Touchside at Bramley-Moore Dock

You also make some good points as regards a Stadium versus a Marina, next to a Wastewater Treatment Plant, as the Stadium would mostly obscure the view of it.

As some have mentioned in previous articles on this similar subject, it is almost laughable when 'suits' are talking of World Heritage Site status and preservation. Preservation of what exactly? Okay, the place has history, but if it meant that much to the ones making all the noise, why have they let it fall basically into such disrepair, and an eyesore?

Let's hope that all these obstacles are overcome soon and both our long-awaited desire for a new home and a League Title are not too far away.

A running track around the pitch? No thanks!

I would not have been happy with another West Ham style Olympic effort.

Spurs, have got 3 separate railway lines, and is probably accessible from every direction, but with this stadium going next to the waterfront, then it's going to be a nightmare for traffic.

I think we need a new landing stage, and I think that once this stadium is built, then a lot of people might find it easier getting to the stadium by boat? Sounds silly, but a short trip across the Mersey, with park and ride might come into operation, but I'm not sure how this would work for night games in the winter though!

Are there any guarantees that we would end up with a ground like Manc if it was being converted from a running track?

By the noises that are coming out of EFC they're about to spend a fortune on tarting up the exterior for Unesco and something has to give to pay for this, why not the interior?

As I said I'm much more comfortable building a stadium for football from the ground up rather than starting with a running track!

Your idea of boat transport isn't silly, it's excellent.

I lived in Pittsburgh, PA when the baseball stadium PNC Park was built for the Pittsburgh Pirates. It was constructed right on the bank of the Allegheny River in downtown Pittsburgh.

Traffic is a nightmare in Pittsburgh, as there are tunnels from the south side suburbs and the eastern suburbs you have to go through to enter the city center. Anyone coming from the "South Hills" area or from the east, would need to cross one of 3-4 bridges to have gotten to the north side of town where PNC Park is.

One of their solutions to traffic issues was to boat people across from Station Square on the south side of the city, on the Monongahela River, over to the stadium on the Allegheny River.

Same thing where you're at. Boat 'em across the river from Birkenhead / whatever other suburb folks come from west - southwest of Liverpool.

The fans in Pittsburgh loved the boats. It was cool. And it alleviated traffic issues.

It sounds like the traffic situation at BMD will be a nightmare. They need to look at any and all alternatives to help that situation.

50,000 plus people descending to one location with two lane, city roads, to a place that also butts up against a bay / river is a serious log jam waiting to happen. Your boat idea is a damn good one. Anything will help.

It worked well in Pittsburgh from my experience, and it was a "novelty" type of thing people loved. I see similarities with Liverpool and BMD.

Thank you for the great article Mike.

You've certainly set the scene.

Apart from the cost (the actual cost to the club), my biggest concern is the transport. The narrowed Dock Rd, Great Howard St (North-South) and Sandhills/Boundary St (East-West) limits the accessibility of the site itself.

At present it's a bit difficult to see: (a) How the predicted 60:40 public to private transport will be achieved. (b) Where cars can be accommodated in sufficient numbers within reasonable walking distance. (c) Their efficient dispersal post-match given the limited number of traffic lanes available.

From first appearances, the stadium itself will essentially be in a cul de sac. The on site car park (on the river side of the site) will have very limited access too. Several major junctions will have to be remodeled to increase traffic flows.

At the recent presentation the club seemed quite confident, and said that they don't see any great problems transport-wise. Hopefully, that is the result of extensive transport modelling and consultation with Merseytravel, rather than fanciful speculation.

As for the smell, That's been exaggerated. It's there, especially at certain times on certain days. But do you really expect a billion pound retail development not to have plans to deal with a sewage works? I expect us to solve any issue very easily.

It must be pre-season if you're worrying over nothing.

You're absolutely right that the city centre copes with far bigger numbers than any stadium every rush hour. That is the whole reason for relocating stadia to city-centre sites. However, the city centre does this by having 4 railway stations, and being the focal point for bus services from every district of the city region.

The problem is that Bramley-Moore Dock is over a mile from the closest city centre station at Moorfields (access to Northern and Wirral lines), almost 1 mile from Sandhills, and 1.7 miles from Liverpool One bus station, and the site itself has no dedicated public transport as yet.

Therefore, while Liverpool Waters is intended to be nominally a city centre-extension, Bramley-Moore Dock will always be peripheral and will need additional infrastructure before we can group it with the existing centre in transport terms.

Also, compared to Goodison Park, Bramley-Moore Dock has nowhere near the number of traffic lanes or existing bus services, and that only manages 40:60 public to private transport. Extending/redirecting a number bus services on match/event days should be possible so near to the city centre. Also, a new Northern line station and future extension of the network would also help, but we need to know how it will all work with or without these measures before we can properly judge.

No doubt the filling-in of much of Bramley-Moore Dock's water space will be a sticking point with some 'preservationists' who still don't see the need to come to a creative compromise. However, I think we should recognise the Liverpool tradition of re-purposing older docks in this way. Liverpool One is built over the site of the former Customs House, which was in turn built within the site of the first dock (now preserved below ground). The Liver Building was built over an old dock. Everton seem to have agreed to maintain an open water channel across their site, between the conserved Central Docks and the working North Docks, as well as to carry out a considerable amount of conservation work – this suggests that there have been detailed discussions with Historic England and others.

