Sandhills station

[Street end man]

Everton Chair the meetings. It is their planning application, including agreed transport plan.

Only adidas, nike and Clarkes support these plans so far.

 

[gazzaa2]

This is inverting a pyramid.

Leaving aside the appalling governance of the club over recent years which is what this post plays upon to gain any attraction, how on earth is it the responsibility of a private limited football club to put together a local transport plan for a project that the local state (and national state) could have looked at and dismissed as a non-starter purely on transportation limitations alone?

The Ten Streets project was started by LCC in 2016. That proposed a revolution in public transport for the area:







http://tenstreetsliverpool.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Ten-Streets-Draft-SRF.pdf

That was written 8 years ago. How did LCC progress with their end of the deal there?


And the LCR operates as our agent in central government circles. How's that been doing in the last 5 years since the PA was handed to Everton in getting funding for the Everton Stadium? Do you think Rotheram has done his level best there when you see OT jump to the head of the public funding queue the moment United announced their refurbishment?

You're blaming the victims here, Tom. I understand where the motivation comes from. None us us are particularly predisposed to handing the calamitous Everton governors any helping hand. But the vast majority of responsibility on this is down to the local state.

"As far as you know" you stated in relation to bodies falling asleep on the job. But you assume it would be Everton rather than the two biggest local authorities responsible for providing such massive infrastructure takings.

I think you've slipped up here. Not even I could hammer Everton in such a manner...and I've had a go over the years!

Because Manchester gets everything it wants and asks for. Liverpool has no traction and mayors like Rotheram have no pull.

Anderson would have got more done by hook or crook but less by the book. Rotheram was too busy faffing around with his vanity project at Headbolt Lane in his home town.

 

[davek]

Everton Chair the meetings. It is their planning application, including agreed transport plan.

Means nothing.

The misleading term 'led' has been used throughout by Rotheram and repeated by you as if it's a smoking gun.

The truth of the matter is that the transport group set up is a multi-organisational forum - a talking shop with, it looks like, no powers to effect things.

And you'd have to have the minutes of the meetings they've had to understand who's demanding what / who's been concerned with what in order to be able to appreciate the dynamic of them.

Statements as to Everton's lack of rigour and oversight of the transportation issue cant be sustained otherwise and it just amounts to an act of bad faith to accuse them of such.

What we do know is this:

• Everton - as promised - delivered a fully funded stadium which was never really in doubt, despite Rotheram's flimsy defence for his non-actions
• The club fulfilled their part of the regeneration of north Liverpool
• LCC didn't come through with their Ten Streets project which was supposed to integrate with Everton Stadium and proved transport and road improvements to the south of the stadium
• The local state had 5 years to get together and roll out feasible plan to get over 53,000 people to and away from a stadium of global importance and have come up with the square root of f.a. in that time

If there's anything substantively more to it than that I dont see it.

Just lazily pointing a finger at the organisation that kept their end of the bargain in this project in the hope that enough people will just go along with it and say "Yeah, Everton that"...which is what Rotheram (for one) has done...is an appalling stab in the back for a club that's virtually risked its future on delivering this stadium.

I think you know that too.

 

[davek]

Because Manchester gets everything it wants and asks for. Liverpool has no traction and mayors like Rotheram have no pull.

Anderson would have got more done by hook or crook but less by the book. Rotheram was too busy faffing around with his vanity project at Headbolt Lane in his home town.

Rotheram is a typical boss politician that Liverpool has always had...at least in the past people like T.P. O'Connor, Jack and Bessie Braddock, Degsy etc have had a bit of charisma. This feller is a chancer and a dullard.

He's sat on his arse for 5 years, and now he tries to throw a bit of chaff into the eyes of onlookers to prevent them seeing his tardiness and lack of effort on this stadium transportation issue. His statement blaming the club and saying it led the way on transport is as pathetic as his excuse that he wasn't sure the stadium would see the light of day. Excuses: that's all he has to offer.

And all those freebie visits to Anfield. Are we really saying here that that level of engagement with Everton's opposition in this city is healthy for Everton FC? Do we think that Rotheram wouldn't be getting whispers from them over boxing Anfield off first over any transport improvements in this region - for their fans coming from another direction at the opposite end of the city and for the non-football event attendees they cater to now....people they'll be in competition to attract with Everton in the future?

You dont have to have a vivid imagination to claim that Rotheram wouldn't see Everton's best interests as a matter of urgency under those circumstances would you?

