Transport bosses reveal plans to prevent repeat of traffic chaos in Southampton

Transport bosses reveal plans to prevent repeat of traffic chaos

Transport bosses reveal plans to prevent repeat of traffic chaos

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

COUNCIL bosses are introducing a raft of measures to avoid a repeat of the traffic gridlock last week following an emergency meeting.

As previously reported, motorists found themselves marooned in a three mile tailback centred on West Quay Road.

Some cruise passengers abandoned their cars and taxis while pensioners were forced to urinate on the street.

The congestion on Friday was blamed on five cruise ships in port at one time, and ongoing road works on Platform Road.

City leader Simon Letts said his officers had “not anticipated” the chaos – despite knowing the cruise liners were due to dock for months.

An emergency traffic plan had existed but it was not put in place on Friday.

Now transport chiefs have introduced measures they hope will avert a repeat of the massive jams, described as “embarrassing” and deterring visitors.

Subject to a feasibility exercise, the plans would be introduced by the second week of March. They include:

• Removing the bus lane round Queen’s Park to allow the creation of two lanes, outside lane for port traffic, inside for non-dock traffic. This will allow everyone to move past the cruise traffic.

• Examine whether traffic lights in Platform Road could be removed or switched off on busy days.

• Encourage cruise passengers to come down a day early by offering incentives, such as free entry into the Tudor House or SeaCity Museum.

• Request Hampshire Police to be present everyday when they are two or more cruise ships.

• Organise a command and control team to monitor the traffic situation around busy cruise days and take action where necessary.

Comments (72)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:34pm Tue 14 Jan 14

focus19 says...

Ha Ha Ha ha
Ha Ha Ha ha focus19
  • Score: 8

4:36pm Tue 14 Jan 14

bigfella777 says...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha, and we actually pay these peoples wages, this is the best thing I have heard for ages, free entry to Tudor house hahahahahahahahahaha
h, what an incentive that is.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha, and we actually pay these peoples wages, this is the best thing I have heard for ages, free entry to Tudor house hahahahahahahahahaha h, what an incentive that is. bigfella777
  • Score: 42

4:50pm Tue 14 Jan 14

tootle says...

Sheesh. Cruise ship park and ride from both directions NOW. Then dedicated routes lanes signposted for cruise ships only on days when in dock and all "other destinations/routes" clearly signposted for those not needing access to the docks area. Just tinkering is not going to work. This problem will last until the roadworks are finished so something long term needs to be in place. Come a day early, stay in a hotel, free entry to a museum - so you expect the average cruise passenger to tote their own bags from hotel to ship?????????? Get real they'll call a taxi, one of those stuck in the traffic jam.
Sheesh. Cruise ship park and ride from both directions NOW. Then dedicated routes lanes signposted for cruise ships only on days when in dock and all "other destinations/routes" clearly signposted for those not needing access to the docks area. Just tinkering is not going to work. This problem will last until the roadworks are finished so something long term needs to be in place. Come a day early, stay in a hotel, free entry to a museum - so you expect the average cruise passenger to tote their own bags from hotel to ship?????????? Get real they'll call a taxi, one of those stuck in the traffic jam. tootle
  • Score: 10

4:55pm Tue 14 Jan 14

sotonboy84 says...

Good idea but the proof will be in the pudding.

I hope the council officers/Letts/Rayme
nt/Balfour Beatty are reprimanded in some way because the excuse of "not anticipated" is just not good enough. It's their job to anticipate, after all. If they haven't been doing their job then what have they been wasting taxpayers money on?
Good idea but the proof will be in the pudding. I hope the council officers/Letts/Rayme nt/Balfour Beatty are reprimanded in some way because the excuse of "not anticipated" is just not good enough. It's their job to anticipate, after all. If they haven't been doing their job then what have they been wasting taxpayers money on? sotonboy84
  • Score: 26

4:59pm Tue 14 Jan 14

__KTF__ says...

Hahahahaha!!!!
Hahahahaha!!!! __KTF__
  • Score: 2

4:59pm Tue 14 Jan 14

ToastyTea says...

what help is the police there going to be ? apart from probably cause more traffic by people staring at them. Waste of their time.
What about park and ride ?
what help is the police there going to be ? apart from probably cause more traffic by people staring at them. Waste of their time. What about park and ride ? ToastyTea
  • Score: 10

5:01pm Tue 14 Jan 14

sotonboy84 says...

bigfella777 wrote:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha, and we actually pay these peoples wages, this is the best thing I have heard for ages, free entry to Tudor house hahahahahahahahahaha

h, what an incentive that is.
Free entry probably won't materialise. I was sucked into the free entry to the Sea City Museum when it opened but my ticket never arrived. When I called to ask for a ticket I was told "it must have got lost in the post and we can't send replacements". I wonder how many got lost in the post.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha, and we actually pay these peoples wages, this is the best thing I have heard for ages, free entry to Tudor house hahahahahahahahahaha h, what an incentive that is.[/p][/quote]Free entry probably won't materialise. I was sucked into the free entry to the Sea City Museum when it opened but my ticket never arrived. When I called to ask for a ticket I was told "it must have got lost in the post and we can't send replacements". I wonder how many got lost in the post. sotonboy84
  • Score: 15

5:11pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Costa Baz says...

Inside lane for through traffic and outside lane for port traffic, would work in theory.
But we all know some motorists won't be happy sitting in the outside lane, so will undertake using the other lane, then block it whilst waiting for some kind sole to let them move into the proper lane.

And anyway, shouldn't port side be left?
Inside lane for through traffic and outside lane for port traffic, would work in theory. But we all know some motorists won't be happy sitting in the outside lane, so will undertake using the other lane, then block it whilst waiting for some kind sole to let them move into the proper lane. And anyway, shouldn't port side be left? Costa Baz
  • Score: 13

5:15pm Tue 14 Jan 14

sotonbusdriver says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha, and we actually pay these peoples wages, this is the best thing I have heard for ages, free entry to Tudor house hahahahahahahahahaha


h, what an incentive that is.
Free entry probably won't materialise. I was sucked into the free entry to the Sea City Museum when it opened but my ticket never arrived. When I called to ask for a ticket I was told "it must have got lost in the post and we can't send replacements". I wonder how many got lost in the post.
I never got mine either, but a friend who did go, said it was a waste of money, with a free entry anyway, so no point in paying at all...
I doubt this city has enough free hotel rooms within the local area to the docks, that could accommodate 5 cruise liners worth of passengers anyway, plus the cost of hotels would be escalated by the Companies that own them, so all in all Southampton rips off more people...
The cruise liners needs to be moved to The Western Docks, so that the feed of traffic has the dual carriageway to cope, freeing up the avenue and eastern approaches..
And furthermore limit the liners to only a maximum of 3 in port at anyone time..
This Council is a waste of taxpayers money, they need to open their eyes and learn from previous failures they have caused, but they never learn, just going on blindly.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha, and we actually pay these peoples wages, this is the best thing I have heard for ages, free entry to Tudor house hahahahahahahahahaha h, what an incentive that is.[/p][/quote]Free entry probably won't materialise. I was sucked into the free entry to the Sea City Museum when it opened but my ticket never arrived. When I called to ask for a ticket I was told "it must have got lost in the post and we can't send replacements". I wonder how many got lost in the post.[/p][/quote]I never got mine either, but a friend who did go, said it was a waste of money, with a free entry anyway, so no point in paying at all... I doubt this city has enough free hotel rooms within the local area to the docks, that could accommodate 5 cruise liners worth of passengers anyway, plus the cost of hotels would be escalated by the Companies that own them, so all in all Southampton rips off more people... The cruise liners needs to be moved to The Western Docks, so that the feed of traffic has the dual carriageway to cope, freeing up the avenue and eastern approaches.. And furthermore limit the liners to only a maximum of 3 in port at anyone time.. This Council is a waste of taxpayers money, they need to open their eyes and learn from previous failures they have caused, but they never learn, just going on blindly. sotonbusdriver
  • Score: 5

5:20pm Tue 14 Jan 14

bigfella777 says...

sotonbusdriver wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha, and we actually pay these peoples wages, this is the best thing I have heard for ages, free entry to Tudor house hahahahahahahahahaha



h, what an incentive that is.
Free entry probably won't materialise. I was sucked into the free entry to the Sea City Museum when it opened but my ticket never arrived. When I called to ask for a ticket I was told "it must have got lost in the post and we can't send replacements". I wonder how many got lost in the post.
I never got mine either, but a friend who did go, said it was a waste of money, with a free entry anyway, so no point in paying at all...
I doubt this city has enough free hotel rooms within the local area to the docks, that could accommodate 5 cruise liners worth of passengers anyway, plus the cost of hotels would be escalated by the Companies that own them, so all in all Southampton rips off more people...
The cruise liners needs to be moved to The Western Docks, so that the feed of traffic has the dual carriageway to cope, freeing up the avenue and eastern approaches..
And furthermore limit the liners to only a maximum of 3 in port at anyone time..
This Council is a waste of taxpayers money, they need to open their eyes and learn from previous failures they have caused, but they never learn, just going on blindly.
I got mine, it went in the bin.
[quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha, and we actually pay these peoples wages, this is the best thing I have heard for ages, free entry to Tudor house hahahahahahahahahaha h, what an incentive that is.[/p][/quote]Free entry probably won't materialise. I was sucked into the free entry to the Sea City Museum when it opened but my ticket never arrived. When I called to ask for a ticket I was told "it must have got lost in the post and we can't send replacements". I wonder how many got lost in the post.[/p][/quote]I never got mine either, but a friend who did go, said it was a waste of money, with a free entry anyway, so no point in paying at all... I doubt this city has enough free hotel rooms within the local area to the docks, that could accommodate 5 cruise liners worth of passengers anyway, plus the cost of hotels would be escalated by the Companies that own them, so all in all Southampton rips off more people... The cruise liners needs to be moved to The Western Docks, so that the feed of traffic has the dual carriageway to cope, freeing up the avenue and eastern approaches.. And furthermore limit the liners to only a maximum of 3 in port at anyone time.. This Council is a waste of taxpayers money, they need to open their eyes and learn from previous failures they have caused, but they never learn, just going on blindly.[/p][/quote]I got mine, it went in the bin. bigfella777
  • Score: 4

5:27pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Graeme Harrison says...

bigfella777 wrote:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha, and we actually pay these peoples wages, this is the best thing I have heard for ages, free entry to Tudor house hahahahahahahahahaha

h, what an incentive that is.
If only there was an ice-rink, the passengers could go there, break their hips/wrists/necks, and be rushed into the General. That'd cut down on the numbers trying to get to the ships, thereby reducing congestion.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha, and we actually pay these peoples wages, this is the best thing I have heard for ages, free entry to Tudor house hahahahahahahahahaha h, what an incentive that is.[/p][/quote]If only there was an ice-rink, the passengers could go there, break their hips/wrists/necks, and be rushed into the General. That'd cut down on the numbers trying to get to the ships, thereby reducing congestion. Graeme Harrison
  • Score: 3

5:35pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Costa Baz says...

Is there any potential for another entrance being created?

Where Regents Park road, meets Millbrook road West, is it possible to utilise the road that runs straight on towards the railway line, and develop it, with a bridge over the railway line, into an entrance?

This would give cruise traffic coming in via the M271 and from the west, 2 entrances, (this and the one off Millbrook roundabout), leaving the ones at dock gates 4 and 10, for cruise traffic coming from the east or down the Avenue.

If APB are serious about holding on to their business, wouldn't it be in their best interests to help bankroll, such a move?

I can't recall what is actually down that road, so don't know if it is feasible.
Is there any potential for another entrance being created? Where Regents Park road, meets Millbrook road West, is it possible to utilise the road that runs straight on towards the railway line, and develop it, with a bridge over the railway line, into an entrance? This would give cruise traffic coming in via the M271 and from the west, 2 entrances, (this and the one off Millbrook roundabout), leaving the ones at dock gates 4 and 10, for cruise traffic coming from the east or down the Avenue. If APB are serious about holding on to their business, wouldn't it be in their best interests to help bankroll, such a move? I can't recall what is actually down that road, so don't know if it is feasible. Costa Baz
  • Score: 8

5:37pm Tue 14 Jan 14

justace says...

