Thanks - did see some kind of block massing visuals but presume early days on any form of designs?
Etihad Campus, Stadium and Collar Site Development Thread
- Thread starter Danamy
- Start date
Oystercatcher28
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 7,355
- Location
- https://acton28.blog/
- Team supported
- CITY/Aberystwyth Town
The consultation shed closed yesterday. I wish I'd asked if the sofas needed a new home.
The mini-display was informative without being overwhelming and it is quite an exciting project. More safe standing and budget seats please.
The mini-display was informative without being overwhelming and it is quite an exciting project. More safe standing and budget seats please.
FootballSense
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 534
North Stand Expansion, Associated Developments and Transport
There is much to be happy about following City and having a superb Etihad Campus. The new proposals, which have already been outlined and much debated, will enhance the stadium, the area behind the current North Stand and provide better facilities for fans. Co-op Live will also provide new bars, eateries and toilets on match days and nights when scheduling allows.
City are not responsible for everyone and everything though.
Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)
TfGM is responsible for delivering Greater Manchester’s transport strategy and commitments. More than 5.6 million journeys are made across Greater Manchester’s transport network each day. It is their job to keep the city-region moving and growing.
tfgm.com
City and supporters can suggest, put forward ideas and proposals, influence and try and secure improvements. There are however practical and physical constraints to consider. Funding is a major issue.
Outside of the capital, which has been a special case for transport infrastructure investment, most football clubs face big transport challenges on match days, especially at the larger stadiums in the main conurbations. This is not unique to City.
How do they cope at Anfield with no metro link or rail stations? What will it be like at Everton`s new stadium with water on 3 sides?
The reality is that whilst improvements to safety management and control of numbers on the privately owned metrolink system must be secured, the actual service frequencies and stock of trams is constrained. There is limited scope for improvements on the existing track which also has to share and cross roads. The prospect of major improvements is remote.
As with any major venue, there will be a variety of measures. Spreading the load over a longer period of time will be crucial. by encouraging earlier arrivals and later departures More shuttle buses, greater use of Piccadilly, Victoria and Ashbury`s railway stations, increased walking and cycling will all form part of the mix.
City will do as much as they can within their remit, supporters can bring forward sensible, thought through ideas but ultimately Transport for Greater Manchester is responsible for planning, funding and delivery.
There is much to be happy about following City and having a superb Etihad Campus. The new proposals, which have already been outlined and much debated, will enhance the stadium, the area behind the current North Stand and provide better facilities for fans. Co-op Live will also provide new bars, eateries and toilets on match days and nights when scheduling allows.
City are not responsible for everyone and everything though.
Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)
TfGM is responsible for delivering Greater Manchester’s transport strategy and commitments. More than 5.6 million journeys are made across Greater Manchester’s transport network each day. It is their job to keep the city-region moving and growing.
Who we are
At Transport for Greater Manchester, we're all about keeping Greater Manchester moving and growing. It’s our role to make it easier for you to get from A to B.
tfgm.com
City and supporters can suggest, put forward ideas and proposals, influence and try and secure improvements. There are however practical and physical constraints to consider. Funding is a major issue.
Outside of the capital, which has been a special case for transport infrastructure investment, most football clubs face big transport challenges on match days, especially at the larger stadiums in the main conurbations. This is not unique to City.
How do they cope at Anfield with no metro link or rail stations? What will it be like at Everton`s new stadium with water on 3 sides?
The reality is that whilst improvements to safety management and control of numbers on the privately owned metrolink system must be secured, the actual service frequencies and stock of trams is constrained. There is limited scope for improvements on the existing track which also has to share and cross roads. The prospect of major improvements is remote.
As with any major venue, there will be a variety of measures. Spreading the load over a longer period of time will be crucial. by encouraging earlier arrivals and later departures More shuttle buses, greater use of Piccadilly, Victoria and Ashbury`s railway stations, increased walking and cycling will all form part of the mix.
City will do as much as they can within their remit, supporters can bring forward sensible, thought through ideas but ultimately Transport for Greater Manchester is responsible for planning, funding and delivery.
Saddleworth2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 21,851
All very clear and sensible. However, there is nothing stopping a third party, one with money to invest, in developing parts of that infrastructure for specific needs. Why can't City buy more trams for running on match days and rent them to TFGM as required on other days? Why cant City fund 'fast routes' from the Etihad out onto the M60 in the two hours after games. I'm sure there are all sorts of improvements that could be made if the investment were available. I would like to see the club form a formal partnership with TfGM to explore the art of the possible.North Stand Expansion, Associated Developments and Transport
There is much to be happy about following City and having a superb Etihad Campus. The new proposals, which have already been outlined and much debated, will enhance the stadium, the area behind the current North Stand and provide better facilities for fans. Co-op Live will also provide new bars, eateries and toilets on match days and nights when scheduling allows.
City are not responsible for everyone and everything though.
Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM)
TfGM is responsible for delivering Greater Manchester’s transport strategy and commitments. More than 5.6 million journeys are made across Greater Manchester’s transport network each day. It is their job to keep the city-region moving and growing.
Who we are
At Transport for Greater Manchester, we're all about keeping Greater Manchester moving and growing. It’s our role to make it easier for you to get from A to B.
City and supporters can suggest, put forward ideas and proposals, influence and try and secure improvements. There are however practical and physical constraints to consider. Funding is a major issue.
Outside of the capital, which has been a special case for transport infrastructure investment, most football clubs face big transport challenges on match days, especially at the larger stadiums in the main conurbations. This is not unique to City.
How do they cope at Anfield with no metro link or rail stations? What will it be like at Everton`s new stadium with water on 3 sides?
The reality is that whilst improvements to safety management and control of numbers on the privately owned metrolink system must be secured, the actual service frequencies and stock of trams is constrained. There is limited scope for improvements on the existing track which also has to share and cross roads. The prospect of major improvements is remote.
As with any major venue, there will be a variety of measures. Spreading the load over a longer period of time will be crucial. by encouraging earlier arrivals and later departures More shuttle buses, greater use of Piccadilly, Victoria and Ashbury`s railway stations, increased walking and cycling will all form part of the mix.
City will do as much as they can within their remit, supporters can bring forward sensible, thought through ideas but ultimately Transport for Greater Manchester is responsible for planning, funding and delivery.
Transport is the biggest issue... especially as they're going to further restrict parking around the stadium. I'm beginning to think my monorail idea wasn't as daft as it sounded!
Citizen of Legoland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 10,100
There is no room on the tracks or in the service patterns for more trams. Only new tracks will improve Manchester’s tram network and preferably ones which don’t share roads with stupid car drivers (and buses and lorry drivers too). But at £100M+ per mile to build, I don’t think it will be a good investment as anybody investing will probably be dead before they get their money back.
The solution to Manchester’s public transport problems is more bus lanes and fewer cars. For the Burnley game I tested the bus route for me (10 miles; 3 buses) and was shocked at the snarled up city centre. It was the reason I had a 45 minute wait for bus #2 (timetabled every 9 mins) as it transpired they had to turn back buses mid route, leaving me stranded.
But car owners shout loudest unfortunately.
And I am a car driver by the way.
Prophet of Doom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 1,667
Too many ridiculous transport ideas appearing on this thread.
City ain’t building a new transport hub or buying a fleet of electric buses.
Thats all pie in the sky nonsense.
The solutions have to come from TfGM.
City ain’t building a new transport hub or buying a fleet of electric buses.
Thats all pie in the sky nonsense.
The solutions have to come from TfGM.
Citizen of Legoland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 10,100
I think people want it fixed so they can carry on as they are but in reality we all have to change our habits. I would say my current method of driving to a close by street and walking the last mile is a lot easier than when I went to Maine Road, but back then I’d take in a few boozers as it was all public transport for me. I did hope to do similar for the Burnley game but the bus delay scuppered that idea.
I’m resigned now to use the bus to Shudehill and walk the rest of the way, but of course I’m lucky I can do that. The ideas Burnham has (or stole from London if you like) for easier cross-mode travel will make it better, hopefully.
As for solutions from TfGM, when the stadium was built, the plan was to use the freight line west of the stadium for trains coming from Marple and to build a station next to the stadium on that side. There are transport maps from the early 2000s showing the intended Metrolink line with a rail interchange at the station that eventually became Etihad Campus. That was abandoned because tram-trains, as operated in Europe, became regarded as a better solution.
Thus, the plan became to convert the Marple to Manchester train line, which goes through Ashburys, to a tram-train operation with Metrolink frequency. That would require the purchase of new vehicles that can use both the current heavy-rail line between Ashburys and Marple and then run on the streets on the current Metrolink lines from Piccadilly through the city centre. There'd be a new street section from Ashburys through Beswick and into Piccadilly station, with a new Metrolink stop in Beswick that would be a fairly short walk from the southern end of the stadium.
Tram-trains were trialled between Sheffield and Rotherham, and the trial was completed in November 2020. It was apparently regarded as a success, and the line used in the trial was given the go-ahead to continue to operate. However, despite TfGM publicly embracing tram-train solutions a decade ago as the key to Metrolink expansion. They said at the time that the Marple line would be the priority, but there's been no recent talk of this despite the outcome of the trial.
Thus, the plan became to convert the Marple to Manchester train line, which goes through Ashburys, to a tram-train operation with Metrolink frequency. That would require the purchase of new vehicles that can use both the current heavy-rail line between Ashburys and Marple and then run on the streets on the current Metrolink lines from Piccadilly through the city centre. There'd be a new street section from Ashburys through Beswick and into Piccadilly station, with a new Metrolink stop in Beswick that would be a fairly short walk from the southern end of the stadium.
Tram-trains were trialled between Sheffield and Rotherham, and the trial was completed in November 2020. It was apparently regarded as a success, and the line used in the trial was given the go-ahead to continue to operate. However, despite TfGM publicly embracing tram-train solutions a decade ago as the key to Metrolink expansion. They said at the time that the Marple line would be the priority, but there's been no recent talk of this despite the outcome of the trial.
JGL07
Well-Known Member
Absolutely.
Some on here proposing that City buy a fleet of electric buses, build a monorail, open a railway service, and other far fetched ideas are clearly in cloud cuckoo land.
The cost of rail infrastructure projects are eye-watering high. Electric buses appear to cost around £500,000 to £1 million each. All that to be used for less than 30 days each year for return journeys of 2 miles?
The problems were created when the GM bus services were fragmented in the 1980s allowing the likes of Stagecoach to cherry pick their routes. This will only be solved by getting an integrated bus/tram (and rail?) service for Greater Manchester, as actually still exists in Greater London.