London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old August 6th 19, 11:25 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,249
Default 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

  #2   Report Post  
Old August 7th 19, 09:59 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,363
Default 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
  #3   Report Post  
Old August 7th 19, 01:42 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,625
Default 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
  #4   Report Post  
Old August 7th 19, 04:44 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Mar 2016
Posts: 12
Default 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.


  #5   Report Post  
Old August 7th 19, 05:42 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,625
Default 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


  #6   Report Post  
Old August 7th 19, 11:43 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,249
Default 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
  #7   Report Post  
Old August 8th 19, 09:57 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2018
Posts: 53
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
  #8   Report Post  
Old August 8th 19, 02:21 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,363
Default 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
  #9   Report Post  
Old August 8th 19, 03:08 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,625
Default 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
  #10   Report Post  
Old August 8th 19, 09:35 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2019
Posts: 123
Default 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.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New timetables online: Park Royal parly to be diverted Basil Jet[_4_] London Transport 35 December 15th 18 04:54 PM
Park Royal City International Masterplan Slidecage London Transport 2 October 6th 11 07:27 PM
A RIGHT ROYAL GIVEAWAY: RYANAIR TO HAND OUT FREE FLIGHTS TO LONDONERS! [email protected] London Transport 5 April 21st 07 08:44 PM
Park Royal [email protected] London Transport 1 August 22nd 06 09:00 AM
Park Royal Central Line Station pictures John Rowland London Transport 2 November 2nd 03 05:41 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017