Suggest sacking the d******d" who decided it was appropriate to do roadworks simultaneously at Platform road, Itchen bridge and even Portsmouth road and who didn't have the sense or foresight to look at the ABP website for ship movements (published one year in advance).

And the d******d" who thought it appropriate to site Ikea and multiple car dealerships on the main road to the ship embarking facilities.
Suggest sacking the d******d" who decided it was appropriate to do roadworks simultaneously at Platform road, Itchen bridge and even Portsmouth road and who didn't have the sense or foresight to look at the ABP website for ship movements (published one year in advance). And the d******d" who thought it appropriate to site Ikea and multiple car dealerships on the main road to the ship embarking facilities. justace
  • Score: 29

5:48pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Zexagon says...

ToastyTea wrote:
what help is the police there going to be ? apart from probably cause more traffic by people staring at them. Waste of their time.
What about park and ride ?
They can give the pensioners who urinate in the street an £80 fine. That's what happens up Bedford place
[quote][p][bold]ToastyTea[/bold] wrote: what help is the police there going to be ? apart from probably cause more traffic by people staring at them. Waste of their time. What about park and ride ?[/p][/quote]They can give the pensioners who urinate in the street an £80 fine. That's what happens up Bedford place Zexagon
  • Score: 7

5:52pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Maine Lobster says...

Just space out the ships for heaven's sake and establish a park and ride. Why a park and ride hasn't been established is a mystery. Successive Councils have failed to establish it where many other towns & cities can see it as the obvious solution.
Just space out the ships for heaven's sake and establish a park and ride. Why a park and ride hasn't been established is a mystery. Successive Councils have failed to establish it where many other towns & cities can see it as the obvious solution. Maine Lobster
  • Score: 6

5:53pm Tue 14 Jan 14

S Pance says...

Move the Cruise port to the old Military port on the Waterside and re-introduce a passenger rail service for those wishing to see the delights of Southampton.
Move the Cruise port to the old Military port on the Waterside and re-introduce a passenger rail service for those wishing to see the delights of Southampton. S Pance
  • Score: 4

6:12pm Tue 14 Jan 14

03alpe01 says...

Haha, free entry into that piece of crap museum next to the Council offices! About the right price! It's about time this City invested in some real tourist attractions
Haha, free entry into that piece of crap museum next to the Council offices! About the right price! It's about time this City invested in some real tourist attractions 03alpe01
  • Score: 1

6:33pm Tue 14 Jan 14

red/whitearmy says...

Is it not possible for the Cruise Operators to try and arrange for the liners to port on different days so we do not have 3/4/5 liners in at same time. I know liners go to different ports and have different amount of nights etc , But couldnt something like that happen. Or is it just me not thinking logical. Traffic will always be **** like a car park when ever we have these liners in. Im hoping it will be better once the road works have finished along queens park and it becomes a dual carriageway.
Is it not possible for the Cruise Operators to try and arrange for the liners to port on different days so we do not have 3/4/5 liners in at same time. I know liners go to different ports and have different amount of nights etc , But couldnt something like that happen. Or is it just me not thinking logical. Traffic will always be **** like a car park when ever we have these liners in. Im hoping it will be better once the road works have finished along queens park and it becomes a dual carriageway. red/whitearmy
  • Score: -3

6:35pm Tue 14 Jan 14

sotonbusdriver says...

03alpe01 wrote:
Haha, free entry into that piece of crap museum next to the Council offices! About the right price! It's about time this City invested in some real tourist attractions
Don't suggest that this Council invests in tourism, as it will see that as a licence to demolish the remaining old walls and the Bargate too.... For more shops....
Liverpool has much better access by roads and infrastructure than we have,, I can see we will loose the fight before long, and cruise will start to use Liverpool over Southampton.. Leaving us with more unemployment than we already suffer from
[quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Haha, free entry into that piece of crap museum next to the Council offices! About the right price! It's about time this City invested in some real tourist attractions[/p][/quote]Don't suggest that this Council invests in tourism, as it will see that as a licence to demolish the remaining old walls and the Bargate too.... For more shops.... Liverpool has much better access by roads and infrastructure than we have,, I can see we will loose the fight before long, and cruise will start to use Liverpool over Southampton.. Leaving us with more unemployment than we already suffer from sotonbusdriver
  • Score: 0

6:37pm Tue 14 Jan 14

andy89 says...

There's a little tweak which would probably help a lot - put left and straight on filter lights on platform road at the junction with dock gate 4. Then split the pedestrian crossing phases into two - one to cross platform road, and one to cross central road. This would allow a number of extra movements:
* Platform road traffic to go straight on while pedestrians are crossing central road
* Outbound port traffic allowed while pedestrians are crossing platform road
* Inbound port traffic allowed while outgoing port traffic is on green
There's a little tweak which would probably help a lot - put left and straight on filter lights on platform road at the junction with dock gate 4. Then split the pedestrian crossing phases into two - one to cross platform road, and one to cross central road. This would allow a number of extra movements: * Platform road traffic to go straight on while pedestrians are crossing central road * Outbound port traffic allowed while pedestrians are crossing platform road * Inbound port traffic allowed while outgoing port traffic is on green andy89
  • Score: 1

6:39pm Tue 14 Jan 14

KA says...

Lmao..... So obviously the museums are not doing as well as the council thought they would!!
Lmao..... So obviously the museums are not doing as well as the council thought they would!! KA
  • Score: 0

6:40pm Tue 14 Jan 14

kevinchandler100@talktalk.net says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
Good idea but the proof will be in the pudding.

I hope the council officers/Letts/Rayme

nt/Balfour Beatty are reprimanded in some way because the excuse of "not anticipated" is just not good enough. It's their job to anticipate, after all. If they haven't been doing their job then what have they been wasting taxpayers money on?
It's not only the road works outside dock 4 that are the problem it is at the Southampton side of the Itchen bridge. That couses the first problem for residents that live in WOOLSTON and surrounding area's that are trying to get into the city to go to work. I don't know why the cruise lines don't use dock gate 20 at millbrok. That would take a load of traffic off the millbrok bypass and ease the traffic coming to the city center. I ask the question why is there no work being done at the weekend to get the jobs done.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Good idea but the proof will be in the pudding. I hope the council officers/Letts/Rayme nt/Balfour Beatty are reprimanded in some way because the excuse of "not anticipated" is just not good enough. It's their job to anticipate, after all. If they haven't been doing their job then what have they been wasting taxpayers money on?[/p][/quote]It's not only the road works outside dock 4 that are the problem it is at the Southampton side of the Itchen bridge. That couses the first problem for residents that live in WOOLSTON and surrounding area's that are trying to get into the city to go to work. I don't know why the cruise lines don't use dock gate 20 at millbrok. That would take a load of traffic off the millbrok bypass and ease the traffic coming to the city center. I ask the question why is there no work being done at the weekend to get the jobs done. kevinchandler100@talktalk.net
  • Score: 10

6:42pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Mary80 says...

The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses
The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses Mary80
  • Score: -15

6:47pm Tue 14 Jan 14

SOULJACKER says...

Good God, Tudor House museum.
I think this shows Southampton councils traffic calming measures to be truly medievil like the people who supposedly run our fair city.
NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE as usual!
Good God, Tudor House museum. I think this shows Southampton councils traffic calming measures to be truly medievil like the people who supposedly run our fair city. NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE as usual! SOULJACKER
  • Score: 5

6:48pm Tue 14 Jan 14

kevinchandler100@talktalk.net says...

There could be as mentioned a park and ride from both sides of the water one at nursling of the M27 and one at Eastleigh just of the M 3/ M 27 And one at bursildon just off the M27 this would reduce traffic coming it to the city from all angles.
There could be as mentioned a park and ride from both sides of the water one at nursling of the M27 and one at Eastleigh just of the M 3/ M 27 And one at bursildon just off the M27 this would reduce traffic coming it to the city from all angles. kevinchandler100@talktalk.net
  • Score: 5

6:58pm Tue 14 Jan 14

eurogordi says...

What a fantastic plan from Southampton City Council ... of course, I am joking and, if it was 1st April, I would have thought the council were doing the same.

The solution is simple:

1. Talk to the cruise liners so that ships are not in port at the same time

2. Move everything to Liverpool

As for free entry to Sea City and Tudor House ... what planet is the council on? People may have to book leave, put dogs in kennels etc. and, if they were to come a day early, pay for extra accommodation.

Hang on a moment, perhaps they could also sleep free of charge at Sea City and Tudor House!!!!
What a fantastic plan from Southampton City Council ... of course, I am joking and, if it was 1st April, I would have thought the council were doing the same. The solution is simple: 1. Talk to the cruise liners so that ships are not in port at the same time 2. Move everything to Liverpool As for free entry to Sea City and Tudor House ... what planet is the council on? People may have to book leave, put dogs in kennels etc. and, if they were to come a day early, pay for extra accommodation. Hang on a moment, perhaps they could also sleep free of charge at Sea City and Tudor House!!!! eurogordi
  • Score: 0

7:15pm Tue 14 Jan 14

100%HANTSBOY says...

Mary80 wrote:
The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses
Are you sure?
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses[/p][/quote]Are you sure? 100%HANTSBOY
  • Score: 9

7:19pm Tue 14 Jan 14

chimneysweep 1234 says...

Are these councilors paid to think up dum ideas like this ...They also need to put illuminate date signs in woolston for example days before so we can avoid the area totaly with warnings ..In town on motorway etc .. and other ideas ..If they get in museum free so do I'm local
Are these councilors paid to think up dum ideas like this ...They also need to put illuminate date signs in woolston for example days before so we can avoid the area totaly with warnings ..In town on motorway etc .. and other ideas ..If they get in museum free so do I'm local chimneysweep 1234
  • Score: -2

7:22pm Tue 14 Jan 14

chimneysweep 1234 says...

S Pance wrote:
Move the Cruise port to the old Military port on the Waterside and re-introduce a passenger rail service for those wishing to see the delights of Southampton.
Wow now that's the only great idia on here
[quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: Move the Cruise port to the old Military port on the Waterside and re-introduce a passenger rail service for those wishing to see the delights of Southampton.[/p][/quote]Wow now that's the only great idia on here chimneysweep 1234
  • Score: 2

7:22pm Tue 14 Jan 14

chimneysweep 1234 says...

S Pance wrote:
Move the Cruise port to the old Military port on the Waterside and re-introduce a passenger rail service for those wishing to see the delights of Southampton.
Wow now that's the only great idia on here
[quote][p][bold]S Pance[/bold] wrote: Move the Cruise port to the old Military port on the Waterside and re-introduce a passenger rail service for those wishing to see the delights of Southampton.[/p][/quote]Wow now that's the only great idia on here chimneysweep 1234
  • Score: 3

7:58pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Oh my goodness says...

SOULJACKER wrote:
Good God, Tudor House museum.
I think this shows Southampton councils traffic calming measures to be truly medievil like the people who supposedly run our fair city.
NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE as usual!
Tudor House used to be amazing in the 1970s you actually felt you were stepping back in time. It is now sparse with a small amount of interactive devices with the odd modern plastic chair dotted here and there. I have heard that most of the original furnishings etc are in storage. Who is paying for that, and why are we being denied of our history?
[quote][p][bold]SOULJACKER[/bold] wrote: Good God, Tudor House museum. I think this shows Southampton councils traffic calming measures to be truly medievil like the people who supposedly run our fair city. NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE as usual![/p][/quote]Tudor House used to be amazing in the 1970s you actually felt you were stepping back in time. It is now sparse with a small amount of interactive devices with the odd modern plastic chair dotted here and there. I have heard that most of the original furnishings etc are in storage. Who is paying for that, and why are we being denied of our history? Oh my goodness
  • Score: 1

8:06pm Tue 14 Jan 14

ShakeyWiffles says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
Just space out the ships for heaven's sake and establish a park and ride. Why a park and ride hasn't been established is a mystery. Successive Councils have failed to establish it where many other towns & cities can see it as the obvious solution.
Since when was SCC known for doing the obvious?
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: Just space out the ships for heaven's sake and establish a park and ride. Why a park and ride hasn't been established is a mystery. Successive Councils have failed to establish it where many other towns & cities can see it as the obvious solution.[/p][/quote]Since when was SCC known for doing the obvious? ShakeyWiffles
  • Score: 2

8:23pm Tue 14 Jan 14

bigfella777 says...

