Merseyside: New stations planned

[Olaf]

...
With the recent release, I feel it is important for the matter to be pressed by people such as ourselves instead of letting it stagnate, delay and die in the same way as the Merseytram project went.

I agree; if you look back over the last 40 years or so, the relevant agencies have made little progress in delivery and that has been due in part to the lack of preparation and basic effort made to back-up the requests for Government fund. Highlighting this is one way to bring about some real progress.

 

[8A Rail]

Its cost was double budgeted £32m vs £16m, it was personal project (chief design engineer was the chief exec of Merseytravel), it underperformed (27% below forecast second year of operation (over 630,000) five years later and only 107,000 were using it for the Airport itself in 2009/10 compared to target of 241,000 (significantly when they reran the forecast to account for the poor bus connections the demand forecast came out at 122,000 which was much closer reality), it eventually passed its opening target in its sixth year), it failed to attract rail services to actually call there without major arm twisting, even now the main WCML service it was built for, the Pendolinos, dont stop there as the platforms are too short and it took five years after opening before a significant proportion of trains passing through began to call. Council had a hard time persuading commercial bus services to use the station and it opened to a lower than budgeted bus frequency. As you said it replaced two existing stations in almost the same spot drawing a mere 30,000 more than the previous stations did in its first full year. It was the fifth worst performer out of 27 studied new station openings between 2000 and 2010.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._data/file/3932/demand-forecasting-report.pdf

So yeah I think im pretty justified in joining the many locals who say it was a white elephant for a myriard of reasons. Its starting to turn around and may prosper in time, The Millenium dome is now a highly successful venue, does it make it no longer a white elephant when it opened, attracting the vast majority of the population of London to visit (seriously, ive seen a statistic in the ballpark 79% of Londoners went to visit it) but hardly anyone from the rest of the country and failing to meet its forecasts or break even? No.

Though theres still issues, they have produced very regular Surface Access Plans to try and address the failings, latest one only this year, and while they are basically advocating the status quo and soft interventions like improved marketing and ticketing they are also admitting some failures, for example under the latest plan they are goingto remove the Northern Rail ticket machine from the airport as it gives a false impression of rail connectivity to visitors.

I am fully aware how much it cost - known vitually from day one after completion all because it was made from renewable / green materials (well in theory). However the rebuilt station was never going to attract Virgin Pendolino's, again from day one (and probably known before it was rebuilt) by the fact there was insufficient space to have platforms to accomodate 9 car Pendo's let alone 11 car Pendo's. Two reasons for that - namely Allerton Junction and the railway bridges over Woolton Road as space between them can only accommodate the existing platforms! So who ever suggested that was telling porkies to begin with!

As for how long it has taken to acheive satisfactory passenger and train levels, well at least it is getting there which is a positive step forward - yes there has been hard work but finally getting there again. How many projects that are proposed and built actually acheive instant results or get near their targets? At the end of the day so called planners always go over the top with "numbers" other wise never get the projects off the ground. The fact of the matter and pardon the expression, there are too many "bull****ters" who will do or say anything to make themselves look good to those in high places or joe public - that is all they are bothered about - clearly there are some in existing or past organisations within our area.

As for the so called Airport link - I agree that was disaster from day one but just got to blame the people who suggested it in the first place. It only would work was a "direct" link to the airport - that was the fatal mistake, even as someone mentioned today, had Plan A / Route One of the proposed Tramway for Liverpool gone to the Airport instead rather than Kirkby than it may of got built but that is another story and mess I'm afraid to say.

I am just curious what would of been your alternative to LSP given the rundown of both Garston and Allerton Stations - regardless they were both dumps so something had to be done. Personally I think the real issue is not LSP itself as I firmly believe it was needed but the actual cost of the station - that is the real issue, had it been cheaper by about half, then I don't think there would be many complaints, but too late now.

 

[Olaf]

However, the two cities are complimentary to each other in many ways but remain rivals in others which explains the sometimes the huge difference in aspirations and development in recent decades leading to the current situation.
[

Yes, it is a concern that the degree of rivalry will hinder progress. The posturing at the initial LRC was was not unexpected. It would help if there was a more coherent effort with LRC even before the wider initiatives.

