Returning to work - but at home, or at the office? Effect on travel

[whole diary]

[johnneyw]

It may turn out that, post Covid, we may have surplus office space due to working from home being here to stay in a way not previously imagined.  Converting surplus office space into homes though could simultaneously help address the "ghost town" effect, housing shortages and suburban sprawl.  It's not anything particularly new. Here in Bristol office space has been turned into residential and also student accommodation for years.

[grahame]

There are so many points I could pick up on in this thread that I could easily write a War and Peace length reply

Ditto, Robin ... and I too am resisting the temptation.

Finally, I am not displaying any closet left wing leanings (because I haven’t got any...) when I say this, but I am a little perplexed by a conservative government getting so concerned about “ghost towns.” I thought the Tory mantra was to let market forces decide. That was certainly what they said 40 years ago as they presided over then end of heavy industry and most of the mining industry in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom).

Are things different this time because politicians can see the effects outside their windows in Westminster? Only asking...

Maybe ... or is it the worldwide magnitude, other massive items on the agenda such as climate and BLM, and the daily flow of news which allows us all to know and talk about it as it happens - the Information Age.

[CyclingSid]

The problem with converting offices to homes is the lack of basic standards for housing in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom). Similarly with the "we'll tear up red tape" attitude to planning permission. Builders/developers are sitting on a million plus approved planning applications, presumably to await the prices to go up or the standards to go down, more profit both ways. If the government had produced a national (whatever that is nowadays) minimum standard for housing before saying we'll remove the bulk of planning controls that would have been better for future house purchasers.

[PhilWakely]

The problem with converting offices to homes is the lack of basic standards for housing in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom). Similarly with the "we'll tear up red tape" attitude to planning permission. Builders/developers are sitting on a million plus approved planning applications, presumably to await the prices to go up or the standards to go down, more profit both ways. If the government had produced a national (whatever that is nowadays) minimum standard for housing before saying we'll remove the bulk of planning controls that would have been better for future house purchasers.

Developers are an extemely powerful lobby group to the Government [of any colour]; house buyers not quite so.

[grahame]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53942542

People will again be encouraged to go back to their workplaces as part of a government campaign starting next week.

Employers will be asked to reassure staff it is safe to return by highlighting measures taken to prevent the spread of Covid-19.

Business leaders have warned of damage being done to city centres as people stay away from offices.

And Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said some things were "impossible" to do remotely.

But Health Secretary Matt Hancock said he cared more about how employees performed than where they were working from.

The campaign, which will launch as most schools in England and Wales reopen, will predominantly be promoted through regional media, BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) political correspondent Iain Watson said.

Will employers also be asked to reassure staff that it's much better for their (staff's) quality of life to spend several hours a day trapsing back and forth between Didcot and Canary Wharf, or whatever the trip is?

[Robin Summerhill]

The problem with converting offices to homes is the lack of basic standards for housing in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom). Similarly with the "we'll tear up red tape" attitude to planning permission. Builders/developers are sitting on a million plus approved planning applications, presumably to await the prices to go up or the standards to go down, more profit both ways. If the government had produced a national (whatever that is nowadays) minimum standard for housing before saying we'll remove the bulk of planning controls that would have been better for future house purchasers.

Sorry Sid but you are almost completely misinformed about this, possibly due to a confusion between planning laws and building regulations. Having worked in the housing industry for 30-odd years I can assure you the difference is important.

We have had basic standards for housing in this country for nearly 60 years – the Parker Morris standard. Furthermore, we had basic standards at least for social jousting well before that, from at least the “Homes Fit for Heroes” building mini-boom immediately after WW1.

Planning laws govern what can be built and where it can be built. Building Regulations govern how the buildings that have been given planning permission are constructed. Building Regulations have been tightened over and over again over the years and nobody, not even our government, is suggesting that an axe is taken to them.

