fair compensation if and when their property is CPOed legally, then they will not hold back from doing rational investments in their own properties, so all tends to be well.

It is not an authoritarian dictatorship to have CPO rules. If you genuinely believe that, then you should stop to wonder just how the land for all these motorways and other enhanced road schemes in existing urban areas were created. How did the CTRL builders collect up all the land they'd need for the ventilation shafts and tunnel portals along HS1? How are HS2 managing to expand Euston and its throat westwards? Remember that much of the land that has been CPOed for Euston will end up being developed, rather than left as a railway scar through Camden. Does making it a mixed railway-and-development scheme mean that CPO is no longer acceptable? What is different, in principle, about redeveloping Egham town centre in order to resolve the level crossing problem than having to clear out a bit of Camden to fit in HS2?

The fact that the redeveloped properties would be a higher density than the ones that came before is incidental to the principle, but crucial for the economics. Without taking advantage of high land values to increase the amount of rentable floor space (in flats or commmercial premises) on the same amount of land, you'll never make the scheme wash its face. If there were a catastrophic plane crash in the centre of Egham that wiped out its town centre, there's little chance the replacement would be as low density as it is today. Most people will claim on their buildings insurance and want to move away ASAP to a new home, so their insurer gets the chance to redevelop their property (at higher density!) to maximise their profits.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is different is that you are proposing this as a housing scheme. It has nothing to do with level crossings, they are a convenient excuse. It is not appropriate to be using CPOs to force people to relocate just so you can profit from building more houses and flats in an expensive area, which is what this is really about.

Just no. Not appropriate. Build houses somewhere else, or add tax breaks for locating business elsewhere or for home working, which has the potential to be a great leveller.

 

[BayPaul]

What is different is that you are proposing this as a housing scheme. It has nothing to do with level crossings, they are a convenient excuse. It is not appropriate to be using CPOs to force people to relocate just so you can profit from building more houses and flats in an expensive area, which is what this is really about.

Just no. Not appropriate. Build houses somewhere else, or add tax breaks for locating business elsewhere or for home working, which has the potential to be a great leveller.

Just a thought, what if you were to take the profit element out of it, and did it because it was the right thing to do. So, for example, if you demolished 100 properties, built 300 on the cleared site, gave the previous owners one each, and then the profit on selling the other 200, after costs, was split between the owners. The benefit to society being the additional housing stock. Obviously this would need to be underwritten by a council or housing association, rather than a private developer, but do you feel this would improve the moral argument? Genuine question, as I am very much on the fence.

 

[NotATrainspott]

What is different is that you are proposing this as a housing scheme. It has nothing to do with level crossings, they are a convenient excuse. It is not appropriate to be using CPOs to force people to relocate just so you can profit from building more houses and flats in an expensive area, which is what this is really about.

Just no. Not appropriate. Build houses somewhere else, or add tax breaks for locating business elsewhere or for home working, which has the potential to be a great leveller.

If this were an entirely arbitrary location where redevelopment wouldn't assist in delivering a clear railway aim (closing level crossings) then yes. But this is an area where we have both housing pressure and a need for railway investment. The nature of these two problems means they will often happen together, so a concept that helps both of them seems entirely reasonable.

The Bakerloo extension down the Old Kent Road is based on high density residential development of most of the non-residential sites along that corridor. How many more schemes could be viable if we could force redevelopment along their routes as well? In a city like London, you could turn the earth into Swiss cheese by constantly building more and more Tube lines, all funded by higher density redevelopment along their routes. There's pretty much no transport scheme in London that couldn't become viable without redevelopment. A tram down Uxbridge Road? New Tube lines in South London? More Overgroundification?