I'd agree there is an issue which is potentially going to get worse, but I'm not sure there is much more Peel can do when the problem is beyond their borders.
[

If they had expended less effort on some of the fantasy property schemes I have no doubt that the situation would not be as bad as it is now.

The modern container terminal requires very little in the way of logistics facilities ...
[

I think we are going over the same ground again, so I will leave it there.

With a dwindling population and employment opportunities over the last three of four decades it is perhaps easier to consider the reasons why some of these schemes have never progressed but yet regularly get revived and perhaps upgraded. This may not be bad thing, particularly when situations change. With the region slowly beginning to shows signed of economic recovery etc., I feel it is appropriate that these schemes are revived and re-examined and if necessary updated to accommodate today's requirements. The Wapping Tunnel proposals date back to the 1970's but their possible use in linking the City Line to Northern and Wirral Lines would also potentially provide additional capacity for Lime Street Station to enable the station to handle more longer distance services.
[

These projects did not progress because the foundation work was not done, so they had no case when approval was sort. Those schemes that were investigated by NR were all rejected, with I think the exception of the Skelmersdale proposal.

My point is that the agencies in the Merseyside region have performed poorly over the last 40 years or so when it has come to transport projects. There is no benefit in putting forward such proposals unless there is a reasonable understanding of what the strategy and needs are, and the case for them is weaker than it was twenty years ago. This is just an exercise in political positioning, and as it stands these projects will only get funding, as happened in the 1197-2010, through political favour, not on merit.

A number of these schemes have been put forward before, and were rejected because they have no merit. There has been no change in the benefits of the individual proposals, they were purely fantasy, unjustified, linking points on the map without any knowledge of there being a need. So this clearly amounts to nothing more than self-agrandesment to be putting them forward again; in short, a deception of the general public.

This is one that only time will tell.
[

So as it stands, there is no means of justifying the expenditure for a raillink to the airport in the next 30 years.

And presumably the locations served by improved transport links, like the proposed HS3.
[

There generally seems to be a high expectation that HS2 and "HS3" will automatically contribute to an increase in the rate of growth the local economies. However, in terms of real benefit the agglomeration models show that it will be the existing centres that will be the primary beneficiaries. So it is a double-edged sword with principle beneficiaries likely to be London with HS2 and Manchester for "HS3".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That depends upon a number of factors. For example, in the years since 2001 there have been many industrial estates and council estates spring up on Merseyside upon derelict land that would otherwise have been suitable for the Merseytram project.

However, with full DFT backing, the plan could actually become reality due to the increased financial support.

However, at the moment, DFT's priorities lie elsewhere and thus Merseyrail as a PTE will be limited in the amount of options it can pursue.

I genuinely hope that all the current blabber is not merely disguising a white elephant to us, it would be wonderful to see a completed project of the calibre described.

If you look at existing bus usage, are there any corridors that require intense bus utilisation? If so, are those corridors busier now than they were in 2001? This would be a good starting point but I have not seen any such figures.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sometimes, I don't know why I bother posting on here. It's always an endurance when it comes to any topic concerning Liverpool. It's either stupid crap about Scousers or about the city's very right to exist. Is there any other city in the world in such a weird position when it comes to relations with the rest of the country it happens to be located in?


You hang around in different circles than I do then. I know nobody in Liverpool who defers to Manchester..

Unfortunately that is not an uncommon position, and it is why it is so difficult for those outside of the Merseyside political establishment to achieve anything for the area. There is a faction in the area that would like to portray the area as an outcast, but this is nothing more than to satisfy their own political ends and because they are too lazy/incompetent to make the effort to do the necessary work. I think more would be achieved if Merseyside was run from Manchester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just to be clear, Manchester hasnt had any Government financial support for phase 3 of the tram system beyond the annual Local Major Transport Schemes funding which goes to every authority in the country outside London on a per-capita basis. It comes down to the priorities local authority leaders choose. In liverpool Mayor Anderson and previous administrations have decided to spend it on roads to development sites, ports and tunnel upgrades and writing off tunnel loans rather than on rail with the exception of the South Parkway white elephant.