Although, like Tom Hughes, I'm a great admirer of Goodison Park (including the potential for expansion combined with conservation), I have also been impressed by Everton's approach to Bramley-Moore Dock and am looking forward to the full consultations in a couple of weeks.

I remember when they put the big-top tent down towards Bramley Moore, for the summer pops, and it was a disaster for anyone in a car.

I agree with Tom, that first impressions are that the stadium looks like it's getting built in a cul-de-sac, and is possibly why Everton are looking at a lower end capacity?

It's early days, Laurie's link on Melbourne was so interesting, because it's obvious they can make better road-links, looking at those pictures (they even built bridges Wyeness!) and if people are going to start becoming residents of this area (25,000 in Melbourne?) then it's obvious that the train has got to help take the strain?

Very informative article and of particular interest to me as a retired Planning and Development Consultant.

The timescale you postulate for the planning application, going forward to consent, is a fair judgement. The only possible disruptive factor could be the Secretary of State who might get it into his head that the scheme is of national Importance given the controversy surrounding the World Heritage Site nearby. If it is called in for his determination on those grounds then guess what?; a Public Inquiry takes place before a Secretary of State appointed Inspector. The cost of that in terms of delay and funding expert witnesses is something the club could do without.

As to traffic and dispersal after the game, I think this one needs a bit more careful examination. Hopefully the upcoming public consultation will outline some measures that the club and its advisors have in mind. The proposed car park will barely scratch the surface of this problem.

I hope others will not see this note as overly pessimistic since I am excited by the scheme as a Blues supporter and given my interest in urban redevelopment. However better to be aware of the various scenarios that might arise. Schemes like this, at this scale, rarely get from a to z without some hiccups on the way.

The devil is in the detail on the proposed BMD move.

There are seemingly an increasing number of extraneous, yet vital aspects to the stadium build (like transport), which we really have no idea how or when (or who pays!) they will be resolved.

Indeed, if I remember correctly, when it was mentioned that we Liverpool might host the Games I'm sure there was talk of the stadium running along rather than across the Dock so as to facilitate the extra space required. What will be the side of our new home next to the river would have been the end of the Games stadium. The proposed stadium was clearly going to be planned to be a football ground with interim measures for use by the Games, so the stadium we would have ended up with would be somewhat different to the one used for the Games.

I don't see the relevance of your UNESCO comment to the matter being discussed, nobody would suggest an athletics track as a way of saving money, & as the Games are going elsewhere the idea seems no longer pertinent.

The only reason I would be glad that the Games element has been removed is that the loss of any associated funding to subsidise the new stadium may, at some point, cause the Board to review the huge outlay involved compared to the cost of redeveloping Goodison Park & reconsider their proposed course of action.

I lived 2 mins walk from Moorfields for 15 years. I know exactly how far the new stadium is, how long it takes to walk or cycle there. Done it so many times. Been sat in traffic going both ways so many times. I do not see any problem whatsoever.

Ever been to Old Trafford? No one can get close to that. Nor the City of Manchester Stadium. The mancs all park well away from the ground and walk up or get the tram. Why won't Everton fans park in town, meet for a pint and then walk up. I would expect other establishments (I won't say boozers as I think some of them will be fancy places as part of the Liverpool Waters Project) to offer a stopping point for further refreshments.

I think the whole traffic issue is a complete red herring and of no consequence whatsoever.

I've no doubt there will be a similar bus from Bramley Moore. The club could even offer a park and ride scheme from Goodison to the new ground. I'm sure many fans would like to get away from Bramley Moore quickly, and then be able to drive along Queens Drive towards the M62 without being caught in traffic outside the ground.

These are plenty of solutions to move people quickly from BMD. Also, if there are bars and restaurants around the ground, a proportion of the fan base will stay near the ground. Some will walk to town.

It's all very feasible. People just need options.

I would hope that the problem of providing transport from the City centre to Bramley Moore Dock would not present too great a challenge for the people involved in this exercise!

I would build a tram line from the bottom of James St to the site.

Because in time, it will service the office buildings and residential apartment blocks of The Peel Waters Development, and EFC will be footing the cost of building the stadium that kickstarts the project, Peel and The City should be getting their cheque books out to fund it.

Not a big deal when you see this sort of thing happening in other parts of the world:-

Link

Before game the buses run regularly from Sandhills for the same price.

I ended up walking all the way to the pub from Goodison as there was no chance of getting on one of the buses. There were only three or four there and about a thousand Blues trying to get on 'em. It was a scorcher that day as well if my memory serves me right.

Soccer bus my aaaaaaarse!

When the 90 minutes is up I move to the end of the row so when the final whistle blows I'm handy for the exit.
I've only missed the buses once in about 5 years.

I agree they should open the doors when it's raining, though!

I forgot to add that I agree with Steve and cannot really see that getting away from Bramley-Moore Dock will be any more difficult than getting away from Goodison Park, or from our old ground across Stanley Park. Very few people can park within a 5-minute walk from Goodison Park.