 

[Tom Hughes]

Means nothing.

The misleading term 'led' has been used throughout by Rotheram and repeated by you as if it's a smoking gun.

The truth of the matter is that the transport group set up is a multi-organisational forum - a talking shop with, it looks like, no powers to effect things.

And you'd have to have the minutes of the meetings they've had to understand who's demanding what / who's been concerned with what in order to be able to appreciate the dynamic of them.

Statements as to Everton's lack of rigour and oversight of the transportation issue cant be sustained otherwise and it just amounts to an act of bad faith to accuse them of such.

What we do know is this:

• Everton - as promised - delivered a fully funded stadium which was never really in doubt, despite Rotheram's flimsy defence for his non-actions
• The club fulfilled their part of the regeneration of north Liverpool
• LCC didn't come through with their Ten Streets project which was supposed to integrate with Everton Stadium and proved transport and road improvements to the south of the stadium
• The local state had 5 years to get together and roll out feasible plan to get over 53,000 people to and away from a stadium of global importance and have come up with the square root of f.a. in that time

If there's anything substantively more to it than that I dont see it.

Just lazily pointing a finger at the organisation that kept their end of the bargain in this project in the hope that enough people will just go along with it and say "Yeah, Everton that"...which is what Rotheram (for one) has done...is an appalling stab in the back for a club that's virtually risked its future on delivering this stadium.

I think you know that too.

The facts are... Everton do chair the stadium Transport Working Group, and have done so, from the start. The culmination of the "decisions made" is by definition, the club's own transport plan, as used for their planning application, agreed by all parties several years ago now. There is nothing new in any of that, and it has also been discussed on this forum many times over the past few years, including the glaring omission of the station in Vauxhall.

That plan is what the club negotiated and signed up to in the process to achieve planning permission. If you can show that the council have reneged on, or failed to fulfill/deliver on any of the agreed provision in the transport plan, then please do. If not, it is you who is "lazily pointing the finger".

You can speculate with a circular argument of semantics and conflation about what you think the council is responsible for if you want.... but the reality is only what's laid out in the transport plan itself, which we have known about for several years.

 

[Street end man]

The facts are... Everton do chair the stadium Transport Working Group, and have done so, from the start. The culmination of the "decisions made" is by definition, the club's own transport plan, as used for their planning application, agreed by all parties several years ago now. There is nothing new in any of that, and it has also been discussed on this forum many times over the past few years, including the glaring omission of the station in Vauxhall.

That plan is what the club negotiated and signed up to in the process to achieve planning permission. If you can show that the council have reneged on, or failed to fulfill/deliver on any of the agreed provision in the transport plan, then please do. If not, it is you who is "lazily pointing the finger".

You can speculate with a circular argument of semantics and conflation about what you think the council is responsible for if you want.... but the reality is only what's laid out in the transport plan itself, which we have known about for several years.

I think the thing is Tom it's a nightmare scenario for all involved.
People who use the area regularly like we do will know just how difficult it is to please all, when 50k plus people want to spend 3 hours there.

I fumed at the size of the no park zone yet now see it'd be impossible to allow cars to block it at the risk of hampering shuttle bus services.
All talk is of shuttling from North to South too, I am worried as to how the huge number entering from the east manage.

I can only assume the answer is to make the dock road purely for shuttle busses north/south and maybe do the same with boundary street for shuttles from the east, even then it'd hamper residents and business's.
They will have to ease parking restrictions in the walton to Kirkdale area as I think that's going to be the main parking zone for fans fit enough for the hike.

I would certainly not like to be part of planning this as my mind boggles just thinking about it.

 

[dockroad]

I think the thing is Tom it's a nightmare scenario for all involved.
People who use the area regularly like we do will know just how difficult it is to please all, when 50k plus people want to spend 3 hours there.

I fumed at the size of the no park zone yet now see it'd be impossible to allow cars to block it at the risk of hampering shuttle bus services.
All talk is of shuttling from North to South too, I am worried as to how the huge number entering from the east manage.

I can only assume the answer is to make the dock road purely for shuttle busses north/south and maybe do the same with boundary street for shuttles from the east, even then it'd hamper residents and business's.
They will have to ease parking restrictions in the walton to Kirkdale area as I think that's going to be the main parking zone for fans fit enough for the hike.

I would certainly not like to be part of planning this as my mind boggles just thinking about it.

To the best of my knowledge the dock road will be closed on matchdays except for emergency / official access. Buses will pick up and drop off on Great Howard St. as they did for the first test event.

 

[Timbucktoo]

Looking on google maps there is derelict land to the south of the stadium down to Jesse Hartley way. I know it is to be developed in the future, is this still vacant and could it then be used at least in the short term for match day parking while the powers that be sort a more permanent solution?

 

[davek]

The facts are... Everton do chair the stadium Transport Working Group, and have done so, from the start. The culmination of the "decisions made" is by definition, the club's own transport plan, as used for their planning application, agreed by all parties several years ago now. There is nothing new in any of that, and it has also been discussed on this forum many times over the past few years, including the glaring omission of the station in Vauxhall.
That plan is what the club negotiated and signed up to in the process to achieve planning permission. If you can show that the council have reneged on, or failed to fulfill/deliver on any of the agreed provision in the transport plan, then please do. If not, it is you who is "lazily pointing the finger".

You can speculate with a circular argument of semantics and conflation about what you think the council is responsible for if you want.... but the reality is only what's laid out in the transport plan itself, which we have known about for several years.

No, no, no. It's the other way around Tom. YOU are the one that's stating Everton "agreed" to a transport strategy and made no objections throughout the whole time the Transport Working Group have been in operation. I'd say that the burden rests with you to demonstrate how Everton have been agreeing to stuff against their own best interests and that "the cash starved local authorities" have been good faith actors in all this and diligently working with the club at every turn suggesting solutions, and that Everton "as leaders" of the transport working group have been falling asleep on the job.

You cant do that. It's all speculation and so you're dealing in the same sophistry and excuses as Rotheram.

Bottom line: it's fanciful to suggest that a football club is in the hot seat for providing solutions to transportation issues that effect the whole city. I think any fair minded person would think that the local authorities that signed off on a stadium (that they've relied on for the regeneration of their city's north end) would need to have met the club half way and provided more solutions after 5 years than "active travel opportunities" to get people safely in and out of it.

 

[Bryan+]

Tom V Dave.


Should be a belter this.

 

[Tom Hughes]

No, no, no. It's the other way around Tom. YOU are the one that's stating Everton "agreed" to a transport strategy and made no objections throughout the whole time the Transport Working Group have been in operation. I'd say that the burden rests with you to demonstrate how Everton have been agreeing to stuff against their own best interests and that "the cash starved local authorities" have been good faith actors in all this and diligently working with the club at every turn suggesting solutions, and that Everton "as leaders" of the transport working group have been falling asleep on the job.

You cant do that. It's all speculation and so you're dealing in the same sophistry and excuses as Rotheram.

Bottom line: it's fanciful to suggest that a football club is in the hot seat for providing solutions to transportation issues that effect the whole city. I think any fair minded person would think that the local authorities that signed off on a stadium (that they've relied on for the regeneration of their city's north end) would need to have met the club half way and provided more solutions after 5 years than "active travel opportunities" to get people safely in and out of it.

The real "Bottom line is"....As I keep saying, feel free to show which part of the actual Transport Plan that you feel the Council or any other agency have failed to fulfill or deliver.

Speculating wildly about what you think or wish they were doing or had promised is meaningless, and quite literally "fanciful". What was agreed is in black white and was signed off years ago..... while you were still kicking up a fuss about listed Walls, Wind generators, Leitch patterns on bricks and more recently upside down motifs in changing rooms.

 

[davek]

The real "Bottom line is"....As I keep saying, feel free to show which part of the actual Transport Plan that you feel the Council or any other agency have failed to fulfill or deliver.

Speculating wildly about what you think or wish they were doing or had promised is meaningless, and quite literally "fanciful". What was agreed is in black white and was signed off years ago..... while you were still kicking up a fuss about listed Walls, Wind generators, Leitch patterns on bricks and more recently upside down motifs in changing rooms.

What you're failing to accept here is that a football club would have no real input on a transport plan beyond consultation, no powers to push through what it wants. It's a football club. The decisions made there are by the combined local authorities. Do you have evidence that Everton didn't consult with them before the latest plan was published?

Perhaps you can suggest what the club should have been doing here to have avoided this mess over transporting people in and out of the area? AFAIK the club have made a contribution to the Sandhill's improvements. But you cant be serious about comparing Everton with clubs like Spurs and Arsenal - clubs 3 or 4 times richer than this club - who have paid out money to smooth out transport problems when their stadiums were built.

I'd say that Everton have done just about all they can possibly do here and should have seen a lot more activity than we've seen from the local state who've talked a good game of helping Everton help them to regenerate the north end. They've utterly failed with the Ten Streets development to have that sorted out and knitting up the space between the stadium and city centre.

This insistence of yours to see matters a different way is motivated by your reluctance from the very beginning to acknowledge that the stadium at the docks is a good idea and you're casting about for anything to continue to hold that point of view. Unfortunately it aligns you with some nefarious people.

 

[gazzaa2]

What you're failing to accept here is that a football club would have no real input on a transport plan beyond consultation, no powers to push through what it wants. It's a football club. The decisions made there are by the combined local authorities. Do you have evidence that Everton didn't consult with them before the latest plan was published?

Perhaps you can suggest what the club should have been doing here to have avoided this mess over transporting people in and out of the area? AFAIK the club have made a contribution to the Sandhill's improvements. But you cant be serious about comparing Everton with clubs like Spurs and Arsenal - clubs 3 or 4 times richer than this club - who have paid out money to smooth out transport problems when their stadiums were built.

I'd say that Everton have done just about all they can possibly do here and should have seen a lot more activity than we've seen from the local state who've talked a good game of helping Everton help them to regenerate the north end. They've utterly failed with the Ten Streets development to have that sorted out and knitting up the space between the stadium and city centre.

This insistence of yours to see matters a different way is motivated by your reluctance from the very beginning to acknowledge that the stadium at the docks is a good idea and you're casting about for anything to continue to hold that point of view. Unfortunately it aligns you with some nefarious people.

All the council and Peel have done is hope that the stadium will drive more development rather than have any clue or interest in doing anything. We had Labour here for the party conference with Reeves namechecking the Liverpool Waters development and we still couldn't lobby for any funding. Burnham straight away gets promised loads of funds for development around Old Trafford before it even goes into planning.

Maybe Everton would have contributed more if construction costs didn't rise during Covid/Usmanov's money got pulled around the same time.

Next hope will be to get one of the new towns from the government as the area around the stadium would fall into the area proposed.

 

[davek]

All the council and Peel have done is hope that the stadium will drive more development rather than have any clue or interest in doing anything. We had Labour here for the party conference with Reeves namechecking the Liverpool Waters development and we still couldn't lobby for any funding. Burnham straight away gets promised loads of funds for development around Old Trafford before it even goes into planning.

Maybe Everton would have contributed more if construction costs didn't rise during Covid/Usmanov's money got pulled around the same time.

Next hope will be to get one of the new towns from the government as the area around the stadium would fall into the area proposed.

I think that's the main point here: could Everton have done any more than it did do. In my opinion the answer is no. The cost of this build for a club this size prohibited it.

But even leaving that aside, to accept a hierarchy of blame for this transport mess and place Everton at the top of it is pretty outrageous to me. You can do that when all we heard from the local state over the past 6/7 years was that the club were the driver for regenerating the north of the city and when the local council had indicated that transport would be improved in the area for Everton as a by-product of the Ten streets project.

The political vision and drive to solve this issue was absent.

That's the only conclusion to draw.

 

[Furey1878]

All the council and Peel have done is hope that the stadium will drive more development rather than have any clue or interest in doing anything. We had Labour here for the party conference with Reeves namechecking the Liverpool Waters development and we still couldn't lobby for any funding. Burnham straight away gets promised loads of funds for development around Old Trafford before it even goes into planning.

Maybe Everton would have contributed more if construction costs didn't rise during Covid/Usmanov's money got pulled around the same time.

Next hope will be to get one of the new towns from the government as the area around the stadium would fall into the area proposed.

That's the key part for me. The loss of USM in 2021 and the ownership limbo that has existed since early-2023 will no doubt have disrupted things on our end. Another example of this would be the complete silence over the Goodison legacy project.

Meanwhile, it's gave the LCRCA and LCC excuses that they were happy enough to take. From the sounds of it, they haven't really had any proactive pushing on their end, it just seems like they wanted, at the time, Usmanov to pay for everything and they'd happily sign off anything and get the photo at the end of it.

I understand both sides, like. Make no mistake though, the infrastructure around Man U's new ground will not be handled anywhere near this poorly.