Sandhills station

[Connor mcloud]

But could you have got a cab home? Where would it pick you up? I didnt see any designated pick up rank?

Blackstone st and Dublin st

 

[davek]

Colin Chong said the 2nd event was a "resounding success".... the ongoing testing of the whole matchday experience, including transport. I would say that represents a pretty united front (at least publically). The only way to discern any discontent is to have all parties represented in these radio debates..... and wait to see the resultant blame game, if it exists. At present it's all a case of needing some "fine tuning" as far as they're all concerned.

As with the transport plan for desperation Kirkby, the local council can mark their own homework, especially if they think no-one else is going to contest it.... we have no idea what transport negotiations took place in the process or in the Working Group. We ONLY have the final plan (No ifs, buts, maybes nor conjecture). That is the only document in black and white. The club conducted all of its own surveys during 2 consultation processes, to enable them to predict methods of travel of their fanbase. We were all asked about how we go to GP and how we would be going to BMD, with the club affirming that they would require a modal shift equating to at least a reversal of the 60:40 private/public ratio at GP. Armed with all that data/information, their own transport consultants put their transport plan together. That is what has been implimented..... which bit did you not know about? Which bit has the council reneged on?

I, and many others have been saying for years that it's nowhere near good enough, and that a large proportion of the fans will have to walk 30mins or more (the plan itself says so too). Having asked that question directly at 2 shareholders meetings with the club, I can tell you that in the club's view, their transport plan is all acceptable.

As yet, we have no idea if their are any hidden clauses/agreements restricting capacity if certain modal shift or safety criteria aren't met.... just as we didn't with Kirkby, till the public inquiry. We have no idea if there are agreements for funding of further infrastructure if safety certificates aren't granted (by the council!). Of course the major difference here, is that the entire public transport capacity of the whole city region is "only" a 30 min walk away. So both parties have been able to lean heavily on that. Great transport? No! Acceptable transport...? They both appear to think so. Angst? At least 3 yrs too late!!

Chong was talking about stadium operations - he only mentioned transport in relation for the need to co-ordinate with the local authorities Merseyrail...

“This was a hugely important step in our transition to Everton Stadium, and we are delighted with how the stadium and our protocols handled the increase in capacity. Following the first test event we received a lot of positive feedback on the matchday experience elements and the food offer, while we also took on board some learnings from an operational perspective. We will continue to engage with local authorities, city stakeholders and fan groups about the long-term travel plan, through the Transport Working Group.”

...it WASN'T a united front with Rotheram claiming it a 99% success. As said: the club have pointedly distanced themselves from making any pronouncement on the success or otherwise of the transportation of fans to the stadium.

All talk about what was agreed by the council and the club over transportation simply smashes against the rocks of the fundamental fact that this stadium should never have been handed planning permission. That's a local authority decision as I keep underlining to you. If it's built then they had to redouble their efforts to get funding to upgrade or at the very least do those "quick fixes" that you spoke of above to mitigate congestion, which they didn't do.

As for fans not complaining before the stadium was complete: fans are fans and they (rightly) assume that getting to and from the new stadium would be taken care of by people who get paid a lot of money to make those things run smoothly. To admonish them for not forensically reading every planning document and suggesting they have no basis to complain now after the event is unbelievable high handed.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Chong was talking about stadium operations - he only mentioned transport in relation for the need to co-ordinate with the local authorities Merseyrail...


...it WASN'T a united front with Rotheram claiming it a 99% success. As said: the club have pointedly distanced themselves from making any pronouncement on the success or otherwise of the transportation of fans to the stadium.

All talk about what was agreed by the council and the club over transportation simply smashes against the rocks of the fundamental fact that this stadium should never have been handed planning permission. That's a local authority decision as I keep underlining to you. If it's built then they had to redouble their efforts to get funding to upgrade or at the very least do those "quick fixes" that you spoke of above to mitigate congestion, which they didn't do.

As for fans not complaining before the stadium was complete: fans are fans and they (rightly) assume that getting to and from the new stadium would be taken care of by people who get paid a lot of money to make those things run smoothly. To admonish them for not forensically reading every planning document and suggesting they have no basis to complain now after the event is unbelievable high handed.

Chong was talking about stadium operations - he only mentioned transport in relation for the need to co-ordinate with the local authorities Merseyrail...


...it WASN'T a united front with Rotheram claiming it a 99% success. As said: the club have pointedly distanced themselves from making any pronouncement on the success or otherwise of the transportation of fans to the stadium.

All talk about what was agreed by the council and the club over transportation simply smashes against the rocks of the fundamental fact that this stadium should never have been handed planning permission. That's a local authority decision as I keep underlining to you. If it's built then they had to redouble their efforts to get funding to upgrade or at the very least do those "quick fixes" that you spoke of above to mitigate congestion, which they didn't do.

As for fans not complaining before the stadium was complete: fans are fans and they (rightly) assume that getting to and from the new stadium would be taken care of by people who get paid a lot of money to make those things run smoothly. To admonish them for not forensically reading every planning document and suggesting they have no basis to complain now after the event is unbelievable high handed.

And...... as I keep saying to you. The CLUB'S TRANSPORT PLAN has been fully implimented. Shuttle buses, a marshalling area at Sandhills, Road closures. End of story!

If chaos ensues, the council do not gave to issue the safety certs, they may have capacity capping agreements or other agreements about funding of further infrastructure by the club. We don't know, so there is no point in speculating about circular arguments. At worst they can shut or limit Sandhills Stn to certain services only, and send the rest of the passengers to Kirkdale/Bankhall/Moorfields..... multiplying platform space. Their only responsibility is what was agreed! No admonishment at all....

 

[davek]

And...... as I keep saying to you. The CLUB'S TRANSPORT PLAN has been fully implimented. Shuttle buses, a marshalling area at Sandhills, Road closures. End of story!

If chaos ensues, the council do not gave to issue the safety certs, they may have capacity capping agreements or other agreements about funding of further infrastructure by the club. We don't know, so there is no point in speculating about circular arguments. At worst they can shut or limit Sandhills Stn to certain services only, and send the rest of the passengers to Kirkdale/Bankhall/Moorfields..... multiplying platform space. Their only responsibility is what was agreed! No admonishment at all....

The transport plan was the document put together by multiple stakeholders; the TWG was the steering group of those stakeholders.

To suggest Everton bear responsibility for all shortcomings on transport...well, maybe you should put a poll on this forum and see how much support you get for that barmy notion.

And you keep ducking the fundamental issue that has been pointed to a number of times: the permission granted to the planing application opened the doors up to all this and, therefore, all roads (no pun intended) lead to their door.

 

[Tom Hughes]

The transport plan was the document put together by multiple stakeholders; the TWG was the steering group of those stakeholders.

To suggest Everton bear responsibility for all shortcomings on transport...well, maybe you should put a poll on this forum and see how much support you get for that barmy notion.

And you keep ducking the fundamental issue that has been pointed to a number of times: the permission granted to the planing application opened the doors up to all this and, therefore, all roads (no pun intended) lead to their door.

Any responsibility is defined by what was agreed by all parties, and is fully documented! Feel free to campaign for a case of failure by the council to meet ANY of those contractual/legal responsibilities. None of which you actually mention!

You can go on forever about what you think the council should have provided. At the end of the day, it's the club's project. The transport plan was formulated by the club's transport consultants using the club's transport consultation data in conjunction with all data regarding the local transport network and any additional resources offered by the operators/agencies involved. The resultant document has been in the public domain for years. In effect, you're demanding a gold standard transport solution paid for by the city council, AFTER the fact.... when clearly that was never promised and never agreed at ANY point in the whole process, and covered on this forum for years. Literally an exercise in futility, that's over half a decade behind reality.

Of course, if you feel strongly enough, you can campaign for the council to withhold the safety-certificate or limit capacity until such infrastructure is provided!

 

[davek]

Any responsibility is defined by what was agreed by all parties, and is fully documented! Feel free to campaign for a case of failure by the council to meet ANY of those contractual/legal responsibilities. None of which you actually mention!
You can go on forever about what you think the council should have provided. At the end of the day, it's the club's project. The transport plan was formulated by the club's transport consultants using the club's transport consultation data in conjunction with all data regarding the local transport network and any additional resources offered by the operators/agencies involved. The resultant document has been in the public domain for years. In effect, you're demanding a gold standard transport solution paid for by the city council, AFTER the fact.... when clearly that was never promised and never agreed at ANY point in the whole process, and covered on this forum for years. Literally an exercise in futility, that's over half a decade behind reality.

Of course, if you feel strongly enough, you can campaign for the council to withhold the safety-certificate or limit capacity until such infrastructure is provided!

No, no, no...I'm asking you whether you agree with me that the local council should have rejected this stadium application given the obvious access / egress problems that were insurmountable without a lot of money being spent on eliminating them. It's as simple as that.

As for your constant blaming of a club that sunk £750M into a stadium that's always equally been about regeneration in the north end - well, good luck with that on this or any other Everton forum.

 

[Tom Hughes]

No, no, no...I'm asking you whether you agree with me that the local council should have rejected this stadium application given the obvious access / egress problems that were insurmountable without a lot of money being spent on eliminating them. It's as simple as that.

As for your constant blaming of a club that sunk £750M into a stadium that's always equally been about regeneration in the north end - well, good luck with that on this or any other Everton forum.

I haven't blamed ANY INDIVIDUAL party at all, that is what you're doing. In one of my first responses to you on this thread, I clearly stated that. If there is any blame, it has to be collective one, because the Transport Strategy and all funding responsibilities were negotiated, agreed and signed off by all parties before a single grain of sand was dropped into the dock. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with how much the club has committed. That would be the case even if it was a £2bn stadium with multiple ancillary developments attached. To say otherwise over 5 years afterwards, is like howling at the moon.

I mentioned the obvious shortcomings of the transport plan from the very beginning and was often labelled a negative doom-monger by many on here, and repeatedly told that the club's experts had it covered. As I said previously, without the £780m+ funding that would've come with a successful CWG bid (if Durban hadn't collapsed), and also after the massive public investment in a whole new fleet of trains, and various other station refurbishment and newbuild projects, additional public funding for rail infrastructure at BMD was probably always a long shot. That's why it was never promised, and also why all talk of 61,878 seater stadium was dropped at that time.

I have no idea if it should've been rejected or not, I'm not privvy to the modelling ourcomes/details or negotiations... maybe it should've been. However, the council would probably simply say that the club's data regarding their modelled travel plans for their surveyed fanbase demonstrated that provision was sufficient, and/or any shortfalls could be mitigated against. In anycase the plan is underpinned by 30 min walking radius to ample public transport. That is their acceptable fall-back/safety-net, which has also been the recurring view of many posters on here.

Knowsley's arse-covering safety-net was capacity-capping clauses..... which only they and the club knew about. I assume that they were more than prepared to face that PR disaster and political fall-out as long as they could balance it against the shopping mall and jobs.

 

[davek]

I haven't blamed ANY INDIVIDUAL party at all, that is what you're doing. In one of my first responses to you on this thread, I clearly stated that. If there is any blame, it has to be collective one, because the Transport Strategy and all funding responsibilities were negotiated, agreed and signed off by all parties before a single grain of sand was dropped into the dock. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with how much the club has committed. That would be the case even if it was a £2bn stadium with multiple ancillary developments attached. To say otherwise over 5 years afterwards, is like howling at the moon.

Oh I think it's very relevant. Turn it on its head: there'd rightly be no sympathy for the club on access to this stadium if it'd have been largely paid for out of the public purse, as some other stadiums have been. It's a preposterously legalistic and hidebound notion that EFC are in any way shape or form either to blame or are partially to blame for an inadequate transport system when they've done the LCC's heavy lifting of providing the anchor for regeneration down there. In the court of public opinion this is another argument you'll never sustain.

I have no idea if it should've been rejected or not, I'm not privvy to the modelling ourcomes/details or negotiations... maybe it should've been. However, the council would probably simply say that the club's data regarding their modelled travel plans for their surveyed fanbase demonstrated that provision was sufficient, and/or any shortfalls could be mitigated against. In anycase the plan is underpinned by 30 min walking radius to ample public transport. That is their acceptable fall-back/safety-net, which has also been the recurring view of many posters on here.

Knowsley's arse-covering safety-net was capacity-capping clauses..... which only they and the club knew about. I assume that they were more than prepared to face that PR disaster and political fall-out as long as they could balance it against the shopping mall and jobs.

Both LCC and KBC accepted stadium applications which were outrageously short of being acceptable.

There's no 'maybe' about it in relation to should this stadium have been handed planning permission. Anyone with two eyes in their head can see after two test events that this is a failed project as far as access and egress is concerned...just like Tesco Dome was....and should never have got past the preliminary discussion stage. Any plan that was passed that had 53,000 being reliant on Sandhills and a 30 minute walk (if you're fit enough - which many aren't) should have been crumpled up and put in the bin. You know it and I know it.

If I were to hazard a guess I think both parties may have believed or hoped that - in the intervening period between PA acceptance and stadium build completion - finally some headway would have been made on the Ten Streets development LCC had been trailing, and maybe hopes on that finally being a reality went west with Covid and geo-political convulsion. That it didn't happen is not a club issue though. Then the jockeying for blame would have begun...and I think that's just coming out now or beginning to.

All roads lead to LCC and Rotheram's office. As said, there's no 'maybe' about it.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Oh I think it's very relevant. Turn it on its head: there'd rightly be no sympathy for the club on access to this stadium if it'd have been largely paid for out of the public purse, as some other stadiums have been. It's a preposterously legalistic and hidebound notion that EFC are in any way shape or form either to blame or are partially to blame for an inadequate transport system when they've done the LCC's heavy lifting of providing the anchor for regeneration down there. In the court of public opinion this is another argument you'll never sustain.



Both LCC and KBC accepted stadium applications which were outrageously short of being acceptable.

There's no 'maybe' about it in relation to should this stadium have been handed planning permission. Anyone with two eyes in their head can see after two test events that this is a failed project as far as access and egress is concerned...just like Tesco Dome was....and should never have got past the preliminary discussion stage. Any plan that was passed that had 53,000 being reliant on Sandhills and a 30 minute walk (if you're fit enough - which many aren't) should have been crumpled up and put in the bin. You know it and I know it.

If I were to hazard a guess I think both parties may have believed or hoped that - in the intervening period between PA acceptance and stadium build completion - finally some headway would have been made on the Ten Streets development LCC had been trailing, and maybe hopes on that finally being a reality went west with Covid and geo-political convulsion. That it didn't happen is not a club issue though. Then the jockeying for blame would have begun...and I think that's just coming out now or beginning to.

All roads lead to LCC and Rotheram's office. As said, there's no 'maybe' about it.

Well, as they say..... "where there's blame, there's a claim"....... and if there's "no maybe", even more so! We can all look forward to legal proceedings and LCC coughing up for a new infrastructure.