Hundreds of cruise passengers stranded due to traffic in Southampton city centre

Daily Echo: Previous traffic problems in Southampton Previous traffic problems in Southampton

HUNDREDS of passengers ended up trapped in carparks after gridlock struck at Southampton's cruise terminals this morning.

The chaos began when holidaymakers disembarked from two cruise ships.

Some have reported they have been stuck in the car park for the last two hours waiting to leave Ocean Terminal.

According to Southampton Cruise Parking Services the problem was a result of two cruise ships - the Oriana and the Aidasol - docking close to each other combined with road works both inside and outside of the port.

Although traffic was moving, exiting the car parks was particularly slow due to the impact of the road works, a spokeswoman said.

Passenger Jean Parker from Chandlers Ford returned from a 12-day trip to the Arctic Circle with P&O Cruises with her husband only to find Southampton had ground to a halt.

She said: “We have all been standing here for 90 minutes waiting to get out of the car park. It's an absolute standstill. We have moved one car length. We're all just sitting here at Ocean terminal.

“We can't see what's happening, we can't see what the problem is.

“Before we came down to the cruise they told us to allow extra time for road works. We can't even get out of the car park.”

Sue and Michael Humphrey reached their car at 9am this morning but were still sat in it at 11am having only moved a matter of car lengths.

The couple from Northamptonshire, had also enjoyed a 12-day cruise to the Arctic Circle with P&O Cruises.

Sue, 62, said: “We had a wonderful time but this is not a very good end to our holiday. It is very frustrating as we have simply been edging towards the exit in our car for two hours.”

No comment was available from Associated British Ports.

The city council's highways team tweeted that one lane on Town Quay was closed and that drivers should expect delays as a result, although they claimed traffic had 'eased', before lunch time.

However, West Quay Cars claimed that their drivers were spending around 30 minutes trying to get out of Dock Gate 4 due to the sheer weight of traffic.

Comments (156)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:35am Tue 25 Mar 14

SaintDon13 says...

Gosh! They never expected that to happen.
Gosh! They never expected that to happen. SaintDon13
  • Score: 18

11:38am Tue 25 Mar 14

gazdance says...

So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.
So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it. gazdance
  • Score: -24

11:45am Tue 25 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

FOR CRISSAKES GET RID OF THIS USELESS LABOUR COUNCIL NOW!!!
They're having a POLITICAL ball at our expense whilst destroying our City's Reputation. ITS OBVIOUS they are not capable nor qualified in anything other than playing their political games.
The docks have been around 175 yrs BECAUSE they stayed neutral and are qualified and capable of running a huge industry.

It's time to put these Labour lunatics to bed permanently.
Before they, with their Liverpool 'friends', destroy our city completely.
FOR CRISSAKES GET RID OF THIS USELESS LABOUR COUNCIL NOW!!! They're having a POLITICAL ball at our expense whilst destroying our City's Reputation. ITS OBVIOUS they are not capable nor qualified in anything other than playing their political games. The docks have been around 175 yrs BECAUSE they stayed neutral and are qualified and capable of running a huge industry. It's time to put these Labour lunatics to bed permanently. Before they, with their Liverpool 'friends', destroy our city completely. Ronnie G
  • Score: 53

11:46am Tue 25 Mar 14

loosehead says...

So why are these two docking in dock gate4? why not dock them in the New Docks where they could happily exit dock gate 10 or 20?
Yes it's down to chaotically organised road works but surely ABP must know this is taking place so why not move the ships to the docks with little or no problems?
It has to be on ABP where the ships dock & until these road works end & a better traffic management scheme is put into place if we they can solely use the New/Western docks why don't they?
So why are these two docking in dock gate4? why not dock them in the New Docks where they could happily exit dock gate 10 or 20? Yes it's down to chaotically organised road works but surely ABP must know this is taking place so why not move the ships to the docks with little or no problems? It has to be on ABP where the ships dock & until these road works end & a better traffic management scheme is put into place if we they can solely use the New/Western docks why don't they? loosehead
  • Score: 41

11:59am Tue 25 Mar 14

in search of the truth says...

If I was one of the unfortunate cruise passengers caught up in this shambles, I would be having second thoughts about ever coming back to Southampton in order to embark or disembark from another cruise.

I would be writing letters of complaint to the cruise operators suggesting they use other ports instead.
If I was one of the unfortunate cruise passengers caught up in this shambles, I would be having second thoughts about ever coming back to Southampton in order to embark or disembark from another cruise. I would be writing letters of complaint to the cruise operators suggesting they use other ports instead. in search of the truth
  • Score: 19

12:04pm Tue 25 Mar 14

townieboy says...

We need LIVERPOOL to ease this traffic congestion, the city cant handle it.
We need LIVERPOOL to ease this traffic congestion, the city cant handle it. townieboy
  • Score: -29

12:04pm Tue 25 Mar 14

ToastyTea says...

STOP THE SHIPS IN SOUTHAMPTON NOW!!!
STOP THE SHIPS IN SOUTHAMPTON NOW!!! ToastyTea
  • Score: -50

12:17pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Bobs Your Uncle ? says...

no more ships,send them to liverpool,anywhere.
no more ships,send them to liverpool,anywhere. Bobs Your Uncle ?
  • Score: -45

12:27pm Tue 25 Mar 14

justmyopion says...

too many traffic lights turn Southampton into a one way system it is possible to do with the right planning
too many traffic lights turn Southampton into a one way system it is possible to do with the right planning justmyopion
  • Score: 39

12:29pm Tue 25 Mar 14

redsnapper says...

Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning.

Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it.

Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days?

Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not.

Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation.
Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning. Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it. Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days? Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not. Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation. redsnapper
  • Score: 55

12:31pm Tue 25 Mar 14

cliffwalker says...

Here we go, again. And it seems again and again.

There are lots of experts on this forum who could sort the problem out in a trice. ABP should get in touch with them immediately.
Ronnie G, Loosehead, etc., could you let ABP have your contact details so they can take advantage of your carefully reasoned and researched schemes?
Here we go, again. And it seems again and again. There are lots of experts on this forum who could sort the problem out in a trice. ABP should get in touch with them immediately. Ronnie G, Loosehead, etc., could you let ABP have your contact details so they can take advantage of your carefully reasoned and researched schemes? cliffwalker
  • Score: 6

12:32pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Kingontail says...

Ronnie G wrote:
FOR CRISSAKES GET RID OF THIS USELESS LABOUR COUNCIL NOW!!!
They're having a POLITICAL ball at our expense whilst destroying our City's Reputation. ITS OBVIOUS they are not capable nor qualified in anything other than playing their political games.
The docks have been around 175 yrs BECAUSE they stayed neutral and are qualified and capable of running a huge industry.

It's time to put these Labour lunatics to bed permanently.
Before they, with their Liverpool 'friends', destroy our city completely.
its not political - do you think the staff in the highways dept and town planners change every time there is a swing in power?
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: FOR CRISSAKES GET RID OF THIS USELESS LABOUR COUNCIL NOW!!! They're having a POLITICAL ball at our expense whilst destroying our City's Reputation. ITS OBVIOUS they are not capable nor qualified in anything other than playing their political games. The docks have been around 175 yrs BECAUSE they stayed neutral and are qualified and capable of running a huge industry. It's time to put these Labour lunatics to bed permanently. Before they, with their Liverpool 'friends', destroy our city completely.[/p][/quote]its not political - do you think the staff in the highways dept and town planners change every time there is a swing in power? Kingontail
  • Score: 13

12:35pm Tue 25 Mar 14

vag says...

redsnapper wrote:
Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning.

Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it.

Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days?

Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not.

Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation.
There are mobile matrix signs at the entry points to the city which warn people in plenty of time to take a better route. They are choosing not to. If the road works aren't progressed now, things will be a lot worse when the proper cruise traffic hits, later in the year.
[quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning. Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it. Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days? Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not. Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation.[/p][/quote]There are mobile matrix signs at the entry points to the city which warn people in plenty of time to take a better route. They are choosing not to. If the road works aren't progressed now, things will be a lot worse when the proper cruise traffic hits, later in the year. vag
  • Score: 16

12:38pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Outside of the Box says...

