Turning station car parks into housing?

[ScotGG]

With it being said that commuting patterns will change for good (say working 3 out of 5 days in the office) do some stations still need vast car parks?

The country has a housing shortage, and building new homes next to stations will be a massive incentive for new residents to use rail - to perhaps mitigate against losing commuters.

Is this something National Rail are looking at in a serious way? It all seems quite piecemeal from them and there seems vast scope to raise income from land around stations.

 

[Djgr]

Sounds like a bad idea. When they are built on they are lost for all time, even when circumstances change e.g. Heswall (Hills)

 

[Phlip]

With it being said that commuting patterns will change for good (say working 3 out of 5 days in the office) do some stations still need vast car parks?

The country has a housing shortage, and building new homes next to stations will be a massive incentive for new residents to use rail - to perhaps mitigate against losing commuters.

Is this something National Rail are looking at in a serious way? It all seems quite piecemeal from them and there seems vast scope to raise income from land around stations.

Sounds like just about the most short-termist, daftest thing they could possibly do!

 

[Taunton]

It really is too soon to go making decisions. As I understand it property developers and their surveyor intermediaries are circling all around various landowners, and in some cases bankruptcy receivers, hoping to get some great cheap deals while people are distracted elsewhere.

It's not apparent who has the final say on the fate of a car park, the TOC or Network Rail. The latter seem thus able to realise the value without taking into consideration any impact on the former.

You actually don't get many houses on a typical station car park, they will inevitably be downmarket ("too close to the trains"), and in a world where we hear people have given up rail commuting to quite an extent, not that much value to the rail industry either. But that revenue value would be to the TOC, whereas the land value goes to Network Rail. A bit of a gap.

 

[Horizon22]

There will still be a need for station parking, even if its people splitting it up (so instead of driving all the way, driving to the nearest railhead and then taking the train). The vast majority of people do not live within walking distance of a railway station (outside of London) so there will still be a need for parking. Without parking, you might actually see emissions go up as it will prevent people using the train.

There may well be not as much need in future, but I think we would ideally want to observe trends for another year or so yet. The problem is that you can't 'decrease' capacity - it will need to meet the maximum level of demand which means that yes 95% of the time it may well seem 'empty'

Lots of bits of "peripheral rail" has been lost over the past decades which would now be rather operationally useful - whether this is closed lines or various sidings. Short-term decisions are not great at this point, especially in relation to infrastructure which would be irreparably lost.

 

[gg1]

Sounds like just about the most short-termist, daftest thing they could possibly do!

Nail on head!

IME the majority of station car parks (at least those with high levels of commuter traffic) were too small pre-COVID with parked cars overflowing onto local streets, to assume demand will NEVER return to something approaching those levels is naive and short sighted.

 

[John Hunt]

Nail on head!

Leicester station car park was enlarged years ago when parcels traffic disappeared.

 

[Ianno87]

I think this seriously needs to be considered for town/City centre stations, where really car use should not be encouraged, particularly where there is a decent "Parkway" station serving the same purpose. Cambridge/Cambridge North would be a good example of this.

 

[gg1]

I think this seriously needs to be considered for town/City centre stations, where really car use should not be encouraged, particularly where there is a decent "Parkway" station serving the same purpose. Cambridge/Cambridge North would be a good example of this.

If you amend that to "ONLY where there is a decent "Parkway" station serving the same purpose", I would agree but removing parking from centrally located stations where there is no alternate option would only serve to encourage the public to use their car for their entire journey rather than just the first few miles from home to their local station.

 

[Ianno87]

If you amend that to "ONLY where there is a decent "Parkway" station serving the same purpose", I would agree but removing parking from centrally located stations where there is no alternate option would only serve to encourage the public to use their car for their entire journey rather than just the first few miles from home to their local station.

My suggestion is where there is an alternate option, either a nearby "Parkway", combined with good walking/cycling/bus access to the central station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would not be difficult to do this without reducing parking by much by building flats on stilts above the parking. So you could do that now.

 

[Sm5]

Rather than flats, commercial units.

 

[S&CLER]

A couple of small blocks of flats were built at the southern end of Birkdale station's former goods yard; I'm not sure if this section of it was ever used as a car park (the rest of it was and still is), and I have a recollection that it was a garden centre for a time. At the time they were built, I wondered how attractive they would be, sandwiched as they are between a railway with 8 train movements an hour and a footpath. But they all appear to be occupied.

 

[Hadders]

In my part of the world there are loads of flats being built within walking distance of stations without more needing to be built on station car parks.

 

[Ediswan]

It's not apparent who has the final say on the fate of a car park, the TOC or Network Rail.

Possibly neither. Both the station car parks in Stevenage are operated by the local council. I can't say for sure that the council own the land. Some years ago the South car park shrank when the local police station car park was expanded. Seems they owned that patch of land.

 

[A0wen]

Tfl are looking at this, IIRC Cockfosters was one such station and their reason for doing it was to deter people from driving from Potters Bar or Cuffley to get on the tube.

It's a stupid idea, but much of what TFL does seems not to make sense.

 

[Mikey C]

Tfl are looking at this, IIRC Cockfosters was one such station and their reason for doing it was to deter people from driving from Potters Bar or Cuffley to get on the tube.

It's a stupid idea, but much of what TFL does seems not to make sense.

Really unpopular with locals too, their plans for enormous blocks on these car parks are massively out of scale with the local areas.

 

[bramling]

Tfl are looking at this, IIRC Cockfosters was one such station and their reason for doing it was to deter people from driving from Potters Bar or Cuffley to get on the tube.

It's a stupid idea, but much of what TFL does seems not to make sense.

Once again it’s parochial Khan actively sticking his middle finger up at “outsiders”.

With it being said that commuting patterns will change for good (say working 3 out of 5 days in the office) do some stations still need vast car parks?

The country has a housing shortage, and building new homes next to stations will be a massive incentive for new residents to use rail - to perhaps mitigate against losing commuters.

Is this something National Rail are looking at in a serious way? It all seems quite piecemeal from them and there seems vast scope to raise income from land around stations.

Not really a good thing IMO. Firstly no one knows what’s going to happen with commuting. The last thing needed it for usage to come back and the car parks gone. Secondly these spaces are often useful for railway purposes - they often provide somewhere to site an equipment room, substation, worksite or whatever, or even something bigger like sidings. Once the land is gone it’s gone, you’ve now installed an almost immovable obstacle next to the railway, almost impossible to move should the railway requirements change at any time in the future.

Meanwhile on the other hand right next to a station isn’t really the most wonderful place to site housing. You can bet within days of becoming occupied noise complaints will start coming in.

 

[Taunton]

A principal reason why local residents object to this sort of thing is the recent decision allowing such properties to be built without car parking provision. But there's no control over whether those living there actually own cars. So they have them, and they spill out onto the neighbouring streets inconveniencing everyone else. Sure you can introduce a residents' parking scheme, which themselves are a nuisance for costs and difficulties for your visitors, but those in the new apartments would themselves qualify for parking permits on their adjacent streets.

 

[Turtle]

Once again it’s parochial Khan actively sticking his middle finger up at “outsiders”.



Not really a good thing IMO. Firstly no one knows what’s going to happen with commuting. The last thing needed it for usage to come back and the car parks gone. Secondly these spaces are often useful for railway purposes - they often provide somewhere to site an equipment room, substation, worksite or whatever, or even something bigger like sidings. Once the land is gone it’s gone, you’ve now installed an almost immovable obstacle next to the railway, almost impossible to move should the railway requirements change at any time in the future.

Meanwhile on the other hand right next to a station isn’t really the most wonderful place to site housing. You can bet within days of becoming occupied noise complaints will start coming in.

Khan doesn't run TfL.

 

[Taunton]

Khan doesn't run TfL.

Um ... yes he does. Andy Byford reports to him.

 

[WideRanger]

A principal reason why local residents object to this sort of thing is the recent decision allowing such properties to be built without car parking provision. But there's no control over whether those living there actually own cars. So they have them, and they spill out onto the neighbouring streets inconveniencing everyone else. Sure you can introduce a residents' parking scheme, which themselves are a nuisance for costs and difficulties for your visitors, but those in the new apartments would themselves qualify for parking permits on their adjacent streets.

I don't know whether this applies everywhere, but here in Wembley (where 10,000 apartments are being built), people who are living in flats without parking spaces, or in flats where the residents have not chosen to rent or buy a parking space, are barred from applying for parking permits - including the event day permits. We're getting lots of people finding it out after moving in, and then trying to rent drives from existing residents. It seems that some of the landlords are not making it clear that owning a car is very difficult in the area.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Um ... yes he does. Andy Byford reports to him.

Didn't one of the "bailout" deals result in some of his level of control being revoked? As in "if you want to control it you pay for it"?

That aside transport is one of the very few things of consequence that the London Mayor actually controls. The Borough Councils do most other stuff.