I would also differ on this competition thinking, its something some very vocal locals may feel but its not something the leadership of Liverpool or Manchester actually believe, they dont see rivalry any different to competing for a new distribution warehouse against Warrington, or a new corporate office against Leeds. The local politics of envy dont translate onto the North West regional level. One thing Liverpool could do better however is getting along with its neighbours and making coherent and supported asks rather than examples like Merseytram or who should head the combined authority. Westminster listens when groups of authorities come to it and all say the same thing, not bitch behind each others backs.

I think Liverpool still is a world class city, its just spent too long looking out to sea and pining after glory days and not focusing inland on the nitty gritty of being an English city and engaging with the regional economy (stands to learn something from Portsmouth and Bristol in the regards to developing a balanced regional economy) and that attitude has hurt it over the last forty years. I think this Transport plan and recent willingness to work with Cheshire, West Lancashire and others as equals is a step in the right direction to fixing things and prospering. I just hope it wont get too distracted and take its eye off the ball by the ports schemes, already theyve prioritised it above HS2 realising too late that they should have been campaigning for passenger services before the scheme was announced as every other city in the country had done and even still the political leadership arent arguing strong enough about the passengers services and instead campaigning almost purely for HS2 as capacity relief for extra freight, leaving the passenger campaigning to other groups rather than putting in the effor themselves. And putting the new ports above the existing rail network in the area, the ports are going to overwhelm the freight networks ability to distribute goods at the cost of local passenger rail services.

Well said.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...I am just curious what would of been your alternative to LSP given the rundown of both Garston and Allerton Stations - regardless they were both dumps so something had to be done. Personally I think the real issue is not LSP itself as I firmly believe it was needed but the actual cost of the station - that is the real issue, had it been cheaper by about half, then I don't think there would be many complaints, but too late now.

The basic problem was that it was a pet fantasy scheme of the then administration that was unjustified from the outset based on the then existing and projected usage. From the outset the authority failed to get support from service providers because there was no demand for it.

Nice to have, but it was not essential and distracted from more worthy schemes such as Central station capacity and a link to Skelmersdale to name but two.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Nice to have, but it was not essential and distracted from more worthy schemes such as Central station capacity and a link to Skelmersdale to name but two.

One must remember that Skelmersdale is situated in the area of West Lancashire that is external to the boundaries of the region in question.

 

[fowler9]

By and large, Liverpool does not have the visibility outside of the region that you might think. Like developments elsewhere in the world, Manchester is the reference point for the North West England Region.

Maybe for business but for tourism Liverpool has massive pulling power.

 

[8A Rail]

Maybe for business but for tourism Liverpool has massive pulling power.

I agree there as a tourist destination, which city brings in the most? And this will only increase as time goes by. Dont get me wrong Manchester has its strengths clearly which is financial / business, long it may continue but when it comes to visitor attractions - it does not have the same impact as Liverpool as an international destination and this will only get in better in time. Because of this strange it may seen, Manchester will benefit from it too. As I've stated before, both cities / surrounding area's complement each other for different reasons.

 

[fowler9]

I agree there as a tourist destination, which city brings in the most? And this will only increase as time goes by. Dont get me wrong Manchester has its strengths clearly which is financial / business, long it may continue but when it comes to visitor attractions - it does not have the same impact as Liverpool as an international destination and this will only get in better in time. Because of this strange it may seen, Manchester will benefit from it too. As I've stated before, both cities / surrounding area's complement each other for different reasons.

I would be shocked if it could be proved Manchester gets as much tourist money as Liverpool. It is a lovely place but it really has nothing Liverpool doesn't for the tourist. In fact I would say it has less.

 

[WatcherZero]

Bit of crossover as conferences/business trip demand are classed alongside tourism in the visitor economy metric because of similar requirements and services but in Greater Manchester in 2013 Visitor employed 77,000 FTE staff and generated £5.8bn in revenue while in Merseyside it employes 43,000 FTE staff and generates £3bn of revenue. There are 4.1m annual hotel stays in Manchester and 2m in Merseyside. Liverpool does have a higher ratio of trips to visitor attractions though, 3.8 per capita vs 1.6 in Manchester, though lower business trips 1.2 in Manchester to 0.7 in Liverpool. Birmingham, Edinburgh and Glasgow all have slightly higher visitor economies than Liverpool too though all the cities are pretty close and barely a fifth of Londons.

