Sandhills station

Jacko93 said:
Ive worked with the Transport team in Govt. Not everybody arrives there from a transport background. Some do, many dont. A large portion of them are economists, so I wouldn't make that presumption personally.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but to believe he wouldn't have been hands-on with the biggest problem besetting the biggest infrastructure build in the region is inconceivable.
 

PhilM said:
I know it isn't a given, however the Local Authority does have the overall responsibility for transportation in the region, including infrastructure.

You can infer from Rotherham's comments that the authority (or he) have looked at the stadium's proposed completion with scepticism.

From the outset, the planning application, with the transportation plan, focused on the use of existing infra-structure, with little scope for development.

They bet on walking, cycling, current bus routes (not many close!) and Sandhills Station (with crowd control enforced) even though they knew the limitations.

Could the club afford to contribute to a new, closer station? Not a chance, when you consider that St James/Baltic will cost circa £180m-£215m!

So with the council not considering a new station as a viable option, the club could either go with BMD as above, or walk away.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but they don't have a bottomless pit of cash, and any new funding has to be secured based on a favourable BCR, which for a once-a-fortnight venue may not readily stack-up.... in which case the applicant may need to meet the shortfall, as was the case to some extent with both Spurs, Arsenal and other stadium projects. However, the bottom line is that this is what was agreed via the planning process. An obvious compromise, with the onus firmly on a large walking catchment that contains all the city centre hubs and their public transport capacity. It is literally no skin off their noses if it's not an ideal solution...... provided that public safety is not compromised and traffic/congestion is not overly problematic.... in which case they might invoke capacity-capping clauses or further stringent transport restrictions, all within their normal remit.
 
Tom Hughes said:
Perhaps, but they don't have a bottomless pit of cash, and any new funding has to be secured based on a favourable BCR, which for a once-a-fortnight venue may not readily stack-up.... in which case the applicant may need to meet the shortfall, as was the case to some extent with both Spurs, Arsenal and other stadium projects. However, the bottom line is that this is what was agreed via the planning process. An obvious compromise, with the onus firmly on a large walking catchment that contains all the city centre hubs and their public transport capacity. It is literally no skin off their noses if it's not an ideal solution...... provided that public safety is not compromised and traffic/congestion is not overly problematic.... in which case they might invoke capacity-capping clauses or further stringent transport restrictions, all within their normal remit.
Click to expand...

Lol.

The local authority determines the outcome: the applicant and L.A. dont "agree" the decision.

FFs, nice try but no cigar.

As for "provided that public safety is not compromised"...how on earth could they not clearly see that it would be an issue...which it is.

LCC passed this. They carry the can. Full stop.


The bottom line is that the hard faced gets wanted Everton so badly to regenerate the north end because they didn't have the gumption for it that they passed a clearly unworkable transportation 'solution'.
 
Johnniepk said:
The answer to a lot of the problems with travel could be up on Great Howard Street. Shuttle buses going different ways, taxi stands , a bit of side street parking, priority green light routes.

Longer trains, running more frequently. Look at ferry services and options, including bmd terminal.

Golf buggy shuttles using cycle lane. Cheap food and drink after game
Free matchday public transport.
Can i be a mayor?
Click to expand...
Use the Goodison Park End car park as a bus hub. Everyone can turn up there, the pubs etc around the ground will still get some business, the shop can still function and then shuttle the fans down to the ground.

Would do in the meantime anyway.
 

davek said:
I'll tell you what is a given: that if the transportation issues this stadium faces - and which were fully known prior to the application being granted - were so unworkable (which they are) the responsibility lays FULLY with the local authority to knock that application back. So if it handed it the go ahead that's down to them.

That holds primacy over all arguments about 'agreements over transport plans' and 'who chairs what meeting'. That's strangely a point you never concede. I wonder why? 🤔
Click to expand...

You obviously have no experience of how planning applications work..... hence nonsensical claims about "primacy and responsibility" drummed up out of thin air. The responsibilities are laid out clearly in the planning application with costs and funding itemised in subsequent docs.

Destination Kirkby disproves your assertion regards responsibility of local authorities post-planning. They usually adopt criteria-based clauses, that if not met, falls back on the applicant or incurs some form of penalty. If the application places priority on walking to and from major city centre transport hubs (backed by the clubs own consultation data).... then their arses are covered. All well documented! Of course this may be complemented by other foreseeable or impending transport improvements that are in the pipeline..... etc to sweeten the deal. I've been calling the transport plan "Shank's Pony" for 5 years, where have you been hiding?
 
Blueeyedboy said:
£100 Million for Baltic station isn't it? and thats including public realm & highways improvements and associated land acquisitions
Click to expand...
Sorry, you're right. I'd read that it had come from a fund, where circa £180m was planned for upcoming projects in Merseyside. Only £100m is for the station.

I have been told, however, there may be an expected overspend, hence the top figure. If it's still correct, it could still reach £110-115m.
 

Tom Hughes said:
You obviously have no experience of how planning applications work..... hence nonsensical claims about "primacy and responsibility" drummed up out of thin air. The responsibilities are laid out clearly in the planning application with costs and funding itemised in subsequent docs.

Destination Kirkby disproves your assertion regards responsibility of local authorities post-planning. They usually adopt criteria-based clauses, that if not met, falls back on the applicant or incurs some form of penalty. If the application places priority on walking to and from major city centre transport hubs (backed by the clubs own consultation data).... then their arses are covered. All well documented! Of course this may be complemented by other foreseeable or impending transport improvements that are in the pipeline..... etc to sweeten the deal. I've been calling the transport plan "Shank's Pony" for 5 years, where have you been hiding?
Click to expand...

If this was Destination Kirkby you'd have taken a completely opposite view to KMBC passing a stadium up there than you have for LCC on this build. That also was a transportation disaster that was passed and Knowsley rightly got pilloried for it. And by you.

As for MY nonsensical claim about primacy and responsibility being with the local authority....YOU yourself stated the planning could go ahead "provided that public safety is not compromised". In other words YOU brought the concept of primacy into this discussion on that basis.

It's a surreal world you inhabit. One where applicants and L.A.s 'agree' the outcome of a P.A. and where public safety - or the lack of - can be a matter of negotiation along the way after the go ahead when all parties know it'd be an unmitigated and irresolvable 💩show.

This stadium should not have gone ahead. You know it but wont say it because it denies you the chance to lay blame for this at the door of the club.
 
Jacko93 said:
No it's not.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Rotheram's chief of staff had nothing to do with the single issue that concerned that office on the biggest infrastructure project in the region.

Absolute tosh, and you know it.

He's scarpered. That's the only matter for debate. And I think we can all hazard a pretty good guess why he has....and I doubt it'll be for the money.
 
Papa Shango said:
Use the Goodison Park End car park as a bus hub. Everyone can turn up there, the pubs etc around the ground will still get some business, the shop can still function and then shuttle the fans down to the ground.

Would do in the meantime anyway.
Click to expand...
One of the pubs I frequent before the game is doing a bus down. The issue is, however, they're projecting it will need to leave at least 2pm to get close due to traffic.
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top