daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy (aug.2, 2013) | DMCA policy | flipboard magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > Projects and Construction > Liverpool Metro Area

Liverpool Metro Area 'Scouse Scrapers for both sides of the Mersey



Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 24th, 2005, 09:42 PM   #1
sloyne
Help find Madeleine
 
sloyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,356
Likes (Received): 0

Port of Liverpool

The M.D.& H.C. have announced they have applied for a Harbour revision order to allow them to build a in-river berth to accommodate post Panamax ships. They are estimating it will cost 80 million pounds. It will enable the Port of Liverpool to accept the worlds largest container ships. The berth will be located on reclaimed land at the Royal Seaforth Dock.
sloyne no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old October 12th, 2005, 01:19 PM   #2
TheMerseyOrange
M.O.
 
TheMerseyOrange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ruritania
Posts: 389
Likes (Received): 0

Irish Sea Express have ceased operations on their Liverpool-Dublin Seacat service with immediate effect from Wednesday. Obviously sad news, most especially for the 150 or so people who've now lost their jobs, but I'd be lying if I said I was in the least bit surprised. Reliable year-round services and fast ferries just don't go together and that's before you throw Ryanair & Aer Lingus competing on the air route, the ever-reliable Norse Merchant being back with full services on their Birkenhead-Dublin run and horrendously high oil prices into the mix. It just wasn't going to work unfortunately.
TheMerseyOrange no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2005, 02:23 PM   #3
new
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 65
Likes (Received): 0

this has gone to a public enquiry....20 objections and 2 from councillors regarding environmental problems. They are saying an increased number of Lorries will wreck the area for those living there.
new no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 12th, 2005, 03:46 PM   #4
Pietari
Just something
 
Pietari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Liverpool / London
Posts: 3,558
Likes (Received): 14

Wink Rail Link .....

Quote:
Originally Posted by new
this has gone to a public enquiry....20 objections and 2 from councillors regarding environmental problems. They are saying an increased number of Lorries will wreck the area for those living there.
Don`t forget they are using more rail links now.

Pietari no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2005, 01:44 PM   #5
JUXTAPOL
800th birthday in 2007
 
JUXTAPOL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 4,194
Likes (Received): 4

More wind turbines for docks waterfront

Details of the planning application to extend the windfarm at Seaforth by errecting 5 more wind turbines.
These will be almost 2 times as high, (135m), as the ones at Crosby (75m).

Planning application
JUXTAPOL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2006, 02:23 PM   #6
scouserdave
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Liverpool 6, Halewood, Cantril Farm, Luton ferfuxake!
Posts: 2,762
Likes (Received): 0

Online DP

Mersey MEPs try to kill EU ports bill


Jan 18 2006

Daily Post


MERSEYSIDE Euro-MPs are expected to play a key role today in killing off a controversial European bill that would have a major impact on the Port of Liverpool.

EU officials want a new directive that would lead to greater controls in the way ports across Europe are owned and operated.

The big fear is the new law could eventually mean the virtual re-nationalisation of the Port of Liverpool.

MEPs in Strasbourg will vote today on the proposed Access to Port Services Directive, which aims to open up competition in a bid to force down prices across Europe.

It would require operators to bid against each other for the right to provide services at ports. Ship owners would be allowed to bring in their own staff to replace dockworkers in loading and unloading vessels.

Peter Jones, chief executive of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, claims the measure has been designed with continental ports in mind and is wholly inappropriate to the UK situation.

He fears that long-term partnerships that support major investment projects, such as the planned £80m container terminal enhancements, could be put at risk.
scouserdave no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2006, 08:15 PM   #7
Blabbernsmoke
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Beside the lake, Beneath the trees, Fluttering and dancing, In the Breeze
Posts: 2,599
Likes (Received): 1

Thanks for the info.

I've noticed in various articles over the last few weeks that several other UK ports are planning to develop big container ports like the one planned for Seaforth. If I remember correctly there are proposals (possibly permissions) for Hull, Essex, and I think Southampton.

Is this container port development happening or what? Does anybody have any news on it? I think Liverpool needs to get this in the bag, after all, there are plenty other competitors more than willing to take the trade.
Blabbernsmoke no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2006, 10:07 PM   #8
sloyne
Help find Madeleine
 
sloyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,356
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blabbernsmoke
Thanks for the info.

I've noticed other UK ports are planning to develop big container ports like the one planned for Seaforth. I think Southampton.
I believe both Southampton and Hull have been rejected but Avonmouth and Clyde Port (owned by Peel Holdings) are still in the running.
sloyne no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2006, 10:13 PM   #9
Blabbernsmoke
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Beside the lake, Beneath the trees, Fluttering and dancing, In the Breeze
Posts: 2,599
Likes (Received): 1

Cheers Sloyne.
Blabbernsmoke no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2006, 12:30 PM   #10
scouserdave
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Liverpool 6, Halewood, Cantril Farm, Luton ferfuxake!
Posts: 2,762
Likes (Received): 0


Euro-MPs kill off 'chaotic' ports plan


Jan 19 2006

By Larry Neild, Daily Post

EUROPEAN ports that are handed public subsidies should be named and shamed, Merseyside Euro MP Arlene McCarthy demanded last night.

Her call came after controversial plans to open up Europe's seaports to competition were overwhelmingly rejected by MEPs in Strasbourg.

The port services directive was rejected by the European Parliament, with 532 votes to reject and 120 against rejection, with 25 abstentions.

All North West MEPs voted against the move that would have had a dramatic impact on the Port of Liverpool as well as the smaller Garston Docks.

After the vote Mrs McCarthy said: "The European Commission must urgently name and shame countries that are subsidising ports if they want to really help the port industry.

"Now that this chaotic legislation has been sent back to the Commission, they need to think long and hard about creating a fair market for European ports.

"Liverpool, which is owned by the Mersey Docks & Harbour Company, could have seen the loss of skilled labour and the introduction of low cost out-sourcing, with health and safety being a casualty, if this legislation had been voted through."

What has angered many North West MEPs is that German and Dutch governments continue to subsidise the ports of Hamburg and Rotterdam.

Mrs McCarthy added: "How can ports like Liverpool compete fairly when other countries are undercutting prices with illegal cash plugs?

"The Commission should not be proposing further liberalisation when they are not enforcing existing competition law."

The decision was welcomed by Chris Davies, the former Liverpool city councillor who now heads the Lib-Dem group in Strasbourg.

The vote came after violent clashes in Strasbourg on Monday when thousands of dockers from across Europe descended on the European Parliament protesting against the demands to open up the seaport sector.

The idea caused a backlash in Britain more than two years ago, and was thrown out by Euro-MPs.

Conservative MEPs said the 532-120 vote which sank the Port Services Directive amounted to a victory for theUK ports industry.


Tory MEP Philip Bradbourn said: "The UK has escaped a wholly unwanted piece of legislation which would have taken our ports industry back to the 1970s.

"If the EU wants to see a market-orientated approach, it should follow what we already have in the UK: a tried and tested system."
scouserdave no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2006, 12:33 PM   #11
Doug Roberts
Registered User
 
Doug Roberts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 2,688
Likes (Received): 52

Let's hope scrapping of this idea removes the last hurdle for the cruise liner facility and get the bloody thing built!!
__________________
Doug Roberts

Try not. Do or do not, there is no try. Yoda
Doug Roberts no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2006, 01:29 PM   #12
Louis1986
Registered User
 
Louis1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 1,015
Likes (Received): 0

yeah, coz its vital that its built
Louis1986 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2006, 02:55 PM   #13
sloyne
Help find Madeleine
 
sloyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,356
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Roberts
Let's hope scrapping of this idea removes the last hurdle for the cruise liner facility and get the bloody thing built!!
And even if a start is made, on the facility, tomorrow it will still be to late for the Capital of Culture year in 2008. Most (if not all) cruise lines are already well into the planning of the 2008 cruise season. Without a land fixed berth for thier ships, most cruise lines will by-pass Liverpool in favour of rival ports on the Irish Sea.
sloyne no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2006, 03:41 PM   #14
Doug Roberts
Registered User
 
Doug Roberts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 2,688
Likes (Received): 52

Which is all the more reason why this project needs to be started asap, as you say no berth = no ships.

From recent correspondence from Liverpool Vision:

"While all the necessary funding and planning approvals have been secured, and the contractor selected, the City Council and Peel Holdings have still to resolve a number of legal and operational issues before the scheme can proceed. There are some encouraging signs however that the agreement is close and that construction will start in 2006 with the new berth operational for at least part of the cruise season in 2007.

Q. Why has the project been delayed?

A. The delays were principally due to the time taken for Peel and LCC to reach operational agreement, and that Peel's takeover of MDHC and the need for a thorough review of 'commitments' clearly had a major impact."
__________________
Doug Roberts

Try not. Do or do not, there is no try. Yoda
Doug Roberts no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2006, 03:53 PM   #15
sloyne
Help find Madeleine
 
sloyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,356
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Roberts
The delays were principally due to the time taken for Peel and LCC to reach operational agreement, and that Peel's takeover of MDHC and the need for a thorough review of 'commitments' clearly had a major impact."
And have those issues now been resolved?
sloyne no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2006, 04:18 PM   #16
Doug Roberts
Registered User
 
Doug Roberts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 2,688
Likes (Received): 52

LV wouldn't be drawn any further other than to say;

"the two parties are in close discussion, so we must be confident that the scheme will proceed without setting a precise date"
__________________
Doug Roberts

Try not. Do or do not, there is no try. Yoda
Doug Roberts no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2006, 04:19 PM   #17
sloyne
Help find Madeleine
 
sloyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,356
Likes (Received): 0

Money lost

On a recent (Dec-Nov 2005) cruise into the South Pacific we visited Pitcairn Island for six hours. The docking facilities are none existant so the inhabitants come out to the ships by longboat. The islanders had about five hours aboard the ship and they estimated they sold $55,000.00 worth of goods. The ship had 1200 pax and 400 crew aboard. That works out to aproximately $35.00 spent per person and the only items for sale were shirts, crafts, hats and stamps. Remember, this was items carried from the island to the ship by about 30 people, that equates to about eighteen hundred dollars of sales per person. Not bad for a five hour shopping day.
sloyne no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2006, 04:20 PM   #18
sloyne
Help find Madeleine
 
sloyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,356
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Roberts
LV wouldn't be drawn any further other than to say;

"the two parties are in close discussion, so we must be confident that the scheme will proceed without setting a precise date"
Thanks Doug.
sloyne no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2006, 08:11 PM   #19
Blabbernsmoke
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Beside the lake, Beneath the trees, Fluttering and dancing, In the Breeze
Posts: 2,599
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by scouserdave
After the vote Mrs McCarthy said: "The European Commission must urgently name and shame countries that are subsidising ports if they want to really help the port industry.

"Now that this chaotic legislation has been sent back to the Commission, they need to think long and hard about creating a fair market for European ports.
Makes me think of the airport industry in this country- although I won't say any more on that matter.

Last edited by Blabbernsmoke; January 19th, 2006 at 08:20 PM.
Blabbernsmoke no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2006, 02:05 AM   #20
TheMerseyOrange
M.O.
 
TheMerseyOrange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ruritania
Posts: 389
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blabbernsmoke
I've noticed in various articles over the last few weeks that several other UK ports are planning to develop big container ports like the one planned for Seaforth. If I remember correctly there are proposals (possibly permissions) for Hull, Essex, and I think Southampton.

Is this container port development happening or what? Does anybody have any news on it? I think Liverpool needs to get this in the bag, after all, there are plenty other competitors more than willing to take the trade.
I posted an overview of all the UK proposals on the old thread last year but it didn't survive the hacking. Things have moved on significantly since then so I guess it's time to have another go. The major deepwater proposals are -

Scapa Flow - 1.5-4.0m TEU capacity/ project cost £150-450m

London Gateway - 3.6m/ £700m

Hunterston - 2.0m/ £250m

Felixstowe South - 1.95m/ £200m

Bathside Bay (Harwich) - 1.7m/ £300m

Bristol - 1.5m/ £200m

Teesport - 1.5m/ £300m

Liverpool - 0.7m/ £80m

I have to confess I've never heard of a specific deepwater proposal at Hull, rejected or otherwise, although they do now have approval for a new shortsea terminal. The Northern Way nonsense does promote it as being a suitable site however but it doesn't seem to amount to anything more than over-optimistic daydreaming. Southampton's scheme is well and truly dead though and as the same ports group, ABP, owns both Southampton and the Humber ports it's still possible, although perhaps unlikely, that something new may emerge at Hull or maybe Immingham at some point in the future.

London Gateway & Bathside Bay both (somewhat surprisingly) gained provisional approval late last year and Felixstowe South is expected to follow shortly. Between them, these three schemes will satisfy anticipated UK demand until at least 2015 and possibly to 2020 with the combined Felixstowe/Harwich operations (both are owned by the same company) alone providing a combined total of 15 deepwater berths and around 7m TEU annual capacity.

Teesport was intended as an alternative to the southern ports so it's very unlikely to proceed given the scale of the investment required there (it might be the 2nd largest UK port overall but it has miniscule deepsea traffic at the moment) although the port authority hasn't formally shelved the scheme yet. The same probably applies to the two Scottish proposals as well and it's notable that although Peel sanctioned the go-ahead for Hunterston last year, their anticipated release of formal plans to the public is now some six months overdue suggesting that they're maybe reassessing their plans in the light of the south east approvals. They, and the proponents of Scapa Flow, may just put their plans on hold and wait to see how the market develops over the next 10-15 years knowing they have the best sites to meet any increased demand in the longer term.

Bristol simply won't happen unless a major shipping line agrees to use it; as with Teesport, the cost of the scheme is far too great to justify it being built speculatively and it's difficult to see how they'll be able to persuade a major carrier to sign up now there's to be so much extra capacity available at their preferred ports on the east coast. If Bristol doesn't proceed then that will be very good news for Liverpool mainly because Bristol is/was the only English proposal to specifically target Liverpool's core container business, namely UK west coast-North America traffic.

Everything I've read about the Liverpool proposal suggests it to be very different to all the other ones mentioned. It's obviously on a much smaller scale than the others both in capacity terms and also cost but that's because it's intended to be primarily an insurance against any potential future switch to larger vessels on Atlantic services (thereby protecting its existing services, in particular ACL) rather than being a means of attracting new business particularly from somewhere like the Far East. The capacity of the port to compete with those southern ports for such traffic is limited to say the least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blabbernsmoke
What has angered many North West MEPs is that German and Dutch governments continue to subsidise the ports of Hamburg and Rotterdam.

Mrs McCarthy added: "How can ports like Liverpool compete fairly when other countries are undercutting prices with illegal cash plugs?
Hmmm....someone really ought to buy her an atlas then she might just understand that Rotterdam's market dominance (369m tonnes in 2005, as much as the top ten UK ports combined) isn't so much down to dubious Government assistance (although, amongst other things, the Dutch state does pay for all dredging work there and has just signed an agreement to be a 25% stakeholder in the port's new €3bn 8.6m TEU capacity terminal scheme ) as it is to simple basic geography.

Last edited by TheMerseyOrange; January 21st, 2006 at 11:32 AM.
TheMerseyOrange no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu