View Single Post
  #7   Report Post  
Old August 8th 19, 09:57 AM posted to uk.transport.london
Robin[_6_] Robin[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2018
Posts: 48
Default Park Royal Station

On 07/08/2019 17:44, MikeS wrote:
On 07/08/2019 14:42, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
10:59:17 on Wed, 7 Aug 2019, David Cantrell
remarked:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 12:25:51AM +0100, Basil Jet wrote:

The remainder of the site is now being built on with a residential
development called "Regency Heights", and it looks as if no new
platforms are now required. It would be great to have someone from
Brent
Council (or is it Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation)
explain why a sixth office block would require new Central Line
platforms, but that 807 new homes don't.

I would presume that those 800 new homes are expected to have a
different traffic pattern from a new office block, and so not need the
extra infrastructure.


In terms of being a source of passengers, rather than a sink, yes. But
we'd need a better insight into whether those two different flows are
better handled by road transport compared to rail.


I doubt traffic flows or anything else transport related comes into it.

More likely a council that does not want to deter developers from
helping it to boost housing targets and rake in more council tax. If you
want to see what a Tory council (Barnet) can do take a look at Colindale
station. It is now surrounded by a sea of massive new blocks housing
vastly more than the old Grahame Park development 50 years ago yet
nothing has been done to improve the station or any other transport modes.


Council? Tory? The planning application was dealt with by the Old Oak
and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC). The OPDC was set up
under Boris Johnson but Sadiq Khan has of course been in power since
2016 and eg appointed the new Chair early in 2017. There are 4
councillors on the planning committee - 3 from H&F and 1 from Brent.
All 4 are Labour.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid