Sandhills station

[Tom Hughes]

I ‘dolphin’ you meant to say that. (And I know it’s spelt porpoise!)

All very good points though. Baxendale and her mates were out of depth and had no experience in running a tuck shop never mind the largest construction project in the UK I think.

Haha... well spotted.

 

[Tom Hughes]

The other thing is that the Euros in 2028 will at least inject some urgency (and hopefully funding) into the transport issue. So hopefully, Gliders (trackless trams) and a new platform at Sandhills or Station at Vauxhall can be added to the equation..... and the Parking issues can be ironed out too.

 

[davek]

The transport working group for Bramley Moore stadium is Led by Everton Football club, in conjuction with the Council and Merseyrail/Merseytravel etc. That has been the case throughout the process, from consultation, planning and throughout the build. If the council or any of the other groups responsible have reneged or failed to deliver any infrastructure or resources that was agreed at planning or any point since, then the club could have highlighted this publically. As far as I know, they haven't, so we can only assume that the club agreed with the adequacy of provision, as laid out in their planning application and included transport plan. There is nothing new as regards planned matchday transport arrangements. There was always going to be major parking restrictions given the nature of the site, and the operational capacity of Sandhills and the Shuttle buses were all laid out in the transport strategy, and have always been known.

As a comparison, both Spurs and Arsenal had to contribute to major new infrastructure costs as part of their planning processes. That was their agreement to allow their projects to get planning, and this is ours. So blaming a cash-strapped council is pointless, unless it can be shown that they failed to deliver on anything agreed. If that can be shown, then club can hold them accountable.

However, it was clear from the start that there was always an obvious massive disparity between the "required" and "actual" public transport capacity at this site. The transport plan clearly stated that it would require a reversal in the current proportions of public to private transport usage at GP.... which roughly equates to 32k+ using public transport/walking at BMD (compared to only 15k currently at Goodison). Transport modelling obviously showed that allowing cars into the immediate vicinity would only grid lock the available lanes required for public transport and the shuttle buses..... and the transport plan basically descends into Shank's Pony, with the saving grace of the city centre with all of its transport hubs and capacity. I believe there are potential solutions to improve that connection with the city centre and elsewhere etc.... but none are really covered in the transport plan which was (porposely) vague from the start.

One thing that whole debate has at least brought to light in recent years, is the high number of potential Olympic speedwalking champions there are amongst our fanbase.

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:

Major investment on Great Howard Street (A565) and Regent Road; as well as new pedestrian, cycle and public transport connections, will be the key to connecting the framework area to the wider city and city centre. This is not a place apart, but a new integrated part of an expanding city centre and waterfront. Ten Streets is a gateway north towards both Liverpool Waters, the proposed new football stadium at Bramley- Moore Dock and other exciting developments

It is proposed that appropriate contributions could relate (but are not limited) to:

• New public realm;
• Signage, lighting and artwork;
• Access and car parking provision;
• Highways improvements;
• Public transport improvements;

Connectivity within the framework area is poor at present and in need of significant improvement. Infrastructure works to Great Howard Street and Regent Road is underway and will improve vehicular, public transport, and cycle connectivity from the City Centre northward; however, permeability north-south within the Ten Streets character zone itself is absent at present. Connectivity between different character zones within the framework area is fragmented and an opportunity exists for the SRF to better stitch together these areas, both internally and into surrounding regeneration initiatives.

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!

 

[Tom Hughes]

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!

Not at all Dave,

I'm not really attempting to individually bash the club nor the council at all. If anything it's a collective responsibility if the arrangement is what was agreed, and signed off on.

The simple fact is: the Transport Working Group was/is LED by the football club itself. The Transport plan is part of the club's planning application, drawn up by their experts and agreed with by the local authorities. They have known all of the detail throughout. I've asked the questions at the various Shareholders Quarterly meetings with the club (as have others) since the consultation and planning application periods. We were simply fobbed off with, "there will be more detail in time" type responses. That detail never really came. At no point have the club publically said that they weren't happy with their transport strategy. Colin Chong dropped the bombshell very early on in the process that Vauxhall Stn was not happening (imo this was only ever really possible if the CWG bid had been successful). He implied that he was disappointed with that decision, but again, they never publically questioned it (unless I've missed it). So, I can only conclude that this was all accepted and agreed to during that planning process. Similar as regards any modifications to Sandhills, and numbers of buses allocated to the proposed Shuttle bus system and any arrangements to accommodate them. All clearly outlined in the planning application.

Tbf, by the same token the Council (and the electorate) could argue, why should a cash-strapped local authority fund infrastructure to serve a privately owned football club for a once fortnightly event venue, when they've so many other transport projects and other essential services to fund?

As Kirkby proved, a local authority desperate for a major development will readily push through transport plans (and hope it works on the day, and if not sneak in a capacity-capping clause to cover their arses). The issues often only come to anyone's attention if pesky protest groups or neighbouring authorities raise enough concerns to get it called in. Neither of those factors exist in this case, and unlike Kirkby, BMD has the proximity to the city centre, with all of its public transport as its arse-covering fall-back position.

We should perhaps also remember that the club that entered the planning process wasn't quite the same club that started the build, or even the same club that completed the project. Usmanov was offski pretty much before anything was above ground at BMD. A whole different funding model would have been in play.... and perhaps that was going to help fund some of the infrastructure that never appeared in the "detail" of the obviously vague plan.

I don't disagree with you about the local authority's lack of success in delivering major infrastructure..... but the point is, the club themselves have not protested similar in this case. Not to mention the period of "special measures" applied to the local authority in the same period.

 

[ultra]

Why dont they use Goodson car park as a shuttle bus station on match days then people can still use there old parking spaces near goodison and better still keep local pubs busy on match days simples

That’s far too sensible an option for the council morons.

 

[davek]

Not at all Dave,

I'm not really attempting to individually bash the club nor the council at all. If anything it's a collective responsibility if the arrangement is what was agreed, and signed off on.

The simple fact is: the Transport Working Group was/is LED by the football club itself. The Transport plan is part of the club's planning application, drawn up by their experts and agreed with by the local authorities. They have known all of the detail throughout. I've asked the questions at the various Shareholders Quarterly meetings with the club (as have others) since the consultation and planning application periods. We were simply fobbed off with, "there will be more detail in time" type responses. That detail never really came. At no point have the club publically said that they weren't happy with their transport strategy. Colin Chong dropped the bombshell very early on in the process that Vauxhall Stn was not happening (imo this was only ever really possible if the CWG bid had been successful). He implied that he was disappointed with that decision, but again, they never publically questioned it (unless I've missed it). So, I can only conclude that this was all accepted and agreed to during that planning process. Similar as regards any modifications to Sandhills, and numbers of buses allocated to the proposed Shuttle bus system and any arrangements to accommodate them. All clearly outlined in the planning application.

Tbf, by the same token the Council (and the electorate) could argue, why should a cash-strapped local authority fund infrastructure to serve a privately owned football club for a once fortnightly event venue, when they've so many other transport projects and other essential services to fund?

As Kirkby proved, a local authority desperate for a major development will readily push through transport plans (and hope it works on the day, and if not sneak in a capacity-capping clause to cover their arses). The issues often only come to anyone's attention if pesky protest groups or neighbouring authorities raise enough concerns to get it called in. Neither of those factors exist in this case, and unlike Kirkby, BMD has the proximity to the city centre, with all of its public transport as its arse-covering fall-back position.

We should perhaps also remember that the club that entered the planning process wasn't quite the same club that started the build, or even the same club that completed the project. Usmanov was offski pretty much before anything was above ground at BMD. A whole different funding model would have been in play.... and perhaps that was going to help fund some of the infrastructure that never appeared in the "detail" of the obviously vague plan.

I don't disagree with you about the local authority's lack of success in delivering major infrastructure..... but the point is, the club themselves have not protested similar in this case. Not to mention the period of "special measures" applied to the local authority in the same period.

What the club say and do in private and in public can diverge in terms of criticism of public bodies. And when you say the club 'led' the transport team: of course they would be involved with it and be in the van of it because it is their stadium and in that sense they were in the driving seat. But they had a right to expect a follow through on the Vauxhall station - and, as you say, Chong expressed disappointment in public over it - a p.o.v. that would probably have been hardened in private talks with local state partners. They (the club) had every right also to expect, as a private company who's new facility was being used by the local council to drive through regeneration of north Liverpool, more than fine words about 'connectivity'.

Your criticism appears to rest on the fact we've heard nothing public from the club by way of complaints. But how realistic is to expect one of those partners to break with each other in public like that? Not very. The only time its occurred was when the Mayor for Liverpool FC City Region broke ranks when he was forced into a corner of his own making a few days back.

As for the question you asked about why a cash strapped council would prioritise transport to Everton's new ground, besides being emotive it also fails to recognise that the council stood / stands to gain from this Everton Stadium over the years with more revenue it can take in from redeveloping that part of the city through even more commercial premises and the business rates it can charge there. The councils today are required to invest in capital projects like this. They've failed to do that and - with my tribal cap on - I dont think this would ever have been the case if a certain other club had spent £700M on a brand new facility down on the dock road. I know they wouldn't have been so inert, in fact.

You can push Everton forward to take the blame for this if you like, but they substantively kept their part of the deal and should expect other major players to do their job too.

 

[Tom Hughes]

What the club say and do in private and in public can diverge in terms of criticism of public bodies. And when you say the club 'led' the transport team: of course they would be involved with it and be in the van of it because it is their stadium and in that sense they were in the driving seat. But they had a right to expect a follow through on the Vauxhall station - and, as you say, Chong expressed disappointment in public over it - a p.o.v. that would probably have been hardened in private talks with local state partners. They (the club) had every right also to expect, as a private company who's new facility was being used by the local council to drive through regeneration of north Liverpool, more than fine words about 'connectivity'.

Your criticism appears to rest on the fact we've heard nothing public from the club by way of complaints. But how realistic is to expect one of those partners to break with each other in public like that? Not very. The only time its occurred was when the Mayor for Liverpool FC City Region broke ranks when he was forced into a corner of his own making a few days back.

As for the question you asked about why a cash strapped council would prioritise transport to Everton's new ground, besides being emotive it also fails to recognise that the council stood / stands to gain from this Everton Stadium over the years with more revenue it can take in from redeveloping that part of the city through even more commercial premises and the business rates it can charge there. The councils today are required to invest in capital projects like this. They've failed to do that and - with my tribal cap on - I dont think this would ever have been the case if a certain other club had spent £700M on a brand new facility down on the dock road. I know they wouldn't have been so inert, in fact.

You can push Everton forward to take the blame for this if you like, but they substantively kept their part of the deal and should expect other major players to do their job too.

The club's role is defined in the planning docs which clearly state that the club led the "Transport Working Group".
The club only have a "right to expect" whatever they agreed with and was signed off during the planning process. Regardless of whatever potential benefits/investment the project brings as leverage to those negotiations, the planning document is there for you to see... that was what was agreed.

Similar with Arsenal and Spurs, their respective transport studies highlighted the requirement for infrastructure investment and planning was ultimately secured with the negotiated club contributions to those costs.

If the authorities have in anyway reneged on the agreed transport provision at any point, the club can legally challenge it!

 

[Rita_Poon]

The other thing is that the Euros in 2028 will at least inject some urgency (and hopefully funding) into the transport issue. So hopefully, Gliders (trackless trams) and a new platform at Sandhills or Station at Vauxhall can be added to the equation..... and the Parking issues can be ironed out too.

Someone will make a fortune offering secure cctv covered parking for a reasonable fee, semi central between lime street and bmd. It'll earn from the cruise liners, the local hotels, and the stadium for games and all the summer concerts lined up.

A fortune!

 

[Bryan+]

Davek V Davek lite here

 

[Tom Hughes]

Davek V Davek lite here

I'll have you know that I'm very much "full fat".... not "lite" anything.

 

[davek]

The club's role is defined in the planning docs which clearly state that the club led the "Transport Working Group".
The club only have a "right to expect" whatever they agreed with and was signed off during the planning process. Regardless of whatever potential benefits/investment the project brings as leverage to those negotiations, the planning document is there for you to see... that was what was agreed.

Similar with Arsenal and Spurs, their respective transport studies highlighted the requirement for infrastructure investment and planning was ultimately secured with the negotiated club contributions to those costs.

If the authorities have in anyway reneged on the agreed transport provision at any point, the club can legally challenge it!

Regarding the Transport Working Group: I've just been reading through a copy of the Mott MacDonald Transport Assessment (Nov 2020). That lays out the meetings prior to and subsequent to the P.A. submission. It's clear from that that there's no hierarchy of control of that group. It's been from the very off a group made up of multiple 'stakeholders', such as LCC, LCR, Peel, Merseytravel, EFC, Sefton Council etc. Throughout that document there's no suggestion - as per Rotheram - that the club are primarily responsible for what decisions are made by it, just that they are one of a number of senior members of it.



11.15 Transport Working Group and Monitoring

11.15.1 The Transport Working Group will be responsible for overseeing, guiding and maintaining the transport strategy for Bramley-Moore Dock. The group has convened in the pre-application stages to discuss the emerging transport strategy for the stadium.

11.15.2 Following any planning permission granted, the group will continue to meet, and will carry on doing so once the stadium is in operation. The group is currently made up of senior members of the following groups:

● Everton Football Club
● Liverpool City Council
● Merseyside Police
● Merseytravel
● Merseyrail
● Bus operators
● Representatives from the taxi trade
● Everton’s incumbent traffic management company.

11.15.3 The group will meet regularly to review the performance of the transport strategy and then make adjustments and refinements as necessary to address any emerging transport issues. Through the consultation process both United Utilities and Peel Land & Property as site neighbours have requested to join the Transport Working Group. Furthermore, as a neighbouring Local Authority Area Sefton Council has requested membership. All three parties will be able to join the group following any planning approval granted to the stadium.

Ild imagine that if the club has been in touch with Rotheram after he pointed the finger at them it was to remind him that Everton are NOT central decision makers in the transport strategy for the stadium.

 

[West Side Charlie]

Good to see the council are listening at least. One thing I don't get though is why have restrictions all year round, why not just on match days and event days. Unless there's a reason I can't think of it just doesn't make sense

 

[ultra]

Good to see the council are listening at least. One thing I don't get though is why have restrictions all year round, why not just on match days and event days. Unless there's a reason I can't think of it just doesn't make sense

It doesn't make sense on match days either. Neither Goodison nor Anfield ban parking to this extreme extent.

 

[West Side Charlie]

It doesn't make sense on match days either. Neither Goodison nor Anfield ban parking to this extreme extent.

Yeah, thats true Buddy, it is a bit OOT, all the way up to Great Homer Street.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Regarding the Transport Working Group: I've just been reading through a copy of the Mott MacDonald Transport Assessment (Nov 2020). That lays out the meetings prior to and subsequent to the P.A. submission. It's clear from that that there's no hierarchy of control of that group. It's been from the very off a group made up of multiple 'stakeholders', such as LCC, LCR, Peel, Merseytravel, EFC, Sefton Council etc. Throughout that document there's no suggestion - as per Rotheram - that the club are primarily responsible for what decisions are made by it, just that they are one of a number of senior members of it.



11.15 Transport Working Group and Monitoring

11.15.1 The Transport Working Group will be responsible for overseeing, guiding and maintaining the transport strategy for Bramley-Moore Dock. The group has convened in the pre-application stages to discuss the emerging transport strategy for the stadium.

11.15.2 Following any planning permission granted, the group will continue to meet, and will carry on doing so once the stadium is in operation. The group is currently made up of senior members of the following groups:

● Everton Football Club
● Liverpool City Council
● Merseyside Police
● Merseytravel
● Merseyrail
● Bus operators
● Representatives from the taxi trade
● Everton’s incumbent traffic management company.

11.15.3 The group will meet regularly to review the performance of the transport strategy and then make adjustments and refinements as necessary to address any emerging transport issues. Through the consultation process both United Utilities and Peel Land & Property as site neighbours have requested to join the Transport Working Group. Furthermore, as a neighbouring Local Authority Area Sefton Council has requested membership. All three parties will be able to join the group following any planning approval granted to the stadium.

Ild imagine that if the club has been in touch with Rotheram after he pointed the finger at them it was to remind him that Everton are NOT central decision makers in the transport strategy for the stadium.

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