Peer review: Phil Gaffney
Non-Executive Director, Crossrail
It is both interesting and disappointing to note the conflicting views from the contributors to this article. Richard Coburn states that “railway companies and city regions have conflicting objectives” and that railways are only interested in getting people on/off trains as quickly as possible. Paul Beatty-Pownall’s view is that the railway station has a vital role in creating an urban realm which can benefit the local communities.
I am very much persuaded by the views of Paul Beatty-Pownall, particularly with regard to the need for the station configuration to be more outward looking and welcoming to the local community, and become a hub for social and business activities.
Opportunities for such station regeneration in the UK are plentiful, but the overriding thrust of the article is that it is difficult to do. Some of the reasons given are valid, such as the short term of operating franchises and the need for Network Rail to focus on the large developments. But such difficulties can surely be overcome, and obviously have been in certain places. The key factor common to these successful examples is when all parties involved work in a collaborative way.
At the other end of the scale, the issues associated with mega-projects such as King’s Cross appear to be no less difficult, which indicates that access to funds is not the major barrier to delivery.
The planning and delivery of a new railway such as Crossrail or HS1, or remodelling of major urban stations such as Birmingham New Street or Reading, offer opportunities to develop and deliver a built environment that not only meets the transport needs of the City or Region, but also contributes to the social and economic infrastructure of the area it serves.
The article considers the Hong Kong MTR experience, and Jeremy Long and Andre Gibbs explain how difficult it has proven to be to export the Hong Kong Rail plus Property model to the UK railway environment. While the Rail plus Property funding model may be difficult to achieve, I would argue that the UK would welcome the outcome of this model both in terms of the integrated mixed use developments built around the railway stations and the positive effect this has on railway patronage.
The next two decades in the UK will offer major opportunities for large-scale property developments associated with railway projects - Crossrail, Thameslink, HS2, Crossrail 2. It is essential that the sponsors of these projects consider the potential benefits from property developments associated with the railway, and for the delivery organisation to be sufficiently resourced to work collaboratively with the Local Government bodies, other agencies and property developers to ensure that the completed project offers seamless integration between the railway and the districts it serves, adding value to those districts in terms of employment, residences, retail and leisure.
Crossrail is an example of what can be achieved in moving towards the Hong Kong model, even with the constraints noted in the article. As an integral part of the project, Crossrail has integrated the design for 12 major property developments over and around its central London stations and other key infrastructure. Development plans cover over three million sq ft of office, retail and residential space between Paddington and Woolwich. It is anticipated that this will generate £500 million income, with this forming part of the Crossrail funding strategy. Modest by Hong Kong standards, but still a significant and welcome contribution.