As the resident's parking scheme moved further and further out, I finally tried the train (from Huyton) and the bus from town and found it was just as quick, if not quicker.

Sandhills Station is a 10-15 minute walk away and links south Liverpool to Southport, Ormskirk and Kirkby (Wigan) and Lime Street, Central and Moorfields can feed into this for fans from The Wirral and main line services.

In the next decade, going to football matches by car will seem as odd as the thought of smoking in pubs and restaurants does now.

I don't see how swift/cheap transport/parking/egress can be assured at BMD, mainly due to it having only 50% of what most every other stadium has in terms of a usable 360 degree circumference in terms of access/egress. It'll be bottleneck and then some on match days, end of.

Of course if it was in Lahndann things might be different, but it's not.

Brian the walk into town is easy from Goodison, all down-hill as they say mate, but nothing is down-hill when you start on the bottom road though!

The trains have got to be updated in respect of a couple more stations, and that overhead railway station has got to come back into use, especially if Liverpool wants to have the facilities to back up its status as a truly great city, once again?

This is the precise point. People arrive and depart GP from all directions. This will simply not be possible at BMD. GP itself sits in a triangle of major A-roads which can be used in both directions, and multiple feeder roads running off them to other main carriage-ways in all directions. BMD only has the dock rd (which is being narrowed), Great Howard Street on the river side of the northern line (which acts as a barrier to traffic/pedestrian flow east-west), with only Boundary St, Sandhills and Leeds st (0.8 miles away) piercing this.

However, one of the main reasons for relocating is to give a site that allows the vast majority to leave their cars at home. The Kings Dock would've done that because every local can get a bus/train/ferry to within easy walking distance, and that public transport is in place. At best, BMD is right at the edge of that envelope, so I'm not sure that there will be a big enough modal-shift to public transport. Then we would have the problem of trying to park the equivalent number of cars (or more) in half the available area, with probably only a fraction of the amount of fly-parking spaces as there are in L4 given the less dense street layout. The club said that they will be negotiating car parking with several industrial sites, so perhaps there is enough spaces.

Liverpool waters should prompt some new infrastructure, but the admission that even the station at Vauxhall hasn't been sanctioned yet shows that it's not a given. As a comparison, the entire south docks (apart from the odd plot) has been redeveloped yet apart from the Brunswick Dk station (on an existing line), and the occasional bus service, there has been no major infrastructure added there. and rest assured a fortnightly event venue will not justify it alone. So, unless Liverpool waters and the ten streets is a real high volume, high density development, then I'm not sure we can expect another MRT serving this site any time soon.

If the club has modelled people and traffic movement, and it all adds up then fair enough. Hopefully, the next consultation phase will clarify this. I'm not yet convinced that it will be better than GP and that might even be influencing the capacity ambitions.

This is not only to cross from The Wirral but also like the two stops on the Wirral side Wallasey and Birkenhead - why could we not do shuttles from Pier Head to BMD?

With additional boats for the match would help alleviate the after kick off surge.

People should not underestimate the impact for young Wirral children seeing the new Stadium every day across the water. The ferry is a must for me.

I don't think we can dismiss traffic as a red-herring. As can be seen from the comments of others its something that is exercising their minds and rightly so.

The next round of public consultation will provide us with the opportunity to comment on the proposed arrangements for dealing with matchday traffic, even if non are forthcoming from the club and its advisors at this stage. Best to get our concerns and ideas presented to the club so that when the planning application is put together there will have been input on the matter from those who will be regular attendees.

The application, when submitted to the Council will have to be accompanied by a series of technical documents, including a Transport and Traffic Assessment. That will be an important component of the scheme, and hopefully will have been drawn up in light of the comments raised during the upcoming round of consultations and pre-application discussions with the relevant Transport and Highway Authorities.

“What are the plans for the movement of 52,000 people to and from the ground on match days including car parking?”

If their jaws drop, we are in trouble.

As the majority, or at least a very high percentage of these commuters, generally work 9-5 Mon-Fri, many who have cars too. I would suggest an amnesty in the parking restrictions where for a moderate fee (pre-purchased tickets from many authorised outlets) from the Council. Even businesses could 'allow' their empty (workers) spaces to be utilised, although they would have to organise their own charging system.

With regards to the ferry option, while there are many supporters from the Wirral and North Wales area, and they do have existing ferries, should the numbers be adequate for demand, it is not beyond the scope of possibility. I suspect though most travel in by bus or train!

As for the wastewater treatment works, we could put the away fans at that end and call it The Shit End! 😀

There is plenty of common sense being posted about the possible transport plans. I agree with many who opine, that you have to walk at least ten minutes from anywhere to get to GP. Therefore, what is the issue about walking from Sandhills? Lots of fans walk from Kirkdale, it's about the same distance.

If you bussed it, you'd either get off on County Road or Walton Lane. Both roads are busy with traffic, especially County Road, but they cope. It'll be the same dance with with Regent Road and Gt. Howard Street. I think there'll be circular shuttle buses from Sandhills to BMD, onto town, then back to BMD and Sandhills.

With all of the work going on at Stanley Dock, I've got no reason not to believe it will become as busy as Albert Dock. There'll be lots of bars and restaurants, it won't be just on match days, it'll be busy. Therefore the Council have the responsibility to improve the transport, to and from the area,

Musing on Scouse humour, my suggestions are we will either be kicking into the "Hardy end" or the "Armitage end".

Liverpool FC, need the overhead train-lines opening just as much as Everton, it's called progress, especially when the infrastructure is already there.

The council and club could build a purpose built pedestrian walk way to the City centre and to Sandhills, The Toffee Trail, or something that will become a beacon to getting to the ground.

Busy, busy times ahead and it would be useful when we eventually ate shown the drafts of the stadium design to be shown also the surrounding area within a 4 mile radius to gauge impact on transport and the surrounding developments.

But for now I'd like to see some good news on some strikers Let's hope MB has some deals in the air as the new season is only a month away.

I would've thought it was only prudent to bring up issues long before a brick was laid, because after would be too late. can we really afford that at a cost of 𧼐m? After all, isn't the consultation process supposed to be about identifying and ironing out these issues before committing?

Let's be clear, "Field of dreams", like destination Kirkby is a work of fiction about building a ballpark in the middle of nowhere. At the time of that project, the club often adopted the "build it and they will come" mantra when asked about transport, and eventually saw their multiple-revised transport plan (btw, including a capacity-capping clause) laughed out of the public-inquiry, as entirely unworkable. So, it should never be about finger in the air guestimations, or blind faith in Kevin Costner movies.

From experience, you have noted that County Rd and Walton Lane are busy on matchdays. That alone is already double the amount of lanes provided by Grt Howard St. Then there is Priory Rd, Westminster Rd, and Queens drive too, and several other major roads on the other side of Stanley Park. However, the point is, all of these roads are already served by existing bus routes, and the vast majority using public transport have very short walking distances. On top of that, those in cars can park off all approaches to the stadium. Imagine the congestion on county Rd if all car parking was on that side of the stadium alone, and Queens Drive and Walton Lane were closed. Then again after adding 25-30% to the capacity?

The attraction of building near the city centre is to get the vast majority onto public transport, to move large numbers of people efficiently, taking full advantage of all existing infrastructure. Only the city centre has that level of provision. BMD is at edge of the walkable catchment from town and in a bit of blindspot (currently), so we need better clarification on future infrastructure, and on how that public transport focal point can be shifted to avoid serious congestion. The Northern line can be the saving grace of this site. It is a great asset and can probably shift 6k+ per hr in each direction, but it only serves about 30% of the main conurbation directly. Shuttle buses to Liverpool 1 bus station and Lime St, will probably have a turnaround times of 10-20 mins. Which means the current 8 buses provided by soccerbus could perhaps shift 2-4k per hour traffic permitting. Being close to the city centre might mean that a proportion of all city-centre bus services can be extended/redirected to/via Liverpool waters to move thousands more. Then it will be a case of if the roads have the capacity, and are free enough to allow that movement.

Hopefully this has all been modelled, and we will see how it works in the next consultation presentations. Otherwise the planners may well insist on a capacity cap (if they haven't already).

Get on The Trackless Tram

Scroll down to the second video and invest 30 minutes of your time listening to this guy who knows what he is talking about; a very very smart cookie. Don't skimp listen to the whole video - if you are interested in the transport issue you will not regret it.

As most ToffeeWebbers know, despite the fact that I now live 12,000 miles away, I am very enthusiastic about not only the new stadium, but the potential benefit of the whole waterfront development to the people of the City of Liverpool.

I would be absolutely dismayed if anyone can find a reason why this is not a perfect solution to the Bramley Moore transport issue. Here are some of the boxes it ticks:-

COST
Capacity
Construction Time
Configurability (couldn't resist a fourth C)

A bit of respectful advice for Joe Anderson and the City Council - you have a blank canvass when it comes to the waterfront but this could be the pilot scheme for the whole City. Opportunity to be a UK first.

Just as a matter of interest what would most punters be willing to pay for a return fare from the bottom of James Street to Bramley-Moore Dock?

The cost of the system is about ٢.5 million per kilometer. It is 2.5 kilometres from James St to the stadium - so initial outlay 㾷.25 million.

But then you have 6 days in which you can use the trams in other parts of the City as you install new tracks.

There is money in this.

Did you find the time to look at the videos? I thought the second one in particular about the potential for urban regeneration and the value it adds to the developers land values could have been made for the Liverpool Waters project.

The other very significant point it made was that governments are strapped for cash but in instances such as this, the developer would pay for the tram system.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/how-people-responded-plans-light-16499271

Joe Anderson tweets about alsorts to test the water, get a debate going or possibly just grab a headline. So there's no knowing how serious it is. The respondents to the article don't give it much hope, but you never know. In the recent past there has also been talk about reopening the loop lines to add to the merseyrail network. Feeding the whole Liverpool waters scheme and inner/outer or north/south loops with a full metro system. That would open up far more suburbs than the current system, including Goodison and Anfield.

The City centre does need a proper people mover and major public transport revamp. As does the bulk of the north-eastern and south Eastern districts and airport, and these could well provide a solution if dedicated/segregated pathways could be created. That should be relatively easily achieved at Liverpool waters.

IMO, it needs something of this capacity/performance to really make BMD viable in terms of transport.

