Sandhills station

[Tom Hughes]

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.

So, you can't find anything that the council have reneged on or failed to deliver in the agreed Transport Plan that was submitted with the planning application?

I suggest you read back through the stadium thread if you're going to make false accusations. I clearly stated my reservations and concerns regarding the transport plan from when it was first published several years ago.

 

[davek]

So, you can't find anything that the council have reneged on or failed to deliver in the agreed Transport Plan that was submitted with the planning application?

I suggest you read back through the stadium thread if you're going to make false accusations. I clearly stated my reservations and concerns regarding the transport plan from when it was first published several years ago.

But how would that provide them with an excuse for inertia over adequately providing a transport plan for the stadium? Great, they never reneged on their inadequate transport plan.

The local state are part and parcel of a dedicated Transport Working Group and have known the calamity heading the club's way for years. The only defence against doing nothing has been Rotheram's pathetic "we were always unsure whether the stadium would be delivered".

You're bending the stick toward people like Rotheram and Robinson who's responsibility for 5 long years years (more, in fact) has been to get ready for Everton's opening season in a stadium on the dock road that they have actively pushed to make happen and which they have promised action on to make it accessible.

No one but no one in the wider world is going to be looking to the club if this ends up a logistical and public relations disaster. Rightly most people will be asking WTF the public bodies responsible for public transport in this area have been doing with their time. That's why Rotheram, for one, is in panic mode.

 

[Tom Hughes]

It's the club's Transport Plan....included in the club's planning application.

If there are any mitigation, responsibility or arse-covering clauses built-in (as at Kirkby) we're not privy to them, so there is no point in speculating about them... but they are usually in favour of the granting authority.

 

[AsiaAsia82]

The risk/congestion at Sandhills is not just for Everton and away fans, but also to those non match going fans who have to travel at the same time.
The council has a duty of care to those people and therefore needs to provide a safe environment.

 

[dockroad]

The risk/congestion at Sandhills is not just for Everton and away fans, but also to those non match going fans who have to travel at the same time.
The council has a duty of care to those people and therefore needs to provide a safe environment.

The council and Merseyrail are banking on the fact that the negative publicity will keep the majority of people away from Sandhills until the crowds have died down .

 

[Furey1878]

All talk is of shuttling from North to South too, I am worried as to how the huge number entering from the east manage.

Yeah that's something that concerns me, as well. The majority of the city is not covered by the trains. Buses don't really run to Sandhills. And if you make everyone go to town or wherever their nearest train station is, the capacity issue at Sandhills will be further compounded.

We need good match day bus routes that cover the train-less area of the city. Something like this would go a long way imo.

 

[kenada_blue]

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.

There's also been plans to extend or amend Sandhills drawn up over the years and the council/Mersey rail have ignored them or not wanted to proceed.

The same thing with the parking around Bramley Moore. It's a council issue implemented by LCC (for what reason I've no idea) that is having businesses lean on them to amend.

If EFC had any weight, I'm pretty sure the first thing would be "how do we monetise parking". That's not even been considered by the council.

 

[davek]

Burnham = https://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2025/03/bringing-rail-into-the-bee-network/

Rotheram = "It wuz dat lot, lad"

 

[ultra]

Yeah that's something that concerns me, as well. The majority of the city is not covered by the trains. Buses don't really run to Sandhills. And if you make everyone go to town or wherever their nearest train station is, the capacity issue at Sandhills will be further compounded.

We need good match day bus routes that cover the train-less area of the city. Something like this would go a long way imo.

Well said. The failure to address the 1000s of fans travelling from the east was one of the most shocking omissions of the first test event - there were no shuttle buses at all in the direction of Goodison/Walton areas.

 

[Street end man]

Well said. The failure to address the 1000s of fans travelling from the east was one of the most shocking omissions of the first test event - there were no shuttle buses at all in the direction of Goodison/Walton areas.

He won't want to be laying on shuttles for people parking up east of the zone.
His mandate is to hate cars.

 

[Furey1878]

He won't want to be laying on shuttles for people parking up east of the zone.
His mandate is to hate cars.

With more buses will mean less people will be driving/getting lifts, which will in turn reduce congestion.

 

[Street end man]

With more buses will mean less people will be driving/getting lifts, which will in turn reduce congestion.

Heck of a lot of people have to drive in mate....without doing multi train and bus faff sadly.

 

[James Patrick]

The risk/congestion at Sandhills is not just for Everton and away fans, but also to those non match going fans who have to travel at the same time.
The council has a duty of care to those people and therefore needs to provide a safe environment.

They do - that's why at Arsenal Holloway Road tube station is closed after the game. Safety can come in many ways including withdrawal of a facility.

 

[BullensRoad]

If anyone's bothered, Burnham has had bungs from Castore, for favourable business rates/leases in manchester, who've been an international disaster in other countries for their supply chain and kit quality.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Heck of a lot of people have to drive in mate....without doing multi train and bus faff sadly.

Yes, a certain number will not have access to a direct public transport service, be that via Merseyrail or buses to the city centre (or a combination of both with onward shuttle or walk), and a proportion of those will have mobility issues. However, the consultation process was supposed to be about establishing those numbers, and with well over 20k of our season tkt holders having a Liverpool/Merseyside postcode, the idea was to try to capture the vast majority of those local based supporters with the modal shift to public transport, as projected in the transport plan. Thus freeing up roads for those who really need them.... and keeping the immediate road space clear for public transport access/egress and disability access and drop-offs.

As Furey1878 has shown above, all of the eastern arterial routes, (ie the bulk of the Liverpool conurbation), do not have direct public transport routes to BMD. Merseyrail essentially skirts around the majority of the city's suburbs and existing bus routes serving all of them do not go within a mile of the stadium.

Of the routes shown, the Walton Lane/East Lancs Rd route is only covered by the 19 bus route, which doesn't come down to Scotland Rd, as it cuts back inland to go up St Domingo Rd. So its nearest point is probably the top of Everton Valley. Those fans would probably be less inclined to leave their cars at home because the available service is too distant, and to go into town is probably too convoluted and inconvenient.... so a shuttle service to the Goodison area could have helped (and allowed many fans to use familiar parking spaces away from BMD too). All of the other north eastern bus services enter the city centre via London Rd. If just a small proportion of these buses could be diverted or extended on matchdays to offer more direct routes to the area, this could take a lot of pressure off the shuttles, and add significantly more "direct services" and keep more people out of their cars. Similar for bus routes serving the south eastern corridors. Just say 1 in 4 (or 5) of every bus route extended to BMD would greatly improve bus capacity and comvenience.

We have also already seen that Sandhills Stn itself is limited in its present format.... so the onus is being placed on Shuttle buses to make that connection with the city centre and all of major local and regional public transport capacity. That system also has limited capacity at present. So the shortfall at present is essentially filled by the "walking" option.