We need the cruise ships, we need roads works to be done. Gridlock will happen, stop moaning and got on with it.
We need the cruise ships, we need roads works to be done. Gridlock will happen, stop moaning and got on with it. Outside of the Box
  • Score: 12

12:42pm Tue 25 Mar 14

funchal says...

Overall this city has a bad traffic light system. They are constantly going wrong. Personally I don't think there is one engineer within Siemens that has a brain!
Overall this city has a bad traffic light system. They are constantly going wrong. Personally I don't think there is one engineer within Siemens that has a brain! funchal
  • Score: 25

12:47pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

Kingontail wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
FOR CRISSAKES GET RID OF THIS USELESS LABOUR COUNCIL NOW!!!
They're having a POLITICAL ball at our expense whilst destroying our City's Reputation. ITS OBVIOUS they are not capable nor qualified in anything other than playing their political games.
The docks have been around 175 yrs BECAUSE they stayed neutral and are qualified and capable of running a huge industry.

It's time to put these Labour lunatics to bed permanently.
Before they, with their Liverpool 'friends', destroy our city completely.
its not political - do you think the staff in the highways dept and town planners change every time there is a swing in power?
The staff in highways dept and town planners have been of the same Political 'swing' for the past 15 years. How do you think so much trouble was stirred against the Tory council on the 'bin strikes'?
Because of the political preferences of the senior managers and Officers working within the Council and the bonus of being able to mislead colleagues on a daily basis.
[quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: FOR CRISSAKES GET RID OF THIS USELESS LABOUR COUNCIL NOW!!! They're having a POLITICAL ball at our expense whilst destroying our City's Reputation. ITS OBVIOUS they are not capable nor qualified in anything other than playing their political games. The docks have been around 175 yrs BECAUSE they stayed neutral and are qualified and capable of running a huge industry. It's time to put these Labour lunatics to bed permanently. Before they, with their Liverpool 'friends', destroy our city completely.[/p][/quote]its not political - do you think the staff in the highways dept and town planners change every time there is a swing in power?[/p][/quote]The staff in highways dept and town planners have been of the same Political 'swing' for the past 15 years. How do you think so much trouble was stirred against the Tory council on the 'bin strikes'? Because of the political preferences of the senior managers and Officers working within the Council and the bonus of being able to mislead colleagues on a daily basis. Ronnie G
  • Score: 7

12:50pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Mj-trucker says...

Poor rich pensioners can't get back to check on their garden and sit in the conservatory lol ;-)
Poor rich pensioners can't get back to check on their garden and sit in the conservatory lol ;-) Mj-trucker
  • Score: -32

1:07pm Tue 25 Mar 14

eurogordi says...

Southampton needs to sort this out PDQ. This continued gridlock will cause long-term damage to the local economy and the cruise companies should begin looking towards Liverpool for its future operations. And the only people to blame are those based at the Civic Centre!
Southampton needs to sort this out PDQ. This continued gridlock will cause long-term damage to the local economy and the cruise companies should begin looking towards Liverpool for its future operations. And the only people to blame are those based at the Civic Centre! eurogordi
  • Score: 33

1:10pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Huey says...

Staggering incompetence yet again. Nice one.
Staggering incompetence yet again. Nice one. Huey
  • Score: 19

1:11pm Tue 25 Mar 14

good-gosh says...

Hey – guess what? I've just thought that if the lights are set to green for traffic leaving the city, there will be less vehicles stuck inside. More tea vicar?
Hey – guess what? I've just thought that if the lights are set to green for traffic leaving the city, there will be less vehicles stuck inside. More tea vicar? good-gosh
  • Score: 19

1:11pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

The ships are booked in with plenty of advance warning available, and like online flight arrivals giving dates and times for incoming flights at various airports, you can find out dates of ships docking in ports, it's easy to use and gives ample warning for public and Councils who have the interest to look.
These ships were booked in before Ms Rayment decided to proceed with the roadworks.
Ms Rayment knows that instead of withdrawing roadworks or introducing overnight works on cruise ship days she is happy to lay the blame at the door of ABP as she has said it's not like the cruise passengers bring much revenue to Southampton is it?
Well not to Council Coffers anyway.
That there attitude of a local councillor responsible for our transport network is where the problem lies...
The ships are booked in with plenty of advance warning available, and like online flight arrivals giving dates and times for incoming flights at various airports, you can find out dates of ships docking in ports, it's easy to use and gives ample warning for public and Councils who have the interest to look. These ships were booked in before Ms Rayment decided to proceed with the roadworks. Ms Rayment knows that instead of withdrawing roadworks or introducing overnight works on cruise ship days she is happy to lay the blame at the door of ABP as she has said it's not like the cruise passengers bring much revenue to Southampton is it? Well not to Council Coffers anyway. That there attitude of a local councillor responsible for our transport network is where the problem lies... Ronnie G
  • Score: 25

1:12pm Tue 25 Mar 14

sotonbusdriver says...

WHAT A SHAME.....

I don't feel sorry for them at all....... After all they spent £1,000's on the cruise....

Personally I would love to be able to afford a holiday full stop... But on our poor income that isn't a chance....

Maybe as those passengers are so flushed with money to afford to take a cruise they should think about a helicopter to get home in......After all they should be able to afford it
WHAT A SHAME..... I don't feel sorry for them at all....... After all they spent £1,000's on the cruise.... Personally I would love to be able to afford a holiday full stop... But on our poor income that isn't a chance.... Maybe as those passengers are so flushed with money to afford to take a cruise they should think about a helicopter to get home in......After all they should be able to afford it sotonbusdriver
  • Score: -74

1:13pm Tue 25 Mar 14

O_crusti says...

build a flyover from dockgate 4 to the bottom of the M3, sorted.

Or go back to the plan in the 70s, extend m271 to join the dock road, knock down some of old Redbrigde (Pat bear close and Station road,) continue m271 to join the docks in the big carpark. It would take a lot of HGVs and docks traffic off of Millbrook road, During times of really heavy traffic, you could have it one way only, ie when cruise traffic is coming in then the docks road becomes only in and when cruise passengers out they can only use the dock road out.
build a flyover from dockgate 4 to the bottom of the M3, sorted. Or go back to the plan in the 70s, extend m271 to join the dock road, knock down some of old Redbrigde (Pat bear close and Station road,) continue m271 to join the docks in the big carpark. It would take a lot of HGVs and docks traffic off of Millbrook road, During times of really heavy traffic, you could have it one way only, ie when cruise traffic is coming in then the docks road becomes only in and when cruise passengers out they can only use the dock road out. O_crusti
  • Score: 17

1:22pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Kingontail says...

sotonbusdriver wrote:
WHAT A SHAME.....

I don't feel sorry for them at all....... After all they spent £1,000's on the cruise....

Personally I would love to be able to afford a holiday full stop... But on our poor income that isn't a chance....

Maybe as those passengers are so flushed with money to afford to take a cruise they should think about a helicopter to get home in......After all they should be able to afford it
what a sad bitter comment. Because your life hasn't quite panned out as you would have liked you wish misery on anyone who has done better? Very bizarre
[quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: WHAT A SHAME..... I don't feel sorry for them at all....... After all they spent £1,000's on the cruise.... Personally I would love to be able to afford a holiday full stop... But on our poor income that isn't a chance.... Maybe as those passengers are so flushed with money to afford to take a cruise they should think about a helicopter to get home in......After all they should be able to afford it[/p][/quote]what a sad bitter comment. Because your life hasn't quite panned out as you would have liked you wish misery on anyone who has done better? Very bizarre Kingontail
  • Score: 47

1:23pm Tue 25 Mar 14

03alpe01 says...