From what I could make out The Mayor is suggesting a light rail/tram system which I have read is much more expensive to build per kilometre and more disruptive than this “Trackless” system which can be laid in days as opposed to months.

I hope someone is willing to raise the potential of this system at the next consultative meeting. I really believe it is a winner.

It starts off talking about light rail, but towards the end of the Anderson calls them electric trams not confined to tracks. So, I'm not sure if that means trackless or not, but I thought I'd read elsewhere that they're like these Chinese systems. just cannot find that article at present.

The Loo End:
I agree a wastewater treatment plant is not the ideal neighbour. As for any smells, there was none when I visited, but I was there for no more than an hour. But this city's been getting built up for 250 years and now there aren't too many sites to choose from. My favourite one was next to the Albert Dock. My second favourite option would be a stage-by-stage redevelopment of Goodison (another discussion, another thread). But there is no will to do that from the board and I certainly haven't got the money to pay for it. So, I see Bramley-Moore Dock as potentially the most likely site. I certainly don't want to see us moving to the outskirts which I believe would be the beginning of the end of EFC.

Footprint:
I'd love to know for sure but I am reckon this site is bigger than Tottenham's new stadium. Getting from one side of that to the other, I ended up walking through an underground car park for a Sainsbury's supermarket that is next door.

Ferry Cross The Mersey:
I believe this has been ruled out due to tides. But that may be on the idea of a ferry tying up to the seawall. When I used to get the ferry years ago, there was a floating landing stage at both Woodside and the Pier Head, connected to the mainland by a walkway around 30 yards in length. Whether one is practical at Bramley-Moore, I don't know.

Trams:
Well, there was great enthusiasm among local travel chiefs and council chiefs for the re-introduction of trams in Liverpool from the mid-Nineties and big plans were put forward that went back and forth to the Labour Government. There was talk of hundreds of millions of pounds being spent. It seems to have been a complex story and I am sure some on here know much more than me. But the whole thing got kicked into touch around a decade ago. Can the idea be resurrected? Well, it would cost big bucks. Would central government help out? Not likely to be on their yellow sticky notes at the moment. The only hope now would be a Prime Minister taking the concept of the Northern Powerhouse seriously. (I wrote that before seeing Laurie Hartley's posts and can add nothing more than Tom Hughes's responses)

Pedestrian walkways:
I think these have been mentioned by one or two people commenting. I had been wondering about the possibility of raised, overhead walkways to get people some distance away. Given you can have retractable roofs and pitches, could you not have retractable walkways?

Roads:
Some of you seem confident that getting to and from the stadium on matchdays will not pose any more problems. You may be right. I hope so. But I disagree. I believe Tom Hughes has made many good points on this and I won't repeat them here.

I will add: Regards the idea of car parking in town then walking to the stadium, I have my doubts about this on Saturdays due to all the shoppers who like to park up, especially as many do so earlier than football fans going to a 3pm kickoff, especially in the six weeks prior to Christmas.

I cannot see shuttle buses going to the stadium itself. Just go and have a look at Regent Road. It would be gridlocked. I think buses would have to drop off on Great Howard Street although it should be said that's only a few minutes' walk away.

Overall, I reckon many people will be doing a lot more walking than they do at the moment to get to and from the stadium. There's a lot that's good about that. But in some weathers I can see the walk from the stadium to town becoming the survival of the fittest, possibly like the last mile of the London Marathon. Consideration might be given to a special shuttle bus service for over-60s only (I must declare an interest here) otherwise some might start giving the game a miss.

Finally:
Of course, we can proceed with the stadium plans on the basis of "Build it and let them make their own way there and back". But I hear more and more these days of the phrase "visitor experience". If people find it a frustrating experience, or get soaking wet before they get there, some may give up on the experience.

Bear in mind this stadium is meant to be up for, I guess, the next 50 years or so. It's not intended so much for those of us from the "put up with anything" generations born in the middle of the last century. It will be catering for generations who have grown up, or will grow up, with plenty of opportunity to watch the game live on television, big televisions, in the comfort of their own homes, or local hostelries.

I will be interested to learn if the club sees the dock wall as the end of its responsibility to any extent for supporters. For instance, if 10,000 people, possibly more, are going to try and catch a train from Sandhills after the game, surely this will require a lot of stewarding. Is the club going to contribute in terms of either supplying stewards or helping Merseytravel with the cost of this?

Bear in mind the club started to look at this site when it was being suggested as the main venue for the Commonwealth Games. If our city's bid had been successful, there would have been a lot of government money going on surrounding infrastructure. I have just read that the city of Birmingham will be receiving 𧼊million from the Government. A lot of this will go on putting on the Games itself but it seems there will be plenty on infrastructure too. Could you imagine all that money being spent in Liverpool and the boost to the Mersey economy?

Pass me those tissues. I want to cry. But ultimately, all we can say is onwards and upwards.

The potential of Goodison Park is massive if only the supporters were shown it and the backhanders were for this project, and of course we had that someone 'with a vision and foresight... a Leader who realises what is required and drives it forward'

You only have to look across the park to see the way forward – unfortunately no-one wants to.

Liverpool has trains and train stations what it needs is a system that shuttles people to and from them to across the city and beyond.

From what I have seen and read light rail or conventional tram systems are great but it is very expensive and disruptive to construct.

The Chinese Trackless system shown in the link I posted costs buttons to construct in comparison - I have read ٢.5 million as opposed to 䀆 million per kilometre (no I haven't put the decimal place in the wrong spot.

The other key issue as I see it is that it is even in the developers interest to pay for the system because it increases the land value of their development sites.

Like I said in my original “trackless tram” post and you have recognised - this system is perfect for the stadium and waterfront development.

Surely if I can discover this system and identify its suitability after a couple of days of thinking about it and you can see the value after reading the article (and watching the videos?), the City, Peel, and Everton should know about it.

As Tom has suggested they may well have - I certainly hope so.

Link

Let's see what they come up with in the consultation – who knows they may surprise us. I hope so.

I remain optimistic (stupidly)? Maybe, and like Tony Abrahams, I go past the site from time to time with my fingers crossed.

If only to bury the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity messed up by Kenwright and others at Kings Dock.

Just hope I live long enough to be transported there.

So do - I but you will be going on a Blue & White trackless tram.😉

Billy # 72 - on the other thread it seems Everton are sending representatives to London to present their proposal to the House of Commons - “to gain wider approval”.

That in my view does display the will on the part of EFC at least to make this happen.

Like you and Tony I remain optimistic.

“If you think you're beaten, you are; If you think that you dare not, you don't; If you'd like to win, but think you can't, It's almost certain you won't. If you think you'll lose, you've lost; For out in the world you'll find Success begins with a fellows will. It's all in the state of mind. If you think you are outclassed, you are; You've got to think high to rise; You've got to be sure of yourself before You can ever win a prize. Life's battles don't always go To the stronger or faster man; But sooner or later the man who wins Is the man who thinks he can.”

Author unknown

What we'd like and what we MAY get will be somewhat different, I fear.

Clearly the issue of transport to and from the ground has raised many very interesting and well thought-out observations on the matter, the highlight of which is the idea of the trackless tram link (presumably integrated with a citywide network).

The publication of the proposals for the stadium at the end of the month will give us a first site of any ideas that may be forthcoming from the club on the issue of transport to and from the ground. We shall all have an opportunity to put forward our views on the matter and hope that they are taken fully into account in finalising the proposals. My experiences tell me that comments presented on behalf of an acknowledged and recognised group or interested party tend to carry more weight than those put forward by individuals, whatever their merits.

So, and going out on a limb here, would it be appropriate to consider drawing together a group of interested ToffeeWebbers to present the "consolidated" views of TW. The excellent article by Mike Owens has got us all thinking in some detail about the new stadium and how it is going to look and operate. Seems a shame not to channel all these observations as being representative of a wide group of supporters?

Just a thought. The idea may run counter to the spirit and objectives of TW. Perhaps someone could put me right on that.

I would actually have liked to attend the consultative meetings but because I am now resident in Australia that is not possible. Nevertheless I enjoy putting my point of view on ToffeeWeb. If anyone thinks they add value to the discussion and are worth pursuing then I am content with that. This is where I am up to now:-

Billy's idea of a station on Boundary Road also has great merit if it stacks up for whoever owns the railway and or the City. Having thought about it, it would certainly provided easy access for thousands of people on match day.

I like Tony's idea of the ferry and a landing stage; in fact I am sure if Everton do build the stadium at BMD the day will come when that will happen. However I think it will be to service the thousands of Evertonians that live in my old home town Birkenhead, also Wallasey and the rest of the Wirral and North Wales.

As you know I am rather enthusiastic about the trackless tram (ART) option.

I have corrected myself on what I thought were the original costs but even if it is the worst case scenario of ٢.5 million per kilometre of track, the 2.5 kilometres from the bottom of James Street to the Dock makes it look like a perfect pilot model to me. Let me elaborate.

Four of those units and 2.5 kilometres of track might cost 㾻m? Shared three ways between The Council, Peel, and The City (all of whom stand to benefit greatly from the pilot) it is not a lot of money.

If it proved a success that would be stage one. The track could then be extended up to the city centre - maybe another 1.5 kilometres depending on the route - as stage two. Remember these units can be run off the tracks and stored in a bus depot or suitable shed overnight.

To my way of thinking it is a great way for the City to test the water because it is effectively a modular system with relatively modest initial costs, and therefore low risk, that can be progressively extended throughout the city and suburbs if it is a success.

I better leave it at that because I've just had it running through the Queensway tunnel to the Wirral Waters project.

The main talking point is transport and crowd dispersal. I have to say my reaction to the site was one of ‘well that's easy', walking up from town and back is definitely my preferred way of going/coming back from a game.

I wouldn't dream of taking a car or trying to get close. But here's the bigger point for me, perhaps this will encourage people to get there earlier, the mooted fan-zone perhaps?, be in the ground more promptly and potentially give us a more organic atmosphere?

Do some of the comments stem from a need to ‘get in and out', as STHs maybe the whole thing around the game is now reduced to that? I don't know.

When I go, it's rare being in the ‘States, but more generally when we go to sport it's less frequent but we make more of it. I hope BMD can do that for some. Great talking points though.

Traditionally, most fans get to the ground as late as possible and leave asap. I'd like to see this change and the stadium become more of a destination. Again, the English weather discourages this!

Shared three ways between The Council, Peel, and The Club (all of whom stand to benefit greatly from the pilot)

Here is a copy of what I sent to the Mayor's office last year when I first heard about the World Heritage threats:

"I would just like to comment about my team Everton planning to build our new stadium on the Bramley Moore site (thanks for all you have done), and the objections raised by some people who are using the World Heritage threats to have it stopped.

The "World Heritage Status" objection in my view is just snobby, jealous and judgemental people's way of getting in the way of progress. The Heritage of this City is based on world trade, migration and the culture of football, amongst other things. If Everton build our new stadium it will fit perfectly into our heritage with regard to migration and football.

People departed these shores from the Liverpool Docks and took their football with them. I am sure that, just as there are Evertons around the world, there are other names of teams taken from British and Southern Irish clubs.

A football stadium on a World Heritage site is a fitting and lasting tribute, and the case should be taken up by our City Council and argued. If we don't build the stadium then the site will remain an eyesore for at least 20 years or so, based on Peel Port's plans for the redevelopment of the site. I hope that these ridiculous objections can be ended once and for all."

I received a nice reply from his office but I have not read anything similar since. I am not arrogant enough to believe that my view is the only one, but it must be put into the melting pot for those who are arguing the case on both sides to consider.

Perhaps you have the contacts, or access to the right people, if you agree with me?

Alasdair, that is an interesting idea about the "consolidated" view of ToffeeWebbers, but if you mean finding a consensus, that could be a tough task. And I, for one, don't have enough spare time for that. Best of luck to anyone who might take that job on.

However, I note your comment on views having more weight if they come from a group, rather than individuals.

I shall certainly start to follow the issue in detail. I must confess I am still not sure what's the crux of the World Heritage Site issue, especially if we are talking about building next to a wastewater treatment plant, although we shouldn't sniff at it, having read that it cost 𧶀million.

Is it that Liverpool might somehow lose World Heritage Site status if the stadium goes ahead? If so, how come the city didn't lose it after those carbuncles went up next to the Three Graces?

And was it on that site visit last Wednesday that I heard someone comment that the Tower of London retains World Heritage Status, even though it is surrounded by all sorts of skyscraping oddities?

Excuse me. I'm laughing so much I'll have to go to the wastewater treatment plant.

It's just that the attitude seems to be from the council that we will plough on regardless, as it is good for jobs, prosperity and so on, which I totally agree with. I just think that playing the local heritage card back at the committee who decide on these things might make them see it differently, and will find it difficult to deny the local history that goes towards the heritage status.

Although we would live without it, it just seems another example of the siege mentality we are branded with, when sense and sensibility should really help to resolve it amicably for all sides.

As a retired Planning and Development Consultant, if you are up for it, I would suggest that you are the perfect candidate to head up a small group of ToffeeWebbers at the consultative meeting. Your experience and expertise would add great credibility to any presentation.

Be interesting on derby day, on the Mersey.

Anyway, banter out of the way, some great suggestions on here.

The soccer bus at Goodison works really well, not sure if it is just Mersyside day ranger that covers both train and bus, but you can board the soccer bus free with a valid train ticket ranger, worth asking those who use the bus and trains further afield if your train ticket is valid on the soccer bus.

The The ferry is also a great idea, just out of interest does anyone know how many spaces there are on a ferry for passengers.

One of the best reads on here for a good while with suggestions and not one curveball dragging Bill into it, pleasent change.

Start outside the Titanic Hotel, past Costco, turn right at the roundabout, go round the side of the dock past the Crowne Plaza, straight up Tithebarn Street, across Byron Street, and left by the side of the museum, straight opposite Lime Street Station!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Rail_Rapid_Transit

If there is a Q&A session, I will ask about access, egress and transport issues.

I agree, finding a consensus will be a tough ask.

So what I could do is as follows., taking account of the fact I live in Kenilworth Warwickshire.

Attend the presentation/ exhibition wherever that may be and pick up as much as I can from that event about the proposals. I haven't seen any details about the programme of exhibitions/presentations on the Peoples Project web-site, so I am assuming there will be an exhibition of sorts in the City Centre at Everton 2? If any one knows more please let me know.

I will then go out to the site to familiarise myself with the location. My memory of this area is not up to date by any means.

I will then put together a response trying to account for the ideas put forward so far and other observations about design and location plus my own views for what they are worth. This I will post on Toffee Web. Could Lyndon advise how best to do this if he is in agreement with us putting views forward under the banner of TW. I had thought this could just be a continuation of the present string responding to Mikes' excellent initial article. Ok it may just have to go forward under my name but I will give everyone the opportunity to comment on a first draft.

Would it be of use for me to meet up with some of you when I am in town. Likely to be 30th July or 4th August.? I am retired so will be a lunch time meeting. Its unlikely I could make any presentations given by the club in the evening which I guess will be when the consultative meetings are held.