Merseytravel forecasts demand in Merseyside to rise to 57,000 jobs and £4.3bn turnover by 2023, Visit Manchester forecasts 112,500 jobs and £8bn turnover by 2020.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

. . Liverpool does have a higher ratio of trips to visitor attractions though, 3.8 per capita vs 1.6 in M.

So more people have to go to Manchester whereas more people want to go to Liverpool

 

[WatcherZero]

2.7m x 1.6 per capita = 4.32m tourist visits
1.38m x 3.8 per capita = 5.24m tourist visits

5.24m / 2m = 2.62 visits to attractions per hotel stay
4.32 / 4.1 = 1.05 visits to attractions per hotel stay

(remembering of course the figures for attraction entries include locals and those not staying the night but the ratio to population and hotel stays is the important aspect we are discussing rather than the absoloute number)

So yeah, about a million more attraction entries and they are two and a half times more likely to be on a leisure trip than a business trip.

 

[Wavertreelad]

To pick up on a number of points

I sent the following email to the Echo and Roger Phillips. Roger read this out on his phone in show on Thursday (is on the iPlayer at around 24 mins) but no sign of anything yet in the Echo!

And so, another MerseyTravel plan and more MerseyDrivel!
This organisation which specialises in lack of vision and wasting tax players money has scored yet another own goal.
No mention of extending the Northern line past Hunts Cross re-opening Gateacre/West Derby/Knotty Ash/Clubmoor stations which has apparently been on their wish list for so many decades.
For tens of thousands of Liverpool residents there is no such thing as Merseyrail and we are forced to use unreliable, overpriced bus services rather than fast, efficient rail services.

Liam Robinson, hang your head in shame. Yet again.

Whilst I'd agree Merseytravel's track record for delivering rail schemes is far from brilliant in the past especially if you also include Merseytram. Since it's creation in the late 1960's the only major scheme completed in Merseytravel's time has been the construction of the Wirral loopline, and the modest extensions to the Merseyrail network to Chester, Ellesmere Port and Hunts Cross plus a few new stations and upgrades to other stations. I'm not even sure if the Wirral Loop Line had already been planned by British Rail.

Unlike a tram system which traditionally would serve a relatively small geographic area, the geographic location of Merseyside probably would not suit a tram system and in any event an extensive electrified heavy rail network was already in existence. The problem is then how to develop the network built over a hundred years earlier which even if all the present proposals were constructed tomorrow, would still leave large areas of Merseyside still with no local train service? The starting point is to examine existing unused infrastructure to ascertain if it can be used or adopted for modern and future use. Fortunately, much of this Victorian infrastructure in Liverpool in particular remains in place and the in many cases the trackbed has been protected which probably explains why some items in the proposals are not exactly new.

Now as far extending the Northern Line past Hunt Cross, this is a actually included in the latest proposals but as part of electrifying the route as far as Warrington although I suspect it may end up being part of a larger project as part of the new franchise taking over from Northern Rail/TPE. Sadly this does not include reopening the other stations you mention which are all on the what is known as the outer loop line which in theory could be reopened at least as far the Broadgreen and perhaps even as far as Clubmoor, but I believe beyond here the trackbed may be blocked by a residential development. Strangely, the proposal to reopen stations on the Bootle Branch which runs more or less parallel to the northern section of Outer Loop appears to be a fairly low priority and I can only presume this is because of the use of the Bootle Branch for freight traffic.

I agree; if you look back over the last 40 years or so, the relevant agencies have made little progress in delivery and that has been due in part to the lack of preparation and basic effort made to back-up the requests for Government fund. Highlighting this is one way to bring about some real progress.

I'd agree, and add that I am also fully supportive of the comments elsewhere in these posts that Liverpool City Council have in the past tendered to take a confrontational attitude to successive governments which has also not helped. Thankfully the present administration seems to have adopted a more positive stance and in some instances has suddenly begun to think in commercial terms were this appropriate.

Yes, it is a concern that the degree of rivalry will hinder progress. The posturing at the initial LRC was was not unexpected. It would help if there was a more coherent effort with LRC even before the wider initiatives.

I'd totally agree.

If they had expended less effort on some of the fantasy property schemes I have no doubt that the situation would not be as bad as it is now..

