Beam Park redevelopment area

Monday’s Friday Reads – 17 January 2022

Confusion over future of Beam Park Station in East London (IanVisits)

Lumo Trains’ new Diversity & Inclusion Ambassador (HydeParkNow)

Mancunians rebel against grey advertising boxes blocking pavements (Guardian)

Berlin proposal for car-free area larger than Manhattan (FastCompany)

New NYC Mayor to shrink city’s massive vehicle fleet (NYPost)

Vancouver’s TransLink is adding braille to its bus stops (CBC)

Portugal to Singapore is world’s longest passenger train journey (EuroNews)

Check out our other sections:

And some of our most popular articles: 

Feel we should read something or include in a future list? Email us at [email protected].

Reconnections is funded largely by its community. Like what we do? Buy us a cup of coffee or visit our shop.

4 comments

  1. Re. Beam Park: not knowing the area, I rely on a map to judge. Dagenham Dock and Rainham stations appear to be about 3 km apart, which strikes me as a reasonable spacing to serve the population in between, even if growing. Most people could easily walk to the nearest of the pair, enhanced bike parking would cost a fraction of what a new station would. For a similar example close to me, consider Blindwells adjacent to the ECML between Tranent and Longniddry, on an ex=opencast site and .planned to grow to the same 10.000 population. It is midway between the existing stations of Prestonpans and Longniddry 5 km apart on the Edinburgh/North Berwick local service, with no realistic proposal for a new station.

  2. Garry – I think one issue is that a development of homes for 10,000 people within London generates a multiple of the number of train journeys compared to an equivalent development in semi-rural East Lothian (so a far greater justification for a station); an extra station on the C2C commuter line has far less negative impact than a station on a 2 track section of the ECML (obstructing all the fast trains), so the business case for a station is far better (even if it may not be quite good enough). The absence of any plausible travel alternatives (the road network won’t cope with the new population – even just travelling to the existing stations) means that the full development understandably doesn’t have (and probably couldn’t get) planning permission without a station. Improving road capacity isn’t an option as it would be in East Lothian.

Comments are closed.