Pool, Pool, Liverpool!!!
What to do about this ongoing situation? Build more cruise terminals to cope with demand- in Liverpool. Send Cunard back to their original home- Liverpool. Send other Cruise Operators to join Cunard back in their original home of erm Liverpool.

Some phrases I fully expect to hear later are:

" This City has an emergency traffic problems act, but we do not feel that this is bad enough for us to implement it "

" We weren't aware of any traffic problems in the City today "

Rayment strikes again people!

How to solve this mess in one word? Liverpool.
Pool, Pool, Liverpool!!! What to do about this ongoing situation? Build more cruise terminals to cope with demand- in Liverpool. Send Cunard back to their original home- Liverpool. Send other Cruise Operators to join Cunard back in their original home of erm Liverpool. Some phrases I fully expect to hear later are: " This City has an emergency traffic problems act, but we do not feel that this is bad enough for us to implement it " " We weren't aware of any traffic problems in the City today " Rayment strikes again people! How to solve this mess in one word? Liverpool. 03alpe01
  • Score: -12

1:25pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Stuffed2 says...

sotonbusdriver wrote:
WHAT A SHAME.....

I don't feel sorry for them at all....... After all they spent £1,000's on the cruise....

Personally I would love to be able to afford a holiday full stop... But on our poor income that isn't a chance....

Maybe as those passengers are so flushed with money to afford to take a cruise they should think about a helicopter to get home in......After all they should be able to afford it
Not everyone that goes on a cruise is well-off , Some of us work hard to earn the money for a holiday once a year
[quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: WHAT A SHAME..... I don't feel sorry for them at all....... After all they spent £1,000's on the cruise.... Personally I would love to be able to afford a holiday full stop... But on our poor income that isn't a chance.... Maybe as those passengers are so flushed with money to afford to take a cruise they should think about a helicopter to get home in......After all they should be able to afford it[/p][/quote]Not everyone that goes on a cruise is well-off , Some of us work hard to earn the money for a holiday once a year Stuffed2
  • Score: 39

1:25pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Mary80 says...

The roads around the dock gates are friggin terrible the roads are just NOT built to cope with the amount of traffic. It has ZERO to do with cruise ships its also the bonehead move to green light several road works in the same area at the EXACT same time. But on the other side of the coin plenty of southampton residents know the road works are an issue so don't try to enter town from other ways, a pain in the arse but it would most likely ease things until everything is finished.
The roads around the dock gates are friggin terrible the roads are just NOT built to cope with the amount of traffic. It has ZERO to do with cruise ships its also the bonehead move to green light several road works in the same area at the EXACT same time. But on the other side of the coin plenty of southampton residents know the road works are an issue so don't try to enter town from other ways, a pain in the arse but it would most likely ease things until everything is finished. Mary80
  • Score: 11

1:33pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Kingontail says...

03alpe01 wrote:
Pool, Pool, Liverpool!!!
What to do about this ongoing situation? Build more cruise terminals to cope with demand- in Liverpool. Send Cunard back to their original home- Liverpool. Send other Cruise Operators to join Cunard back in their original home of erm Liverpool.

Some phrases I fully expect to hear later are:

" This City has an emergency traffic problems act, but we do not feel that this is bad enough for us to implement it "

" We weren't aware of any traffic problems in the City today "

Rayment strikes again people!

How to solve this mess in one word? Liverpool.
off you go then.
[quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Pool, Pool, Liverpool!!! What to do about this ongoing situation? Build more cruise terminals to cope with demand- in Liverpool. Send Cunard back to their original home- Liverpool. Send other Cruise Operators to join Cunard back in their original home of erm Liverpool. Some phrases I fully expect to hear later are: " This City has an emergency traffic problems act, but we do not feel that this is bad enough for us to implement it " " We weren't aware of any traffic problems in the City today " Rayment strikes again people! How to solve this mess in one word? Liverpool.[/p][/quote]off you go then. Kingontail
  • Score: 9

1:36pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

eurogordi wrote:
Southampton needs to sort this out PDQ. This continued gridlock will cause long-term damage to the local economy and the cruise companies should begin looking towards Liverpool for its future operations. And the only people to blame are those based at the Civic Centre!
So WHO is going to listen? No-one, that's why they're doing exactly as they please.
These people do not have business ethics or etiquette in anything, nor do they know how to behave in a professional manner. Each and every Labour Councillor on our council knows exactly what is going on too.
As previously admitted by Cllr Derek Burke, he knows more than anyone what goes on in Southampton Docks as he worked there for over 30 yrs, and he was an active Union Member (in his time at ABP) in all Union led disputes arising in the docks inc the big one of 1984.
It does seem that They do not know how or even want to know how to treat US the residents of this city with the respect and duty of best value that they should be showing as citizens PURELY elected BY US the people.
This is not Labour as we knew it. It's thick sh*t Union crap.
[quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: Southampton needs to sort this out PDQ. This continued gridlock will cause long-term damage to the local economy and the cruise companies should begin looking towards Liverpool for its future operations. And the only people to blame are those based at the Civic Centre![/p][/quote]So WHO is going to listen? No-one, that's why they're doing exactly as they please. These people do not have business ethics or etiquette in anything, nor do they know how to behave in a professional manner. Each and every Labour Councillor on our council knows exactly what is going on too. As previously admitted by Cllr Derek Burke, he knows more than anyone what goes on in Southampton Docks as he worked there for over 30 yrs, and he was an active Union Member (in his time at ABP) in all Union led disputes arising in the docks inc the big one of 1984. It does seem that They do not know how or even want to know how to treat US the residents of this city with the respect and duty of best value that they should be showing as citizens PURELY elected BY US the people. This is not Labour as we knew it. It's thick sh*t Union crap. Ronnie G
  • Score: 4

1:41pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

sotonbusdriver wrote:
WHAT A SHAME.....

I don't feel sorry for them at all....... After all they spent £1,000's on the cruise....

Personally I would love to be able to afford a holiday full stop... But on our poor income that isn't a chance....

Maybe as those passengers are so flushed with money to afford to take a cruise they should think about a helicopter to get home in......After all they should be able to afford it
Don't tell me Solent Blue Star??
[quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: WHAT A SHAME..... I don't feel sorry for them at all....... After all they spent £1,000's on the cruise.... Personally I would love to be able to afford a holiday full stop... But on our poor income that isn't a chance.... Maybe as those passengers are so flushed with money to afford to take a cruise they should think about a helicopter to get home in......After all they should be able to afford it[/p][/quote]Don't tell me Solent Blue Star?? Ronnie G
  • Score: 1

1:48pm Tue 25 Mar 14

kiddynamite says...

Don not fret The cruise companies will soon pull out of Southampton due to the fact no one can get on or off their ships. If only SCC could have seen this coming? lol
Don not fret The cruise companies will soon pull out of Southampton due to the fact no one can get on or off their ships. If only SCC could have seen this coming? lol kiddynamite
  • Score: 3

2:16pm Tue 25 Mar 14

S Pance says...

Jacqui Rayment strikes again! Use your vote wisely, guys..
Jacqui Rayment strikes again! Use your vote wisely, guys.. S Pance
  • Score: 10

2:27pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Edwick says...

With reports from passengers that they have taken over two hours to get out the old docks at Gate 4 it seems having berthed the ' Oriana ' there was a very stupid move !

One good thing from this will be that it will encourage the cruising companies even more to move their ships to Liverpool !

This sort of work should be carried out in the winter months not at the start of the cruising season !
.
With reports from passengers that they have taken over two hours to get out the old docks at Gate 4 it seems having berthed the ' Oriana ' there was a very stupid move ! One good thing from this will be that it will encourage the cruising companies even more to move their ships to Liverpool ! This sort of work should be carried out in the winter months not at the start of the cruising season ! . Edwick
  • Score: -3

2:30pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

cliffwalker wrote:
Here we go, again. And it seems again and again.

There are lots of experts on this forum who could sort the problem out in a trice. ABP should get in touch with them immediately.
Ronnie G, Loosehead, etc., could you let ABP have your contact details so they can take advantage of your carefully reasoned and researched schemes?
You don't think its odd that passengers embarking on their cruise ships FROM Southampton Docks are all of a sudden being held up by serious traffic congestion (never before experienced in this city), and today we have passengers disembarking from their cruise ship in Southampton Docks held up in again (never before experienced) serious traffic congestion?
IMO, THIS Wouldn't of happened if we had intelligent forward thinking professional, business people at the helm of our city.

Instead we have a Council who organise and attend more Labour recruitment and Union meetings than they do actual council meetings.
The heat must be turning up within the council, I hear some Labour councillors (GMB members) trying to increase GMB membership, are ruffling a few feathers, with Unison and Unite saying Labour cllrs are using their positions on the council to be able to put up posters on council notice boards.
Do we really need 3 or more union organisations representing the councils workforce?
Surely if Unions were there for the workers there would only be one union as it would solely be all about the workers?
[quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: Here we go, again. And it seems again and again. There are lots of experts on this forum who could sort the problem out in a trice. ABP should get in touch with them immediately. Ronnie G, Loosehead, etc., could you let ABP have your contact details so they can take advantage of your carefully reasoned and researched schemes?[/p][/quote]You don't think its odd that passengers embarking on their cruise ships FROM Southampton Docks are all of a sudden being held up by serious traffic congestion (never before experienced in this city), and today we have passengers disembarking from their cruise ship in Southampton Docks held up in again (never before experienced) serious traffic congestion? IMO, THIS Wouldn't of happened if we had intelligent forward thinking professional, business people at the helm of our city. Instead we have a Council who organise and attend more Labour recruitment and Union meetings than they do actual council meetings. The heat must be turning up within the council, I hear some Labour councillors (GMB members) trying to increase GMB membership, are ruffling a few feathers, with Unison and Unite saying Labour cllrs are using their positions on the council to be able to put up posters on council notice boards. Do we really need 3 or more union organisations representing the councils workforce? Surely if Unions were there for the workers there would only be one union as it would solely be all about the workers? Ronnie G
  • Score: 4

2:44pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

vag wrote:
redsnapper wrote:
Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning.

Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it.

Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days?

Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not.

Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation.
There are mobile matrix signs at the entry points to the city which warn people in plenty of time to take a better route. They are choosing not to. If the road works aren't progressed now, things will be a lot worse when the proper cruise traffic hits, later in the year.
The roadworks won't progress, they will be dragged out by the council then conveniently tied in to the central bridge closure, eventually leading us all to the end of a years worth of traffic chaos/disruption to our Port, Our City but most of all our City's Residents and our Economy.
THANKS A BUNCH TO OUR NU UNION/LABOUR RUN COUNCIL!
[quote][p][bold]vag[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning. Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it. Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days? Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not. Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation.[/p][/quote]There are mobile matrix signs at the entry points to the city which warn people in plenty of time to take a better route. They are choosing not to. If the road works aren't progressed now, things will be a lot worse when the proper cruise traffic hits, later in the year.[/p][/quote]The roadworks won't progress, they will be dragged out by the council then conveniently tied in to the central bridge closure, eventually leading us all to the end of a years worth of traffic chaos/disruption to our Port, Our City but most of all our City's Residents and our Economy. THANKS A BUNCH TO OUR NU UNION/LABOUR RUN COUNCIL! Ronnie G
  • Score: 1

2:49pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed.
.
Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ).
.
March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road
.
July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos.
.
But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.
Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed. . Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ). . March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road . July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos. . But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up. Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 1

2:51pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Ronnie G wrote:
vag wrote:
redsnapper wrote:
Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning.

Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it.

Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days?

Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not.

Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation.
There are mobile matrix signs at the entry points to the city which warn people in plenty of time to take a better route. They are choosing not to. If the road works aren't progressed now, things will be a lot worse when the proper cruise traffic hits, later in the year.
The roadworks won't progress, they will be dragged out by the council then conveniently tied in to the central bridge closure, eventually leading us all to the end of a years worth of traffic chaos/disruption to our Port, Our City but most of all our City's Residents and our Economy.
THANKS A BUNCH TO OUR NU UNION/LABOUR RUN COUNCIL!
You should calm down before you have a heart attack
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]vag[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning. Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it. Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days? Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not. Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation.[/p][/quote]There are mobile matrix signs at the entry points to the city which warn people in plenty of time to take a better route. They are choosing not to. If the road works aren't progressed now, things will be a lot worse when the proper cruise traffic hits, later in the year.[/p][/quote]The roadworks won't progress, they will be dragged out by the council then conveniently tied in to the central bridge closure, eventually leading us all to the end of a years worth of traffic chaos/disruption to our Port, Our City but most of all our City's Residents and our Economy. THANKS A BUNCH TO OUR NU UNION/LABOUR RUN COUNCIL![/p][/quote]You should calm down before you have a heart attack Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 2

2:57pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Davehobnob says...

Ronnie G wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
WHAT A SHAME.....

I don't feel sorry for them at all....... After all they spent £1,000's on the cruise....

Personally I would love to be able to afford a holiday full stop... But on our poor income that isn't a chance....

Maybe as those passengers are so flushed with money to afford to take a cruise they should think about a helicopter to get home in......After all they should be able to afford it
Don't tell me Solent Blue Star??
Dont be a total idiot , I was on that cruise and I got stuck for two hours . All the people I met on board were not the idle rich but ordinary people who had worked hard and saved up for a long time to go as we did for two years . Whilst Im not suggesting you dont work hard with ocmments like that Im glad you couldnt afford it so we didnt get stuck with you for 2 weeks
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: WHAT A SHAME..... I don't feel sorry for them at all....... After all they spent £1,000's on the cruise.... Personally I would love to be able to afford a holiday full stop... But on our poor income that isn't a chance.... Maybe as those passengers are so flushed with money to afford to take a cruise they should think about a helicopter to get home in......After all they should be able to afford it[/p][/quote]Don't tell me Solent Blue Star??[/p][/quote]Dont be a total idiot , I was on that cruise and I got stuck for two hours . All the people I met on board were not the idle rich but ordinary people who had worked hard and saved up for a long time to go as we did for two years . Whilst Im not suggesting you dont work hard with ocmments like that Im glad you couldnt afford it so we didnt get stuck with you for 2 weeks Davehobnob
  • Score: 13

3:01pm Tue 25 Mar 14

in search of the truth says...

Just at that moment in time when Southampton is starting to let it's cruise passengers down in a very big way, Liverpool comes to their rescue offering them a truly historic and unique cruise terminal from which they can embark and disembark on their cruise

----------------

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson finally got the keys to the Cunard Building after the council bought the landmark property to become the new cruise terminal next year.

Liverpool council acquired the Grade II*-listed building’s leasehold for £10m from owner Merseyside Pension Fund after announcing its intention back in September.

The giant office building, which has 10 acres of floors, was described as a “marvel” by Mayor Anderson, who is determined to secure the building as the new terminal.

For the full story and photographs inside the iconic " Cunard Building " see ....................


http://www.liverpool
echo.co.uk/news/live
rpool-news/video-liv
erpool-mayor-anderso
n-gets-6873034
Just at that moment in time when Southampton is starting to let it's cruise passengers down in a very big way, Liverpool comes to their rescue offering them a truly historic and unique cruise terminal from which they can embark and disembark on their cruise ---------------- Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson finally got the keys to the Cunard Building after the council bought the landmark property to become the new cruise terminal next year. Liverpool council acquired the Grade II*-listed building’s leasehold for £10m from owner Merseyside Pension Fund after announcing its intention back in September. The giant office building, which has 10 acres of floors, was described as a “marvel” by Mayor Anderson, who is determined to secure the building as the new terminal. For the full story and photographs inside the iconic " Cunard Building " see .................... http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/news/live rpool-news/video-liv erpool-mayor-anderso n-gets-6873034 in search of the truth
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Tue 25 Mar 14

in search of the truth says...

