Peel

[Savage Henry]

Originally Posted by SteveC

Errm, the canal channel is currently well under construction!

Really? I've totally missed that one then!

I knew they'd got the planning permission a couple of years ago, but didn't think it'd actually be viable. It's not exactly a scenic journey for the most part!

[jrb]

Originally Posted by SteveC

Errm, the canal channel is currently well under construction!

I think it's more to do with Mediacity, rather than the planned village.

It wouldn't surprise me if the water taxis initially only went to to Mediacity and back to the Trafford Centre.

Why divert the London BBC staff and their money to Manchester city centre?

[guenuk]

Originally Posted by jrb

Welcome to the world of Peel. Fortunately Grosvenor got in first with Liverpool One, otherwise you would have ended up with another iconic Trafford Centre on your Waterfront.

Sickening thought! I'm not Peels biggest fan either, they only ever seem to be interested in delivering projects in Manchester or should I say Salford? we just get pie in the sky schemes of skyscrapers. Mind you I'm not particularly jealous of the trafford centre, I haven't been since Liverpool One opened up, more jealous of the media city actually.

[jrb]

As promised. From Crains.

[Chorley Boi]

like it another gr8 business idea by mr peel

[jrb]

Originally Posted by Chorley Boi

like it another gr8 business idea by mr peel

3400 new homes = 3000 extra cars(roughly) added to an already congested area. You won't see the Metrolink extension and the water taxi's will be of little use unless your traveling to Mediacity. Come to think of it, why would you use a water taxi to get to Mediacity, it's faster to drive by car. 10 minutes.

[dgnr8]

You're clearly not taking into account Jonathon Ross and Terry Wogan banging up the canal in their multimillion pound speedboats and jetskis.

[jrb]

Boots loses battle over Christmas lights
Tuesday, 09 December 2008
Boots has lost its legal battle with the Trafford Centre over who pays for Christmas lights.
The retailer took The Trafford Centre to London’s High Court claiming the centre should foot some of the bill for Christmas decorations and Santa’s Grotto. The retailer was claiming a total of £203,000.

Boots argued that festive touches, other year-round entertainment and large electronic information displays should be treated as “promotions” and therefore it was entitled to a discount from its landlord on the bill for meeting the costs.

However, Mr Justice Morgan ruled at a preliminary hearing yesterday that the decorations were not “promotions” but fell into the general category of “service charge” and therefore the retailer was not entitled to get any help paying the bill.

Under the lease, the Trafford Centre must pay 50 per cent of the cost of items which fall under “promotions.”

[CDX]

Originally Posted by jrb

3400 new homes = 3000 extra cars(roughly) added to an already congested area.

A bit of congestion cause denial by Peel...



From one of Peels responses to the Trafford planning strat docs.

[jrb]

Originally Posted by CDX

A bit of congestion cause denial by Peel...



From one of Peels responses to the Trafford planning strat docs.

That's funny.

[CDX]

Originally Posted by jrb

That's funny.

Just as funny as this:



And pleasure cruises...sorry water taxis...would not be for leisure activity....

[Savage Henry]

I'm sorry, am I reading that Crains article correctly? Peel have the 'proposed Metrolink extension' as part of their plans for this? The same Metrolink extension they're currently rallying against?

[CDX]

Originally Posted by Savage Henry

I'm sorry, am I reading that Crains article correctly? Peel have the 'proposed Metrolink extension' as part of their plans for this? The same Metrolink extension they're currently rallying against?

Included to appease planners no doubt, look at the wording on the rough transport map, 'Potential Metrolink' extension, not planned or even proposed....

[East-Mcr]

Originally Posted by Savage Henry

The same Metrolink extension they're currently rallying against?

Have they said this? Can you post hard evidence from them?

They are suporting a "no" vote, yes - but against the congestion charge element of it...

[SleepyOne]

As the 'no' lobby has consistently been unable to provide a feasible and realistic alternative method of funding the improvements proposed through TIF, it is entirely reasonable to assert that in opposing TIF and being unwilling to put their hands in their own pockets, Peel are essentially opposing a metrolink extension to their front door.

[andysimo123]

Originally Posted by East-Mcr

Have they said this? Can you post hard evidence from them?

They are suporting a "no" vote, yes - but against the congestion charge element of it...

"Explore cheaper public transport options - The proposed Metrolink expansion adds just 18 miles of track (the extensions to the airport and Trafford Park) but accounts for around half of the councils' total transport spend under TIF - a massive £1.2 billion. Virtually all of the Rochdale, Oldham and Tameside extensions have already been funded and will be built regardless of the TIF package. Is 18 miles of extra track really the best way to spend £1.2 billion?"

Straight from yours truly Peel.

http://www.stopthecharge.co.uk/alternatives.php

[East-Mcr]

Originally Posted by andysimo123

"Explore cheaper public transport options - The proposed Metrolink expansion adds just 18 miles of track (the extensions to the airport and Trafford Park) but accounts for around half of the councils' total transport spend under TIF - a massive £1.2 billion. Virtually all of the Rochdale, Oldham and Tameside extensions have already been funded and will be built regardless of the TIF package. Is 18 miles of extra track really the best way to spend £1.2 billion?"

Straight from yours truly Peel.

http://www.stopthecharge.co.uk/alternatives.php

The extract you kindly pointed out shows they are in favour of enhancing public transport including the Metrolink, but £1.2BN is too much to spend on the metrolink extentions (and I agree). The metrolink expansion proposas under TIF - remember 3b only - 3a is already covered without tif (although strangely, they keep refering to the 3a extentions in TIF booklets to make TIF more appealing...

So, once again, where does it say Peel are against the Metrolink extensions?

[andysimo123]

Originally Posted by East-Mcr

The extract you kindly pointed out shows they are in favour of enhancing public transport including the Metrolink, but £1.2BN is too much to spend on the metrolink extentions (and I agree). The metrolink expansion proposas under TIF - remember 3b only - 3a is already covered without tif (although strangely, they keep refering to the 3a extentions in TIF booklets to make TIF more appealing...

So, once again, where does it say Peel are against the Metrolink extensions?

One they run that website(if they don't who the hell does?) and two they fail to understand costs. 62 new trams are needed. That's £124 Million. Two lines to the Airport and Trafford park are totally missed. The 2nd city centre line is missed. It fails to say that some of that is private funding. Some of the money put into Phase 3b will improve 3a such as the 62 extra trams and the fact that there is more of it. Phase 3a is a half finished project just like the Manchester Airport road to no where.

[East-Mcr]

Originally Posted by andysimo123

One they run that website(if they don't who the hell does?)

No they dont....

~# whois stopthecharge.co.uk

Domain name:
stopthecharge.co.uk

Registrant:
Andy Dunbar

Registrant type:
UK Individual

His address is availabe on the public WHOIS, but I thught it not fair to post it here...

Originally Posted by andysimo123

and two

No, we are back to "one" again

Sorry- I thought you were going to answer my question ... so once again, where does it say Peel are against the Metrolink extensions??

Originally Posted by andysimo123

Phase 3a is a half finished project just like the Manchester Airport road to no where.

Interesting you should mention that - look who the "yes" camp have supporting them now

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....ccharge_debate

Yes, it's no other than John "two jags, i'll drive my wife 20 yards so she does not mess her hair up, living in Hull" Prestcott! Erm, Wasn't it his fault the A555 is like it is today (unfinished) and the "big bang" never happened?

[CDX]

These guys have a hell of a lot to answer for:

http://www.burstproofbubble.com/vide...he_charge.html

http://www.communiquepr.co.uk/

Originally commissioned to develop a simple logo for the upcoming campaign to oppose the Manchester Congestion Charge, our proposed design steered all future creative across the web and outdoor advertising.

We took the shark theme a step futher in the form of a big blue predator who starred in four short viral videos produced entirely here within the bubble.

http://www.how-do.co.uk/north-west-m...-200806102775/