The answer is simple but unpopular, Latimer Street used to run all the way from Bernard Street across Oxford St and then through the middle of Andrews park to dock gate 4 but some wiseguy decided to block it all off. Even if they unblocked the section which runs through the park traffic could come directly down John St, right into Oxford St then out of Latimer St, through the park and straight into dock gate 4 with the help of some traffic lights.
It could be open just on cruise days and cars would not have to go into the stupid one way system at all.
The answer is simple but unpopular, Latimer Street used to run all the way from Bernard Street across Oxford St and then through the middle of Andrews park to dock gate 4 but some wiseguy decided to block it all off. Even if they unblocked the section which runs through the park traffic could come directly down John St, right into Oxford St then out of Latimer St, through the park and straight into dock gate 4 with the help of some traffic lights. It could be open just on cruise days and cars would not have to go into the stupid one way system at all. bigfella777
  • Score: 5

8:42pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Pobinr says...

Traffic has got much worse over the last 6 or 7 years since half of Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia etc has come to live here.
Vote UKIP
Traffic has got much worse over the last 6 or 7 years since half of Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia etc has come to live here. Vote UKIP Pobinr
  • Score: -3

8:48pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Quentin Heslop says...

What does removing or turning off traffic lights on busy days say about their contribution to traffic movement?
What does removing or turning off traffic lights on busy days say about their contribution to traffic movement? Quentin Heslop
  • Score: 7

9:01pm Tue 14 Jan 14

westhantsboy says...

Police when two or more cruise ships??? Are these muppets for real? The cuts by this government on the force already means this won't happen.
'Sorry, we can't investigate your crime madam as we are dealing with the inefficiencies of the local city council instead.'
Police when two or more cruise ships??? Are these muppets for real? The cuts by this government on the force already means this won't happen. 'Sorry, we can't investigate your crime madam as we are dealing with the inefficiencies of the local city council instead.' westhantsboy
  • Score: 4

9:05pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Pobinr says...

Crusie ships only cause an hour of problems occaionally. The mass wave of immigrants here mostly from East Europe cause more traffic 24/7 !
Crusie ships only cause an hour of problems occaionally. The mass wave of immigrants here mostly from East Europe cause more traffic 24/7 ! Pobinr
  • Score: -3

9:10pm Tue 14 Jan 14

WILLIAM HAGUES TWIN BROTHER. says...

san jose it ain:t.
san jose it ain:t. WILLIAM HAGUES TWIN BROTHER.
  • Score: -1

9:15pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Turtlebay says...

"the plans would be introduced by the second week of March."

COME ON SIMON, pull your finger out, NOW, not in March, you plonker!
"the plans would be introduced by the second week of March." COME ON SIMON, pull your finger out, NOW, not in March, you plonker! Turtlebay
  • Score: 6

9:16pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Turtlebay says...

"the plans would be introduced by the second week of March."

COME ON SIMON, pull your finger out, NOW, not in March, you numbskull!
"the plans would be introduced by the second week of March." COME ON SIMON, pull your finger out, NOW, not in March, you numbskull! Turtlebay
  • Score: 7

9:27pm Tue 14 Jan 14

biggus2 says...

What are Hampshire Police going to do about the volume of traffic for the docks. The problem is too many cruise ships in at the same time. The infrastructure cant cope with it. So limit the number of ships arriving at the same time. Or they have to wait in the solent until that ship has cleared.. What measures have been introduced to ensure this does not happen again. That would be the same Council measure that are in place at the Rose Bowl when there is an international Cricket Match.
What are Hampshire Police going to do about the volume of traffic for the docks. The problem is too many cruise ships in at the same time. The infrastructure cant cope with it. So limit the number of ships arriving at the same time. Or they have to wait in the solent until that ship has cleared.. What measures have been introduced to ensure this does not happen again. That would be the same Council measure that are in place at the Rose Bowl when there is an international Cricket Match. biggus2
  • Score: 0

9:42pm Tue 14 Jan 14

maximus2013 says...

Dock gate 20 should be utilised for accessing the western docks, but probably not used as ABP doesn't want passengers driving pass the mounds of salt and scrap metal piles, it would help greatly as I know Royal Caribbean ask the passengers arriving to use Gate 8(Holiday Inn ) utter nonsense! All road junctions should have yellow box junctions enforced by cameras and fixed penalties for those who block these junctions, a classic case in point is the junction at the civic centre where on more than one occasion traffic was blocking through traffic as they headed down to west quay retail park and guess what not a cruise ship in sight, these major junctions need to be kept clear for some traffic flow. The new super duper dual carriageway way outside gate 4 isn't going to solve that part of town either,once finished from the police station to ocean village approximately 15 sets of traffic lights!!!! And once the Red Funnel season gets going that to blocks up traffic in that area too, new developments at town quay another outstanding idea not, and for all your benefit I'm not even going to start on the Woolston nonsense grrr
Dock gate 20 should be utilised for accessing the western docks, but probably not used as ABP doesn't want passengers driving pass the mounds of salt and scrap metal piles, it would help greatly as I know Royal Caribbean ask the passengers arriving to use Gate 8(Holiday Inn ) utter nonsense! All road junctions should have yellow box junctions enforced by cameras and fixed penalties for those who block these junctions, a classic case in point is the junction at the civic centre where on more than one occasion traffic was blocking through traffic as they headed down to west quay retail park and guess what not a cruise ship in sight, these major junctions need to be kept clear for some traffic flow. The new super duper dual carriageway way outside gate 4 isn't going to solve that part of town either,once finished from the police station to ocean village approximately 15 sets of traffic lights!!!! And once the Red Funnel season gets going that to blocks up traffic in that area too, new developments at town quay another outstanding idea not, and for all your benefit I'm not even going to start on the Woolston nonsense grrr maximus2013
  • Score: 5

9:53pm Tue 14 Jan 14

maximus2013 says...

Mary80 wrote:
The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses
What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses[/p][/quote]What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy maximus2013
  • Score: 10

9:59pm Tue 14 Jan 14

03alpe01 says...

Graeme Harrison wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha, and we actually pay these peoples wages, this is the best thing I have heard for ages, free entry to Tudor house hahahahahahahahahaha


h, what an incentive that is.
If only there was an ice-rink, the passengers could go there, break their hips/wrists/necks, and be rushed into the General. That'd cut down on the numbers trying to get to the ships, thereby reducing congestion.
Everyone comes to Southampton to go on a Cruise ship, because at least they've got ice rinks! They are the only places that you can get on ice rinks in Southampton! That's why there's all this traffic!
[quote][p][bold]Graeme Harrison[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha, and we actually pay these peoples wages, this is the best thing I have heard for ages, free entry to Tudor house hahahahahahahahahaha h, what an incentive that is.[/p][/quote]If only there was an ice-rink, the passengers could go there, break their hips/wrists/necks, and be rushed into the General. That'd cut down on the numbers trying to get to the ships, thereby reducing congestion.[/p][/quote]Everyone comes to Southampton to go on a Cruise ship, because at least they've got ice rinks! They are the only places that you can get on ice rinks in Southampton! That's why there's all this traffic! 03alpe01
  • Score: 1

10:30pm Tue 14 Jan 14

in search of the truth says...

maximus2013 wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses
What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy
Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more.
[quote][p][bold]maximus2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses[/p][/quote]What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy[/p][/quote]Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more. in search of the truth
  • Score: 1

10:33pm Tue 14 Jan 14

in search of the truth says...

maximus2013 wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses
What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy
Market forces will sort this mess out.
When the cruise passengers put in their complaints to the cruise operators and an analysis of passenger addresses is made the cruise companies will quickly realise that some of the ships should be based at other home ports than Southampton. The fact that people are expected to travel hundreds of miles in order to pick up a cruise ship at the cruise ship bus stops situated in Southampton is utterly ridiculous and this farce highlights the fact to existing passengers, potential passengers and the cruise lines.
There is very little in Southampton to interest to cruise passengers who are in transit, it's hardly an international city with a cultural diversity where one might stay for any period before or after a cruise, after this little episode it is clear that Southampton cannot cope with problems that affect most cities from time to time ( roadworks ).
The vast majority of these passengers never look around or spend money in Southampton and therefore Southampton gains no appreciable benefit from them, they are purely clogging up the roads to the cruise ship bus stops, in future however they may vote with their feet and complain to the cruise companies that this time, enough is enough and the cruise companies who have no particular loyalty may st5arting basing ships in other more interesting and closer ports to their customers.
[quote][p][bold]maximus2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses[/p][/quote]What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy[/p][/quote]Market forces will sort this mess out. When the cruise passengers put in their complaints to the cruise operators and an analysis of passenger addresses is made the cruise companies will quickly realise that some of the ships should be based at other home ports than Southampton. The fact that people are expected to travel hundreds of miles in order to pick up a cruise ship at the cruise ship bus stops situated in Southampton is utterly ridiculous and this farce highlights the fact to existing passengers, potential passengers and the cruise lines. There is very little in Southampton to interest to cruise passengers who are in transit, it's hardly an international city with a cultural diversity where one might stay for any period before or after a cruise, after this little episode it is clear that Southampton cannot cope with problems that affect most cities from time to time ( roadworks ). The vast majority of these passengers never look around or spend money in Southampton and therefore Southampton gains no appreciable benefit from them, they are purely clogging up the roads to the cruise ship bus stops, in future however they may vote with their feet and complain to the cruise companies that this time, enough is enough and the cruise companies who have no particular loyalty may st5arting basing ships in other more interesting and closer ports to their customers. in search of the truth
  • Score: 3

10:54pm Tue 14 Jan 14

03alpe01 says...

in search of the truth wrote:
maximus2013 wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses
What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy
Market forces will sort this mess out.
When the cruise passengers put in their complaints to the cruise operators and an analysis of passenger addresses is made the cruise companies will quickly realise that some of the ships should be based at other home ports than Southampton. The fact that people are expected to travel hundreds of miles in order to pick up a cruise ship at the cruise ship bus stops situated in Southampton is utterly ridiculous and this farce highlights the fact to existing passengers, potential passengers and the cruise lines.
There is very little in Southampton to interest to cruise passengers who are in transit, it's hardly an international city with a cultural diversity where one might stay for any period before or after a cruise, after this little episode it is clear that Southampton cannot cope with problems that affect most cities from time to time ( roadworks ).
The vast majority of these passengers never look around or spend money in Southampton and therefore Southampton gains no appreciable benefit from them, they are purely clogging up the roads to the cruise ship bus stops, in future however they may vote with their feet and complain to the cruise companies that this time, enough is enough and the cruise companies who have no particular loyalty may st5arting basing ships in other more interesting and closer ports to their customers.
Very true and this is really what we are all saying. Southampton doesn't have very little to offer cruise passengers in transit, it has absolutely nothing. The Council are deluded dimwits who think we are a booming multicultural City with plenty of tourist attractions and leisure venues, when in actual fact there is sod all. Liverpool's waterfront actually makes you want to be there and it looks like the Council up there want you to be there as well. It looks and feels really really nice. They've got an arena on the waterfront as well, our lot can't wait to stick a casino on ours. I know what I'd rather have. Flats, cinemas, bars and restaurants do not interest cruise passengers in the same way arenas and other historical attractions do. Can Southampton City Council see that? Of course they can't. Cruise ships only come to Southampton for two reasons. 1) Because of the double high tide, so that they can get more boats in for longer and 2) Southampton is a lot closer and easier to get to from London than Liverpool is. If it wasn't for those reasons Liverpool would win hands down. I wouldn't be at all surprised if when before going on a cruise from Southampton, passengers opted to stay in Portsmouth instead. I wonder what Southampton City Council would have to say about that...
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maximus2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses[/p][/quote]What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy[/p][/quote]Market forces will sort this mess out. When the cruise passengers put in their complaints to the cruise operators and an analysis of passenger addresses is made the cruise companies will quickly realise that some of the ships should be based at other home ports than Southampton. The fact that people are expected to travel hundreds of miles in order to pick up a cruise ship at the cruise ship bus stops situated in Southampton is utterly ridiculous and this farce highlights the fact to existing passengers, potential passengers and the cruise lines. There is very little in Southampton to interest to cruise passengers who are in transit, it's hardly an international city with a cultural diversity where one might stay for any period before or after a cruise, after this little episode it is clear that Southampton cannot cope with problems that affect most cities from time to time ( roadworks ). The vast majority of these passengers never look around or spend money in Southampton and therefore Southampton gains no appreciable benefit from them, they are purely clogging up the roads to the cruise ship bus stops, in future however they may vote with their feet and complain to the cruise companies that this time, enough is enough and the cruise companies who have no particular loyalty may st5arting basing ships in other more interesting and closer ports to their customers.[/p][/quote]Very true and this is really what we are all saying. Southampton doesn't have very little to offer cruise passengers in transit, it has absolutely nothing. The Council are deluded dimwits who think we are a booming multicultural City with plenty of tourist attractions and leisure venues, when in actual fact there is sod all. Liverpool's waterfront actually makes you want to be there and it looks like the Council up there want you to be there as well. It looks and feels really really nice. They've got an arena on the waterfront as well, our lot can't wait to stick a casino on ours. I know what I'd rather have. Flats, cinemas, bars and restaurants do not interest cruise passengers in the same way arenas and other historical attractions do. Can Southampton City Council see that? Of course they can't. Cruise ships only come to Southampton for two reasons. 1) Because of the double high tide, so that they can get more boats in for longer and 2) Southampton is a lot closer and easier to get to from London than Liverpool is. If it wasn't for those reasons Liverpool would win hands down. I wouldn't be at all surprised if when before going on a cruise from Southampton, passengers opted to stay in Portsmouth instead. I wonder what Southampton City Council would have to say about that... 03alpe01
  • Score: 1

11:05pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Ronnie G says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha, and we actually pay these peoples wages, this is the best thing I have heard for ages, free entry to Tudor house hahahahahahahahahaha


h, what an incentive that is.
Free entry probably won't materialise. I was sucked into the free entry to the Sea City Museum when it opened but my ticket never arrived. When I called to ask for a ticket I was told "it must have got lost in the post and we can't send replacements". I wonder how many got lost in the post.
Quite a lot never even made it to the civic's franking machine, let alone made it to the post box.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha, and we actually pay these peoples wages, this is the best thing I have heard for ages, free entry to Tudor house hahahahahahahahahaha h, what an incentive that is.[/p][/quote]Free entry probably won't materialise. I was sucked into the free entry to the Sea City Museum when it opened but my ticket never arrived. When I called to ask for a ticket I was told "it must have got lost in the post and we can't send replacements". I wonder how many got lost in the post.[/p][/quote]Quite a lot never even made it to the civic's franking machine, let alone made it to the post box. Ronnie G
  • Score: 0

12:28am Wed 15 Jan 14

BeyondImagination says...

The problem starts on the M3/M27 directing traffic for Dock Gate 4 via the M271 scenic route which adds 8 miles to the journey. Better to use The Avenue for Ocean Terminal. ABP could do a lot to get traffic into the docks earlier at gates 10 or 20, but they won't.
The problem starts on the M3/M27 directing traffic for Dock Gate 4 via the M271 scenic route which adds 8 miles to the journey. Better to use The Avenue for Ocean Terminal. ABP could do a lot to get traffic into the docks earlier at gates 10 or 20, but they won't. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 0

12:28am Wed 15 Jan 14

jackois says...

6 weeks until implementation... nice.

If that was the emergency plan why can't it be put in place tomorrow if needed.

Sealife Museum - had my ticket, went and visited & came away thinking that the exhibits were poor and that they had spoiled the building.

Tudor House - I believe that the opening hours are being reduced even further as part of the money saving drive by the council.
6 weeks until implementation... nice. If that was the emergency plan why can't it be put in place tomorrow if needed. Sealife Museum - had my ticket, went and visited & came away thinking that the exhibits were poor and that they had spoiled the building. Tudor House - I believe that the opening hours are being reduced even further as part of the money saving drive by the council. jackois
  • Score: 2

12:34am Wed 15 Jan 14

BeyondImagination says...

bigfella777 wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha, and we actually pay these peoples wages, this is the best thing I have heard for ages, free entry to Tudor house hahahahahahahahahaha




h, what an incentive that is.
Free entry probably won't materialise. I was sucked into the free entry to the Sea City Museum when it opened but my ticket never arrived. When I called to ask for a ticket I was told "it must have got lost in the post and we can't send replacements". I wonder how many got lost in the post.
I never got mine either, but a friend who did go, said it was a waste of money, with a free entry anyway, so no point in paying at all...
I doubt this city has enough free hotel rooms within the local area to the docks, that could accommodate 5 cruise liners worth of passengers anyway, plus the cost of hotels would be escalated by the Companies that own them, so all in all Southampton rips off more people...
The cruise liners needs to be moved to The Western Docks, so that the feed of traffic has the dual carriageway to cope, freeing up the avenue and eastern approaches..
And furthermore limit the liners to only a maximum of 3 in port at anyone time..
This Council is a waste of taxpayers money, they need to open their eyes and learn from previous failures they have caused, but they never learn, just going on blindly.
I got mine, it went in the bin.
I had a great day out at Sea City with my free ticket. Superb value for no money.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha, and we actually pay these peoples wages, this is the best thing I have heard for ages, free entry to Tudor house hahahahahahahahahaha h, what an incentive that is.[/p][/quote]Free entry probably won't materialise. I was sucked into the free entry to the Sea City Museum when it opened but my ticket never arrived. When I called to ask for a ticket I was told "it must have got lost in the post and we can't send replacements". I wonder how many got lost in the post.[/p][/quote]I never got mine either, but a friend who did go, said it was a waste of money, with a free entry anyway, so no point in paying at all... I doubt this city has enough free hotel rooms within the local area to the docks, that could accommodate 5 cruise liners worth of passengers anyway, plus the cost of hotels would be escalated by the Companies that own them, so all in all Southampton rips off more people... The cruise liners needs to be moved to The Western Docks, so that the feed of traffic has the dual carriageway to cope, freeing up the avenue and eastern approaches.. And furthermore limit the liners to only a maximum of 3 in port at anyone time.. This Council is a waste of taxpayers money, they need to open their eyes and learn from previous failures they have caused, but they never learn, just going on blindly.[/p][/quote]I got mine, it went in the bin.[/p][/quote]I had a great day out at Sea City with my free ticket. Superb value for no money. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 4

2:30am Wed 15 Jan 14

redsnapper says...

These councillors really are dumb. This raft of measures is nothing but a sticking plaster job.

Decades of poor planning and nothing to suggest they have any idea how to plan for future volumes almost guarantees that like the x channel ferries Southampton will soon lose the cruise business.

Well done Jaqui Rayment and cCo, destroying our city without doing anything.
These councillors really are dumb. This raft of measures is nothing but a sticking plaster job. Decades of poor planning and nothing to suggest they have any idea how to plan for future volumes almost guarantees that like the x channel ferries Southampton will soon lose the cruise business. Well done Jaqui Rayment and cCo, destroying our city without doing anything. redsnapper
  • Score: 3

7:42am Wed 15 Jan 14

Eric_Cartman says...

A park and ride could be set up at Southampton Parkway and a train could take passengers into dock gate 4. I'm sure it would be popular; the romance of the 'boat train'. There are rails to the Mayflower terminal too but these are probably buried under mounds of scrap or white stuff. Bus park and ride would be the answer there if that is the case...
A park and ride could be set up at Southampton Parkway and a train could take passengers into dock gate 4. I'm sure it would be popular; the romance of the 'boat train'. There are rails to the Mayflower terminal too but these are probably buried under mounds of scrap or white stuff. Bus park and ride would be the answer there if that is the case... Eric_Cartman
  • Score: 0

8:56am Wed 15 Jan 14

dolomiteman says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
Just space out the ships for heaven's sake and establish a park and ride. Why a park and ride hasn't been established is a mystery. Successive Councils have failed to establish it where many other towns & cities can see it as the obvious solution.
There are already numerous park and rides operated by companies outside of the docks area. ABP make a lot of money from their dockside parking so it is not in their interest to lose that revenue and have empty compounds all around the dockside area.
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: Just space out the ships for heaven's sake and establish a park and ride. Why a park and ride hasn't been established is a mystery. Successive Councils have failed to establish it where many other towns & cities can see it as the obvious solution.[/p][/quote]There are already numerous park and rides operated by companies outside of the docks area. ABP make a lot of money from their dockside parking so it is not in their interest to lose that revenue and have empty compounds all around the dockside area. dolomiteman
  • Score: 0

9:48am Wed 15 Jan 14

sotonboy84 says...

in search of the truth wrote:
maximus2013 wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses
What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy
Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more.
At least Southampton's cruise industry was built fair and square, unlike your beloved Liverpool's. Who for anybody that may not be aware took EU money on the agreement that they could NOT have turn around cruises, only day cruises as no other port in the UK had EU money.

When Liverpool had their cruise terminal built they changed their mind and went against the agreement and wanted to have turn around cruises. What a fuss they made when many ports including Southampton demanded they repay the millions of pounds of EU money. Still a very sneaky and dirty way of getting the cruise terminal to begin with.

In short, you cannot compare a city that has been generated with hundreds of millions of pounds of EU money and got their cruise terminal in a sneaky and underhand way with established ports that are developed with private money.
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maximus2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses[/p][/quote]What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy[/p][/quote]Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more.[/p][/quote]At least Southampton's cruise industry was built fair and square, unlike your beloved Liverpool's. Who for anybody that may not be aware took EU money on the agreement that they could NOT have turn around cruises, only day cruises as no other port in the UK had EU money. When Liverpool had their cruise terminal built they changed their mind and went against the agreement and wanted to have turn around cruises. What a fuss they made when many ports including Southampton demanded they repay the millions of pounds of EU money. Still a very sneaky and dirty way of getting the cruise terminal to begin with. In short, you cannot compare a city that has been generated with hundreds of millions of pounds of EU money and got their cruise terminal in a sneaky and underhand way with established ports that are developed with private money. sotonboy84
  • Score: -2

9:50am Wed 15 Jan 14

phil maccavity says...

Mary80 wrote:
The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses
Mary, I am sure you have done a reasonable amount of research to substantiate your claim
However it does seem somewhat at odds with the two recent comprehensive reports actually giving figures on the matter The most recent Atkins report of 2011 gives an annual benefit of £306m and associated jobs of 3,512.
Anyone can take issue with these figures, of course, but at least there is research and methodology behind them
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses[/p][/quote]Mary, I am sure you have done a reasonable amount of research to substantiate your claim However it does seem somewhat at odds with the two recent comprehensive reports actually giving figures on the matter The most recent Atkins report of 2011 gives an annual benefit of £306m and associated jobs of 3,512. Anyone can take issue with these figures, of course, but at least there is research and methodology behind them phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

10:04am Wed 15 Jan 14

Ronnie G says...

