Etihad Campus, Stadium and Collar Site Development Thread

[burning blue soul]

Everybody moans about everything. Especially in their own town.

Even after hundreds of visits over the years, I’m still in awe of the London Underground. The frequency of the trains and that it seems you can travel between virtually any two points in Greater London with just one charge of trains. Yet talk to any Londoner and they all think it’s shit.

Familiarity breeds contempt, as they say.

 

[bobom]

Musk is building something like that right now in Vegas?

Called the Hyperloop?

The Hyperloop is actually based on an idea of Lewis Carroll's - Alice in Wonderland - who realised that if you could build a train that ran through a perfectly straight (vacuum) tunnel at any angle thought the earth, then gravity alone would propel and also brake the train, and the journey time would be exactly the same for any route, regardless of whether it ran from London to Edinburgh, Paris to Manchester, or Buenos Aires to Bombay.

Of course, for the longer routes, the magma and the acceleration would kill you.

 

[Prophet of Doom]

There were numerous pubs right on the doorstep of the stadium when it first opened. Most of them have since shut down. For a reason.

Summerbees pub closed due to ‘protection’ issues with local gangsters

 

[Gone for a Burton]

The Hyperloop is actually based on an idea of Lewis Carroll's - Alice in Wonderland - who realised that if you could build a train that ran through a perfectly straight (vacuum) tunnel at any angle thought the earth, then gravity alone would propel and also brake the train, and the journey time would be exactly the same for any route, regardless of whether it ran from London to Edinburgh, Paris to Manchester, or Buenos Aires to Bombay.

Of course, for the longer routes, the magma and the acceleration would kill you.

HyperLoop has been under scope,development and trials for passenger & freight services in Dubai and Abu Dhabi for the the last four years.

 

[petrusha]

A couple of points going way back in this thread. I don't have time to locate and quote the original posts as I have a training session to deliver at work soon and need to prepare for it, but the following IMO is worth stating.

First, Aston Villa aren't upgrading their local stations. They're currently in talks with the Mayor of the West Midlands and the local transport authority for this to be done, and are expecting the costs to be met by their local equivalent of TfGM. The fact that Villa have chosen to trumpet this in the press while City are quiet about their discussions along similar lines doesn't make Villa an exemplar for us, and there's no guarantee Villa will get what they're asking for.

Second, the alleged fact that there are few, if any, precedents for a football club to be asked to enter into a section 106 agreement to fund local transport infrastructure is irrelevant here. There are few, if any, precedents for a British football club to enter into an agreement with its local council to develop a 40-acre site next to its stadium and for the club's parent company to enter into a joint venture with a developer to site one of Europe's biggest indoor concert venues right next to its stadium.

Way back before even Thaksin arrived at City, there was an official website for Sportcity Manchester that claimed 4.5 million visitors annually to all the amenities around the stadium - the tennis centre, squash centre, athletics track and so on. About one million of that number will have been attributable to MCFC matches. Stadium expansion and the fact of a better team having more home games in cup competitions means that the latter figure will have increased a bit.

But Co-op Live will have 100 to 150 events per year, so let's hypothesise from that another 1.5 million visitors to the campus every year. The facilities within Co-op Live will be open outside concert times, while the club is building a hotel and offices as part of the new stand. Let's guess that this will add a further 0.5 million to the annual visitor number.

So you're now raising the number of visitors by over 50% from the number that the current transport infrastructure was designed to handle. At the same time, there are parking restrictions coming into force that will make visiting by car much more difficult during times when the Campus is in peak use. In these circumstances, a request to the developer for a significant section 106 contribution to support transport improvements seems entirely reasonable.

Unfortunately, and especially in the light of the parking issues, the mooted improvements discussed so far (walking routes, taxis and the like) seem wholly inadequate. Of course in these circumstances people will quite rightly discuss whether there might be other options, such as running shuttle buses or making use of the freight line running past the ground (as, in the latter case, TfGM did in the past have plans to do).

If people have some kind of specialist knowledge and can explain why any ideas put forward aren't workable, that's a welcome addition to any discussion. On the other hand, I find it somewhat tiresome when posters post trenchantly that "It'll never happen!" without further explanation. It adds nothing of value to the discussion, as far as I can see.

Nonetheless, I do concede we're generally better served by looking at TfGM's current plans and priorities to see what kind of ideas the best chance of flying. I've more to say about that, but I have stuff to do now so it will have to wait.

 

[Gone for a Burton]

When i started work at the Refuge on Oxford Street in 1960 each dept, over all 3/4 floors was connected to the mailroom by suction tubes.

As were many of the big general stores...Lewis’s etc...Vacuum cartridges to transfer documents,payments & change.

Back to the future!!

 

[Prophet of Doom]

A couple of points going way back in this thread. I don't have time to locate and quote the original posts as I have a training session to deliver at work soon and need to prepare for it, but the following IMO is worth stating.

First, Aston Villa aren't upgrading their local stations. They're currently in talks with the Mayor of the West Midlands and the local transport authority for this to be done, and are expecting the costs to be met by their local equivalent of TfGM. The fact that Villa have chosen to trumpet this in the press while City are quiet about their discussions along similar lines doesn't make Villa an exemplar for us, and there's no guarantee Villa will get what they're asking for.

Second, the alleged fact that there are few, if any, precedents for a football club to be asked to enter into a section 106 agreement to fund local transport infrastructure is irrelevant here. There are few, if any, precedents for a British football club to enter into an agreement with its local council to develop a 40-acre site next to its stadium and for the club's parent company to enter into a joint venture with a developer to site one of Europe's biggest indoor concert venues right next to its stadium.

Way back before even Thaksin arrived at City, there was an official website for Sportcity Manchester that claimed 4.5 million visitors annually to all the amenities around the stadium - the tennis centre, squash centre, athletics track and so on. About one million of that number will have been attributable to MCFC matches. Stadium expansion and the fact of a better team having more home games in cup competitions means that the latter figure will have increased a bit.

But Co-op Live will have 100 to 150 events per year, so let's hypothesise from that another 1.5 million visitors to the campus every year. The facilities within Co-op Live will be open outside concert times, while the club is building a hotel and offices as part of the new stand. Let's guess that this will add a further 0.5 million to the annual visitor number.

So you're now raising the number of visitors by over 50% from the number that the current transport infrastructure was designed to handle. At the same time, there are parking restrictions coming into force that will make visiting by car much more difficult during times when the Campus is in peak use. In these circumstances, a request to the developer for a significant section 106 contribution to support transport improvements seems entirely reasonable.

Unfortunately, and especially in the light of the parking issues, the mooted improvements discussed so far (walking routes, taxis and the like) seem wholly inadequate. Of course in these circumstances people will quite rightly discuss whether there might be other options, such as running shuttle buses or making use of the freight line running past the ground (as, in the latter case, TfGM did in the past have plans to do).

If people have some kind of specialist knowledge and can explain why any ideas put forward aren't workable, that's a welcome addition to any discussion. On the other hand, I find it somewhat tiresome when posters post trenchantly that "It'll never happen!" without further explanation. It adds nothing of value to the discussion, as far as I can see.

Nonetheless, I do concede we're generally better served by looking at TfGM's current plans and priorities to see what kind of ideas the best chance of flying. I've more to say about that, but I have stuff to do now so it will have to wait.

Good post but find it impossible to believe there were 4.5m visitors to Sport City pre Thaksin.

Not sure if this was somebody in the council dreaming these up but these figures but visitors to the the other sports facilities are tiny compared to the football club and what the Arena will attract.

 

[pride in battle]

Again, just banding ideas about. There's a huge parcel of unused land on Ashton Old Road, close to the Etihad.

From memory, I think the sign is still up, over 5 acres of the land is up for sale. It's behind a tall wall opposite the newish apartment buildings and housing estate.

Don't know what parcel of land is up for sale exactly as there's that much of it shown on Google Earth 3D.

There's a train line that terminates on another parcel of land nearby. Don't know anything about that.

That land would make a great park and ride car park. Close to the ground, but not in the vicinity of the ground, walkable, or catch a (electric) bus. And on a major route in and out of the area.

The land around the Etihad.

Bar the 2 back car parks, and the Collar site car park, which will eventually go, there isn't much land around the ground to create (park and ride) car parks. Or land that is appropriate for car parking.

HS2 is supposed to be 'coming up' on that land...

 

[Maly]

Good post but find it impossible to believe there were 4.5m visitors to Sport City pre Thaksin.

Not sure if this was somebody in the council dreaming these up but these figures but visitors to the the other sports facilities are tiny compared to the football club and what the Arena will attract.

https://www.visitmanchester.com/whats-on/manchester-international-p382381

 

[richards30]

Wakey wakey City! I want more info! lol

 

[FootballSense]

A couple of points going way back in this thread. I don't have time to locate and quote the original posts as I have a training session to deliver at work soon and need to prepare for it, but the following IMO is worth stating.

First, Aston Villa aren't upgrading their local stations. They're currently in talks with the Mayor of the West Midlands and the local transport authority for this to be done, and are expecting the costs to be met by their local equivalent of TfGM. The fact that Villa have chosen to trumpet this in the press while City are quiet about their discussions along similar lines doesn't make Villa an exemplar for us, and there's no guarantee Villa will get what they're asking for.

Second, the alleged fact that there are few, if any, precedents for a football club to be asked to enter into a section 106 agreement to fund local transport infrastructure is irrelevant here. There are few, if any, precedents for a British football club to enter into an agreement with its local council to develop a 40-acre site next to its stadium and for the club's parent company to enter into a joint venture with a developer to site one of Europe's biggest indoor concert venues right next to its stadium.

Way back before even Thaksin arrived at City, there was an official website for Sportcity Manchester that claimed 4.5 million visitors annually to all the amenities around the stadium - the tennis centre, squash centre, athletics track and so on. About one million of that number will have been attributable to MCFC matches. Stadium expansion and the fact of a better team having more home games in cup competitions means that the latter figure will have increased a bit.

But Co-op Live will have 100 to 150 events per year, so let's hypothesise from that another 1.5 million visitors to the campus every year. The facilities within Co-op Live will be open outside concert times, while the club is building a hotel and offices as part of the new stand. Let's guess that this will add a further 0.5 million to the annual visitor number.

So you're now raising the number of visitors by over 50% from the number that the current transport infrastructure was designed to handle. At the same time, there are parking restrictions coming into force that will make visiting by car much more difficult during times when the Campus is in peak use. In these circumstances, a request to the developer for a significant section 106 contribution to support transport improvements seems entirely reasonable.

Unfortunately, and especially in the light of the parking issues, the mooted improvements discussed so far (walking routes, taxis and the like) seem wholly inadequate. Of course in these circumstances people will quite rightly discuss whether there might be other options, such as running shuttle buses or making use of the freight line running past the ground (as, in the latter case, TfGM did in the past have plans to do).

If people have some kind of specialist knowledge and can explain why any ideas put forward aren't workable, that's a welcome addition to any discussion. On the other hand, I find it somewhat tiresome when posters post trenchantly that "It'll never happen!" without further explanation. It adds nothing of value to the discussion, as far as I can see.

Nonetheless, I do concede we're generally better served by looking at TfGM's current plans and priorities to see what kind of ideas the best chance of flying. I've more to say about that, but I have stuff to do now so it will have to wait.

A couple of points going way back in this thread. I don't have time to locate and quote the original posts as I have a training session to deliver at work soon and need to prepare for it, but the following IMO is worth stating.

First, Aston Villa aren't upgrading their local stations. They're currently in talks with the Mayor of the West Midlands and the local transport authority for this to be done, and are expecting the costs to be met by their local equivalent of TfGM. The fact that Villa have chosen to trumpet this in the press while City are quiet about their discussions along similar lines doesn't make Villa an exemplar for us, and there's no guarantee Villa will get what they're asking for.

Second, the alleged fact that there are few, if any, precedents for a football club to be asked to enter into a section 106 agreement to fund local transport infrastructure is irrelevant here. There are few, if any, precedents for a British football club to enter into an agreement with its local council to develop a 40-acre site next to its stadium and for the club's parent company to enter into a joint venture with a developer to site one of Europe's biggest indoor concert venues right next to its stadium.

Way back before even Thaksin arrived at City, there was an official website for Sportcity Manchester that claimed 4.5 million visitors annually to all the amenities around the stadium - the tennis centre, squash centre, athletics track and so on. About one million of that number will have been attributable to MCFC matches. Stadium expansion and the fact of a better team having more home games in cup competitions means that the latter figure will have increased a bit.

But Co-op Live will have 100 to 150 events per year, so let's hypothesise from that another 1.5 million visitors to the campus every year. The facilities within Co-op Live will be open outside concert times, while the club is building a hotel and offices as part of the new stand. Let's guess that this will add a further 0.5 million to the annual visitor number.

So you're now raising the number of visitors by over 50% from the number that the current transport infrastructure was designed to handle. At the same time, there are parking restrictions coming into force that will make visiting by car much more difficult during times when the Campus is in peak use. In these circumstances, a request to the developer for a significant section 106 contribution to support transport improvements seems entirely reasonable.

Unfortunately, and especially in the light of the parking issues, the mooted improvements discussed so far (walking routes, taxis and the like) seem wholly inadequate. Of course in these circumstances people will quite rightly discuss whether there might be other options, such as running shuttle buses or making use of the freight line running past the ground (as, in the latter case, TfGM did in the past have plans to do).

If people have some kind of specialist knowledge and can explain why any ideas put forward aren't workable, that's a welcome addition to any discussion. On the other hand, I find it somewhat tiresome when posters post trenchantly that "It'll never happen!" without further explanation. It adds nothing of value to the discussion, as far as I can see.