Second public consultation for “People's Project” to be launched
By Everton
Expand

Everton's plans for a new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock and a legacy project at Goodison Park will be shown across the Liverpool City Region as part of the Club's second widescale consultation with the public.
The People's Project public consultation takes place from Friday 26 July to Sunday 25 August and will visit 12 locations across all six city region boroughs – Liverpool, Wirral, Sefton, Knowsley, St Helens and Halton – over 19 days of the month-long consultation period.

Visitors to the travelling consultation will also have the opportunity to immerse themselves in the project with a virtual reality experience allowing users to experience 360-degree views of the stadium. For those unable to attend, the exhibition and consultation survey will also be available via The People's Project website and a new People's Project app that will contain a range of interactive materials. These will include an alternative reality version of the new stadium and a 360-degree VR tour of both the inside and outside of the ground. The app will be updated throughout the consultation period and the lifetime of the project.

The results and feedback of the month-long consultation will form part of the Club's final submission for planning applications for both Bramley-Moore Dock and Goodison Park. Those applications are expected to be submitted by the end of 2019.

The public consultation marks the second stage of a formal process which began with a first stage public consultation last November. More than 20,000 people took part in that consultation, with the overwhelming majority backing the proposed move to Bramley-Moore Dock, part of Peel L&P's Liverpool Waters site, and the redevelopment of Goodison Park.

Colin Chong, Everton's Stadium Development Director, said: “As well as the exciting designs for the stadium, we will be revealing more details about all parts of the project, including how the stadium will respect and complement its surroundings, our approach to heritage preservation and enhancement, how fans could travel to and from the stadium, and how we intend to create a powerful legacy for our spiritual home in Liverpool 4.

“We believe that our proposals for the stadium and for Goodison Park will have a transformational effect on North Liverpool. It would support the city's inclusive growth agenda by creating economic and societal benefits through boosting our local economy, creating jobs, attracting new visitors and creating new civic amenities.

“It's important that as many people as possible visit the exhibitions, take part in our consultation survey, and let us know what they think.”

The month-long consultation will ask members of the public for their views on a range of issues in relation to both Bramley-Moore Dock and the Club's intention to leave a legacy at Goodison Park.

For residents living in Liverpool 4, a consultation leading on the Club's intention to leave a sustainable legacy at Goodison Park will open at The People's Hub on selected days over a two-week period.

Consultation is an essential part of the planning application process and it follows previous engagement by the Club with its fans, local residents and senior business, cultural and public sector figures in the Liverpool City Region.
Dates and times for public consultation:
When Where Time
26 July Liverpool One, Outside John Lewis 9AM-8PM
27 July Birkenhead, 222 Grange Road West, CH41 6EB (outside Asda) 10.30AM-5PM
28 July Edge Lane Liverpool Shopping Park, L13 1EW 10.30AM-4.30PM
31 July – 2 August Liverpool One, Outside John Lewis 9AM-8PM
3 August Widnes, Green Oaks Shopping Centre, Green Oaks Way, WA8 6UB 9AM-6PM
4 August Speke, New Mersey Retail Park, Speke Road, L24 8QB 10.30AM-4.30PM
7 – 9 August Church Street, Outside Carphone Warehouse 11AM-6.30PM
10 August The Forum, Derby Road, Huyton,
L36 5RT (near the Post Office) 10AM-5PM
11 August Crosby Lakeside Activity Centre, Cambridge Road, Waterloo, L22 1RR 10.30AM-4.30PM
13 August Castle Street, Next to Viva Brazil 11AM-6.30PM
14 – 15 August Church Street, Outside Carphone Warehouse 11AM-6.30PM
16 August St Helens Church Square Shopping Centre, WA10 1AF 9AM-5.30PM
17 August Goodison Park Goodison Road, L4 4EL 9AM-2PM
18 August New Brighton Fort Perch Rock, CH45 2JU (in the car park) 10.30AM-4.30PM

Consultation for residents living in Liverpool 4
30 July The People's Hub, Spellow Lane, L4 4DF 8am-3pm
31 July The People's Hub, Spellow Lane, L4 4DF 1pm-8pm
5 August The People's Hub, Spellow Lane, L4 4DF 8am-3pm
7 August The People's Hub, Spellow Lane, L4 4DF 1pm-8pm

Alasdair (#95), if you were capable of gaining consensus on anything on TW, you would be a) a member of MENSA and b) probably very rich. It's the beauty of this site - heartfelt, diverse opinions.

All I will do is attend as an individual, express an opinion and ask a question if possible, and report back on here.

We need to move from the embarrassing relic of Goodison Park for the sake of losing another generation of Evertonians. Hard enough now with another Champions League win for our lovely neighbours.

Despite all the problems about the building of the stadium and traffic problems, especially getting away after the game, it will be built, l'm hoping it will be ready by the earliest date you gave 2023, and will take my place in the first day crowd, cheering the Blues on that memorable day. Thanks for a great read, I apologise for not reading it sooner.

Stephen many thanks for the timetable of events. I have located these now on the peoples Project site.

Moving on from my post @95, like Peter M, I will set out my views on this site. If anyone agrees with them they are welcome to post any agreement (or disagreement) and in making my submission to the club I can indicate that there are others who correspond on TW who are in support of the views I set out. I will not mention any names.

Peter#97 - good post.

Mike your OP set off a great thread - thanks.

https://twitter.com/Everton/status/1153364848291581953