Peels empire is based mainly on property in and around port areas of which there are vast amounts in the north west of England alone, let alone elsewhere in the UK. I am assuming that that as far as the North West is concerned you are referring to the proposed Wirral and Liverpool Waters schemes on which little construction work has started but these are schemes which are likely to take 30 to even 50 years to complete so the current lack of activity is not perhaps unsurprising. As owners of the Port of Liverpool and Manchester Ship Canal Peel owns a vast area of land either side this 30 odd mile corridor and it is almost inevitable in these economic times that some schemes are going to materialise quicker than others. The only suitable place a deep sea container port could be constructed in the region is riverside of the existing Seaforth terminal which has been open since the early 1970's. The present congestion on the Church Road/Dunningsbridge Road access route is largely as a result of Peels marketing of the port since it purchased it in 2005, but at the moment is not critical and is very unlikely to result in the port loosing business as a result at this stage but it is something that I agree will require attention in the coming years. I believe it is EU policy anyway that the port operator is obliged to make a contribution to landside infrastructure, which is why the Port of Felixstowe, Southampton and London Gateway all make a charge on laden import containers, something which Liverpool has so far decided not to implement.

These projects did not progress because the foundation work was not done, so they had no case when approval was sort. Those schemes that were investigated by NR were all rejected, with I think the exception of the Skelmersdale proposal

My point is that the agencies in the Merseyside region have performed poorly over the last 40 years or so when it has come to transport projects. There is no benefit in putting forward such proposals unless there is a reasonable understanding of what the strategy and needs are, and the case for them is weaker than it was twenty years ago. This is just an exercise in political positioning, and as it stands these projects will only get funding, as happened in the 1197-2010, through political favour, not on merit.

A number of these schemes have been put forward before, and were rejected because they have no merit. There has been no change in the benefits of the individual proposals, they were purely fantasy, unjustified, linking points on the map without any knowledge of there being a need. So this clearly amounts to nothing more than self-agrandesment to be putting them forward again; in short, a deception of the general public. ..

If I remember correctly the proposals mention that the proposals have been compiled with the assistance of Network Rail, but still need to fully explored and costed. Until the plans are either adopted or cancelled presumably with some reasons being stated publicly, we should take the proposals on face value, but of course that is not to say they should not be open to question.

As far as rekindling previously rejected schemes, this really does depend on whether the circumstances have changed or not to verify if the business case is sufficient to justify implementation. I for one would interested to hear of any alternative proposals to those put forward by Merseytravel.

So as it stands, there is no means of justifying the expenditure for a raillink to the airport in the next 30 years..

I think it's probably too early to completely rule a scheme as there are plenty of other factors that could influence a decision, but I certainly would not expect to see it near the top of any approved list of projects in the immediate future.

There generally seems to be a high expectation that HS2 and "HS3" will automatically contribute to an increase in the rate of growth the local economies. However, in terms of real benefit the agglomeration models show that it will be the existing centres that will be the primary beneficiaries. So it is a double-edged sword with principle beneficiaries likely to be London with HS2 and Manchester for "HS3"..

I would not disagree with this, but as they used to say with the National Lottery, if you ain't in you cannot win it. Hence the importance to Liverpool.

 

[fowler9]

When it comes to tourism those stats really don't surprise me. I think Manchesters figures are somewhat inflated by people having to fly there. When Manchester United have home games in European competitions we often see a large increase in people staying in Liverpool but having to fly in to Manchester and of course go there for the game.

 

[WatcherZero]

That would by definition be tourism and leisure travel?

 

[Scouse77]

One thing that puzzles me about the Hunts Cross area is that the Merseyrail service has to cut across the CLC into it's platform. Surely it would've been better to re-align the CLC to use the island platform and send the Merseyrail service into the current CLC-Liverpool bound platform. That'd eliminate the crossing move and increase capacity for both operators.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

When it comes to tourism those stats really don't surprise me. I think Manchester's figures are somewhat inflated by people having to fly there. When Manchester United have home games in European competitions we often see a large increase in people staying in Liverpool but having to fly in to Manchester and of course go there for the game.

That particular example that you quote is now in a reversal of situation with the rise of Liverpool FC and the demise of Manchester United, European club football competition wise for the first time in a long period of time, but perhaps the name of Manchester City is now becoming better known abroad as compensation.

 

[Holly]

I agree there as a tourist destination, which city brings in the most? And this will only increase as time goes by. Dont get me wrong Manchester has its strengths clearly which is financial / business, long it may continue but when it comes to visitor attractions - it does not have the same impact as Liverpool as an international destination and this will only get in better in time. Because of this strange it may seen, Manchester will benefit from it too. As I've stated before, both cities / surrounding area's complement each other for different reasons.

One reason why some kind of aerial light rail/tramway or PRT would be best to connect Liverpool Airport to South Parkway Station. Carefully planned it could become iconic/touristy/scenic as well serving air museum and hotel.

 

[martynbristow]

One thing that puzzles me about the Hunts Cross area is that the Merseyrail service has to cut across the CLC into it's platform. Surely it would've been better to re-align the CLC to use the island platform and send the Merseyrail service into the current CLC-Liverpool bound platform. That'd eliminate the crossing move and increase capacity for both operators.

Common sense isn't it!
It would also more importantly mean the Liverpool Central trains are closer to the entrance

 

[8A Rail]

That particular example that you quote is now in a reversal of situation with the rise of Liverpool FC and the demise of Manchester United, European club football competition wise for the first time in a long period of time, but perhaps the name of Manchester City is now becoming better known abroad as compensation.

The LFC fan base is world wide, probably as big as MUFC therefore are numerous fans coming from abroad to watch the game. With LFC, you do find a lot of Scandanavian fans coming over with plenty of Irish people too - (who support both teams) for the normal home games let alone European games. Some LFC fans arrive at Manchester Airport, so it works both ways hey.

One reason why some kind of aerial light rail/tramway or PRT would be best to connect Liverpool Airport to South Parkway Station. Carefully planned it could become iconic/touristy/scenic as well serving air museum and hotel.

Air Museum? Must be the best kept sercet in Merseyside then?

 

[fowler9]

Common sense isn't it!
It would also more importantly mean the Liverpool Central trains are closer to the entrance

I think that is more down to the situation when the Northern Line moved back out to Hunts Cross.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The LFC fan base is world wide, probably as big as MUFC therefore are numerous fans coming from abroad to watch the game. With LFC, you do find a lot of Scandanavian fans coming over with plenty of Irish people too - (who support both teams) for the normal home games let alone European games. Some LFC fans arrive at Manchester Airport, so it works both ways hey.


Air Museum? Must be the best kept sercet in Merseyside then?

There is a small collection of airframes including a Bristol Britannia outside the old airport. It will take a miracle for any of them to fly again. Ha ha.

 

[Gareth]

I think more would be achieved if Merseyside was run from Manchester.

And that settles it. You're a crank.

 

[pablo]

And that settles it. You're a crank.

I don't know about that. I can see his point and I'm a scouser, albeit long time lapsed.

 

[Gareth]

As somebody who was born and has lived in Liverpool all my life, and worked in the City most of my working life, there is nothing more I would like see is the City of Liverpool being the dominant city of the North of England. However, at this moment in time the truth of the matter is that Manchester is in that place in many spheres for a whole variety of reasons including central and local government policy over many decades, it's more central location which has led to better communications and geography, the concentration of national media in the area, the list is endless. However, as others have also observed the two cities compliment each other but that does not mean that Liverpool cannot and should not challenge Manchester on a commercial basis for a share of the commercial and public sector investment. Manchester has millions spent on funding their tram system over recent years, now perhaps once Merseytravel's proposals have been properly assessed and costed, it is time that some funds are diverted to the other end of the East Lancs which has seen little investment at the same level in public transport infrastructure for years.

Why would you like nothing better than Liverpool to be "dominant city of the North of England"? What a twee accolade. I'm not remotely interested in Liverpool 'dominating' Burnley or places as far off as Washington. In fact, the whole concept of 'the North of England' is fairly artificial. Liverpool's closer to many places in Wales and the Midlands than it is to many parts of Oop Northland. My issue is Liverpool being sent to the chopping block just because it doesn't fit in with the most centralized country in the Western world's 'nations & regions' policy which dictates that there only needs to be one notable settlement per artificially-bounded region.

"Manchester is 30-40 years ahead of Liverpool" - that is an immense statement you said and I don't know how you can even begin to qualify it in a serious manner. Preferential treatment by a distant and statist central government nor the presence of trams (standard in most continental cities of any size) go anywhere near backing up that statement. It makes me wonder where in the world could sensibly be considered 30-40 years behind Manchester. I though maybe Chișinău or Ouagadougou but even that seems a little harsh.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't know about that. I can see his point and I'm a scouser, albeit long time lapsed.

Don't know what 'long time lapsed' means but it can't be a good thing if you agree with Olaf. It was obviously a troll comment too which makes it all the more baffling.

Strange one, pablo.

 

[HSTEd]

Liverpool might not have trams but it does have a fully functioning metro system......
And you might go on and on about how a centralised 'statist' (even though governments for 30 years have been anything but) government did it for Liverpool, but it didn't.
Liverpool did it for Liverpool, failure to adapt to deindustrialisation and containerisation did it for Liverpool - and only massive government spending in the 90s saved it from the fate that would otherwise have awaited it.
The fate that has befallen Detroit, squalor and abandonment.

 

[Gareth]

Liverpool might not have trams but it does have a fully functioning metro system......
And you might go on and on about how a centralised 'statist' (even though governments for 30 years have been anything but) government did it for Liverpool, but it didn't.
Liverpool did it for Liverpool, failure to adapt to deindustrialisation and containerisation did it for Liverpool - and only massive government spending in the 90s saved it from the fate that would otherwise have awaited it.
The fate that has befallen Detroit, squalor and abandonment.

Oh man, anything but decentralized government and massive spending in Liverpool in the 90s. Okay, sure.

 

[WatcherZero]

Hes got a point Michael Heseltines MDC spent £450m of public money and £650m of private money in Liverpool in the 80's and 90's (not inflation adjusted figures) and it was receiving 100m Euros a year from the EU as a deprived region (Westminster directs funds) since 2000. Of the £3.4bn of EU funding and £4bn of private match funding that went in the North West region between 2000 and 2012 55% or £1.85bn of government funding went to Merseyside, over one third of projects were in Merseyside while the next highest recipient was region wide projects with 20%, 15% each went to Manchester and Lancashire with the remainder to Cumbria.

 

[Gareth]

Actually, he doesn't. However, I don't have the time to put it straight now as it requires a detailed response and I must go out. Will try and get back to you tonight or some point tomorrow.

Ciao for now.

 

[edwin_m]

I think that is more down to the situation when the Northern Line moved back out to Hunts Cross.

Possibly. I wonder if it is a relic of the previous route to Gateacre or of the ambition to extend back there or beyond. Looking at Bing there is now what looks like a relay room blocking any eastward extension of the Merseyrail track. If that was there at the time of the re-extension then it would probably explaing the layout as those things are expensive to move.

 

[Wavertreelad]

To Clarify the my earlier comment about "Dominant City", it was meant in relation to the earlier post by Olaf below

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olaf View Post

It's not matter of perception, it is a fact that Manchester is the principle city and international gateway to the north of England..

"I doubt there are very few from this end of the East Lancs that would not agree that Manchester is the principle city for the North of England, although there could be a entirely separate debate on how this situation came about which is not for this thread. However, the two cities are complimentary to each other in many ways but remain rivals in others which explains the sometimes the huge difference in aspirations and development in recent decades leading to the current situation. ."

In retrospect perhaps my post should have stated "A more Dominant City" in the meaning that having two cities of similar stature and size in the same region might have lead to a stronger economy in the North of England and less centralisation on Manchester and it's infrastructure. Now I would like to make it very clear that I am not suggesting Manchester should have taken any different course, rather that Liverpool should have followed Manchester's lead many decades ago, instead of the individual and confrontational approach it often adopted. This approach in policy and public outlook by many has allowed Manchester and the surrounding authorities to prosper to a greater level than parts of Liverpool, although there are of course social issues in parts of both cities and surrounding boroughs. The point I was trying to make was that in some respects the benefits of adopting positive attitudes has resulted in the Manchester region now enjoying the benefits of these policies, taking for example the Salford Docks and surrounding area. Compare parts of this to the Anfield, Everton, Kirkdale and the area surrounding Trafalgar Dock north to Sandon Dock which are little changed from the 1970's or 1980 in terms of development. These locations all lost their original purpose about the same time, and yes there are signs of redevelopment in Liverpool in these areas, but compare what has been done in Salford is I believe a fair comparison, although I must admit some of the developments are not to my taste.

As I mentioned previously I don't believe trams would have been a suitable for Merseyside, but I would agree that they could work in parts of Liverpool. However, apart from perhaps Birkenhead and Wallasey, there could be little justification for extending a tram system much beyond Liverpool's border.

Just picking up one HSTed point

Liverpool might not have trams but it does have a fully functioning metro system......
And you might go on and on about how a centralised 'statist' (even though governments for 30 years have been anything but) government did it for Liverpool, but it didn't.
Liverpool did it for Liverpool, failure to adapt to deindustrialisation and containerisation did it for Liverpool - and only massive government spending in the 90s saved it from the fate that would otherwise have awaited it.
The fate that has befallen Detroit, squalor and abandonment.

Like most port cites/towns in the UK Liverpool never had a large amount of industry and most developments were in neighbouring boroughs and town, except perhaps in the Speke area. The rehousing schemes of the 1960's and early 1970's lead to many Liverpool families moving to the outskirts of the City or the new towns of Kirkby, Skelmersdale and Runcorn. With the rundown of the conventional docks at the same time on both sides of the Mersey this left to large parts of the surrounding areas with a high number of unemployed workers which had little prospect of finding employment eventually requiring both the local authorities and government to poor huge sums of public funds in the area to support the families concerned and kick start the economy. Now I am not suggesting that Liverpool was or is unique but the consequences were to haunt the City to this day.

One final point I would again highlight, is that at the time Seaforth opened the terminal was one of the most advanced in the world, and it was designed to handle ships of up to Panamax size, ie the largest type of ship that could pass through the Panama Canal locks, which are only just being currently enlarged and which are due to brought into action next year the same time as Liverpool2 comes on stream. The theory back then was until these locks are enlarged, the US East and Gulf Ports would largely be restricted to Panamax size vessels. What nobody expected was the vast advances in containership design and capacity increases. in 1970 the largest container ship was about 1400 teu, with Panamax capacity at about 5000 teu. By contrast Seaforth max size is about 4000 teu, depending on the draft - about 12.5 mtrs whilst today the ships involved in the Europe - Far East trade in about 18000 teu. What also changed is shipping arranging their schedules to sail particularly from Asia to the US East and Gulf Coasts, resulting in ships of up to 8000 teu being used. On the North Atlantic trade in which Liverpool has a major share the maximum capacity is also about 8000 teu, but not all ports can accept these vessels fully laden. With most containers moving inland for loading or unloading invariably much of the "dockers" traditional vanished almost overnight as each trade was gradally containerised through the 1970's and 1980's. Unfortunately, historic working practices were never tackled and shipping lines soon started to desert the port in favour of cheaper alternatives like Felixstowe, despite the higher haulage costs. It was only when these practices were tackled and systems were improved, together with a change of ownership and increasing fuel costs was the port able to start attracting new services and the basis of the development of the Liverpool2 terminal.

 

[Bevan Price]

Unfortunately that is not an uncommon position, and it is why it is so difficult for those outside of the Merseyside political establishment to achieve anything for the area. There is a faction in the area that would like to portray the area as an outcast, but this is nothing more than to satisfy their own political ends and because they are too lazy/incompetent to make the effort to do the necessary work. I think more would be achieved if Merseyside was run from Manchester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No thanks - we don't need misguided busways.

 

[HSTEd]

Oh man, anything but decentralized government and massive spending in Liverpool in the 90s. Okay, sure.

As WatcherZero has noted Merseyside received huge piles of money from the EU and the MDC amongst other sources.

And decentralised government works both ways - decentralised spending powers and decentralised taxation.
How much tax do you think you could raise in Liverpool? Enough to cover all these things you say you deserve?

This is why cities in the states regularly go bankrupt.
Liverpool's lifeblood was its docks - and its docks were rendered obsolete by the invention of steel boxes 8' x 8'6" x 20'