There are, however, a number of obstacles to overcome when offices are converted into housing, especially with buildings from around the 1960s. They are often poorly insulated (Building Regs won’t allow that), window openings are often too big (it might be difficult to provide individual windows for individual flats without major reconstruction work); a communal central heating system might be inadequate and need replacing or individual central heating boilers may be required for each unit; there will be a lot more plumbing in a block of flats than there will in an office, and so on. All that said, it can of course be done and it is often done, but nobody should delude themselves into thinking that it is simply a case of moving the desks out and the beds and armchairs in.

Relaxation of planning laws will not change any of this in the slightest. What it may well change is stopping NIMBYs who don’t like change – any change – from taking well-thought-out planning applications through appeal, judicial review and Lord knows what else, in truth just because they don’t want a new development in their neck of the woods.

I shall try to make sure my next post is completely on topic! 

[eXPassenger]

I agree that Building Regulations specify how the building will be built and Planning looks at the density and external appearance.

The Parker Morris standards applied to public housing and were abolished in 1980.  What regulations now specify the internal quality of a building such as the size of rooms?  Every time I see a new build house it seems smaller than the previous ones.

[ellendune]

I agree that Building Regulations specify how the building will be built and Planning looks at the density and external appearance.

The Parker Morris standards applied to public housing and were abolished in 1980.  What regulations now specify the internal quality of a building such as the size of rooms?  Every time I see a new build house it seems smaller than the previous ones.

One thing that can be done through planning (supplementary planning guidance) is minimum space requirements. The LGA have done this IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly). These used to be covered by Parker Morris (only for public housing).

Some things that were in old building byelaws (Before 1966 when Building Regs came in) are not in building regs because they were considered unnecessary. One such is the need for natural ventilation.  The 1877 model byelaws banned true back to back housing so there should be a through (front to back) ventilation. However, office conversions and some modern flats have problems with ventilation and overheat. 

[Lee]

I think it is beginning to become clear now that, despite what some employers and local businesses and the government might want, we will not be going back completely to the old ways any time soon. I was interested to read earlier in the thread the compassion with France, but I don’t know (perhaps Lee does so can answer the query) whether the French commute such large distances that are commonplace in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom). This may well have a bearing on the matter.

As far here in Brittany goes, it varies. For example, there have traditionally been heavy commuter flows on the 5 key suburban rail corridors into Rennes (Montreuil-sur-Ille, Vitre, Retiers, Messac-Guipry and Montauban-de-Bretagne), which are 40km or less. However, there are also corridors such as Brest-Rennes and Quimper-Rennes which are over 200km and have traditionally seen significant commuter flows in both directions.

However on our Guingamp-Carhaix line, the main flow is schoolchildren and college students. Up until recently, the timetable also tried to cater for commuters into Guingamp and Carhaix, but found it simply could not attract them onto the services in a losing battle with a predominantly car-owning culture, encouraged by the need to own one due to the geography of the area. Therefore, it has instead been adapted to encourage leisure and longer distance travel by maximising connections with TGV^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse) services to Paris, Rennes and elsewhere.

As an interesting aside, fares on the Brittany bus network undergo a major overhaul from 1 September, in order to provide a better fit with the "new normal". Prices rise for medium-distance departmental routes much-used by commuters (in order to encourage more to work from home and reduce the risk of crowding on peak services), but fall for those under-26 (who are more likely to be willing to take the "risk" of using public transport), for the unemployed (who may well need to travel further afield to find work and be less able to afford the running costs of a car), and on the longer-distance inter-departmental routes (in order to encourage more leisure traffic).

This will include fare price caps so that the unemployed and the under-26's will never pay more than 3€ or 4€ per single journey respectively.

[REVUpminster]

Brentwood in Essex had Ford's UK^▸ (United Kingdom) headquarters and was converted to flats when Ford moved out. A similar scheme for Aviva office block in Basildon but that ended up being demolished and 50 flats built.

Homes fit for Heroes after ww1 resulted in the huge Becontree estate but as the estate grew the later properties became smaller as the London County Council ran out of money.

[grahame]

From Diamond Geezer

Summer is over.

It's time to go back.

Please do not believe everything you read there 

[Sixty3Closure]

It's behind a paywall unfortunately but The Sunday Times is reporting that the new timetable will be reduced from pre Coivd levels with many of the cuts falling on early and late services. The quotes from the rail companies are about focusing on peak commuter services.

Meanwhile elsewhere in the paper we're all being extolled to get back into the office but we should stagger our work times. Not just for the travel but because of limits on how many people can get in lifts, use canteens etc.

The paper does, almost reluctantly, admit that some towns and cities that aren't London are seeing increased spend.

[stuving]

It's behind a paywall unfortunately but The Sunday Times is reporting that the new timetable will be reduced from pre Coivd levels with many of the cuts falling on early and late services. The quotes from the rail companies are about focusing on peak commuter services.

Meanwhile elsewhere in the paper we're all being extolled to get back into the office but we should stagger our work times. Not just for the travel but because of limits on how many people can get in lifts, use canteens etc.

The paper does, almost reluctantly, admit that some towns and cities that aren't London are seeing increased spend.

The ST headline is "Railway firms to cancel 10% of services". After a few paragraphs of this desperate attempt to make a shock horror story they do point out that (1) DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) sets service levels and (2) it's an increase, but not back up to 100% of what was planned (I doubt they can tells the difference between that and what the pre-March services were).

There is a paragraph on GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway), which reads: "GWR said it was focusing on providing trains for the return to work, at the expense of late-night services and weekends, with Sundays taking the brunt of the cuts when the service will be 76% of the normal timetable. Some fast services on weekdays between Bristol and London are not being reintroduced for now."

[grahame]

It's behind a paywall unfortunately but The Sunday Times is reporting that the new timetable will be reduced from pre Coivd levels with many of the cuts falling on early and late services. The quotes from the rail companies are about focusing on peak commuter services.

You will note from Real Time Trains - or if you look at the draft timetables for your specific lines in "Transport Scholars" and "Frequent Posters" that this generality has specific application in our area; in particular I am commenting for the Central area which I have looked into in the last few days.   Gaps / and earlier last trains from Bristol Temple Meads to Keynsham, Oldfield Park, Frome and Weymouth this autumn that were not gaps last autumn are issues that members may like to look at - with a note that there may even at this late point be slight changes that can make a big difference to what you see on Real Time Trains.

Meanwhile elsewhere in the paper we're all being extolled to get back into the office but we should stagger our work times. Not just for the travel but because of limits on how many people can get in lifts, use canteens etc.

The paper does, almost reluctantly, admit that some towns and cities that aren't London are seeing increased spend.

Yes ... a final train at 17:45 rather than 20:48 makes it darned hard to stay late, doesn't it, if you're Yeovil based and looking to do a later day in your office in Bristol.    And if you live in Westbury Leigh - the new residential / commuter suburb of that town - you'll find that your local station (Dilton Marsh) has made anything but a conventional 9 to 5 day in Bath or Bristol pretty impractical.

[grahame]

To add ... the 18:52 Swindon to Westbury is still missing (it's part of a Gloucester to Southampton service), leaving a gap from 17:36 to 20:45 in services from Swindon - where a lot of people work / have offices - back to Melksham.   The loss of the early evening service does make a mockery of the "spread your travel out" message!

For anyone visiting their office in London, return connections from Paddington now have a gap from 16:32 to 19:48 ... the train shown in the 2020 National Rail timetable from London at 18:00, arriving Melksham at 19:17 with a change at Chippenham, no longer being available.  Looking on the bright side, the change may help persuade Melksham people going to London to an office for the day to return off peak - saving themselves money.  £182.00 anytime return - up on the 07:20 or 07:53, back on the 18:00 no longer possible.  Most expensive now 2 singles - up on either of those two trains and back on the 16:32 at £136.30, or back on the 19:48 at £124.50