Park Royal Station
 

Some of you will remember that about 20 years ago the planning
permission for the business park on the former Guinness factory near
Park Royal Piccadilly Line station included the building of platforms on
the Central Line, turning Park Royal into a Central - Piccadilly
interchange. The station was a requirement if more than 5 of the
proposed 10 blocks were ever opened... pictures of the new station even
appeared on the construction hoardings.

Of course, only five of the blocks were ever built and the Central Line
platforms were never built. One can speculate that this was the plan all
along, and the vapourware platforms functioned purely to sweeten someone up.

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.

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
The Lilac Time - 2015 - Prussian Blue

Park Royal Station
 

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.

--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic

More people are driven insane through religious hysteria than
by drinking alcohol. -- W C Fields

Park Royal Station
 

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.
--
Roland Perry

Park Royal Station
 

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.

Park Royal Station
 

In message , at 17:44:10 on Wed, 7 Aug
2019, MikeS remarked:
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.

It's what I take the expression "traffic pattern", above, to mean.

--
Roland Perry

Park Royal Station
 

On 07/08/2019 17:44, MikeS wrote:

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.

Wasn't the ticket hall completely rebuilt a few years ago?

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Swans - 1983 - Filth

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

Park Royal Station
 

On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 02:42:40PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:59:17
on Wed, 7 Aug 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
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'd expect that homes would generate traffic with less sharply defined
peaks, so the traffic would be spread out more in time. And I think it
goes without saying that people going to/from home would make more use
of road transport than people going to/from an office, as they'll be
doing things like going to the shops, to school, etc. Those residents
who *do* use the station to get to work, meanwhile, will be travelling
against the flow of those who are coming to work at the nearby offices.

--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire

All principles of gravity are negated by fear
-- Cartoon Law IV

Park Royal Station
 

In message , at 15:21:08
on Thu, 8 Aug 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
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'd expect that homes would generate traffic with less sharply defined
peaks, so the traffic would be spread out more in time. And I think it
goes without saying that people going to/from home would make more use
of road transport than people going to/from an office, as they'll be
doing things like going to the shops, to school, etc. Those residents
who *do* use the station to get to work, meanwhile, will be travelling
against the flow of those who are coming to work at the nearby offices.

Also, are there more workers in the offices they did build, compared to
residents with cars in the 800 houses?
--
Roland Perry

Park Royal Station
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:21:08
on Thu, 8 Aug 2019, David Cantrell remarked:
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'd expect that homes would generate traffic with less sharply defined
peaks, so the traffic would be spread out more in time. And I think it
goes without saying that people going to/from home would make more use
of road transport than people going to/from an office, as they'll be
doing things like going to the shops, to school, etc. Those residents
who *do* use the station to get to work, meanwhile, will be travelling
against the flow of those who are coming to work at the nearby offices.

Also, are there more workers in the offices they did build, compared to
residents with cars in the 800 houses?

The new blocks of flats are further away from the station than the two
office blocks, which might make tube travel less enticing. And, of course,
the Piccadilly line does serve the station, and the existing Central line
station isn't far away.