Nonetheless, I do concede we're generally better served by looking at TfGM's current plans and priorities to see what kind of ideas the best chance of flying. I've more to say about that, but I have stuff to do now so it will have to wait.

Transport for Greater Manchester is the responsible authority. Its remit includes stategic planning, funding and delivery. Sources of funding must be co-ordinated by and channel through TfGM for major schemes.

If any real progress is to be made, this will be secured with TfGM, The Mayor, City as a club and other principal parties at The Etihad Campus working together to find solutions and ameliorate the impact of increased numbers coming to East Manchester. This is all within the context of centralised funding controls and priorities still focussed on London and the south.

Steps towards some form of devolution to Greater Manchester have been achieved; buses are being brought back into public control; and limited release of funding has been allowed by Whitehall.

The environment is now right for serious discussions with TfGM. However the challenges, funding and timescales should not be under estimated.

 

[Keeper!]

Do you think other fans moan about their ground being a nightmare to get to? Be thankful we’re still not at Maine Road where there was zero trams, no trains, and next to zero parking. Didn’t hear anyone moan then. Now we’re in a modern stadium within walking distance of the city centre and it’s as though we play in the darkest recesses of Outer Mongolia according to some on here.
Instead, chill out, get to the ground and realise that when you’re in ANY arena which holds 50,000 + spectators it’s going to take you more than ten minutes to get away from it!

Agree with this, the walk into the City centre is hardly a marathon, and can be pleasant if the weather is ok, and often quicker than the metro/busses.

I understand the older and infirmed can't do this but that are the ones the club/council should be looking to help more with public transport improvements.

 

[blueyorkie]

When i started work at the Refuge on Oxford Street in 1960 each dept, over all 3/4 floors was connected to the mailroom by suction tubes.

Department stores used that system in the 60’s to send cash from the tills to a secure location elsewhere in the store. I have seen it occasionally in stores in recent years.

 

[Centurions]

Not at all just trying to come up with ideas to solve problems @jrb is right there is a group of people on here that slag people off or criticise them. It's a forum where people can share ideas and talk about them, You could easily replied and said that not going to work, instead you go for the smart-ass comment instead.

You've already been told multiple times over many different posts by many different people why that wouldn't work, and yet you post the same crap again and again.

Did you post a picture of a random train station in the mistaken assumption that people don't know what they look like?

Edit: why do you keep tagging @jrb in your posts?

 

[Prophet of Doom]

https://www.visitmanchester.com/whats-on/manchester-international-p382381

Not sure who was/is behind that Visit Manchester site - but 4.5million visitors a year is simply not true.

To put it another way - the athletics track velodrome and tennis club we were told by that site would attract more visitors than the Arena and Stadium combined.

That is made up nonsense.

 

[Centurions]

...

First, Aston Villa aren't upgrading their local stations. They're currently in talks with the Mayor of the West Midlands and the local transport authority for this to be done, and are expecting the costs to be met by their local equivalent of TfGM. The fact that Villa have chosen to trumpet this in the press while City are quiet about their discussions along similar lines doesn't make Villa an exemplar for us, and there's no guarantee Villa will get what they're asking for.

...

Smelled like politics from the off, put pressure on the local council and if/when it turns out to be putting new signs up then they can point at the local council as the bad guys. I highly doubt Villa will contribute much if anything to this.

 

[Northerndave]

Edit: why do you keep tagging @jrb in your posts?

Special friends?

">

 

[failsworthblueboy]

Slightly more sinister than football hooligans.

The kind of ‘protection’ where you either pay up or the pub gets burnt down.

Very scary stuff to be honest, I believe a long time ago the Cricketers on Bradford road wouldn't pay and it is no more.

 

[SilverFox2]

Forget electric vehicles, don't buy them, they won't be around for long.

Being overtaken by hydrogen fuel cells. Governments and industry already scaling for it and making huge advancements in this next decade.

There's only so many colbalt and lithium resources to mine and fight over.

Couldn't agree more however such as Amazon and others have invested in electric vehicles at the present so should we be prepared to wait for the current electric vehicle manufacturing phase to get a return on investment or can hydrogen power run side by side?

 

[kippax_blueboy]

Agree with this, the walk into the City centre is hardly a marathon, and can be pleasant if the weather is ok, and often quicker than the metro/busses.

I understand the older and infirmed can't do this but that are the ones the club/council should be looking to help more with public transport improvements.

I agree there a thousands of young able people who just want to park as close as they can. I am 60 have no car and use public transport / walk with no issues before and after the game. It might take me an hour longer each way than driving but I can afford to spend that time to keep be a little fitter and no use a car to pollute the city I live in.
People who don't see it this way I always wonder why.