More Billy-**** from the Labour controlled Southampton Council.
The only action plan that is actually really in place is the political agenda our Labour lot have against ABP/Soton Docks.

No need to remove bus lane, simply suspend!?
Letts said there were no more cruise ships in between now & April, so what busy period in March are they referring to?

The Information Campaign is a load of BULLOCK'S. This should have all been in place, prior to the roadworks even commencing.

The council already have Balfour Beatty as their Command and Control Team, who are supposedly in place to monitor traffic 'around' busy cruise days, taking action when needed. Just no-one takes action on the actual day the cruise ships are in!

Why waste Police manpower and funding on clearing up this political ****-up led by Ms Rayment? Is she still smarting from her embarrassing failure in her bid to run for Police Crime Commissioner?

This is so transparently obvious the Labour Council are waging a political war against Southampton Docks.
Southampton Labour Council are NOT FIT for anything, let alone FIT FOR PURPOSE!!!
More Billy-**** from the Labour controlled Southampton Council. The only action plan that is actually really in place is the political agenda our Labour lot have against ABP/Soton Docks. No need to remove bus lane, simply suspend!? Letts said there were no more cruise ships in between now & April, so what busy period in March are they referring to? The Information Campaign is a load of BULLOCK'S. This should have all been in place, prior to the roadworks even commencing. The council already have Balfour Beatty as their Command and Control Team, who are supposedly in place to monitor traffic 'around' busy cruise days, taking action when needed. Just no-one takes action on the actual day the cruise ships are in! Why waste Police manpower and funding on clearing up this political ****-up led by Ms Rayment? Is she still smarting from her embarrassing failure in her bid to run for Police Crime Commissioner? This is so transparently obvious the Labour Council are waging a political war against Southampton Docks. Southampton Labour Council are NOT FIT for anything, let alone FIT FOR PURPOSE!!! Ronnie G
  • Score: 3

10:26am Wed 15 Jan 14

in search of the truth says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
maximus2013 wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses
What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy
Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more.
At least Southampton's cruise industry was built fair and square, unlike your beloved Liverpool's. Who for anybody that may not be aware took EU money on the agreement that they could NOT have turn around cruises, only day cruises as no other port in the UK had EU money.

When Liverpool had their cruise terminal built they changed their mind and went against the agreement and wanted to have turn around cruises. What a fuss they made when many ports including Southampton demanded they repay the millions of pounds of EU money. Still a very sneaky and dirty way of getting the cruise terminal to begin with.

In short, you cannot compare a city that has been generated with hundreds of millions of pounds of EU money and got their cruise terminal in a sneaky and underhand way with established ports that are developed with private money.
I think you forget the fact that Southampton port was developed with taxpayers money between 1947 and 1982 and was privatized ( at a give away price to what is now ABP ).
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maximus2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses[/p][/quote]What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy[/p][/quote]Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more.[/p][/quote]At least Southampton's cruise industry was built fair and square, unlike your beloved Liverpool's. Who for anybody that may not be aware took EU money on the agreement that they could NOT have turn around cruises, only day cruises as no other port in the UK had EU money. When Liverpool had their cruise terminal built they changed their mind and went against the agreement and wanted to have turn around cruises. What a fuss they made when many ports including Southampton demanded they repay the millions of pounds of EU money. Still a very sneaky and dirty way of getting the cruise terminal to begin with. In short, you cannot compare a city that has been generated with hundreds of millions of pounds of EU money and got their cruise terminal in a sneaky and underhand way with established ports that are developed with private money.[/p][/quote]I think you forget the fact that Southampton port was developed with taxpayers money between 1947 and 1982 and was privatized ( at a give away price to what is now ABP ). in search of the truth
  • Score: 4

10:35am Wed 15 Jan 14

sotonboy84 says...

in search of the truth wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
maximus2013 wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses
What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy
Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more.
At least Southampton's cruise industry was built fair and square, unlike your beloved Liverpool's. Who for anybody that may not be aware took EU money on the agreement that they could NOT have turn around cruises, only day cruises as no other port in the UK had EU money.

When Liverpool had their cruise terminal built they changed their mind and went against the agreement and wanted to have turn around cruises. What a fuss they made when many ports including Southampton demanded they repay the millions of pounds of EU money. Still a very sneaky and dirty way of getting the cruise terminal to begin with.

In short, you cannot compare a city that has been generated with hundreds of millions of pounds of EU money and got their cruise terminal in a sneaky and underhand way with established ports that are developed with private money.
I think you forget the fact that Southampton port was developed with taxpayers money between 1947 and 1982 and was privatized ( at a give away price to what is now ABP ).
No I don't forget because nothing underhand was done, unlike the way that Liverpool got their cruise terminal.

You don't have a balanced view, you just have a specific agenda which is to troll the Southern Daily Echo to bleat on about how much better Liverpool is than Southampton, in your opinion. It's just odd.

Thw two city's are not on a level playing field because as I said, one has a private port and the city is funded by taxpayers and private development and Liverpool's 'regeneration' and cruise terminal was all funded by EU money.
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maximus2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses[/p][/quote]What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy[/p][/quote]Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more.[/p][/quote]At least Southampton's cruise industry was built fair and square, unlike your beloved Liverpool's. Who for anybody that may not be aware took EU money on the agreement that they could NOT have turn around cruises, only day cruises as no other port in the UK had EU money. When Liverpool had their cruise terminal built they changed their mind and went against the agreement and wanted to have turn around cruises. What a fuss they made when many ports including Southampton demanded they repay the millions of pounds of EU money. Still a very sneaky and dirty way of getting the cruise terminal to begin with. In short, you cannot compare a city that has been generated with hundreds of millions of pounds of EU money and got their cruise terminal in a sneaky and underhand way with established ports that are developed with private money.[/p][/quote]I think you forget the fact that Southampton port was developed with taxpayers money between 1947 and 1982 and was privatized ( at a give away price to what is now ABP ).[/p][/quote]No I don't forget because nothing underhand was done, unlike the way that Liverpool got their cruise terminal. You don't have a balanced view, you just have a specific agenda which is to troll the Southern Daily Echo to bleat on about how much better Liverpool is than Southampton, in your opinion. It's just odd. Thw two city's are not on a level playing field because as I said, one has a private port and the city is funded by taxpayers and private development and Liverpool's 'regeneration' and cruise terminal was all funded by EU money. sotonboy84
  • Score: -2

11:07am Wed 15 Jan 14

in search of the truth says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
maximus2013 wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses
What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy
Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more.
At least Southampton's cruise industry was built fair and square, unlike your beloved Liverpool's. Who for anybody that may not be aware took EU money on the agreement that they could NOT have turn around cruises, only day cruises as no other port in the UK had EU money.

When Liverpool had their cruise terminal built they changed their mind and went against the agreement and wanted to have turn around cruises. What a fuss they made when many ports including Southampton demanded they repay the millions of pounds of EU money. Still a very sneaky and dirty way of getting the cruise terminal to begin with.

In short, you cannot compare a city that has been generated with hundreds of millions of pounds of EU money and got their cruise terminal in a sneaky and underhand way with established ports that are developed with private money.
I think you forget the fact that Southampton port was developed with taxpayers money between 1947 and 1982 and was privatized ( at a give away price to what is now ABP ).
No I don't forget because nothing underhand was done, unlike the way that Liverpool got their cruise terminal.

You don't have a balanced view, you just have a specific agenda which is to troll the Southern Daily Echo to bleat on about how much better Liverpool is than Southampton, in your opinion. It's just odd.

Thw two city's are not on a level playing field because as I said, one has a private port and the city is funded by taxpayers and private development and Liverpool's 'regeneration' and cruise terminal was all funded by EU money.
You are completely wrong , the reason for applying for turnaround status was to do with safety problems associated with using Langton dock.
Fred Olsen pulled out for 2 seasons due to these problems.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maximus2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses[/p][/quote]What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy[/p][/quote]Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more.[/p][/quote]At least Southampton's cruise industry was built fair and square, unlike your beloved Liverpool's. Who for anybody that may not be aware took EU money on the agreement that they could NOT have turn around cruises, only day cruises as no other port in the UK had EU money. When Liverpool had their cruise terminal built they changed their mind and went against the agreement and wanted to have turn around cruises. What a fuss they made when many ports including Southampton demanded they repay the millions of pounds of EU money. Still a very sneaky and dirty way of getting the cruise terminal to begin with. In short, you cannot compare a city that has been generated with hundreds of millions of pounds of EU money and got their cruise terminal in a sneaky and underhand way with established ports that are developed with private money.[/p][/quote]I think you forget the fact that Southampton port was developed with taxpayers money between 1947 and 1982 and was privatized ( at a give away price to what is now ABP ).[/p][/quote]No I don't forget because nothing underhand was done, unlike the way that Liverpool got their cruise terminal. You don't have a balanced view, you just have a specific agenda which is to troll the Southern Daily Echo to bleat on about how much better Liverpool is than Southampton, in your opinion. It's just odd. Thw two city's are not on a level playing field because as I said, one has a private port and the city is funded by taxpayers and private development and Liverpool's 'regeneration' and cruise terminal was all funded by EU money.[/p][/quote]You are completely wrong , the reason for applying for turnaround status was to do with safety problems associated with using Langton dock. Fred Olsen pulled out for 2 seasons due to these problems. in search of the truth
  • Score: 2

11:32am Wed 15 Jan 14

sotonboy84 says...

in search of the truth wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
maximus2013 wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses
What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy
Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more.
At least Southampton's cruise industry was built fair and square, unlike your beloved Liverpool's. Who for anybody that may not be aware took EU money on the agreement that they could NOT have turn around cruises, only day cruises as no other port in the UK had EU money.

When Liverpool had their cruise terminal built they changed their mind and went against the agreement and wanted to have turn around cruises. What a fuss they made when many ports including Southampton demanded they repay the millions of pounds of EU money. Still a very sneaky and dirty way of getting the cruise terminal to begin with.

In short, you cannot compare a city that has been generated with hundreds of millions of pounds of EU money and got their cruise terminal in a sneaky and underhand way with established ports that are developed with private money.
I think you forget the fact that Southampton port was developed with taxpayers money between 1947 and 1982 and was privatized ( at a give away price to what is now ABP ).
No I don't forget because nothing underhand was done, unlike the way that Liverpool got their cruise terminal.

You don't have a balanced view, you just have a specific agenda which is to troll the Southern Daily Echo to bleat on about how much better Liverpool is than Southampton, in your opinion. It's just odd.

Thw two city's are not on a level playing field because as I said, one has a private port and the city is funded by taxpayers and private development and Liverpool's 'regeneration' and cruise terminal was all funded by EU money.
You are completely wrong , the reason for applying for turnaround status was to do with safety problems associated with using Langton dock.
Fred Olsen pulled out for 2 seasons due to these problems.
Oh right, and these safety problems were not an issue before Liverpool was given the money?

No other port had such a large taxpayer investment in its cruise terminal, relying instead on commercial revenues. So to secure the funding, the government made Liverpool sign a legal agreement that it would only take cruise ships for day and overnight visits so Liverpool was not given unfair advantage.

Somebody's telling porkies.
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maximus2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses[/p][/quote]What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy[/p][/quote]Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more.[/p][/quote]At least Southampton's cruise industry was built fair and square, unlike your beloved Liverpool's. Who for anybody that may not be aware took EU money on the agreement that they could NOT have turn around cruises, only day cruises as no other port in the UK had EU money. When Liverpool had their cruise terminal built they changed their mind and went against the agreement and wanted to have turn around cruises. What a fuss they made when many ports including Southampton demanded they repay the millions of pounds of EU money. Still a very sneaky and dirty way of getting the cruise terminal to begin with. In short, you cannot compare a city that has been generated with hundreds of millions of pounds of EU money and got their cruise terminal in a sneaky and underhand way with established ports that are developed with private money.[/p][/quote]I think you forget the fact that Southampton port was developed with taxpayers money between 1947 and 1982 and was privatized ( at a give away price to what is now ABP ).[/p][/quote]No I don't forget because nothing underhand was done, unlike the way that Liverpool got their cruise terminal. You don't have a balanced view, you just have a specific agenda which is to troll the Southern Daily Echo to bleat on about how much better Liverpool is than Southampton, in your opinion. It's just odd. Thw two city's are not on a level playing field because as I said, one has a private port and the city is funded by taxpayers and private development and Liverpool's 'regeneration' and cruise terminal was all funded by EU money.[/p][/quote]You are completely wrong , the reason for applying for turnaround status was to do with safety problems associated with using Langton dock. Fred Olsen pulled out for 2 seasons due to these problems.[/p][/quote]Oh right, and these safety problems were not an issue before Liverpool was given the money? No other port had such a large taxpayer investment in its cruise terminal, relying instead on commercial revenues. So to secure the funding, the government made Liverpool sign a legal agreement that it would only take cruise ships for day and overnight visits so Liverpool was not given unfair advantage. Somebody's telling porkies. sotonboy84
  • Score: -1

11:46am Wed 15 Jan 14

in search of the truth says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
maximus2013 wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses
What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy
Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more.
At least Southampton's cruise industry was built fair and square, unlike your beloved Liverpool's. Who for anybody that may not be aware took EU money on the agreement that they could NOT have turn around cruises, only day cruises as no other port in the UK had EU money.

When Liverpool had their cruise terminal built they changed their mind and went against the agreement and wanted to have turn around cruises. What a fuss they made when many ports including Southampton demanded they repay the millions of pounds of EU money. Still a very sneaky and dirty way of getting the cruise terminal to begin with.

In short, you cannot compare a city that has been generated with hundreds of millions of pounds of EU money and got their cruise terminal in a sneaky and underhand way with established ports that are developed with private money.
I think you forget the fact that Southampton port was developed with taxpayers money between 1947 and 1982 and was privatized ( at a give away price to what is now ABP ).
No I don't forget because nothing underhand was done, unlike the way that Liverpool got their cruise terminal.

You don't have a balanced view, you just have a specific agenda which is to troll the Southern Daily Echo to bleat on about how much better Liverpool is than Southampton, in your opinion. It's just odd.

Thw two city's are not on a level playing field because as I said, one has a private port and the city is funded by taxpayers and private development and Liverpool's 'regeneration' and cruise terminal was all funded by EU money.
You are completely wrong , the reason for applying for turnaround status was to do with safety problems associated with using Langton dock.
Fred Olsen pulled out for 2 seasons due to these problems.
Oh right, and these safety problems were not an issue before Liverpool was given the money?

No other port had such a large taxpayer investment in its cruise terminal, relying instead on commercial revenues. So to secure the funding, the government made Liverpool sign a legal agreement that it would only take cruise ships for day and overnight visits so Liverpool was not given unfair advantage.

Somebody's telling porkies.
Liverpool did nothing illegal, it stated its case to the relevant government department and when and only when, that department agreed that such a change could happen did it start using the facility for turnarounds. Since the facility was not new at that point , it paid back the uk government grant as determined by an independent valuer. No such demand for grant return has been made by the EU, but that is a matter for the EU.

The city never used the facility for turnarounds until the UK government agreed that the facility could be used, Therefore if you have any complaints they should be aimed at the government and not Liverpool.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maximus2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses[/p][/quote]What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy[/p][/quote]Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more.[/p][/quote]At least Southampton's cruise industry was built fair and square, unlike your beloved Liverpool's. Who for anybody that may not be aware took EU money on the agreement that they could NOT have turn around cruises, only day cruises as no other port in the UK had EU money. When Liverpool had their cruise terminal built they changed their mind and went against the agreement and wanted to have turn around cruises. What a fuss they made when many ports including Southampton demanded they repay the millions of pounds of EU money. Still a very sneaky and dirty way of getting the cruise terminal to begin with. In short, you cannot compare a city that has been generated with hundreds of millions of pounds of EU money and got their cruise terminal in a sneaky and underhand way with established ports that are developed with private money.[/p][/quote]I think you forget the fact that Southampton port was developed with taxpayers money between 1947 and 1982 and was privatized ( at a give away price to what is now ABP ).[/p][/quote]No I don't forget because nothing underhand was done, unlike the way that Liverpool got their cruise terminal. You don't have a balanced view, you just have a specific agenda which is to troll the Southern Daily Echo to bleat on about how much better Liverpool is than Southampton, in your opinion. It's just odd. Thw two city's are not on a level playing field because as I said, one has a private port and the city is funded by taxpayers and private development and Liverpool's 'regeneration' and cruise terminal was all funded by EU money.[/p][/quote]You are completely wrong , the reason for applying for turnaround status was to do with safety problems associated with using Langton dock. Fred Olsen pulled out for 2 seasons due to these problems.[/p][/quote]Oh right, and these safety problems were not an issue before Liverpool was given the money? No other port had such a large taxpayer investment in its cruise terminal, relying instead on commercial revenues. So to secure the funding, the government made Liverpool sign a legal agreement that it would only take cruise ships for day and overnight visits so Liverpool was not given unfair advantage. Somebody's telling porkies.[/p][/quote]Liverpool did nothing illegal, it stated its case to the relevant government department and when and only when, that department agreed that such a change could happen did it start using the facility for turnarounds. Since the facility was not new at that point , it paid back the uk government grant as determined by an independent valuer. No such demand for grant return has been made by the EU, but that is a matter for the EU. The city never used the facility for turnarounds until the UK government agreed that the facility could be used, Therefore if you have any complaints they should be aimed at the government and not Liverpool. in search of the truth
  • Score: 2

11:49am Wed 15 Jan 14

Pinguboy says...

So when Labour exit in May, do not pass blame to the incoming party, whoever they may be.

When I catch a flight, I park my car 5miles from the terminal in park and ride facility, where I catch a coach to the terminal.

One 80 seater coach is equivalent of taking 40 cars off the road.

Just saying!
So when Labour exit in May, do not pass blame to the incoming party, whoever they may be. When I catch a flight, I park my car 5miles from the terminal in park and ride facility, where I catch a coach to the terminal. One 80 seater coach is equivalent of taking 40 cars off the road. Just saying! Pinguboy
  • Score: 0

11:55am Wed 15 Jan 14

maximus2013 says...

Just look at the main picture on this article, traffic blocking the junction coming from West Quay road heading towards train station, this is repeated many junctions all over the city this is why we should have enforced yellow box junctions through fixed penalties issued, selfish people going no where but inhibiting traffic flow, if your in a yellow box for more than 30secs boom fined
Just look at the main picture on this article, traffic blocking the junction coming from West Quay road heading towards train station, this is repeated many junctions all over the city this is why we should have enforced yellow box junctions through fixed penalties issued, selfish people going no where but inhibiting traffic flow, if your in a yellow box for more than 30secs boom fined maximus2013
  • Score: 4

6:20pm Wed 15 Jan 14

phil maccavity says...

in search of the truth wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
maximus2013 wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses
What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy
Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more.
At least Southampton's cruise industry was built fair and square, unlike your beloved Liverpool's. Who for anybody that may not be aware took EU money on the agreement that they could NOT have turn around cruises, only day cruises as no other port in the UK had EU money.

When Liverpool had their cruise terminal built they changed their mind and went against the agreement and wanted to have turn around cruises. What a fuss they made when many ports including Southampton demanded they repay the millions of pounds of EU money. Still a very sneaky and dirty way of getting the cruise terminal to begin with.

In short, you cannot compare a city that has been generated with hundreds of millions of pounds of EU money and got their cruise terminal in a sneaky and underhand way with established ports that are developed with private money.
I think you forget the fact that Southampton port was developed with taxpayers money between 1947 and 1982 and was privatized ( at a give away price to what is now ABP ).
And you, of course, conveniently forget that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board/Company was bailed out by successive Governments for a far longer time than the Govt owned Southampton, and other UK ports.
During State ownership the Port of Southampton consistently produced a profit
In contrast Liverpool Port was bailed out by the much maligned Margaret Thatcher who agreed to dispense with over £100m of debt owed by MDHC in 1970. This allowed the loss making Liverpool Port company to be sold to the private sector.
I have no particular brief for Thatcher but she bailed out the Port and then sent in Hesletine to assist with remedial work post Toxteth riots.
This then led onto the £2 billion of Grant Aid which has aided those in the centre of Liverpool but has done very little to help those poorer community in the outskirts.
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maximus2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses[/p][/quote]What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy[/p][/quote]Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more.[/p][/quote]At least Southampton's cruise industry was built fair and square, unlike your beloved Liverpool's. Who for anybody that may not be aware took EU money on the agreement that they could NOT have turn around cruises, only day cruises as no other port in the UK had EU money. When Liverpool had their cruise terminal built they changed their mind and went against the agreement and wanted to have turn around cruises. What a fuss they made when many ports including Southampton demanded they repay the millions of pounds of EU money. Still a very sneaky and dirty way of getting the cruise terminal to begin with. In short, you cannot compare a city that has been generated with hundreds of millions of pounds of EU money and got their cruise terminal in a sneaky and underhand way with established ports that are developed with private money.[/p][/quote]I think you forget the fact that Southampton port was developed with taxpayers money between 1947 and 1982 and was privatized ( at a give away price to what is now ABP ).[/p][/quote]And you, of course, conveniently forget that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board/Company was bailed out by successive Governments for a far longer time than the Govt owned Southampton, and other UK ports. During State ownership the Port of Southampton consistently produced a profit In contrast Liverpool Port was bailed out by the much maligned Margaret Thatcher who agreed to dispense with over £100m of debt owed by MDHC in 1970. This allowed the loss making Liverpool Port company to be sold to the private sector. I have no particular brief for Thatcher but she bailed out the Port and then sent in Hesletine to assist with remedial work post Toxteth riots. This then led onto the £2 billion of Grant Aid which has aided those in the centre of Liverpool but has done very little to help those poorer community in the outskirts. phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

6:31pm Wed 15 Jan 14

phil maccavity says...

in search of the truth wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
maximus2013 wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses
What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy
Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more.
At least Southampton's cruise industry was built fair and square, unlike your beloved Liverpool's. Who for anybody that may not be aware took EU money on the agreement that they could NOT have turn around cruises, only day cruises as no other port in the UK had EU money.

When Liverpool had their cruise terminal built they changed their mind and went against the agreement and wanted to have turn around cruises. What a fuss they made when many ports including Southampton demanded they repay the millions of pounds of EU money. Still a very sneaky and dirty way of getting the cruise terminal to begin with.

In short, you cannot compare a city that has been generated with hundreds of millions of pounds of EU money and got their cruise terminal in a sneaky and underhand way with established ports that are developed with private money.
I think you forget the fact that Southampton port was developed with taxpayers money between 1947 and 1982 and was privatized ( at a give away price to what is now ABP ).
No I don't forget because nothing underhand was done, unlike the way that Liverpool got their cruise terminal.

You don't have a balanced view, you just have a specific agenda which is to troll the Southern Daily Echo to bleat on about how much better Liverpool is than Southampton, in your opinion. It's just odd.

Thw two city's are not on a level playing field because as I said, one has a private port and the city is funded by taxpayers and private development and Liverpool's 'regeneration' and cruise terminal was all funded by EU money.
You are completely wrong , the reason for applying for turnaround status was to do with safety problems associated with using Langton dock.
Fred Olsen pulled out for 2 seasons due to these problems.
That last comment is absolutely untrue.
I spend a lot of time in Liverpool and know people who worked for the PR company engaged by LCC team to put a spin on the Councils efforts to get the Grant terms changed.
Liverpool Council knew for a fact that they would not get Grant money to develop the Pier Head cruise berth if they had made their intentions known re turnrounds so they were duplicitous saying it was only required for calling cruises.
They also said initially in their approach to Govt to change the terms of the grant that they only wanted to achieve up to 6% of the Uk turnround market.
This now seems to be forgotten and in such circumstances it is no wonder other UK cruise ports are upset and it is not just Soton
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maximus2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses[/p][/quote]What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy[/p][/quote]Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more.[/p][/quote]At least Southampton's cruise industry was built fair and square, unlike your beloved Liverpool's. Who for anybody that may not be aware took EU money on the agreement that they could NOT have turn around cruises, only day cruises as no other port in the UK had EU money. When Liverpool had their cruise terminal built they changed their mind and went against the agreement and wanted to have turn around cruises. What a fuss they made when many ports including Southampton demanded they repay the millions of pounds of EU money. Still a very sneaky and dirty way of getting the cruise terminal to begin with. In short, you cannot compare a city that has been generated with hundreds of millions of pounds of EU money and got their cruise terminal in a sneaky and underhand way with established ports that are developed with private money.[/p][/quote]I think you forget the fact that Southampton port was developed with taxpayers money between 1947 and 1982 and was privatized ( at a give away price to what is now ABP ).[/p][/quote]No I don't forget because nothing underhand was done, unlike the way that Liverpool got their cruise terminal. You don't have a balanced view, you just have a specific agenda which is to troll the Southern Daily Echo to bleat on about how much better Liverpool is than Southampton, in your opinion. It's just odd. Thw two city's are not on a level playing field because as I said, one has a private port and the city is funded by taxpayers and private development and Liverpool's 'regeneration' and cruise terminal was all funded by EU money.[/p][/quote]You are completely wrong , the reason for applying for turnaround status was to do with safety problems associated with using Langton dock. Fred Olsen pulled out for 2 seasons due to these problems.[/p][/quote]That last comment is absolutely untrue. I spend a lot of time in Liverpool and know people who worked for the PR company engaged by LCC team to put a spin on the Councils efforts to get the Grant terms changed. Liverpool Council knew for a fact that they would not get Grant money to develop the Pier Head cruise berth if they had made their intentions known re turnrounds so they were duplicitous saying it was only required for calling cruises. They also said initially in their approach to Govt to change the terms of the grant that they only wanted to achieve up to 6% of the Uk turnround market. This now seems to be forgotten and in such circumstances it is no wonder other UK cruise ports are upset and it is not just Soton phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Wed 15 Jan 14

phil maccavity says...

phil maccavity wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
maximus2013 wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses
What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy
Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more.
At least Southampton's cruise industry was built fair and square, unlike your beloved Liverpool's. Who for anybody that may not be aware took EU money on the agreement that they could NOT have turn around cruises, only day cruises as no other port in the UK had EU money.

When Liverpool had their cruise terminal built they changed their mind and went against the agreement and wanted to have turn around cruises. What a fuss they made when many ports including Southampton demanded they repay the millions of pounds of EU money. Still a very sneaky and dirty way of getting the cruise terminal to begin with.

In short, you cannot compare a city that has been generated with hundreds of millions of pounds of EU money and got their cruise terminal in a sneaky and underhand way with established ports that are developed with private money.
I think you forget the fact that Southampton port was developed with taxpayers money between 1947 and 1982 and was privatized ( at a give away price to what is now ABP ).
And you, of course, conveniently forget that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board/Company was bailed out by successive Governments for a far longer time than the Govt owned Southampton, and other UK ports.
During State ownership the Port of Southampton consistently produced a profit
In contrast Liverpool Port was bailed out by the much maligned Margaret Thatcher who agreed to dispense with over £100m of debt owed by MDHC in 1970. This allowed the loss making Liverpool Port company to be sold to the private sector.
I have no particular brief for Thatcher but she bailed out the Port and then sent in Hesletine to assist with remedial work post Toxteth riots.
This then led onto the £2 billion of Grant Aid which has aided those in the centre of Liverpool but has done very little to help those poorer community in the outskirts.
Looks like I gave Mrs Thatcher too much credit in my previous post.
It was the Heath Govt who finally released the loss making MDHC into the private sector
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maximus2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: The cruise passengers generally dont contribute anyway to Southampton businesses[/p][/quote]What a totally ridiculous statement,. It contributes massively to the Southampton economy[/p][/quote]Having studied postings on this site over many months , your own posters seem to agree with what I am trying to say , mainly that Southampton has no idea how to project and market itself so as to benefit from what is essentially a captured market ( In plain language, making the most of the visitors that it gets within its city boundary who are here to embark or disembark on a cruise ). Most people who post on this site ( check for yourself if you don't believe me ), state that Southampton has virtually nothing to interest people passing through it , therefore it is simply a cruise ship bus stop and nothing more.[/p][/quote]At least Southampton's cruise industry was built fair and square, unlike your beloved Liverpool's. Who for anybody that may not be aware took EU money on the agreement that they could NOT have turn around cruises, only day cruises as no other port in the UK had EU money. When Liverpool had their cruise terminal built they changed their mind and went against the agreement and wanted to have turn around cruises. What a fuss they made when many ports including Southampton demanded they repay the millions of pounds of EU money. Still a very sneaky and dirty way of getting the cruise terminal to begin with. In short, you cannot compare a city that has been generated with hundreds of millions of pounds of EU money and got their cruise terminal in a sneaky and underhand way with established ports that are developed with private money.[/p][/quote]I think you forget the fact that Southampton port was developed with taxpayers money between 1947 and 1982 and was privatized ( at a give away price to what is now ABP ).[/p][/quote]And you, of course, conveniently forget that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board/Company was bailed out by successive Governments for a far longer time than the Govt owned Southampton, and other UK ports. During State ownership the Port of Southampton consistently produced a profit In contrast Liverpool Port was bailed out by the much maligned Margaret Thatcher who agreed to dispense with over £100m of debt owed by MDHC in 1970. This allowed the loss making Liverpool Port company to be sold to the private sector. I have no particular brief for Thatcher but she bailed out the Port and then sent in Hesletine to assist with remedial work post Toxteth riots. This then led onto the £2 billion of Grant Aid which has aided those in the centre of Liverpool but has done very little to help those poorer community in the outskirts.[/p][/quote]Looks like I gave Mrs Thatcher too much credit in my previous post. It was the Heath Govt who finally released the loss making MDHC into the private sector phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

7:11pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

Send the lot to Liverpool we cant cope!
Send the lot to Liverpool we cant cope! Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: 0

8:20pm Thu 16 Jan 14

in search of the truth says...

Strange how inaccurate some of the things you say turn out to be,

Written by you courtesy of the Southern Daily Echo archive.........

11:50am Thu 24 May 12

phil maccavity says...

....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
...................

Incidentally those passengers who want to go on the big ships which predominate in the market these days (ie with a capacity of more than 1200 passengers), will still have to travel to Dover or Southampton, at least for the next 3 years!!

There will be 52 cruise ships this year. I think most of them carry a lot more than 1200 passengers.

Mar 12th 2014 - 08:00 Mar 12th 2014 - 16:00:00 Pier Head
Thomson Spirit (Thomson)
May 7th 2014 - TBC May 7th 2014 - TBC Pier Head
Thomson Spirit (Thomson)
May 14th 2014 - TBA May 14th 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Celebrity Infinity (Celebrity)
May 17th 2014 - May 17th 2014 - Pier Head
MSC Magnifica (MSC)
May 18th 2014 - May 18th 2014 - Pier Head
Thomson Spirit (Thomson)
May 24th 2014 - May 24th 2014 - Pier Head
Queen Victoria (Cunard)
May 30th 2014 - May 30th 2014 - Pier Head
Discovery (Cruise & Maritime Voyages)
Jun 8th 2014 - TBA Jun 8th 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Discovery (Cruise & Maritime Voyages)
Jun 18th 2014 - TBA Jun 18th 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Celebrity Infinity (Celebrity)
Jun 19th 2014 - TBA Jun 19th 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Discovery (Cruise & Maritime Voyages)
Jun 28th 2014 - TBA Jun 28th 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Boudicca (Fred. Olsen)
Jul 7th 2014 - TBA Jul 7th 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Minerva (Swan Hellenic)
Jul 10th 2014 - TBA Jul 10th 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Prinsendam (Holland America)
Jul 18th 2014 - TBA Jul 18th 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Celebrity Infinity (Celebrity)
Jul 19th 2014 - TBA Jul 20th 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Boudicca (Fred. Olsen)
Jul 21st 2014 - TBA Jul 21st 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Boudicca (Fred. Olsen)
Aug 2nd 2014 - TBA Aug 2nd 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Celebrity Infinity (Celebrity)
Aug 8th 2014 - TBA Aug 8th 2014 - TBA Pier Head
AIDAcara (AIDA)
Aug 10th 2014 - TBA Aug 10th 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Europa (Hapag Lloyd)
Aug 11th 2014 - Aug 11th 2014 - Pier Head
Boudicca (Fred. Olsen)
Aug 17th 2014 - TBA Aug 17th 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Crystal Symphony (Crystal)
Aug 21st 2014 - TBA Aug 21st 2014 - TBA Pier Head
AIDAcara (AIDA)
Aug 23rd 2014 - TBA Aug 23rd 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Discovery (Cruise & Maritime Voyages)
Aug 24th 2014 - TBA Aug 24th 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Boudicca (Fred. Olsen)
Aug 28th 2014 - TBA Aug 28th 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Saga Sapphire (Saga)
Aug 29th 2014 - TBA Aug 29th 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Celebrity Infinity (Celebrity)
Sep 1st 2014 - TBA Sep 1st 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Discovery (Cruise & Maritime Voyages)
Sep 2nd 2014 - TBA Sep 2nd 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Discovery (Cruise & Maritime Voyages)
Sep 6th 2014 - Sep 6th 2014 - Pier Head
Hanseatic (Hapag Lloyd)
Sep 20th 2014 - TBA Sep 20th 2014 - TBA Pier Head
Boudicca (Fred. Olsen)
Oct 11th 2014 - Oct 11th 2014 - Pier Head
Boudicca (Fred. Olsen)
Nov 8th 2014 - Nov 8th 2014 - Pier Head
Boudicca (Fred. Olsen)
Nov 24th 2014 - Nov 24th 2014 - Pier Head
Boudicca (Fred. Olsen)
Dec 10th 2014 - Dec 10th 2014 - Pier Head
Boudicca (Fred. Olsen)
Dec 19th 2014 - Dec 19th 2014 - Pier Head
Strange how inaccurate some of the things you say turn out to be, Written by you courtesy of the Southern Daily Echo archive......... 11:50am Thu 24 May 12 phil maccavity says... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ................... Incidentally those passengers who want to go on the big ships which predominate in the market these days (ie with a capacity of more than 1200 passengers), will still have to travel to Dover or Southampton, at least for the next 3 years!! There will be 52 cruise ships this year. I think most of them carry a lot more than 1200 passengers. Mar 12th 2014 - 08:00 Mar 12th 2014 - 16:00:00 Pier Head Thomson Spirit (Thomson) May 7th 2014 - TBC May 7th 2014 - TBC Pier Head Thomson Spirit (Thomson) May 14th 2014 - TBA May 14th 2014 - TBA Pier Head Celebrity Infinity (Celebrity) May 17th 2014 - May 17th 2014 - Pier Head MSC Magnifica (MSC) May 18th 2014 - May 18th 2014 - Pier Head Thomson Spirit (Thomson) May 24th 2014 - May 24th 2014 - Pier Head Queen Victoria (Cunard) May 30th 2014 - May 30th 2014 - Pier Head Discovery (Cruise & Maritime Voyages) Jun 8th 2014 - TBA Jun 8th 2014 - TBA Pier Head Discovery (Cruise & Maritime Voyages) Jun 18th 2014 - TBA Jun 18th 2014 - TBA Pier Head Celebrity Infinity (Celebrity) Jun 19th 2014 - TBA Jun 19th 2014 - TBA Pier Head Discovery (Cruise & Maritime Voyages) Jun 28th 2014 - TBA Jun 28th 2014 - TBA Pier Head Boudicca (Fred. Olsen) Jul 7th 2014 - TBA Jul 7th 2014 - TBA Pier Head Minerva (Swan Hellenic) Jul 10th 2014 - TBA Jul 10th 2014 - TBA Pier Head Prinsendam (Holland America) Jul 18th 2014 - TBA Jul 18th 2014 - TBA Pier Head Celebrity Infinity (Celebrity) Jul 19th 2014 - TBA Jul 20th 2014 - TBA Pier Head Boudicca (Fred. Olsen) Jul 21st 2014 - TBA Jul 21st 2014 - TBA Pier Head Boudicca (Fred. Olsen) Aug 2nd 2014 - TBA Aug 2nd 2014 - TBA Pier Head Celebrity Infinity (Celebrity) Aug 8th 2014 - TBA Aug 8th 2014 - TBA Pier Head AIDAcara (AIDA) Aug 10th 2014 - TBA Aug 10th 2014 - TBA Pier Head Europa (Hapag Lloyd) Aug 11th 2014 - Aug 11th 2014 - Pier Head Boudicca (Fred. Olsen) Aug 17th 2014 - TBA Aug 17th 2014 - TBA Pier Head Crystal Symphony (Crystal) Aug 21st 2014 - TBA Aug 21st 2014 - TBA Pier Head AIDAcara (AIDA) Aug 23rd 2014 - TBA Aug 23rd 2014 - TBA Pier Head Discovery (Cruise & Maritime Voyages) Aug 24th 2014 - TBA Aug 24th 2014 - TBA Pier Head Boudicca (Fred. Olsen) Aug 28th 2014 - TBA Aug 28th 2014 - TBA Pier Head Saga Sapphire (Saga) Aug 29th 2014 - TBA Aug 29th 2014 - TBA Pier Head Celebrity Infinity (Celebrity) Sep 1st 2014 - TBA Sep 1st 2014 - TBA Pier Head Discovery (Cruise & Maritime Voyages) Sep 2nd 2014 - TBA Sep 2nd 2014 - TBA Pier Head Discovery (Cruise & Maritime Voyages) Sep 6th 2014 - Sep 6th 2014 - Pier Head Hanseatic (Hapag Lloyd) Sep 20th 2014 - TBA Sep 20th 2014 - TBA Pier Head Boudicca (Fred. Olsen) Oct 11th 2014 - Oct 11th 2014 - Pier Head Boudicca (Fred. Olsen) Nov 8th 2014 - Nov 8th 2014 - Pier Head Boudicca (Fred. Olsen) Nov 24th 2014 - Nov 24th 2014 - Pier Head Boudicca (Fred. Olsen) Dec 10th 2014 - Dec 10th 2014 - Pier Head Boudicca (Fred. Olsen) Dec 19th 2014 - Dec 19th 2014 - Pier Head in search of the truth
  • Score: 0

10:53pm Thu 16 Jan 14

phil maccavity says...

To qualify my so called 'inaccuracy' as you state'
Note that those ships with capacity of over 1,200 passengers are 'Calling Cruises' ie those where there is no requirement for Terminal Facilities and the passengers can actually come ashore on an open quay.
The only Turnround ships calling in Liverpool are Fred Olsen, Thomson
and Cruise & Maritime Services vessels.
None of these are big ships and the passenger capacities fall within the operating Licence granted to Liverpool Council to operate the Terminal Marquee (or tent as some people may describe it) which has a Licence for a maximum 1,200 passenger throughput.
This Marquee will remain as the Terminal/Baggage Hall until 2015 when the Cunard Building comes on stream.
If you truly lived in Liverpool and kept abreast of arrangements via the Liverpool Echo (or the sadly defunct Liverpool Post) or by attending Council meetings you could certainly 'Search for the Truth'!!!
Best Wishes
To qualify my so called 'inaccuracy' as you state' Note that those ships with capacity of over 1,200 passengers are 'Calling Cruises' ie those where there is no requirement for Terminal Facilities and the passengers can actually come ashore on an open quay. The only Turnround ships calling in Liverpool are Fred Olsen, Thomson and Cruise & Maritime Services vessels. None of these are big ships and the passenger capacities fall within the operating Licence granted to Liverpool Council to operate the Terminal Marquee (or tent as some people may describe it) which has a Licence for a maximum 1,200 passenger throughput. This Marquee will remain as the Terminal/Baggage Hall until 2015 when the Cunard Building comes on stream. If you truly lived in Liverpool and kept abreast of arrangements via the Liverpool Echo (or the sadly defunct Liverpool Post) or by attending Council meetings you could certainly 'Search for the Truth'!!! Best Wishes phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

12:45am Fri 17 Jan 14

in search of the truth says...

phil maccavity wrote:
To qualify my so called 'inaccuracy' as you state'
Note that those ships with capacity of over 1,200 passengers are 'Calling Cruises' ie those where there is no requirement for Terminal Facilities and the passengers can actually come ashore on an open quay.
The only Turnround ships calling in Liverpool are Fred Olsen, Thomson
and Cruise & Maritime Services vessels.
None of these are big ships and the passenger capacities fall within the operating Licence granted to Liverpool Council to operate the Terminal Marquee (or tent as some people may describe it) which has a Licence for a maximum 1,200 passenger throughput.
This Marquee will remain as the Terminal/Baggage Hall until 2015 when the Cunard Building comes on stream.
If you truly lived in Liverpool and kept abreast of arrangements via the Liverpool Echo (or the sadly defunct Liverpool Post) or by attending Council meetings you could certainly 'Search for the Truth'!!!
Best Wishes
The Terminal Marquee ( or tent ) has played a vital role in kick starting the re-birth of the cruise industry in Liverpool. Once the new terminal building
( The Cunard Building ) is opened then we shall really see some rapid progress and expansion of turnaround cruise traffic.
A large number of cruise lines are waiting in the wings and once we have the facilities then to process increased volumes of passengers , they will be starting turnarounds as well .
Don't underestimate the ability of Liverpool to attract and service increasing numbers of cruise lines and cruise ships.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: To qualify my so called 'inaccuracy' as you state' Note that those ships with capacity of over 1,200 passengers are 'Calling Cruises' ie those where there is no requirement for Terminal Facilities and the passengers can actually come ashore on an open quay. The only Turnround ships calling in Liverpool are Fred Olsen, Thomson and Cruise & Maritime Services vessels. None of these are big ships and the passenger capacities fall within the operating Licence granted to Liverpool Council to operate the Terminal Marquee (or tent as some people may describe it) which has a Licence for a maximum 1,200 passenger throughput. This Marquee will remain as the Terminal/Baggage Hall until 2015 when the Cunard Building comes on stream. If you truly lived in Liverpool and kept abreast of arrangements via the Liverpool Echo (or the sadly defunct Liverpool Post) or by attending Council meetings you could certainly 'Search for the Truth'!!! Best Wishes[/p][/quote]The Terminal Marquee ( or tent ) has played a vital role in kick starting the re-birth of the cruise industry in Liverpool. Once the new terminal building ( The Cunard Building ) is opened then we shall really see some rapid progress and expansion of turnaround cruise traffic. A large number of cruise lines are waiting in the wings and once we have the facilities then to process increased volumes of passengers , they will be starting turnarounds as well . Don't underestimate the ability of Liverpool to attract and service increasing numbers of cruise lines and cruise ships. in search of the truth
  • Score: 0

11:04am Fri 17 Jan 14

phil maccavity says...

in search of the truth wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
To qualify my so called 'inaccuracy' as you state'
Note that those ships with capacity of over 1,200 passengers are 'Calling Cruises' ie those where there is no requirement for Terminal Facilities and the passengers can actually come ashore on an open quay.
The only Turnround ships calling in Liverpool are Fred Olsen, Thomson
and Cruise & Maritime Services vessels.
None of these are big ships and the passenger capacities fall within the operating Licence granted to Liverpool Council to operate the Terminal Marquee (or tent as some people may describe it) which has a Licence for a maximum 1,200 passenger throughput.
This Marquee will remain as the Terminal/Baggage Hall until 2015 when the Cunard Building comes on stream.
If you truly lived in Liverpool and kept abreast of arrangements via the Liverpool Echo (or the sadly defunct Liverpool Post) or by attending Council meetings you could certainly 'Search for the Truth'!!!
Best Wishes
The Terminal Marquee ( or tent ) has played a vital role in kick starting the re-birth of the cruise industry in Liverpool. Once the new terminal building
( The Cunard Building ) is opened then we shall really see some rapid progress and expansion of turnaround cruise traffic.
A large number of cruise lines are waiting in the wings and once we have the facilities then to process increased volumes of passengers , they will be starting turnarounds as well .
Don't underestimate the ability of Liverpool to attract and service increasing numbers of cruise lines and cruise ships.
Quote ...'a large number of cruise lines are waiting in the wings...'
You know that for a fact then or is this information picked up through the Liverpool Echo or the PR Office of the Mayor and Council.
Who knows, you may be right and only time will tell.
(btw no mention of losing some of the CMS and Fred Olsen business to Bristol I notice)
The next step in 2015 will be most interesting especially as Liverpool City Council will undoubtedly have to put in more public money, on top of the £18m already invested in Cruise facilities, to attract bigger ships.
This at a time when Genial Joe is complaining about having to massively reduce essential services in the City and almost all the ships revenue goes to a private company!!.
meanwhile I am sure the Soton Daily Echo will continue to embrace the interest shown locally, and from afar, through the Comment page, in many of our local news items.
I am sure it really helps them sell advertising space
Strangely there does not seem to be the same level of debate on the Liverpool Echo site, about their news items, with many stories just containing a handful of comments.
Whilst our own opinions may differ, it is good to see that you, and a few others, are so interested in such a variety of subjects down here.
Well done!!
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: To qualify my so called 'inaccuracy' as you state' Note that those ships with capacity of over 1,200 passengers are 'Calling Cruises' ie those where there is no requirement for Terminal Facilities and the passengers can actually come ashore on an open quay. The only Turnround ships calling in Liverpool are Fred Olsen, Thomson and Cruise & Maritime Services vessels. None of these are big ships and the passenger capacities fall within the operating Licence granted to Liverpool Council to operate the Terminal Marquee (or tent as some people may describe it) which has a Licence for a maximum 1,200 passenger throughput. This Marquee will remain as the Terminal/Baggage Hall until 2015 when the Cunard Building comes on stream. If you truly lived in Liverpool and kept abreast of arrangements via the Liverpool Echo (or the sadly defunct Liverpool Post) or by attending Council meetings you could certainly 'Search for the Truth'!!! Best Wishes[/p][/quote]The Terminal Marquee ( or tent ) has played a vital role in kick starting the re-birth of the cruise industry in Liverpool. Once the new terminal building ( The Cunard Building ) is opened then we shall really see some rapid progress and expansion of turnaround cruise traffic. A large number of cruise lines are waiting in the wings and once we have the facilities then to process increased volumes of passengers , they will be starting turnarounds as well . Don't underestimate the ability of Liverpool to attract and service increasing numbers of cruise lines and cruise ships.[/p][/quote]Quote ...'a large number of cruise lines are waiting in the wings...' You know that for a fact then or is this information picked up through the Liverpool Echo or the PR Office of the Mayor and Council. Who knows, you may be right and only time will tell. (btw no mention of losing some of the CMS and Fred Olsen business to Bristol I notice) The next step in 2015 will be most interesting especially as Liverpool City Council will undoubtedly have to put in more public money, on top of the £18m already invested in Cruise facilities, to attract bigger ships. This at a time when Genial Joe is complaining about having to massively reduce essential services in the City and almost all the ships revenue goes to a private company!!. meanwhile I am sure the Soton Daily Echo will continue to embrace the interest shown locally, and from afar, through the Comment page, in many of our local news items. I am sure it really helps them sell advertising space Strangely there does not seem to be the same level of debate on the Liverpool Echo site, about their news items, with many stories just containing a handful of comments. Whilst our own opinions may differ, it is good to see that you, and a few others, are so interested in such a variety of subjects down here. Well done!! phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree