[🌎 Universal GB] Planning, Transport and Infrastructure

[WanderingNortherner]

2 stations down the line at Harlington, they got a new footbridge at Christmas, no lifts because people who can't do stairs are clearly not important to Network Rail.

A footbridge replacing that rotten one behind it... £7m.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

They should be kicking up a fuss about it, hopefully they do because the money should be paid back. We all know Universal were looking at this site and chose it long before the station was started, the station would have happened eventually anyway due to Universal.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but a local authority cannot run its capital programme based on NDAs and rumours.

The Council had a statutory obligation to the thousands of residents already living in Wixams who were promised a station fifteen years ago. They had the funding (S106), they had the contracts and they had the pressure to deliver. They could not simply down tools for three years on the possibility that Comcast might decide to grace us with their presence. If Universal had pulled out last month, the Council would have been flayed alive for delaying the station for no reason.

The tragedy here is the lack of joined up thinking between Central Government (who knew about Universal) and Local Government (who were left holding the bag).

2 stations down the line at Harlington, they got a new footbridge at Christmas, no lifts because people who can't do stairs are clearly not important to Network Rail.

A footbridge replacing that rotten one behind it... £7m.

£7 million for a footbridge without lifts in the mid 2020s isn't just poor value... It borders on a breach of the Equality Act 2010.

It perfectly illustrates the two tier infrastructure system we are currently witnessing.

Universal gets a bespoke, government backed, four-platform super station with likely step free access, capacity for millions and upgraded road links. All costing hundreds of millions and fast tracked.

Harlington Residents get some stairs and a "good luck with that wheelchair / pram".

It seems accessibility is a priority only when there is a ticket price attached to the destination.

 

[Benjsh]

I find it very hard to feel sorry for the people of Harlington. I live in a Greater Manchester town with a population of 46000 that is considered to be one of the biggest in the whole country without a train station / Train stop. Once upon we a time before I was born in the mid 80's we had 4 different lines running through our town and today we have ZERO.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I find it very hard to feel sorry for the people of Harlington. I live in a Greater Manchester town with a population of 46000 that is considered to be one of the biggest in the whole country without a train station / Train stop. Once upon we a time before I was born in the mid 80's we had 4 different lines running through our town and today we have ZERO.

What you're describing is the textbook example of post Beeching short sightedness, but it perfectly illustrates why the Universal UK situation is so unpalatable. Your town has 46,000 tax paying residents who have waited decades for a connection. The Kempston Hardwick site currently has a resident population of zero. Yet, the site with zero population is being gifted a government backed four platform super station, whilst the residents of Wixams are left with a £32 million hole in their council budget.

It starkly demonstrates that infrastructure planning in this country is no longer driven by civic need or connecting communities. It is driven by connecting consumers to cash registers.

If you want a train station in your town, don't petition your MP. Petition Comcast to build a Jurassic World in the town square. It appears to be the only way to get the Department for Transport to open its chequebook.

 

[Ash]

What you're describing is the textbook example of post Beeching short sightedness, but it perfectly illustrates why the Universal UK situation is so unpalatable. Your town has 46,000 tax paying residents who have waited decades for a connection. The Kempston Hardwick site currently has a resident population of zero. Yet, the site with zero population is being gifted a government backed four platform super station, whilst the residents of Wixams are left with a £32 million hole in their council budget.

It starkly demonstrates that infrastructure planning in this country is no longer driven by civic need or connecting communities. It is driven by connecting consumers to cash registers.

If you want a train station in your town, don't petition your MP. Petition Comcast to build a Jurassic World in the town square. It appears to be the only way to get the Department for Transport to open its chequebook.

Although slightly different.

Applying similar logic it would have made sense to reopen Alton station and the line from Leekbrook back to Stoke but as you say, short sightedness is the way.

We were far better at infrastructure in the 19th century sadly.

 

[Bowser]

The BBC seem quite on board with infrastructure concerns for the project and now have a piece on the roads being unable to cope.

It's mostly interviews with concerned residents rather than an in-depth look at the plans:

Fears raised that roads won't cope with Universal theme park

People near the planned Universal park say they are concerned about the knock-on effects.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[DiogoJ42]

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for that Alton village bypass the parking charge was supposed to pay for.

 

[Matt N]

I have to say that I do think only 40% of visitors arriving by car sounds like quite optimistic planning from Universal, to say the least.

Undeniably, a not insignificant share of visitors will be tourists using public transport, but unless they really are pursuing a huge share of their visitor numbers being international tourists and Londoners, I can’t see that 60% of visitors would visit by public transport. Certainly for the domestic crowd, I think trains work out hideously expensive and/or hideously complicated, particularly to get to the local station or Bedford.

The site will soon be linked up to East West Rail, which I guess adds better links from the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, but currently, Kempston Hardwick is the least used station in Bedfordshire and is only served by patchy local services between Bletchley and Bedford. Even Bedford itself, while on Thameslink and the Midland Main Line, only really serves the Thameslink area and a small strip of the east running north from about North London/Luton up to about Nottingham (?).

I’ve said this for ages, but I think Milton Keynes Central is a key piece of the public transport puzzle if Universal wants to drive significant usage, particularly among the domestic market. Linking to Milton Keynes directly opens up the entire West Coast Main Line, thus facilitating direct travel from a second London terminus in Euston as well as pretty much the entirety of the highly populous West Midlands, North West and Scotland. A direct railway connection to Birmingham New Street, at very least, would open a huge amount of doors, as would direct connections to the likes of Manchester Piccadilly and Liverpool Lime Street, to a lesser extent.

 

[Bowser]

I have to say that I do think only 40% of visitors arriving by car sounds like quite optimistic planning from Universal, to say the least.

Undeniably, a not insignificant share of visitors will be tourists using public transport, but unless they really are pursuing a huge share of their visitor numbers being international tourists and Londoners, I can’t see that 60% of visitors would visit by public transport. Certainly for the domestic crowd, I think trains work out hideously expensive and/or hideously complicated, particularly to get to the local station or Bedford.

The site will soon be linked up to East West Rail, which I guess adds better links from the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, but currently, Kempston Hardwick is the least used station in Bedfordshire and is only served by patchy local services between Bletchley and Bedford. Even Bedford itself, while on Thameslink and the Midland Main Line, only really serves the Thameslink area and a small strip of the east running north from about North London/Luton up to about Nottingham (?).

I’ve said this for ages, but I think Milton Keynes Central is a key piece of the public transport puzzle if Universal wants to drive significant usage, particularly among the domestic market. Linking to Milton Keynes directly opens up the entire West Coast Main Line, thus facilitating direct travel from a second London terminus in Euston as well as pretty much the entirety of the highly populous West Midlands, North West and Scotland. A direct railway connection to Birmingham New Street, at very least, would open a huge amount of doors, as would direct connections to the likes of Manchester Piccadilly and Liverpool Lime Street, to a lesser extent.

I think you're probably right.

As a comparison point, Statista has 56% of visitors to Disneyland Paris arriving by car in 2016.

Of course the other consideration is that likely a large portion of visitors will not be from the UK. Again, using the DLP comparison point, estimates are of between 50-60% of visitors being international. Within Europe driving is often more viable but people coming to the UK will likely have more favourable public transport options available.

 

[Lewis232]

I have to say that I do think only 40% of visitors arriving by car sounds like quite optimistic planning from Universal, to say the least.

Undeniably, a not insignificant share of visitors will be tourists using public transport, but unless they really are pursuing a huge share of their visitor numbers being international tourists and Londoners, I can’t see that 60% of visitors would visit by public transport. Certainly for the domestic crowd, I think trains work out hideously expensive and/or hideously complicated, particularly to get to the local station or Bedford.

Universal are quoting numbers of between 8 to 12m people, there is no chance they'll be able to get close to that amount with domestic visitors, a very large number will be international tourists to London, who will mostly use rail. Londoners and southern domestic visitors will also lean heavily on rail.

The site will soon be linked up to East West Rail, which I guess adds better links from the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, but currently, Kempston Hardwick is the least used station in Bedfordshire and is only served by patchy local services between Bletchley and Bedford. Even Bedford itself, while on Thameslink and the Midland Main Line, only really serves the Thameslink area and a small strip of the east running north from about North London/Luton up to about Nottingham (?).

Wixham will be the main station for Universal and the Thameslink network is huge; 140 miles all the way from Bedford to Brighton through Central London serving both Luton and Gatwick airports. It also has huge capacity due to the billions poured in for the Thameslink Programme and runs 24 hours a day on the key route.

I’ve said this for ages, but I think Milton Keynes Central is a key piece of the public transport puzzle if Universal wants to drive significant usage, particularly among the domestic market. Linking to Milton Keynes directly opens up the entire West Coast Main Line, thus facilitating direct travel from a second London terminus in Euston as well as pretty much the entirety of the highly populous West Midlands, North West and Scotland. A direct railway connection to Birmingham New Street, at very least, would open a huge amount of doors, as would direct connections to the likes of Manchester Piccadilly and Liverpool Lime Street, to a lesser extent.

The West Coast Mainline is at or near capacity and the entire reason HS2 is being built is to shift the long distance trains off it so that commuter and regional services and freight have more capacity. Thameslink is the ideal line for it.

 

[xtpower]

I appreciate people have legit concerns about traffic, those I doubt ever go away until the Park actually opens - just because no amount of 'this is the plan' will assauge those worries. No, my main gripe is bad actors parroting 'Alton Towers has horrible traffic' as if it somehow vindicates their opinion that this Park shouldn't happen because of traffic.

Oh sure let's use an example of the worst road system to a Theme Park in the Country and use that as the equivalent of a Park with access to an A-road via a flyover. Because after all having to navigate tight country roads is completely the same as a dual-carriageway with a flyover, oh and don't forget J13 is bad so that makes it worse than Alton Towers.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I appreciate people have legit concerns about traffic, those I doubt ever go away until the Park actually opens - just because no amount of 'this is the plan' will assauge those worries. No, my main gripe is bad actors parroting 'Alton Towers has horrible traffic' as if it somehow vindicates their opinion that this Park shouldn't happen because of traffic.

Oh sure let's use an example of the worst road system to a Theme Park in the Country and use that as the equivalent of a Park with access to an A-road via a flyover. Because after all having to navigate tight country roads is completely the same as a dual-carriageway with a flyover, oh and don't forget J13 is bad so that makes it worse than Alton Towers.

Whilst I can appreciate the frustration that fuels your post, and my feathers are similarly ruffled by the use of logically fallacious arguments, I think we need to waddle into this with a slightly different perspective.

The comparison is, of course, utterly absurd. Comparing the rural, winding B roads of the Staffordshire Moorlands to a purpose built, grade separated junction off a major dual carriageway is not a like for like analysis. It's the planning objection equivalent of opposing a new, well designed Tesco Express on the grounds that you once got stuck behind a delivery lorry at a giant Asda hypermarket in the 1990s. The two are not the same.

However.

Alton Towers, for better or worse, has become the national case study, the very archetype, for theme park traffic hell. For decades, it has been the most famous and visible example of a major attraction causing significant disruption to a local road network.

When opponents of the Universal project bring up Alton Towers, they are not engaging in a serious, good faith debate about road infrastructure. They are using an emotional shorthand. The argument isn't a rational comparison of road layouts; it is a rhetorical shortcut for "we don't want the type of disruption we associate with theme parks, and here is the most famous example of that disruption."

It's lazy, it's disingenuous, and it's infuriatingly effective.

The burden of proof, therefore, does not lie with the public to understand the nuances of civil engineering. It is incumbent upon Universal to demonstrate, with overwhelming clarity, why their multi lane, grade separated junction is not simply a wider, more expensive country lane leading to the same inevitable gridlock in the public's imagination.

They're fighting the ghost of every bank holiday traffic jam outside Alton village for the last thirty years.

 

[Benjsh]

I will be brutally honest.... as much as I love Theme parks, Universal ones in particular, I wouldn't want one right on my doorstep either.

I can understand how the locals must feel. The SE is already a very busy area of the country so having this attraction surely isnt going to make traffic any better for them.

I also do think the estimates of people arriving by rail do seem a tad optimistic. Most of the country won't be able to make that journey by rail without at least one change. At that point most people would just prefer to drive there instead. Coming from Manchester as I do.....driving would be the only choice for me. Train would be too expensive and drawn out too.

I really do hope they have all this thought out and agreed with the government. The road network is going to need major upgrades for this to happen and thats always been my main concern.

Can the government get the road and rail infrastructure projects green lit, secure all the funding and then completed on time? Universal will assist where they can im sure but this is going to be funded by the tax payer mostly Id have thought.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Can the government get the road and rail infrastructure projects green lit, secure all the funding and then completed on time? Universal will assist where they can im sure but this is going to be funded by the tax payer mostly Id have thought.

This is the crux of the matter. The fundamental question is not can the government deliver it, but why on earth should they?

We expect housing developers to pay millions in Section 106 agreements to fund local road improvements, schools and GP surgeries. We expect a new supermarket to pay for the new roundabout it requires. Why, then, is it simply assumed that the British taxpayer should subsidise the infrastructure for a multi billion dollar American media conglomerate?

Comcast, is not a struggling startup. They are a corporate behemoth. If their business model requires a new train station or a motorway junction to be viable, then that cost should be factored into their own multi billion pound budget. Anything else is simply corporate welfare on a grand scale; socialising the costs while privatising the profits.

Whether the government can deliver it on time is a secondary concern to whether they should be delivering it with public money in the first place.

 

[Ted]

With the greatest of respect, why?