Closing level crossings is a pre-requisite for railway improvements that would help locals as well as people across the region. Would the people of Egham really vote in a referendum to continue being divided in half by a level crossing that limits the number of trains an hour that can run, just to prevent some houses being compulsory purchased? Everyone else in the town would see their properties get even more valuable. No level crossing means no delays in the morning when people need to get to school or work. Higher density living here will help make more town centre businesses viable - shops, restaurants, cafes and so on, which makes it a nicer place to live. The replacement higher density properties could well be more desirable than what is there before. That row of fairly indifferent detached houses on Rusham Road could be replaced with a nice row of neo-Georgian brick townhouses and apartments, if local planners insisted on it. This sort of pre-car denser development is typical of the most desirable places to live in the UK (e.g. Kensington or Bath or the Edinburgh New Town).

Without a wider redevelopment, a level crossing closure scheme in Egham would mean building a large, blighting road flyover. Some smaller number of properties would need to be compulsory purchased to do the minimal scheme. Nearby streets would be closed off and turned into wrongly oriented cul-de-sacs as they can't join onto the raised road level. People with a nice suburban house would have a busy road pass by their first floor window, or shading their garden. Their property values would go down!

Indeed, if you did this more minimal scheme, the market would start to adjust anyway. People wouldn't want to buy the suburban houses near the flyover. When people sell their homes, after not being forced out, they'll find the only interest from buyers will be from developers planning to demolish their property and build flats instead. These new flats would be designed to work with the new road level. In the long term, we'd end up in basically the same place, albeit done far more piecemeal and disruptively to local residents.

Building houses somewhere else is not an option when we have run out of places to put them. Greenbelt development will not happen, and is unlikely to be ideal. Building more 3-4 bedroom houses out in a place where you need two cars is not a sustainable solution. Tax breaks for moving businesses elsewhere, or home working, won't work either. Trying to hold back the pull of urban development, given that the move to urban living is a fundamental part of human economic development, is like trying to hold back the tide. It can't and won't ever work, so there's no point fighting against it. You're better off coming up with plans that allow you to go with the flow.

The only reason this is so controversial is that it may be necessary to override the wishes of maybe 10% of property owners. If all the property owners around Egham level crossing joined together without controversy and proposed a redevelopment to fix the level crossing, then no one would be complaining about higher density. If most of the town centre were owned by a single landholder who chose not to renew leaseholds, then they'd be able to do the same thing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just a thought, what if you were to take the profit element out of it, and did it because it was the right thing to do. So, for example, if you demolished 100 properties, built 300 on the cleared site, gave the previous owners one each, and then the profit on selling the other 200, after costs, was split between the owners. The benefit to society being the additional housing stock. Obviously this would need to be underwritten by a council or housing association, rather than a private developer, but do you feel this would improve the moral argument? Genuine question, as I am very much on the fence.

That is potentially more acceptable, however you still need to watch for gotchas. Will the new properties be less valuable? Smaller gardens? Leasehold rather than freehold? Etc.

Overall on balance I think using CPOs for housing redevelopment simply isn't OK. There is enough farmland to build on, along railway lines where a new station could be added in many cases.

 

[miklcct]

Overall on balance I think using CPOs for housing redevelopment simply isn't OK. There is enough farmland to build on, along railway lines where a new station could be added in many cases.

This is commonly done in Hong Kong to clear out old buildings built in the era where height was restricted due to the airport such that skyscrapers can be developed. Why isn't it OK in the UK?

 

[Taunton]

You probably find that the highest percentage of regular rail users, particularly in a commuter place like Egham, are those living within close walking distance of the station, who have bought there specifically for that reason. Demolishing them for the convenience of the railway seems like a spectacular own goal against your customer base.

 

[Bald Rick]

Demolishing them for the convenience of the railway seems like a spectacular own goal against your customer base.

I agree with the sentiment, but such a scheme would primarily be for the convenience of road users.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is commonly done in Hong Kong to clear out old buildings built in the era where height was restricted due to the airport such that skyscrapers can be developed. Why isn't it OK in the UK?

I don't think it is OK anywhere, but I refer you again to my point that the UK is not China (thank goodness), and what is acceptable differs between the two types of political administration. China is an authoritarian state where you exist at the behest of the Government. The UK is not.