 

[bramling]

I don't know whether this applies everywhere, but here in Wembley (where 10,000 apartments are being built), people who are living in flats without parking spaces, or in flats where the residents have not chosen to rent or buy a parking space, are barred from applying for parking permits - including the event day permits. We're getting lots of people finding it out after moving in, and then trying to rent drives from existing residents. It seems that some of the landlords are not making it clear that owning a car is very difficult in the area.

I know someone who walked into something similar, in his case somewhere in Docklands. Bought an apartment, saw at the time there was plenty of parking in local residential roads (at the time unrestricted), found fairly quickly that everyone else had the same idea, had his car keyed a few times (presumably by residents of the said nearby roads), eventually had to leave the car at his parents outside London for safe keeping, and in the end decided to move elsewhere.

It’s all very well people like Khan attempting to coerce people into not having cars, but reality is many people want them, even in London.

 

[Taunton]

I don't know whether this applies everywhere, but here in Wembley (where 10,000 apartments are being built), people who are living in flats without parking spaces, or in flats where the residents have not chosen to rent or buy a parking space, are barred from applying for parking permits - including the event day permits.

That doesn't sound quite right, that only people with their own driveways can apply for parking permits - the whole idea of them is for people without these and who perforce have their cars on the street.

Also, residents parking controls are typically in weekday daytimes only, of varying duration. They don't address people living there who will park overnight.

 

[Ianno87]

That doesn't sound quite right, that only people with their own driveways can apply for parking permits - the whole idea of them is for people without these and who perforce have their cars on the street.

Also, residents parking controls are typically in weekday daytimes only, of varying duration. They don't address people living there who will park overnight.

In Cambridge, not every property in a residents' parking area is entitled to a parking permit. And the city centre areas operate 7 days per week.

Personally, if more people actually thought whether they really need a car 'just in case', there'd be more space for those who actually need them, with Zipcar-type schemes available for everybody else. There just simply isn't space for a car for everybody for a once a week shop and a drive to the seaside.

 

[NoRoute]

The stations I've used had car parks which were full by around 8AM, so before the pandemic they had insufficient space, if passenger numbers are lower that would take many back within capacity but wouldn't leave an excess of capacity.

I wonder if on some stations there's a case for building double deck or multistorey car parks while reduced passenger volumes allow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The stations I've used had car parks which were full by around 8AM, so before the pandemic they had insufficient space, if passenger numbers are lower that would take many back within capacity but wouldn't leave an excess of capacity.

I wonder if on some stations there's a case for building double deck or multistorey car parks while reduced passenger volumes allow.

A very large number of South East commuter stations, certainly most of the south WCML ones, have been double decked using modular components, as I recall it was done with very little disruption, and you can even move parts around the place (Bletchley is never even nearly full, so they removed a big chunk of it and used it at Leighton Buzzard instead).

 

[WideRanger]

That doesn't sound quite right, that only people with their own driveways can apply for parking permits - the whole idea of them is for people without these and who perforce have their cars on the street.

Also, residents parking controls are typically in weekday daytimes only, of varying duration. They don't address people living there who will park overnight.

Sorry, I expressed it unclearly. The people who are barred from being able to apply for parking permits are those who live in flats that have been built recently, and which had as a condition of their planning permission either:

• They had to have a car parking space constructed at the same time - but not necessarily allocated to the person in the flat
• The flat was designated as car-free, and so the occupants could have no expectation of being able to park a car.

This ban does not apply to people who live in houses or flats that didn't have this condition of planning permission (whether or not they have their own drive or dedicated car park).

The issue arises for the following two groups of people:

• People who are in flats with this planning condition that have a corresponding car park space, but have not rented the actual space from their landlord. This is because some of the landlords ask for more money for the space, and I suspect that some people think they will be able to get away without paying the extra.
• Everyone in the car-free flats - even though they may not be aware that they are in such a flat when they rent.

Here in Wembley, there are some parking restrictions until midnight, because of the stadium.

Getting back to the subject, I think my main point is that from here, it seems that there is increasing acceptance of planning decisions that assume that some people that live in the area will not effectively be able to own a car.

 

[peteb]

Might be an idea where there is space to add a deck to part of existing car park, eg double capacity half the land area, but there are numerous issues to do with residential drvelopment: air quality (if there are sidings and trains leave engines running), noise, lack of sufficient amenity space etc. Another issue is that car parks are often used by Network Rail to access the line for maintenance, and reducing road/rail access points will simply cause more disruption to the network, as travel times for pw gangs increased.