Wixams was originally designed to serve a housing development, not a global tourist destination. A two platform commuter station on the Midland Main Line is entirely sufficient for the local population. Building a massive four platform interchange capable of handling 12 million visitors a year, for a housing estate that didn't yet have a theme park attached to it, would have been a gross misuse of public funds and a white elephant of epic proportions.

The Council were building what was needed for their residents. The goalposts didn't just move, they were dug up and relocated to a different stadium by a multi billion dollar American conglomerate.

Brent Cross West on the same line opened only a few years ago and has 4 platforms, as does every other station between St Pancras and Kettering. There's no harm in doing it at Wixams when there's a potential for fast trains to use those other 2 platforms. Brent Cross didn't really need the other 2 platforms, but it provides an alternative during engineering works, disruptions, and emergencies and it'd be the same at Wixams as well if they did it.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Brent Cross West on the same line opened only a few years ago and has 4 platforms, as does every other station between St Pancras and Kettering. There's no harm in doing it at Wixams when there's a potential for fast trains to use those other 2 platforms. Brent Cross didn't really need the other 2 platforms, but it provides an alternative during engineering works, disruptions, and emergencies and it'd be the same at Wixams as well if they did it.

Your point about operational resilience is, on the surface, perfectly sound. Having additional platforms for passing loops, express services, and contingency during engineering works is standard, sensible railway planning.

However, I feel we are admiring the design of the golden carriage without asking who is paying for the horses.

The critical difference, which seems to have been conveniently overlooked in the comparison, is the primary driver for each project. Brent Cross West was built to serve the massive Brent Cross Cricklewood regeneration scheme, a vast new residential and commercial district. Whilst it received significant public funding, there were also substantial contributions from the private developers of the housing and retail scheme. The infrastructure was a shared cost to serve a new town quarter.

At Wixams, the proposed station, in this context, has one primary, overriding purpose, which is to funnel millions of paying customers into a private, for profit theme park owned by a multi billion dollar American corporation.

The question isn't whether four platforms are technically better than two. The question is why a US media conglomerate should get a gold plated, four platform station, built to handle their peak time surges and provide their customers with a seamless experience, largely at the public's expense.

If the developers of Brent Cross had to contribute to the cost of their station, one must surely ask why the developers of Universal GB are seemingly expecting the taxpayer to foot the entire bill for theirs. It's a wonderful piece of infrastructure, no doubt. It would be even more wonderful if the primary commercial beneficiary were the one footing the bill for it.

 

[Ted]

Your point about operational resilience is, on the surface, perfectly sound. Having additional platforms for passing loops, express services, and contingency during engineering works is standard, sensible railway planning.

However, I feel we are admiring the design of the golden carriage without asking who is paying for the horses.

The critical difference, which seems to have been conveniently overlooked in the comparison, is the primary driver for each project. Brent Cross West was built to serve the massive Brent Cross Cricklewood regeneration scheme, a vast new residential and commercial district. Whilst it received significant public funding, there were also substantial contributions from the private developers of the housing and retail scheme. The infrastructure was a shared cost to serve a new town quarter.

At Wixams, the proposed station, in this context, has one primary, overriding purpose, which is to funnel millions of paying customers into a private, for profit theme park owned by a multi billion dollar American corporation.

The question isn't whether four platforms are technically better than two. The question is why a US media conglomerate should get a gold plated, four platform station, built to handle their peak time surges and provide their customers with a seamless experience, largely at the public's expense.

If the developers of Brent Cross had to contribute to the cost of their station, one must surely ask why the developers of Universal GB are seemingly expecting the taxpayer to foot the entire bill for theirs. It's a wonderful piece of infrastructure, no doubt. It would be even more wonderful if the primary commercial beneficiary were the one footing the bill for it.

The points in bold I wanna make out are fair. I know it was opened due to the large regeneration and if the developers were paying for it, fair enough. So that makes perfect sense and it's a good way of future proofing even if I'm just thinking from a railway context that it's unlikely Brent Cross West would get fast trains, but since they're there, it's fine, and I think from that perspective Wixams should be the same

Of course from the money perspective, I do now get why Bedford Borough Council wouldn't front the bill for 4 if they thought 2 was enough. Plus only about 5 stations between St Pancras and Bedford use their fast platforms at all times anyway

Now in the current scenario with a bigger likelihood that Wixams should have 4 for the park, yes Universal should pay at least a helpful amount for it. People will be using it for the park and it will be a bigger ratio of regular commuters. Especially if they want most of their visitors coming by public transport. I'm not sure what the deal was with their Asian parks since I think they all have stations within a stone's throw away. Actually incredibly they'll have 2 in Bedfordshire that were going to be built anyway on each side of the site