If you have more roadworks and cannot cope, I think we can.

2014 Cruise Season from Liverpool

Ships range from three-star rated to the brand new six-star German liner MS Europa 2

The capacity of ships on Liverpool'as cruise calendar ranges from the 694-passenger Azamara Journey to the 3,020- passenger 113,000 megaliner Ruby Princess, another new visitor which will make four repeat calls to Liverpool.

Mr Wood said: “A key example of Liverpool’s growing importance is the visit of the MSC Magnifica, after her owner said a few years ago it would never operate in the Irish Sea.

“For them to reconsider means MSC either had pressure from competitors or customers or both.

"MSC are tough businessmen so this an important indicator of the step-change achieved in improving the port and facilities.

For more details see

http://www.liverpool
echo.co.uk/incoming/
record-year-ahead-li
verpool-cruise-67926
45
If you have more roadworks and cannot cope, I think we can. 2014 Cruise Season from Liverpool Ships range from three-star rated to the brand new six-star German liner MS Europa 2 The capacity of ships on Liverpool'as cruise calendar ranges from the 694-passenger Azamara Journey to the 3,020- passenger 113,000 megaliner Ruby Princess, another new visitor which will make four repeat calls to Liverpool. Mr Wood said: “A key example of Liverpool’s growing importance is the visit of the MSC Magnifica, after her owner said a few years ago it would never operate in the Irish Sea. “For them to reconsider means MSC either had pressure from competitors or customers or both. "MSC are tough businessmen so this an important indicator of the step-change achieved in improving the port and facilities. For more details see http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/incoming/ record-year-ahead-li verpool-cruise-67926 45 in search of the truth
  • Score: -6

3:22pm Tue 25 Mar 14

loosehead says...

I'm no expert & as someone has now said these ships are booked months if not a year in advance then maybe it isn't down to ABP.
Surely before Southampton City Council gave the go ahead for all these road improvements they sat down with ABP & planned it?
If they didn't what's the council's game? do they want to lose the cruise industry to Liverpool?
We could blame the shops at West Quay but as I've said before from Dock gate 4 to the pier the traffic jam usually dissipates so not really the cruise ships fault is it?
I put forward that ABP could have that is if the Western Docks wasn't full maybe moved the docking of these ships there but why oh why didn't our council at least talk to ABP about doing this or something similar?
I can't wait for the cruise season plus the boat show what road will they close then?
I'm no expert & as someone has now said these ships are booked months if not a year in advance then maybe it isn't down to ABP. Surely before Southampton City Council gave the go ahead for all these road improvements they sat down with ABP & planned it? If they didn't what's the council's game? do they want to lose the cruise industry to Liverpool? We could blame the shops at West Quay but as I've said before from Dock gate 4 to the pier the traffic jam usually dissipates so not really the cruise ships fault is it? I put forward that ABP could have that is if the Western Docks wasn't full maybe moved the docking of these ships there but why oh why didn't our council at least talk to ABP about doing this or something similar? I can't wait for the cruise season plus the boat show what road will they close then? loosehead
  • Score: 9

3:26pm Tue 25 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed.
.
Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ).
.
March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road
.
July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos.
.
But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.
A labour council for 4 years & it's 2014 so who was in power in 2012?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed. . Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ). . March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road . July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos. . But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.[/p][/quote]A labour council for 4 years & it's 2014 so who was in power in 2012? loosehead
  • Score: 4

3:29pm Tue 25 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Ronnie G wrote:
vag wrote:
redsnapper wrote:
Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning.

Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it.

Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days?

Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not.

Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation.
There are mobile matrix signs at the entry points to the city which warn people in plenty of time to take a better route. They are choosing not to. If the road works aren't progressed now, things will be a lot worse when the proper cruise traffic hits, later in the year.
The roadworks won't progress, they will be dragged out by the council then conveniently tied in to the central bridge closure, eventually leading us all to the end of a years worth of traffic chaos/disruption to our Port, Our City but most of all our City's Residents and our Economy.
THANKS A BUNCH TO OUR NU UNION/LABOUR RUN COUNCIL!
Ronnie the easiest way to prove this isn't cruise ship related chaos is shut the Itchen Bridge direct all traffic to the Northam bridge & let's go back to the chaos we use to have on that bridge,
I thought the Echo said they were making one lane into dock only traffic around dock gate 4? so what happened to that plan?
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]vag[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning. Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it. Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days? Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not. Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation.[/p][/quote]There are mobile matrix signs at the entry points to the city which warn people in plenty of time to take a better route. They are choosing not to. If the road works aren't progressed now, things will be a lot worse when the proper cruise traffic hits, later in the year.[/p][/quote]The roadworks won't progress, they will be dragged out by the council then conveniently tied in to the central bridge closure, eventually leading us all to the end of a years worth of traffic chaos/disruption to our Port, Our City but most of all our City's Residents and our Economy. THANKS A BUNCH TO OUR NU UNION/LABOUR RUN COUNCIL![/p][/quote]Ronnie the easiest way to prove this isn't cruise ship related chaos is shut the Itchen Bridge direct all traffic to the Northam bridge & let's go back to the chaos we use to have on that bridge, I thought the Echo said they were making one lane into dock only traffic around dock gate 4? so what happened to that plan? loosehead
  • Score: 2

3:31pm Tue 25 Mar 14

S Pance says...

Why not introduce a "Park and Rail" scheme?

Cars could come down the M271 and park at Eling Wharf (Which is currently derelict)

Re-open the rail link from the wharf to the main line, shuttle trains could then run between the docks and the wharf.

Simples!
Why not introduce a "Park and Rail" scheme? Cars could come down the M271 and park at Eling Wharf (Which is currently derelict) Re-open the rail link from the wharf to the main line, shuttle trains could then run between the docks and the wharf. Simples! S Pance
  • Score: 3

3:33pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Kingontail says...

in search of the truth wrote:
Just at that moment in time when Southampton is starting to let it's cruise passengers down in a very big way, Liverpool comes to their rescue offering them a truly historic and unique cruise terminal from which they can embark and disembark on their cruise

----------------

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson finally got the keys to the Cunard Building after the council bought the landmark property to become the new cruise terminal next year.

Liverpool council acquired the Grade II*-listed building’s leasehold for £10m from owner Merseyside Pension Fund after announcing its intention back in September.

The giant office building, which has 10 acres of floors, was described as a “marvel” by Mayor Anderson, who is determined to secure the building as the new terminal.

For the full story and photographs inside the iconic " Cunard Building " see ....................



http://www.liverpool

echo.co.uk/news/live

rpool-news/video-liv

erpool-mayor-anderso

n-gets-6873034
only problem is you have to go to one of the most "deprived" places in the EU (their words not mine) to do so...
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: Just at that moment in time when Southampton is starting to let it's cruise passengers down in a very big way, Liverpool comes to their rescue offering them a truly historic and unique cruise terminal from which they can embark and disembark on their cruise ---------------- Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson finally got the keys to the Cunard Building after the council bought the landmark property to become the new cruise terminal next year. Liverpool council acquired the Grade II*-listed building’s leasehold for £10m from owner Merseyside Pension Fund after announcing its intention back in September. The giant office building, which has 10 acres of floors, was described as a “marvel” by Mayor Anderson, who is determined to secure the building as the new terminal. For the full story and photographs inside the iconic " Cunard Building " see .................... http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/news/live rpool-news/video-liv erpool-mayor-anderso n-gets-6873034[/p][/quote]only problem is you have to go to one of the most "deprived" places in the EU (their words not mine) to do so... Kingontail
  • Score: 1

3:46pm Tue 25 Mar 14

in search of the truth says...

Kingontail wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
Just at that moment in time when Southampton is starting to let it's cruise passengers down in a very big way, Liverpool comes to their rescue offering them a truly historic and unique cruise terminal from which they can embark and disembark on their cruise

----------------

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson finally got the keys to the Cunard Building after the council bought the landmark property to become the new cruise terminal next year.

Liverpool council acquired the Grade II*-listed building’s leasehold for £10m from owner Merseyside Pension Fund after announcing its intention back in September.

The giant office building, which has 10 acres of floors, was described as a “marvel” by Mayor Anderson, who is determined to secure the building as the new terminal.

For the full story and photographs inside the iconic " Cunard Building " see ....................




http://www.liverpool


echo.co.uk/news/live


rpool-news/video-liv


erpool-mayor-anderso


n-gets-6873034
only problem is you have to go to one of the most "deprived" places in the EU (their words not mine) to do so...
You shouldn't believe every word you read. Next thing you'll be telling me that the streets of London are paved with GOLD. Pull the other leg , there is so called deprivation everywhere if you use your eyes, there's quite a lot even in Southampton. By the same token there is affluence everywhere even in Liverpool or didn't you know that.
[quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: Just at that moment in time when Southampton is starting to let it's cruise passengers down in a very big way, Liverpool comes to their rescue offering them a truly historic and unique cruise terminal from which they can embark and disembark on their cruise ---------------- Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson finally got the keys to the Cunard Building after the council bought the landmark property to become the new cruise terminal next year. Liverpool council acquired the Grade II*-listed building’s leasehold for £10m from owner Merseyside Pension Fund after announcing its intention back in September. The giant office building, which has 10 acres of floors, was described as a “marvel” by Mayor Anderson, who is determined to secure the building as the new terminal. For the full story and photographs inside the iconic " Cunard Building " see .................... http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/news/live rpool-news/video-liv erpool-mayor-anderso n-gets-6873034[/p][/quote]only problem is you have to go to one of the most "deprived" places in the EU (their words not mine) to do so...[/p][/quote]You shouldn't believe every word you read. Next thing you'll be telling me that the streets of London are paved with GOLD. Pull the other leg , there is so called deprivation everywhere if you use your eyes, there's quite a lot even in Southampton. By the same token there is affluence everywhere even in Liverpool or didn't you know that. in search of the truth
  • Score: 1

3:50pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Mavis Barlow says...

funchal wrote:
Overall this city has a bad traffic light system. They are constantly going wrong. Personally I don't think there is one engineer within Siemens that has a brain!
I think you'll find that Siemens no longer maintain Southampton's traffic signals, I may be wrong but I thought the delays in this story seem to be due to two cruise ships and some roadworks, not faulty traffic lights or brainless Siemens engineers.
[quote][p][bold]funchal[/bold] wrote: Overall this city has a bad traffic light system. They are constantly going wrong. Personally I don't think there is one engineer within Siemens that has a brain![/p][/quote]I think you'll find that Siemens no longer maintain Southampton's traffic signals, I may be wrong but I thought the delays in this story seem to be due to two cruise ships and some roadworks, not faulty traffic lights or brainless Siemens engineers. Mavis Barlow
  • Score: 1

3:52pm Tue 25 Mar 14

loosehead says...

in search of the truth wrote:
Kingontail wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
Just at that moment in time when Southampton is starting to let it's cruise passengers down in a very big way, Liverpool comes to their rescue offering them a truly historic and unique cruise terminal from which they can embark and disembark on their cruise

----------------

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson finally got the keys to the Cunard Building after the council bought the landmark property to become the new cruise terminal next year.

Liverpool council acquired the Grade II*-listed building’s leasehold for £10m from owner Merseyside Pension Fund after announcing its intention back in September.

The giant office building, which has 10 acres of floors, was described as a “marvel” by Mayor Anderson, who is determined to secure the building as the new terminal.

For the full story and photographs inside the iconic " Cunard Building " see ....................





http://www.liverpool



echo.co.uk/news/live



rpool-news/video-liv



erpool-mayor-anderso



n-gets-6873034
only problem is you have to go to one of the most "deprived" places in the EU (their words not mine) to do so...
You shouldn't believe every word you read. Next thing you'll be telling me that the streets of London are paved with GOLD. Pull the other leg , there is so called deprivation everywhere if you use your eyes, there's quite a lot even in Southampton. By the same token there is affluence everywhere even in Liverpool or didn't you know that.
Southampton has a large unemployment figure the prices of houses are far higher than Liverpool but we continuously vote in a financially inept Labour Party & the result of that is an ineptitude to organise traffic or road works.
They said they were making one lane for dock gate 4 traffic only so we have to ask what happened to that idea.
I'd love to see Liverpools Cruise ships increase but not to the detriment of this city as I don't want to see a great city like Liverpool get unemployment down for that unemployment to move to this city I'd love to see a compromise.
But the way this Labour council are going & if they retain power then I can see this city suffering & no one can blame Liverpool for stealing the cruise ships as it will be our council driving them away.
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: Just at that moment in time when Southampton is starting to let it's cruise passengers down in a very big way, Liverpool comes to their rescue offering them a truly historic and unique cruise terminal from which they can embark and disembark on their cruise ---------------- Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson finally got the keys to the Cunard Building after the council bought the landmark property to become the new cruise terminal next year. Liverpool council acquired the Grade II*-listed building’s leasehold for £10m from owner Merseyside Pension Fund after announcing its intention back in September. The giant office building, which has 10 acres of floors, was described as a “marvel” by Mayor Anderson, who is determined to secure the building as the new terminal. For the full story and photographs inside the iconic " Cunard Building " see .................... http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/news/live rpool-news/video-liv erpool-mayor-anderso n-gets-6873034[/p][/quote]only problem is you have to go to one of the most "deprived" places in the EU (their words not mine) to do so...[/p][/quote]You shouldn't believe every word you read. Next thing you'll be telling me that the streets of London are paved with GOLD. Pull the other leg , there is so called deprivation everywhere if you use your eyes, there's quite a lot even in Southampton. By the same token there is affluence everywhere even in Liverpool or didn't you know that.[/p][/quote]Southampton has a large unemployment figure the prices of houses are far higher than Liverpool but we continuously vote in a financially inept Labour Party & the result of that is an ineptitude to organise traffic or road works. They said they were making one lane for dock gate 4 traffic only so we have to ask what happened to that idea. I'd love to see Liverpools Cruise ships increase but not to the detriment of this city as I don't want to see a great city like Liverpool get unemployment down for that unemployment to move to this city I'd love to see a compromise. But the way this Labour council are going & if they retain power then I can see this city suffering & no one can blame Liverpool for stealing the cruise ships as it will be our council driving them away. loosehead
  • Score: 2

3:54pm Tue 25 Mar 14

cliffwalker says...

There have been too many posts here who choose to see this as a problem of political ideology when it is, of course, very much a technical and financial solution that is needed. There have been a number of irrelevant claims based on which of the parties had a majority in recent years.

For the sake of good order:
No overall control 2000-2008
Conservative 2008-2012
Labour 2012-2014

If it is an ideological problem then all the parties have been involved over the long period it takes to devise and implement a very large scale civil engineering scheme.
There have been too many posts here who choose to see this as a problem of political ideology when it is, of course, very much a technical and financial solution that is needed. There have been a number of irrelevant claims based on which of the parties had a majority in recent years. For the sake of good order: No overall control 2000-2008 Conservative 2008-2012 Labour 2012-2014 If it is an ideological problem then all the parties have been involved over the long period it takes to devise and implement a very large scale civil engineering scheme. cliffwalker
  • Score: 2

3:59pm Tue 25 Mar 14

loosehead says...

cliffwalker wrote:
There have been too many posts here who choose to see this as a problem of political ideology when it is, of course, very much a technical and financial solution that is needed. There have been a number of irrelevant claims based on which of the parties had a majority in recent years.

For the sake of good order:
No overall control 2000-2008
Conservative 2008-2012
Labour 2012-2014

If it is an ideological problem then all the parties have been involved over the long period it takes to devise and implement a very large scale civil engineering scheme.
read all my posts & I've asked if this problem has gotten worse since the building of the Itchen Bridge funnelling all that traffic from the east of the city into what is a bottleneck?
[quote][p][bold]cliffwalker[/bold] wrote: There have been too many posts here who choose to see this as a problem of political ideology when it is, of course, very much a technical and financial solution that is needed. There have been a number of irrelevant claims based on which of the parties had a majority in recent years. For the sake of good order: No overall control 2000-2008 Conservative 2008-2012 Labour 2012-2014 If it is an ideological problem then all the parties have been involved over the long period it takes to devise and implement a very large scale civil engineering scheme.[/p][/quote]read all my posts & I've asked if this problem has gotten worse since the building of the Itchen Bridge funnelling all that traffic from the east of the city into what is a bottleneck? loosehead
  • Score: -2

4:06pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

No Transport links Scouse will nick the frigging lot!
No Transport links Scouse will nick the frigging lot! Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: -5

4:07pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Bobs Your Uncle ? says...

loosehead wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
Kingontail wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
Just at that moment in time when Southampton is starting to let it's cruise passengers down in a very big way, Liverpool comes to their rescue offering them a truly historic and unique cruise terminal from which they can embark and disembark on their cruise

----------------

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson finally got the keys to the Cunard Building after the council bought the landmark property to become the new cruise terminal next year.

Liverpool council acquired the Grade II*-listed building’s leasehold for £10m from owner Merseyside Pension Fund after announcing its intention back in September.

The giant office building, which has 10 acres of floors, was described as a “marvel” by Mayor Anderson, who is determined to secure the building as the new terminal.

For the full story and photographs inside the iconic " Cunard Building " see ....................






http://www.liverpool




echo.co.uk/news/live




rpool-news/video-liv




erpool-mayor-anderso




n-gets-6873034
only problem is you have to go to one of the most "deprived" places in the EU (their words not mine) to do so...
You shouldn't believe every word you read. Next thing you'll be telling me that the streets of London are paved with GOLD. Pull the other leg , there is so called deprivation everywhere if you use your eyes, there's quite a lot even in Southampton. By the same token there is affluence everywhere even in Liverpool or didn't you know that.
Southampton has a large unemployment figure the prices of houses are far higher than Liverpool but we continuously vote in a financially inept Labour Party & the result of that is an ineptitude to organise traffic or road works.
They said they were making one lane for dock gate 4 traffic only so we have to ask what happened to that idea.
I'd love to see Liverpools Cruise ships increase but not to the detriment of this city as I don't want to see a great city like Liverpool get unemployment down for that unemployment to move to this city I'd love to see a compromise.
But the way this Labour council are going & if they retain power then I can see this city suffering & no one can blame Liverpool for stealing the cruise ships as it will be our council driving them away.
southampton crime is worse than liverpool.and the roads ,no contest.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: Just at that moment in time when Southampton is starting to let it's cruise passengers down in a very big way, Liverpool comes to their rescue offering them a truly historic and unique cruise terminal from which they can embark and disembark on their cruise ---------------- Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson finally got the keys to the Cunard Building after the council bought the landmark property to become the new cruise terminal next year. Liverpool council acquired the Grade II*-listed building’s leasehold for £10m from owner Merseyside Pension Fund after announcing its intention back in September. The giant office building, which has 10 acres of floors, was described as a “marvel” by Mayor Anderson, who is determined to secure the building as the new terminal. For the full story and photographs inside the iconic " Cunard Building " see .................... http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/news/live rpool-news/video-liv erpool-mayor-anderso n-gets-6873034[/p][/quote]only problem is you have to go to one of the most "deprived" places in the EU (their words not mine) to do so...[/p][/quote]You shouldn't believe every word you read. Next thing you'll be telling me that the streets of London are paved with GOLD. Pull the other leg , there is so called deprivation everywhere if you use your eyes, there's quite a lot even in Southampton. By the same token there is affluence everywhere even in Liverpool or didn't you know that.[/p][/quote]Southampton has a large unemployment figure the prices of houses are far higher than Liverpool but we continuously vote in a financially inept Labour Party & the result of that is an ineptitude to organise traffic or road works. They said they were making one lane for dock gate 4 traffic only so we have to ask what happened to that idea. I'd love to see Liverpools Cruise ships increase but not to the detriment of this city as I don't want to see a great city like Liverpool get unemployment down for that unemployment to move to this city I'd love to see a compromise. But the way this Labour council are going & if they retain power then I can see this city suffering & no one can blame Liverpool for stealing the cruise ships as it will be our council driving them away.[/p][/quote]southampton crime is worse than liverpool.and the roads ,no contest. Bobs Your Uncle ?
  • Score: 0

4:10pm Tue 25 Mar 14

loosehead says...

So we have a council going on about a report on how much fags cost this city then we have a article about Traffic chaos caused by poor road management by the same council?
I hope they have air monitors working in those areas so we can see through their ineptitude how our health is being effected by all this car pollution or is this a plan to bring in LOndon measures & most car drivers can't see it?
So we have a council going on about a report on how much fags cost this city then we have a article about Traffic chaos caused by poor road management by the same council? I hope they have air monitors working in those areas so we can see through their ineptitude how our health is being effected by all this car pollution or is this a plan to bring in LOndon measures & most car drivers can't see it? loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:12pm Tue 25 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Bobs Your Uncle ? wrote:
loosehead wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
Kingontail wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
Just at that moment in time when Southampton is starting to let it's cruise passengers down in a very big way, Liverpool comes to their rescue offering them a truly historic and unique cruise terminal from which they can embark and disembark on their cruise

----------------

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson finally got the keys to the Cunard Building after the council bought the landmark property to become the new cruise terminal next year.

Liverpool council acquired the Grade II*-listed building’s leasehold for £10m from owner Merseyside Pension Fund after announcing its intention back in September.

The giant office building, which has 10 acres of floors, was described as a “marvel” by Mayor Anderson, who is determined to secure the building as the new terminal.

For the full story and photographs inside the iconic " Cunard Building " see ....................







http://www.liverpool





echo.co.uk/news/live





rpool-news/video-liv





erpool-mayor-anderso





n-gets-6873034
only problem is you have to go to one of the most "deprived" places in the EU (their words not mine) to do so...
You shouldn't believe every word you read. Next thing you'll be telling me that the streets of London are paved with GOLD. Pull the other leg , there is so called deprivation everywhere if you use your eyes, there's quite a lot even in Southampton. By the same token there is affluence everywhere even in Liverpool or didn't you know that.
Southampton has a large unemployment figure the prices of houses are far higher than Liverpool but we continuously vote in a financially inept Labour Party & the result of that is an ineptitude to organise traffic or road works.
They said they were making one lane for dock gate 4 traffic only so we have to ask what happened to that idea.
I'd love to see Liverpools Cruise ships increase but not to the detriment of this city as I don't want to see a great city like Liverpool get unemployment down for that unemployment to move to this city I'd love to see a compromise.
But the way this Labour council are going & if they retain power then I can see this city suffering & no one can blame Liverpool for stealing the cruise ships as it will be our council driving them away.
southampton crime is worse than liverpool.and the roads ,no contest.
Bob I looked up the Police Crime figures for Many Liverpool areas & did comparisons with where I live in Southampton & this city was far worse which totally blew me away as I to believed all the TV & others who say how bad Liverpool is but it isn't.
[quote][p][bold]Bobs Your Uncle ?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: Just at that moment in time when Southampton is starting to let it's cruise passengers down in a very big way, Liverpool comes to their rescue offering them a truly historic and unique cruise terminal from which they can embark and disembark on their cruise ---------------- Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson finally got the keys to the Cunard Building after the council bought the landmark property to become the new cruise terminal next year. Liverpool council acquired the Grade II*-listed building’s leasehold for £10m from owner Merseyside Pension Fund after announcing its intention back in September. The giant office building, which has 10 acres of floors, was described as a “marvel” by Mayor Anderson, who is determined to secure the building as the new terminal. For the full story and photographs inside the iconic " Cunard Building " see .................... http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/news/live rpool-news/video-liv erpool-mayor-anderso n-gets-6873034[/p][/quote]only problem is you have to go to one of the most "deprived" places in the EU (their words not mine) to do so...[/p][/quote]You shouldn't believe every word you read. Next thing you'll be telling me that the streets of London are paved with GOLD. Pull the other leg , there is so called deprivation everywhere if you use your eyes, there's quite a lot even in Southampton. By the same token there is affluence everywhere even in Liverpool or didn't you know that.[/p][/quote]Southampton has a large unemployment figure the prices of houses are far higher than Liverpool but we continuously vote in a financially inept Labour Party & the result of that is an ineptitude to organise traffic or road works. They said they were making one lane for dock gate 4 traffic only so we have to ask what happened to that idea. I'd love to see Liverpools Cruise ships increase but not to the detriment of this city as I don't want to see a great city like Liverpool get unemployment down for that unemployment to move to this city I'd love to see a compromise. But the way this Labour council are going & if they retain power then I can see this city suffering & no one can blame Liverpool for stealing the cruise ships as it will be our council driving them away.[/p][/quote]southampton crime is worse than liverpool.and the roads ,no contest.[/p][/quote]Bob I looked up the Police Crime figures for Many Liverpool areas & did comparisons with where I live in Southampton & this city was far worse which totally blew me away as I to believed all the TV & others who say how bad Liverpool is but it isn't. loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:12pm Tue 25 Mar 14

