Trains Create Economic Growth and are Viable

It is generally accepted that railways create economic growth and that they are viable. The problem is that many railways used, and still do, accounting systems based on ticket prices, which made them "unviable". They were viable as the economic growth they created soaked into the land emerging as land values. This wealth was not captured to feed back to fund the rail networks. Hence many realistically viable railways closed down due to a flawed accounting system, taking only ticket sales as the metric for viability.

In the USA the motor corporations bought viable rail networks and closed them down to sell motor vehicles. The LA tram system bought by GM is the glaring despicable example - the Keystone Cops were filmed on it a lot. In the UK, the road transport lobby was influential in the Tory party who in a few short years closed down 1/3 of the UKs railways in the early 1960s. Since then little was modernized - modernization has been far to slow. Electrification has not made a great impact in the total rail network. The oldest inter-city railway line in the world, the 1830 Liverpool-Manchester line, is just being electrified, which will be 185 years after opening. Every study since the 1960s closures condemned it, with all stating full modernization.

Trains in the UK are increasing in passenger usage and the system is now bursting, requiring more rail lines, stations and trains. There is (was until Cameron stopped rail investment) a scheme to open up closed lines, to great success.

The example of the London Underground Jubilee Line extension - £3.4 billion to build and the land values around it rose by £14 billion. Before Crossrail in London is open land values around the under construction line rose. Did land values elsewhere drop as a result of the lines? No.

Commuter-Rail

Rapid-transit Commuter Rail, with its radial lines from the city centre, enabled people from the outer suburbs, and surrounding small towns, of cities to access the jobs in the city centre. In the specific case of Liverpool, this contributed to the decline of the inner-cities, as people moved to greener, and cleaner, places to live.

In the case of commuter-rail, and large through roads, as opposed to a meshed metro, there was severe negative affects as commuter rail contributed to inner-city blight.

The authorities that allowed the construction were unaware at the time. OK, the outer reaches of cities were supposed to be drawn into the city. I doubt they were expecting the city to be drawn out. In Liverpool's case The electrification of commuter-rail lines in the early 1900s drew people away from the inner-cities. The new electric trains were very fast and clean. At the same time large boulevards were built radiating out from the city and a comprehensive tram system was built with trams in the central reservation - John Lennon lived on one of the boulevards. Trams could get people out of the centre pretty fast as well, but not as far, or as fast, as commuter-rail. The clean running, electric, comprehensive tram network closed down in 1957 for some inexplicable reason. The opening of the under-river Mersey road tunnel in the early 1930s, added again to the decline of the inner-city districts as the middle classes moved out, with the poor working class remaining.

The Liverpool inner-cities were a mixture of working and middles classes. Whole areas of near 200 year old Georgian houses were demolished. OK, some working class houses needed bulldozing for sure, but the people who lived in the inner-cities were disenfranchised. The Georgian houses still are being demolished singularly, as absent landowners allow them to rot. Seeing the success in the USA and Hong Kong, the city was denied to implement Land Valuation Taxation.

Rail overall creates economic growth but sometimes shifts wealth from one area to another. Thought out properly, rail does overall create economic growth with no negative effect on any district. Implemented incorrectly rail can have a negative affect on parts of a community. That was the case with Liverpool and also many north American cities:


The outer parts prospered while the inner-cities slumped.
Visitors see the now ugly inner-city districts easily as they circle the city centre.
The city then gets a negative image from outsiders,
The city image suffers
Overall Investment tails off
The city declines


That is all too famiiar.

In hindsight a fully meshed interconnected metro network, rather than radial tracked commuter-rail from the centre outwards, would not have resulted in the extensive inner-city decline. A meshed rapid-transit urban rail metro would have knitted the community together rather than being divisive.

The rails weren't initially built to serve the city or its residents. They were built to shovel money into the pockets of land in suburbia and green fielsd, raising the value exponetially as the tracks ran through the land.

The commuter-rail was also meant to get people to work in the centre to make money for companies. The commuter-rail is a tool of the commercial sector, not a mechansism to improve the lives of the population. The railway magnets built the lines in the 1800s and no doubt made killings on increased land values. If people use the commuter-rail for other uses then that is their bonus as far as the railway builders or owers are concerned - the lines are radial in a star formation. A meshed metro network enables people to seamlessly travel from district to district, like the superb Paris Metro - it serves all the people, and business, all over the city with most of the metro being underground. People use it like they would use a bus it is so convenient.

Liverpool's commuter-rail lines were built in the 1800s. They were electrified in the early 1900s. In the 1970s they were networked together being joined in the city centre. Yet, as late as the 1970s when new tunnels were being bored under Liverpool's city centre, there was no move to create a metro network extending to the inner-city districts. The inner-city districts continued to decline to total collapse, soon after the networking of the commuter-rail lines. The merging of the commuter rail lines made no difference to the lives of the inner-city inhabitants.

Liverpool can have a Full Metro revitilising the Inner-Cities

Ironically, the Liverpool region has countless disused, mothballed, trackbed and tunnels, some of the oldest tunnels in the world are under the city, the 1929 Wapping tunnel was the first bored under a metropolis - about 4 to 5 miles of tunnel with disused underground stations, while the city slowly gets clogged with cars and large pieces of the city cut away to accommodate ugly soul destroying roads.

Recommissioning these tracks and tunnels would convert the commuter-rail into a economic growth meshed, gridlike, metro network. Central government would not put up the cash to do it. Economist Fred Harrison mentions this point mentioning Liverpool, in Ricardo's Law, that billions are poured into London's rail infrastructure while a fraction of that would benefit greatly Liverpool expanding its urban rail network. Liverpool could probably pay for its own rail expansion/metro creation by using Land Valuation Taxation, and Liverpool's taxpayers alleviated from the cost of building CrossRail in London.

Fred Harrison explained the financial negative affect of rail, and it went something like this....

Railways create economic growth. This crystallizes into land values. If this was recycled back into funding the nations rail infrastructure everyone would share in the net gains. But it is not. The current laws dictates that this surplus income from land values is delivered as windfall gains to the landowners.

Thus the transport sector is transformed into a sophisticated mechanism for redistribution income away from low-income taxpayers who fund infrastructure to asset rich people.

This is how the trick is perform in relation to railways:


Government tax on people's wages, their effort - and sales, what they buy
Subsidies given to railways using community taxes
Strategically located land rise in value because of the railway
Windfall gains pocketed by landowners
Shortfall in funds to renew rail infrastructure
Government raises rates of Taxes on Wages and Sales.
Go to No. 1 above and the cycle starts all over again.


The Enterprise Economy Implodes.
What was meant to be a benefit to the community acts against large sections of them.

is there or will there ever be enough political will locally to push for the same level of investment in Liverpool's infrastructure as London now enjoys.

As long as we are a London centric country, we are not going to ever see anything like cross rail....perhaps we will get some crumbs to fix stations such as Central, however I fear this will only happen as the result of a terrible accident on the line due to overcrowding and general decay of the existing stations. :nuts:

Put it this way, if Liverpool Central was actually Westminster central, i think it would have been sorted out comprehensively quite a while ago.

is there or will there ever be enough political will locally to push for the same level of investment in Liverpool's infrastructure as London now enjoys.

As long as we are a London centric country, we are not going to ever see anything like cross rail....perhaps we will get some crumbs to fix stations such as Central, however I fear this will only happen as the result of a terrible accident on the line due to overcrowding and general decay of the existing stations. :nuts:

Put it this way, if Liverpool Central was actually Westminster central, i think it would have been sorted out comprehensively quite a while ago.

Firstly the city has to understand what were the factors that created gradual inner-city decay and eventual collapse. Commuter-rail overall created economic growth for the city region, however it was instrumental in inner-city decay, shifting wealth from one area to another.

American economics professor Mason Gaffney supports this by stating:

When rail line A raises land values it accesses, some of that gain is taken from line B, it is true.


The net result, however, is positive for society, because:

Some of the gain is net
More land is accessed overall, raising the marginal productivity of both labor and capital, and their rewards

It is something like discovering a new continent


I don't think the city realises this. The inner-cities are bottomless pits for public money to cope with the social problems created. Now what would create further economic growth and assist in regenerating the inner-cities? Well as commuter-rail doesn't help at all, expanding the commuter-rail to form a proper meshed metro would draw-in the disenfanchised inner-cities. Liverpool can do this very easily as the city has disused rail infrastructure that can extend to draw-in the inner-cities. In fact even the social aspect can be quantified to a degree - they know how much overall they are pouring into them in welfare payments, and other aspects like crime fighting, creating public funded meaningless jobs, etc.

The city has to draw up a case and put figures down, then present them. Putting forward how much public money would be saved from being poured into the the inner-city bottomless pit. They may be surprised that when the cuts stop they may get the morphing of Merseyrail into a metro accepted. The electrification of the Bootle Branch line and the lines to Huyton, St.Helens will assist the case.

Metros really do create economic growth. One accessing the inner-city districts will aid in regeneration and keep the districts self supporting giving them back their dignity Money well spent.

Agreed completely. A great vision sadly lacking in any of the political classes with any responsibilty for Liverpool.

about 4 to 5 miles of tunnel with disused underground stations.

???????????????????

Trains Create Economic Growth and are Viable

It is generally accepted that railways create economic growth and that they are viable. The problem is that many railways used accounting systems based on ticket prices, which made them "unviable". They were viable as the economic growth they created soaked into the land emerging as land values. This wealth was not captured to feed back to fund the rail networks. Hence many realistically viable railways closed down due to a flawed accounting system, taking only ticket sales as the metric for viability.

In the USA the motor corporations bought viable rail networks and closed them down to sell motor vehicles. The LA tram system bought by GM is the glaring despicable example - the Keystone Cops were filmed on it a lot. In the UK, the road transport lobby was influential in the Tory party who in a few short years closed down 1/3 of the UKs railways in the early 1960s. Since then little was modernized - modernization has been far to slow. Electrification has not made a great impact in the total rail network. The oldest inter-city railway line in the world, the 1830 Liverpool-Manchester line, is just being electrified, which will be 185 years after opening. Every study since the 1960s closures condemned it, with all stating full modernization.

Trains in the UK are increasing in passenger usage and the system is now bursting, requiring more rail lines, stations and trains. There is (was until Cameron stopped rail investment) a scheme to open up closed lines, to great success.

The example of the London Underground Jubilee Line extension - £3.4 billion to build and the land values around it rose by £14 billion. Crossrail in London is not open yet, but land values around the under construction line is rising. Did land values elsewhere drop as a result of the lines? No.

Commuter-Rail

Rapid-transit Commuter Rail enabled people from the outer suburbs, and surrounding small towns, of cities to access the jobs in the city centre. In the specific case of Liverpool, this contributed to the decline of the inner-cities, as people moved to greener, and cleaner, places to live.

In the case of commuter-rail, and large through roads, as opposed to a meshed metro, it was not a good thing as commuter rail contributed to inner-city blight.

The authorities that allowed the construction were naive at the time. OK the outer reaches of cities were supposed to be drawn into the city. I doubt they were expecting the city to be drawn out. In Liverpool's case The electrification of commuter-rail lines in the early 1900s drew people away from the inner-cities. The new electric trains were very fast and clean. At the same time large boulevards were built radiating out from the city and a comprehensive tram system was built with trams in the central reservation - John Lennon lived on one of the boulevards. Trams could get people out of the centre pretty fast as well, but not as far, or as fast, as commuter-rail. The clean running, electric, comprehensive tram network closed down in 1957for some inexplicable reason. The opening of the under-river Mersey road tunnel in the early 1930s, added again.

The Liverpool inner-cities were a mixture of working and middles classes. Whole areas of near 200 year old Georgian houses were demolished. OK some working class houses needed bulldozing for sure, but the people who lived in the inner-cities were disenfranchised. The Georgian houses still are being demolished singularly, as absent landowners allow them to rot. I would not say that was a GOOD thing. Seeing the success in the USA, the city was denied to implement Land Valuation Taxation.

Rail overall creates economic growth but sometimes shifts wealth from one area to another. Thought out properly, rail does overall create economic growth. Implemented incorrectly rail can have a negative affect on a community. In Liverpool's case, and many north American cities as well:


The outer parts prospered while the inner-cities slumped.
Visitors see the now ugly inner-cities more easily as they circle the city centre.
The city then gets a negative image from outsiders,
The city image suffers
overall Investment tails off
The city declines


That is all too famiiar.

In hindsight a fully meshed interconnected metro network, rather than radial tracked commuter-rail from the centre outwards, probably would not have resulted in the extensive inner-city decline. A meshed rapid-transit urban rail metro would have knitted the community together rather than being divisive.

But the rails weren't initially built to serve the city or its residents. They were built to shovel money into suburban landowners' pockets.

The commuter-rail was also meant to get people to work in the centre to make money for companies. The commuter-rail is a tool of the commercial sector. The railway magnets built the lines in the 1800s and no doubt made killings on increased land values. If people use the commuter-rail for other uses then that is their bonus - the lines are radial. A meshed metro network enables people to seamlessly travel from district to district, like the superb Paris Metro - it serves all the people all over the city with most being underground. People use it like they would use a bus it is so convenient.

Liverpool can have a Full Metro revitilising the Inner-Cities

Ironically, the Liverpool region has countless disused, mothballed, trackbed and tunnels, some of the oldest tunnels in the world are under the city, the 1929 Wapping tunnel was the first bored under a metropolis - about 4 to 5 miles of tunnel with disused underground stations, while the city slowly gets clogged with cars and large pieces of the city cut away to accommodate ugly soul destroying roads.

Recommissioning these tracks and tunnels would convert the commuter-rail into a economic growth meshed, gridlike, metro network. Central government would not put up the cash to do it. Economist Fred Harrison mentions this point with Liverpool, in Ricardo's Law, that billions are poured into London's rail infrastructure while a fraction of that would benefit greatly Liverpool expanding its urban rail network. Liverpool could probably pay for its own rail expansion/metro creation by using Land Valuation Taxation, and Liverpool's taxpayers alleviated from the cost of building CrossRail in London.

Fred Harrison explained the financial negative affect of rail, and it went something like this....

Railways create economic growth. This crystallizes into land values. If this was recycled back into funding the nations rail infrastructure everyone would share in the net gains. But it is not. The current laws dictates that this surplus income from land values is delivered as windfall gains to the landowners.

Thus the transport sector is transformed into a sophisticated mechanism for redistribution income away from low-income taxpayers who fund infrastructure to asset rich people.

This is how the trick is perform in relation to railways:


Government tax on people's wages, their effort - and sales, what they buy
Subsidies given to railways using community taxes
Strategically located land rise in value because of the railway
Windfall gains pocketed by landowners
Shortfall in funds to renew rail infrastructure
Government raises rates of Taxes on Wages and Sales.
Go to No. 1 above and the cycle starts all over again.


The Enterprise Economy Implodes.
What was meant to be a benefit to the community acts against large sections of them.

Any minge?

???????????????????

Dingle is fully underground. St.James is under ground level in a cutting. Byrom Street, near the museum, was a service station for rail workers and is in a deep cutting. The original Edge Hill station is under ground level in a deep cutting.

http://i55.tinypic.com/n4gv3t.jpg

So Romania1, some very good points, so what are you going to do about it? why not put it the council etc and ask them??

Dingle station exits to a cliff face...
St James Stations is on the development radar already...

The only changes to the infrastructure we're going to see in the near future are new rolling stock and possibly St James station being brought back. In addition, hopefully the current Merseyrail franchise holders will continue the excellent progress they've made thus far in improving signage with cosmetic changes and really giving the system a mini-metro like feel.

That sounds like an official statement.

Dingle station exits to a cliff face...
St James Stations is on the development radar already...


Dingle can easily have a gantry to take it to ground level beneath the Northern Line beneath the 1/2 mile tunnel portal. Dingle station is complete and in an inner-city district needing a big econmomic growth lift.

St James Station is ear marked now it is a through station and has been for decades. It is still closed.


The only changes to the infrastructure we're going to see in the near future are new rolling stock and possibly St James station being brought back. In addition, hopefully the current Merseyrail franchise holders will continue the excellent progress they've made thus far in improving signage with cosmetic changes and really giving the system a mini-metro like feel.

The cuts will see no to little improvements. Cameron announced no new urban rail for 4 years. Liverpool FCs new stadium and the current elecrification project of the Bootle Branch may bring that line back to use despiter the cuts, even if only one stadium station is built. Matchday trains from Southport to Lime Street via the stadium can be run. As well as Southport to St,.Helns/Wigan via the stadium station. In normal use Lime St to Bootle would probably bring in more usage.

Merseyrail is not a metro, but Commuter-Rail which has a negative affect on the inner city districts. Although in parts it is Metro like, more in Birkenhead. The city centre could be used more like a metro with pedestrian access at both ends of stations. No one uses Merseyrail to get around the centre because of poor access points to stations.

Ideally, the city and Merseytravel should get together to extend Merseyrail to a metro, especially into the inner-city districts - some do have disused stations - where it is desparately needed. The city can make matters better by insisting developments are at stations, making the stations the district centres, as you see in London. Liverpool city pretends it doesn't have an extensive urban rail network. It is out of focus.

Looking ahead after the cuts. The Ege Hill Spur is greatly needed. Edge Hill station is in a deprived inner-city district, yet does nothing for the district as the current station is not on a through line. Having a new station in the Cavendish Cutting at the Wapping Tunnel portal at Edge Hill, will improve that area if it is connected to the whole Merseyrail network. The city then has to make that station a centre of any developments to maximise the economic growth effect of the station.

There wont be a new LFC stadium.

There wont be a new LFC stadium.

Prey tell. They have planning permission and cleared site.

In London, the Arsenal FCs new stadium has been over 98% full in 6 years. Unbelievable. Unprecedented. Rapid-transit rail make that possible, as Arsenal have 27 rapid-transit rail platforms around the new stadium.

http://tinyurl.com/26rfyy6

Rival club Tottenham, are to build a new stadium. They wanted to occupy the under construction Olympic stadium after the Olympics. But.. They wanted to engage in all this cost:

Pull down the 80,000 stadium directly after the 2012 games
Extend the Crystal Palace athletics stadium in South London to give athletics a major venue.
Built on the Olympic stadium site a new high revenue generating dedicated football stadium.

The Olympic stadium is on the underground CrossRail junction. The success of Arsenal FC with 27 rapid-transit rail platforms around the stadium is the impetus. So much so, Tottenham would spend an amazing amount of capital up front to achieve the near 100% attendances guananteeing success.

So rapid-transit rail can make a difference when done right as Arsenal have proven. It also keeps the 1000s of nusiance fans away from the local community, and keeps polluting cars off the roads.

LFC have planning permission for 60,000. To get to over 60,000 capacity, which they have hinted they want 75,000, LFC have to contribute to a station on the Bootle Branch line. This is now much easier as the line is being electrified. It also runs through populated districts

It is best LFC and EFC move to sites on the mothballed eastern section of the Outer Loop getting that section commissioned forming the full city loop after 35 years of waiting. That will gurantee success for both clubs, adopting the proven Arsenal model. But so far no one is pushing the best solution, as they are blind to what is happening with rapid-transit rail in the capital. One that will create economic growth on the districts on the lines and the city as whole. The full Outer Loop will make the commuter-rail Merseyrail move more towards a metro as a bonus.

You will find out soon enough.

You will find out soon enough.

Putting on hold because of the CC and cancelling are two different things. I hope they are choosing a better site, like on the Outer Loop.

Putting on hold because of the CC and cancelling are two different things. I hope they are chosing a better site, like on the Outer Loop.


Here we go with the "it aint over till the fat lady sings!" argument. Are Gordon and Mandy going to personally step in to ensure it happens like they did with Destination Kirkby?

Liverpool and Everton won't be building new stadiums, they are staying in Walton and Anfield respectively so deduct them from your arguments for new rail on an outer loop please.

The ship has well and truly sailed in this city in terms of new build stadia infastructure. It aint happening.

See John W Henry's comments on redevelopment.

Putting on hold because of the CC and cancelling are two different things. I hope they are chosing a better site, like on the Outer Loop.

Neither.

Until officially otherwise, LFC are building on Stanley Park. Two Evertonians going on rumour and stating otherwise holds no water.

By definition and logic until its official its a rumour, but you will find I am right. :)

Dingle can easily have a gantry to take it to ground level beneath the Northern Line beneath the 1/2 mile tunnel portal. Dingle station is complete and in an inner-city district needing a big econmomic growth lift.



Can't believe I'm going to rise to one of John's provocations but...

You clearly don't have an engineering background. Do you realise that the relatively gentle slope after leaving Moorfields heading towards Sandhills causes the 508's grief? True the rolling stock is to be renewed at some point but light/heavy rail vehicles don't do steep gradients. You'd need a furnicular to get up the gantry you're proposing unless it was a mile long.

Also, how do you propose to connect it up to the network? It's a terminus situated halfway along the Northern line.

A serious thread on this topic would be interesting. John's recycled (slightly delusional) views on the other hand...

http://www.activcoventry.com/filesdata/OwnerFiles/13/Ricoh_arena.jpg

The new stadium in Coventry was built through the council with grants left, right and centre for various conditions. Part of it was the need for green transport. Nearly 10 years later, the train station, which would have been on the left of the pic, about 50 yards from the stadium still hasnt been built.
Being half way between Nuneaton and Coventry, it would have made people in from as far as Liverpool and London able to get to the ground in about an hour and 10.

I would never rely on football teams to get infrastructure built. They will only use what is around them.

Also, how do you propose to connect it up to the network?

Via a gantry that takes the line to ground level.

[IMG]I would never rely on football teams to get infrastructure built. They will only use what is around them.

You force them. They put money in up front. If Coventry can't see the benefits of a new station, they need new owners.

Via a gantry that takes the line to ground level.

The question concerned the logistics of including a terminus as a station on a through line. I hardly think a service from Central to Dingle via one station will
be viable.

You force them.

How do you do that then?

The question concerned the logistics of including a terminus as a station on a through line. I hardly think a service from Central to Dingle via one station will
be viable.

It would be viable. The antiquated accounting system they use makes it unviable via ticket sales. The station will create economic growth and stop the stream of public money being poured into the inner cities. The tunnel was designed to be extended. It can in time be extended to Lodge Lane using cheap cut & cover and then over to Edge Hill through more inner-city districts desparetly in need of economic growth to vastly reduce the pubic money poured in.

Dingle station could have a tall building over the station, shopping could be directed to around the station. The station and tunnel at Dingle needs to have the economic growth the station creates captured and fed back to keep it running - a different accounting system.

Go back and read the first post on this thread.

How do you do that then?

You do not give them planning permission. LFC can't go above 60,000 unless they build a rapid-transit rail station.

Planning is due to be relaxed considerably by the Tories and in any case the planning department is seperate from the political entitiy and decides whether to grant planning permission based on the individual merits (or not) of the specific case.

What you are suggesting is unworkable and would never happen as Liverpool or Everton (more likely Liverpool at the moment) would put in an application and if it was refused for political reasons, the billionaire behind them would sue the city and would win.

Everton can't be forced to a new build stadium on an outer loop because as everyone has continually told you a million times already before, the owners have got no money to build one.

If a new set of rich owners came in then you may well get the club moving out of Walton and possibly to a stadium with a rail link nearby, but the club has been searching for investment for years and no-one is interested.

....and the way Liverpool get around the capacity versus rapid rail argument, is they build to 59,000 seats.

the owners have got no money to build one.


No one has 200 milion in their back pockets. The way business works is that they borrow. As Arsenal did.

....and the way Liverpool get around the capacity versus rapid rail argument, is they build to 59,000 seats.

They have on a number of ocassions stated they would like 75,000. This was used as a reason for delay.

No one has 200 milion in their back pockets. The way business works is that they borrow. As Arsenal did.

You're not quite understanding this credit crunch thing are you John. :lol:

You're not quite understanding this credit crunch

Which is slowly fading away. Spurs could get enough loans to :

Pull down the Olympic stadium
Add 25-30,000 to Crystal Palace to create a large athletics stadium
Build a brand new football dedicated stadium

Liverpool FC could get twice as much.

Economics is obviously not your forte.

No but it is John Henry's forte and he seems to be pursuing a remodelling of Anfield model....and as you've been told repeatedly over the years Everton cannot afford to move.

The club's borrow. It is that simple. You say money is not available from banks, etc. It is. Ask Spurs.

It would be viable. The antiquated accounting system they use makes it unviable via ticket sales. The station will create economic growth and stop the stream of public money being poured into the inner cities. The tunnel was designed to be extended. It can in time be extended to Lodge Lane using cheap cut & cover and then over to Edge Hill through more inner-city districts desparetly in need of economic growth to vastly reduce the pubic money poured in.

Dingle station could have a tall building over the station, shopping could be directed to around the station. The station and tunnel at Dingle needs to have the economic growth the station creates captured and fed back to keep it running - a different accounting system.

Go back and read the first post on this thread.

Why stop there? It could include a helipad, a Eurostar station and perhaps a small synchrotron if there's room?

I realise the irony of this post, but... we should all stop feeding the troll. We've had our fun.

The club's borrow. It is that simple. You say money is not available fropm banks, etc. It is. Ask Spurs.

Then why aren't they building NOW? They have the planning permission passed haven't they?

They're not building because the council want them to pay towards the rail and they don't want to. Hence why they are looking to try and gegg in on the Olympic site (still), as they would be able to build a cheaper stadium that isn't landloced and whhere there will already be Stretham international built for them.

Football clubs are not interested in ancilliary services around stadia. See Destination Kirkby (which ironically YOU supported because it would take a horrible working class nuisance out of Walton) where Everton point blank refused to upgrade the rail station and where going to force the UK's largest coach park on the poor inhabitants of Kirkby.

I have no problem with your ambitions for Liverpool's rails John but you have to be realistic and accept that until there are major ecconomic changes, a change of government that will reverse MT's funding cuts and a change at the top of Everton FC and a change of heart with John Henry, your idea for new stadia with 12 platform rapid rail under the stands is unlikely to happen.

Nothing wrong with dreaming but you take things too far. Merseytravel alone has had it's funding cut by 2/3rds, it's not a case of lacking ambition. As for the clubs, they have been searching for new build sites for 20 years and the council has a task force specifically looking. There are huge problems facing all parties and I think it is a bit disengenuous to accuse all of them of lacking vision. The money isn't there.

By the way, where exactly do you propose on this outer loop that Everton and Liverpool build stadia? Can you stick up a google map image. I'm interested in what businesses and housing estates are going to have to be CPO'd and bulldozed.

Last time you were on here you recomended Everton build on top of the strand and the associated trading estates around it, removing hundreds of businesses and having to demolish a fair bit of heritage.

Why stop there? It could include a helipad, a Eurostar station and perhaps a small synchrotron if there's room?
..
..
I realise the irony

If you have something sensible to add then please do. It is clear you lack understanding and comprehension on some points and take it personally when put right. If you had understood the first post you would not have posted what you did. What you find difficult, get back to me.

You do have a point about the Eurostar station. Big cities think big. Unfortunately many in Liverpool think small and 3rd class.

Then why aren't they building NOW? They have the planning permission passed haven't they?


LFC are not building because they want value for money wanting a 75,000 seater. If they go over 60,000, which they have permission for, then they have to contribute to a new rapid-transit rail station near the stadium - the electrification of the nearby Bootle Line makes this a more appealling prospect. The amazing success of the Emirates Stadium has focused the minds of many clubs. The answer to stadia success is rapid-transit rail serving the stadium - obvious really, but in Liverpool they pretend they do not have a rapid-transit rail network, one that can be easily extended. This has been stated so I assume you know this or have selective amnesia.

Football clubs are now interested in ancilliary services around stadia such as rapid-transit rail which ensures higher attendances - look at Arsenal and its 27 surrounding platforms. Spurs did look and are prepared to spend a hell of a lot of money to get high throughput rapid-transit rail at the Olympic stadium site. I thought the Spurs proposal for the Olympic stadium was the best. Athetics and football both got new or vastly improved stadia.

Destination Kirkby could have worked if the Merseyrail station was upped to a far higher throughput. 8 to 10 platfoms would be needed to shift the fans. Each train holds approx 1000. 10 trains waiting can shift 10,000 immediately after a match. The platforms are cheap concrete Lego sets only used for matchdays. The station also runs to Wigan and Manchester being a terminus and interchange. The improved station would also bring greater economic growth to Kirkby.

The Outer Loop recommissioned, would bring great economic growth to the city of Liverpool. That is beyond doubt. Long Lane is a suitable stadium site on the Loop that was suggested by the city council to LFC and EFC. Aintree another. It is better both clubs get to Aintree along with the race course and form a Sports City. That would give the city international kudos indeed. The Outer Loop accesses mainline intercharge stations and is easily extended into the airport from Hunts Cross. It goes both ways, in a loop, so will have a very high throughput. It all fits together nicely.

Back to the opening post on this thread. The Outer Loop will make Merseyrail more of a metro than having inner-city destroying radial commuter-rail lines. Of couse, the likes of Dingle, Lodge Lane, Vauxhall, etc brought onto Merseyrail as a more comprehensive metro, would bring great economic growth to these districts and regenerate and revitalise.

LFC are not building because they want value for money wanting a 75,000 seater. If they go over 60,000, which they have permission for, then they have to contribute to a new rapid-transit rail station near the stadium.

Which they don't want to do as it adds NO value for them whatsoever. LFC know that people will fly into Liverpool from the other side of the world and make their way to the game of their own accord and that they will never struggle to fill their stadium, so the need for them to build a rail station is ZERO.

Hence why they are talking of scrapping New Anfield and all the talk is of redeveloping Anfield and "retaining the heritage".

....and you have swerved my question I didn;t ask about LFC. I asked you why Spurs, being a very rich London club, supposedly with endless access to credit, have not built?

The reason is because the council are trying to force them to build a bus and rail interchange (similar policy to the one you advocate) and they are telling the council to get fucked and they'll move out of North London if neccessary.

They are actively trying to move to the Eastend on the cheap so they can AVOID paying for rail.

No-one can force a club to invest in rail. it is not their remit, interest or value to them, given that they have loyal fanbases who will WALK to the game if need be.

The amazing succes of the Emirates Stadium has focused the minds of many clubs. The answer to stadia success is rapid-transit rail serving the stadium - obvious really

Arsenal's transport policy is disasterous and it is one of the hardest grounds to exit in the country. They went from the biggest walk up fans base in the UK (bigger even than Everton's) at Highbury, to hour long exit times for Emirates.

Emirates is a greatt stadium but the rapid rail has not had a positive effect at all. It is a horrendou stadium to exit and get away by rail....as any visiting support will tell you.

Unlike you John I am a season ticket holding football fan who has been to aways at Emirates and has endured the transport policy.

but in Liverpool they pretend they do not have a rapid-tyrsnit rail network, one that can easily extedned. This has been stated so I assume you know this or have selective amnesia.

Merseytravel themselves have pointed out that the infastructure is there and have paid for feasibility studies and have maintained the tunnels and what they have of the outer loop. You know this because you have stated that it is mothballed ready to go yourself. They have a list of future projects they want to do and the council is fully supportive. Nobody in this city in the whole history of you banging on about additional rail has ever argued against more stations and more rail links.

It is MONEY that is the problem and the fact that we don't have the billion pounds or more required for your schemes. Once again Liverpool has had the worst settlement since the 30's from this government and MT a 2/3rd cut in funding. That's about 250,000 pounds a week savagely cut from the local public transport kitty.

Which part of that is so hard for you to get to grips with!?

Football clubs are now interested in ancilliary services around stadia such as rapid-transit rail which ensures higher attendances - look at Arsenal. Spurs did and are prepared to spend a hell of a lot of money to get high throughput rapid-transit rail at the stadium. I thought the Spurs proposal was the best.

Once again....Spurs do not want to pay for the rail. Read up on the current situation John for crying out loud.

Destination Kirkby could have worked if the Merseyrail station was upped to a far higher throughput. 8 to 10 platfoms would be needed to shift the fans. Each train holds approx 1000. 10 trains waiting can shift 10,000 immediately after a match. The platforms are cheap concrete Lego sets only used for matchdays. the station also runs to Wigan and Manchester being a terminus and interchange.

....indeed. But tha wasn't what was planned and Everton said at the enquiry that they catagorically would not spend the money (money they don't have) on rail. Catagorically there was going to be no additional rapid rail which is one of the reasons I was dead against it.

I seem to remember you being all for it.

The Outer Loop recommissioned, would bring great economic growth to the city of Liverpool. That is beyond doubt. Long Lane is a suitable stadium site on the Loop that was suggested by the city council to LFC and EFC. Aintree another. It is better both clubs get to Aintree along with the race course and form a Sports City. That would give the city international kudos indeed. The Outer Loop accesses mainline intercharge stations and is easily extended into the airport from Hunts Cross. It goes both ways, in a loop, so will have a very high throughput. It all fits together nicely.

Where? On what bit of land. Provide a goole image of land big enough for two 55,000 seat plus stadia, public plazas and room for the huge retail scheme for Everton's enabling money.

I assume both clubs have to be situated close to each other to form part of this sports city?

Back to the opening post on this thread. The Outer Loop will make Merseyrail more of a metro than having inner-city destroying radial commuter-rail lines. Of couse, the likes of Dingle, Lodge Lane, Vauxhall, etc brought onto Merseyrail as a more comprehensive metro, would bring great economic growth to these districts and regenerate and revitalise these hard done by districts.

No-one has ever argued against more rail. Where is the money coming from? Answer me that one question because I know fine well you will swerve the others.

From Spurs chairman Daniel Levy (source: BBC)....


Spurs chairman Daniel Levy had defended the club's ambition to move to Stratford by stating very clearly that staying in Tottenham - and following an original plan to develop White Hart Lane which would increase the capacity to 58,000 - is not financially viable.

Levy told BBC Sport earlier this week: "We are desperate to find a solution for a bigger stadium. We haven't actually said we'll move out of the borough. What we have said is that we will have to consider other options because the current plans on the new White Hart Lane are just not financially viable."

the current plans on the new White Hart Lane are just not financially viable."

Thank you. That is correct. WHL is poorly served by rapid-transit rail. Spurs have seen the amazing succes of Arsenal and know they have to do the same to compete at the top. Which is have any new stadium well served by rapid-transit rail to ensure very high attendances.

Liverpool and Everton FCs need to take note of the amazing success of the Emirates. They both can emulate the succes very easily as they have rapid-trsbnit rail adjacent in the city. Not to use the rapid-trsnit rail infrastrcuture available is just downright foolishness.

The city should force both clubs into sites well served by rapid-transit rail. We have it so it should be used for all to benefit and that includes teh people in the districts it runs though. Extending the network means the city gains in non-matchday usage.

Which they don't want to do as it adds NO value for them whatsoever. LFC know that people will fly into Liverpool from the other side of the world and make their way to the game of their own accord and that they will never struggle to fill their stadium, so the need for them to build a rail station is ZERO.


LFC will not compete with Arsenal (to be 70,000) and Man U (to be 80,00) in income with a poorly located, smallish stadium that is difficult to get to and from. The amazing success of the Emirates, has prompted Arsenal to add ten rows to the back of the stadium increasing capacity to 70,000. They need to remove and replace the roof to do this.

If Anfield was 70,000, I seriously doubt LFC would fill it to an average of over 98% full as Arsenal do, in such a poor location for access like Anfield. They need to get the fans to and from the stadium in comfort and fast. 70,000 around Anfield would mean hours to get to and from the stadium, not minutes as at Arsenal. You just have to understand the key to Arsenal's great success in filling their stadium - rapid-transit rail access.


....and you have swerved my question I didn;t ask about LFC. I asked you why Spurs, being a very rich London club, supposedly with endless access to credit, have not built?


It is clear what I put across. Spurs want a site with extensive rapid-transit rail access. White Hart Lane does not give that. Stratford and the new Crossrail line and its connections does.

Spurs are prepeared to spend to:

Pull down a new 80,000 stadium
Build a brand new dedicated stadium
Rebuild an athetics stadium

That is a lot of money.

Stratford will gurantee success because of the extensive rapid-transit rail access.


fanbases who will WALK to the game if need be.


The above now streches the bounds of credibility. 70,000 would all walk to the game?? But fun indeed.


Emirates is a greatt stadium but the rapid rail has not had a positive effect at all. It is a horrendou stadium to exit and get away by rail....as any visiting support will tell you.


The Emirates has 27 platforms surrounding the stadium, 29 on weekday games. They shift a hell of a lot of fans. The whole 60,000 can be shifted in 45 minutes or so. They can even not use West Drayton station, next to the stadium, on Saturdays, they can shift fans so many so quickly using the other stations.


Merseytravel themselves have pointed out that the infastructure is there and have paid for feasibility studies and have maintained the tunnels and what they have of the outer loop. You know this because you have stated that it is mothballed ready to go yourself. They have a list of future projects they want to do and the council is fully supportive. Nobody in this city in the whole history of you banging on about additional rail has ever argued against more stations and more rail links.


Merseytravel and the city lost the plot:

They pushed focus away from the economic growth creating rapid-transit rail to a poorly designed tram system.
None of them fully understood how the inner-city districts declined - commuter-rail asisted in the decline.
None of them fuly understood how economic growth is created.

There are a number of reasons for inner-city decay, however one was clearly fast commuter-rail lines taking people fast out of the city leaving decayed districts behind. That is correctable and within the city's grasp to do so by creating a metro out of Merseyrail, which is very easy to do using mothballed existing rail infrastructure. They need to present the case. But first they need to know the cause and quantify aspects. Then there is the leverage of the football clubs:

Two large football clubs in the city are planning to build new stadia simultaneously.
The clubs need rapid-transit rail to ensure success, that goes without saying.
The city needs to extend its rapid-transit rail to create economic growth.
The three can combine to get it rolling.

Everton would spend money on rapid-transit rail, now they see what Asrenal have done. Previously had little idea of anthing, similar with LFC - neither did the city or Merseytravel.

There is enough land for both clubs to locate near the Outer Loop and also form a Sports City at Aintree.

Back to the first post of this thread. Chanting the same mantra, "there is no money", holds no water, as this displays a complete lack of understanding of the points. The CC will not last forever. The case of regenerating the inner-city districts is very strong. A metro run into these districts will create economic growth and plug the bottomless pit of endless public money poured in. The two football clubs can assist in extending the commuter-rail into a metro - they add leverage. Everyone gains.

John your ignorance of football is beginning to show you up....

LFC will not compete with Arsenal (to be 70,000) and Man U (to be 80,00) in income with a poorly located, smallish stadium that is difficult to get to and from.

At Anfield presently as it stands Liverpool have one of the biggest turnovers in world football. When they expand Anfield they will be one of the most competitive clubs in Europe and will make a fortune.

If Anfield was 70,000, I seriously doubt LFC would fill it to an average of over 98% full as Arsenal do, in such a poor location for access like Anfield.

Liverpool FC have one of the biggest season ticket waiting lists in the world. They regularly attract thousands of out of town visitors from all over the world to a little stadium in a run down working class area. The stadium and the Kop itself are the attraction. Liverpool fans would come to their matches if they were held in a swamp. They are a massive club and would easily fill 75,000 seats. Arsenal are nowhere near as big a club as Liverpool and never will be, despite being in the capital of the greatest and richest city in Europe.

They need to get the fans to and from the stadium in comfort and fast. 70,000 around Anfield would mean hours to get to and from the stadium, not minutes as at Arsenal. You just have to understand the key to Arsenal's great success in filling their stadium - rapid-transit rail access.

Anfield has rapid transport all around it. The merseyside clubs are well served for public transport.


The above now streches the bounds of credibility. 70,000 would all walk to the game?? But fun indeed.

In your world EVERY fan takes the train...or nothing. :lol:

In the real world fans use their feet, cars, buses, trains, cabs, planes to get to Anfield. Everton and Liverpool have large stadiums in areas well served by rail and a vas bus network.

The problems you see in terms of transport simply don't exist. Particularly for Goodison which clears in 30 minutes after a game. Simply unthinkable at Emirates.

The Emirates has 27 platforms surrounding the stadium, 29 on weekday games. They shift a hell of a lot of fans. The whole 60,000 can be shifted in 45 minutes or so.

No it can't. You obviously haven't bee.

Everton would spend money on rapid-transit rail, now they see what Asrenal have done. Previously had little idea of anthing, similar with LFC - neither did the city or Merseytravel.

Repeatedly Robert Elestone, Everton's CEO, stated that Arsenal's model was the one to pursue. They are more than aware of emirates.

At Destination Kirkby, they flat out refused to pay for rail. You have been told this countless times. When asked at an emergency AGM by shareholders about the woefull transport policy, why there was no plans for a revamp of Kirkby station, he said "because we cannot afford it".

Rather than spend over 30 million on a new station, they preferred the option of 10 million on the UKs largest coach park.

Everton FC will NEVER contribute money they do not have on surrounding infastcuture, knowing that hell or high water, people will make their way to the game one way or another.

Liverpool FC will only pay towards rail IF they go over 59,999 seats.

There is enough land for both clubs to locate near the Outer Loop and also form a Sports City at Aintree.

Where? You seem to know more than LCC's taskforce searching for sites and both EFC and LFC's administrators who have been looking for 20 years.

I want to know exactly where this plot of land is that will site 2 high capacity stadia, rail station and the huge retail park required for Everton's enabling money.

Back to the first post of this thread. Chanting the same mantra, "there is no money", holds no water, as this displays a complete lack of understanding of the points. The CC will not last forever. The case of regenerating the inner-city districts is very strong. A metro run into these districts will create economic growth and plug the bottomless pit of endless public money poured in. The two football clubs can assist in extending the commuter-rail into a metro - they add leverage. Everyone gains.

Why should they? Their fans go to the game regardless. It is of no concern to EFC or LFC what rail provisions are made.

At Anfield presently as it stands Liverpool have one of the biggest turnovers in world football. When they expand Anfield they will be one of the most competitive clubs in Europe and will make a fortune.
..
..
Arsenal are nowhere near as big a club as Liverpool


Deloitte Football Money League

Real Madrid: 438.6m euros
Barcelona: 398.1m euros
Man Utd: 349.8m euros
Bayern Munich: 323m euros
Arsenal: 274.1m euros
Chelsea: 255.9m euros
AC Milan: 235.8.m euros
Liverpool: 225.3m euros
Inter Milan 224.8m euros
Juventus: 205m euros
Source: Deloitte: 2009-10

Liverpool are falling and falling fast. Look at Arsenal who have won nothing since moving into a new stadium that is over 98% full because of rapid-transit rail. So, it is not the winning that attracts the fans. It is the top facilities and ease and comfort of access.

Liverpool FC need a 75,000 seater with the ability to shift the fans within an hour. Only rapid-transit rail can do that - with an airport connection.


Anfield has rapid transport all around it. The merseyside clubs are well served for public transport.


Which city is this Anfield in that you refer?


Repeatedly Robert Elestone, Everton's CEO, stated that Arsenal's model was the one to pursue. They are more than aware of emirates.


EFC & LFC were not aware of the model when embarking on the Stanley Park and Kirkby stadia. They are now. LFC are re-assessing. EFC and LFC are fully aware of the web site link I gave. Spurs are fully aware of the Arsenal model and aim to spend big to get it, building two stadia and pulling one down. That may give you a hint of the root of the Arsenal success model, whuch wasn't winning cups a they never won any. Try rapid-transit rail.


When asked at an emergency AGM by shareholders about the woefull transport policy, why there was no plans for a revamp of Kirkby station, he said "because we cannot afford it".


A poor excuse to hide the fact EFC never did their homework properly - as Arsenal did.


Rather than spend over 30 million on a new station, they preferred the option of 10 million on the UKs largest coach park.


Chara-bancs will not gurantee success. The city has a rapid-transit rail. The key to success is under their noses.


Everton FC will NEVER contribute money they do not have on surrounding infastcuture,


Arsenal contributed to the upgrade of adjacent stations. They are intelligent and deserve success, the likes of meandering know-nothing EFC deserve to flounder.


Liverpool FC will only pay towards rail IF they go over 59,999 seats.


We know that. They want 75,000. The council should have made them have a station irrespective. The council are at fault. They should have got both together and forced them onto the Outer Loop line - with all benefitting. But what do they know.

EFC and LFC's administrators who have been looking for 20 years, but don't see it. The Outer Loop is the key to success and getting a stadium on that.

Everton FC will not need enabling money if they folow Arsenal's model. They never needed it.


It is of no concern to EFC or LFC what rail provisions are made.

It should be of great concern for them, as the rail will make them rich - look at Arsenal.

You really do not get it.

Wasting my time. Your understanding of the issues of both football clubs is clearly extremely limited.

Get this football nonsense out of your mind. The world does not revolve around football.

Obessions cloud reality.

But football stadiums generally do revolve around football. That's what they're about. Not excuses to realize pet transportation projects.

But football stadiums generally do revolve around football. That's what they're about. Not excuses to realize pet transportation projects.

You obviously did not get it.

Nah, John. The world doesn't revolve around football, granted, but footballs stadiums generally do. A further statement, just for you, the world doesn't revolve around trains either or hypothetical lines going to hypothetical stadiums.

Nah, John. The world doesn't revolve around football, granted, but footballs stadiums generally do. A further statement, just for you, the world doesn't revolve around trains either or hypothetical lines going to hypothetical stadiums.

The world does not revolve around football stadia or trains. If you had read the thread, which I doubt you have, you would have found that rapid-transit rail ensures great success for a stadium with a glaring example given - Arsenal. And an example of one club prepared to pay an amazing amount of money to get to a site with fantastic rapid-transit rail connections. Spurs are prepared to greatly update an existing stadium and demolish a large new stadium, before they even build their own stadium.

If a city does not have rapid-transit rail then it cannot be fully implemented, although fast electric trains to the local mainline stations is a great bonus. Man U could have that.

But Hey preto!! Liverpool has a rapid-transit rail network with mothballed lines that can serve the two stadia under planning/consideration and also serves many Liverpool districts. Guess what. Rapid-transit rail also creates economic growth,what the city needs desperately. It can also be one of the stages to get a full metro in Liverpool eliminating inner-city decay (you live in West Derby so probably do not care about the inner-cities). If you have it common sense says use it.

These are not hypothetical

Existing mothballed lines and tunnels
Plans for stadia
Planning permission for stadia
Liverpool's rapid-transit rail network, Merseyrail
Inner-city decay in Liverpool


The city of Liverpool should not make the same mistakes as Manchester. The 76,000, to be 80,000, Man U stadium could have had far superior rail transport using the extisting rail, tram-trains or whatever. They never addressed it properly. Man U is an awful place to get away from - it is gridlocked. How Man U got PP to extend the stadium to 76,000 without any substantial transport infrastructure put in place to shift such large volumes of people is incredulous.

How Man U got PP to extend the stadium to 76,000 without any substantial transport infrastructure put in place to shift such large volumes of people is incredulous.

Look up incredulous in a dictionary John...

Two things that I regard with some incredulity.

1. John continues to peddle such shite here.
2. John is allowed to peddle such shite here.

Your natural gift of stating the obvious is quite endearing.

Two things that I regard with some incredulity.


He is a Kopite you know.

Here in Bilbao they are already building the new Athletic Club football stadium, something like 60/55.000 capacity, and it is just in front of a huge interchange complex, offering underground and metropolitan rail lines on different levels, the tramway towards the central area as well as the main bus station and a taxi rank. It is also very, very close to the main motorway gateway into the central area.

Here in Bilbao they are already building the new Athletic Club football stadium, something like 60/55.000 capacity, and it is just in front of a huge interchange complex, offering underground and metropolitan rail lines on different levels, the tramway towards the central area as well as the main bus station and a taxi rank. It is also very, very close to the main motorway gateway into the central area.

Liverpool can offer the same in transportation. But common sense eludes them

FYI:-

1. item 51 question "Merseytravel" at link
http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=10728&T=11

2. item 71 question "Merseyside Network" at link
http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=10729&T=1