GWR respond to Charlbury residents' complaints

Tue 28 Feb 2017, 13:34

GWR/APCOA's 'one size fits all' response on the 20 minute maximum waiting period is not reasonable or sensible and I think needs further challenge. 20 mins might be acceptable in a town centre car park (e.g. Oxford or Reading) or where stations have separate waiting areas, but that does not make it fair or appropriate at Charlbury and other rural stations without pick up areas. It may even be discouraging people from picking up when that should be encouraged given the shortage of parking. How can this be pursued further? Is there still a legal challenge to these charges underway?

Sat 25 Feb 2017, 12:54

What I find worrying is how conventional GWR thinking is - we will assume that there will be a huge growth in car traffic so we must meet it. This kind of policy-thinking has caused endless problems in many sectors over the decades. In the 21st century we should be asking ourselves how to manage demand and think through less environmentally-damaging options which deliver the same welcome objectives (moving passengers from car to rail) without causing further problems.

Thu 23 Feb 2017, 20:42

I know it's early days, but surely building a car park on the water meadow would have the following implications:

- building on a Zone 3 flood plain, with soakaways and gravel: soaking away to where exactly? If the drainage is not contained and sent to conventional water treatment, then…

Long post - click to read full text

Thu 23 Feb 2017, 10:57

David - yes, as Liz wrote, we requested the formation of a working group including GWR and the three relevant councils (town, district, county) to ensure that the net effects of this on town traffic and parking are beneficial rather than harmful.

Wed 22 Feb 2017, 23:28

If it does go ahead could we not use this as an opportunity and get GWR to pay for improvements to the town's traffic problems. Such things as parking at the bottom of Nine Acres, average speed cameras for Sturt Rd & The Slade and Enstone Rd crossroads improvements would all be directly atributable to coping with the increased traffic that this proposal generates and therefore completely reasonable.

Wed 22 Feb 2017, 23:00

Interesting. I was surprised that GWR thought they would wait until the planning process to get feedback from the Environment Agency for something like this rather than go for pre-planning advice. Likewise when GWR suggested people just won't travel if there's flooding. When there's a major flooding event perhaps, but surely not when the Evenlode just threatens to burst its banks.

Wed 22 Feb 2017, 21:23

I'm not sure my colleagues would be very receptive to this idea!

Wed 22 Feb 2017, 20:30

John - I've made no points; I'm just reporting what GWR said without comment!

Wed 22 Feb 2017, 20:27

I'm more worried about the extra traffic in the town and the inadequacy of a mini roundabout on Forest Road to regulate that traffic.

Wed 22 Feb 2017, 18:10

Responding to Richard: you made valid points about the car park flooding but the Evenlode is a difficult river to predict, and so know when to close the car park. For example, flood warnings might be issued but don't necessarily mean a flood will occur at this location - warnings are issued to let people take precautions to protect property, not flood plains! I can foresee angry commuters unable to access their cars, and others returning from a week away to find damp has infiltrated their vehicle. Hmmm.

Wed 22 Feb 2017, 16:13

Build it and it will fill: doubling the size of the car park will increase car journeys through town to the tune of a few hundred vehicles a day. Welcome?

Wed 22 Feb 2017, 15:36

And to note that GWR agreed to the town council's suggestion that there be a join town/GWR working group to take a whole town view of parking and access to the station. The focus remains on cars, but what about pedestrians and cyclists?

Tue 21 Feb 2017, 22:32

Or Zone 2, or even really close. Think the equivalent of the Kingham car park extension would be more like putting a car park where the new cricket pavilion is. Not that that's a suggestion. As our flood guru, is that a fair comparison Russell?

Tue 21 Feb 2017, 21:28

Don't think Kingham Car Park is in Flood Zone 3 though. Or in such a constrained flood plain location.

Tue 21 Feb 2017, 20:54

Indeed! The point was raised at the meeting. GWR's response was that the car park would have a soakaway surface with webbing keeping gravel in place - apparently as used at the new car park extension in Kingham. When the car park was in danger of flooding, it would simply be closed: GWR's experience is that significantly fewer people want to travel on such days. (I did rather mischievously point out that the railway usually flooded at Hinksey in such circumstances so there was no point catching the train, but they responded that millions have been spent fixing that...)

Tue 21 Feb 2017, 19:09

Looking at Richard's posting of GWR's plans, the lower level parking as on the GWR map would be on the flood plain.

Tue 21 Feb 2017, 08:28

The news item posted by Richard last night brings the discussion on parking in Charlbury to a new level. Really 276 more spaces!

Mon 20 Feb 2017, 16:40

One more topic to raise with GWR tonight at the Town Council meeting concerns the overspill of rail user parking in Charlbury. Can it be asked that GWR contribute in kind or cash to the suggested survey that WODC has promised on this issue?

Mon 20 Feb 2017, 16:33

Hurray - improving the energy efficiency of the lights and lighting scheme. Not before time.

Mon 20 Feb 2017, 10:20

GWR, the train operating company, has given a point-by-point response to the many issues raised by residents on this forum.

A comprehensive summary of the complaints and GWR's responses can be found on the news pages.