aldermoorboy says...

For my next cruise I think I will book the Hythe ferry, not such bad traffic at the pier and prices are very reasonable.
For my next cruise I think I will book the Hythe ferry, not such bad traffic at the pier and prices are very reasonable. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 1

4:14pm Tue 25 Mar 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

Simple, open up some of the dead end streets back to alternative through roads, with a few traffic officers to point people in the right direction.
Simple, open up some of the dead end streets back to alternative through roads, with a few traffic officers to point people in the right direction. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: -3

4:15pm Tue 25 Mar 14

From the sidelines says...

Kingontail wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
FOR CRISSAKES GET RID OF THIS USELESS LABOUR COUNCIL NOW!!!
They're having a POLITICAL ball at our expense whilst destroying our City's Reputation. ITS OBVIOUS they are not capable nor qualified in anything other than playing their political games.
The docks have been around 175 yrs BECAUSE they stayed neutral and are qualified and capable of running a huge industry.

It's time to put these Labour lunatics to bed permanently.
Before they, with their Liverpool 'friends', destroy our city completely.
its not political - do you think the staff in the highways dept and town planners change every time there is a swing in power?
Very good point. Local government is one of the last reserves for the incompetent and otherwise unemployable.

I ran a contract there some years ago - what an utter shower.
[quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: FOR CRISSAKES GET RID OF THIS USELESS LABOUR COUNCIL NOW!!! They're having a POLITICAL ball at our expense whilst destroying our City's Reputation. ITS OBVIOUS they are not capable nor qualified in anything other than playing their political games. The docks have been around 175 yrs BECAUSE they stayed neutral and are qualified and capable of running a huge industry. It's time to put these Labour lunatics to bed permanently. Before they, with their Liverpool 'friends', destroy our city completely.[/p][/quote]its not political - do you think the staff in the highways dept and town planners change every time there is a swing in power?[/p][/quote]Very good point. Local government is one of the last reserves for the incompetent and otherwise unemployable. I ran a contract there some years ago - what an utter shower. From the sidelines
  • Score: 1

4:18pm Tue 25 Mar 14

loosehead says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
For my next cruise I think I will book the Hythe ferry, not such bad traffic at the pier and prices are very reasonable.
why not put parking at Dibden & ferry by train or boat all passengers across to the docks?
You'd still have chaos with or without passengers going to board the ships.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: For my next cruise I think I will book the Hythe ferry, not such bad traffic at the pier and prices are very reasonable.[/p][/quote]why not put parking at Dibden & ferry by train or boat all passengers across to the docks? You'd still have chaos with or without passengers going to board the ships. loosehead
  • Score: -3

4:20pm Tue 25 Mar 14

From the sidelines says...

sotonbusdriver wrote:
WHAT A SHAME.....

I don't feel sorry for them at all....... After all they spent £1,000's on the cruise....

Personally I would love to be able to afford a holiday full stop... But on our poor income that isn't a chance....

Maybe as those passengers are so flushed with money to afford to take a cruise they should think about a helicopter to get home in......After all they should be able to afford it
What a mean spirited post.

Now, you can't afford a holiday and resent those who can. I wonder, is your poverty a result of stupidity, idleness and poor life-choices?

I'm sure you'll be taking out your inadequacies on the other road users from the safety of your bus.
[quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: WHAT A SHAME..... I don't feel sorry for them at all....... After all they spent £1,000's on the cruise.... Personally I would love to be able to afford a holiday full stop... But on our poor income that isn't a chance.... Maybe as those passengers are so flushed with money to afford to take a cruise they should think about a helicopter to get home in......After all they should be able to afford it[/p][/quote]What a mean spirited post. Now, you can't afford a holiday and resent those who can. I wonder, is your poverty a result of stupidity, idleness and poor life-choices? I'm sure you'll be taking out your inadequacies on the other road users from the safety of your bus. From the sidelines
  • Score: 4

4:25pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Mr saint76 says...

So what happened to all the neon signs and the echo warning of this like last time.
So what happened to all the neon signs and the echo warning of this like last time. Mr saint76
  • Score: -1

4:32pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Kingontail says...

in search of the truth wrote:
Kingontail wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
Just at that moment in time when Southampton is starting to let it's cruise passengers down in a very big way, Liverpool comes to their rescue offering them a truly historic and unique cruise terminal from which they can embark and disembark on their cruise

----------------

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson finally got the keys to the Cunard Building after the council bought the landmark property to become the new cruise terminal next year.

Liverpool council acquired the Grade II*-listed building’s leasehold for £10m from owner Merseyside Pension Fund after announcing its intention back in September.

The giant office building, which has 10 acres of floors, was described as a “marvel” by Mayor Anderson, who is determined to secure the building as the new terminal.

For the full story and photographs inside the iconic " Cunard Building " see ....................





http://www.liverpool



echo.co.uk/news/live



rpool-news/video-liv



erpool-mayor-anderso



n-gets-6873034
only problem is you have to go to one of the most "deprived" places in the EU (their words not mine) to do so...
You shouldn't believe every word you read. Next thing you'll be telling me that the streets of London are paved with GOLD. Pull the other leg , there is so called deprivation everywhere if you use your eyes, there's quite a lot even in Southampton. By the same token there is affluence everywhere even in Liverpool or didn't you know that.
No but I do believe the statistics that have been very well used by Liverpool to extract billions of pounds in government and EU funding. The council seem to revel in their yearly "how poor are we" publications. You do have to question however why EU funding is being used on projects like Central Village which is offices, shops and a cinema....
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingontail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: Just at that moment in time when Southampton is starting to let it's cruise passengers down in a very big way, Liverpool comes to their rescue offering them a truly historic and unique cruise terminal from which they can embark and disembark on their cruise ---------------- Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson finally got the keys to the Cunard Building after the council bought the landmark property to become the new cruise terminal next year. Liverpool council acquired the Grade II*-listed building’s leasehold for £10m from owner Merseyside Pension Fund after announcing its intention back in September. The giant office building, which has 10 acres of floors, was described as a “marvel” by Mayor Anderson, who is determined to secure the building as the new terminal. For the full story and photographs inside the iconic " Cunard Building " see .................... http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/news/live rpool-news/video-liv erpool-mayor-anderso n-gets-6873034[/p][/quote]only problem is you have to go to one of the most "deprived" places in the EU (their words not mine) to do so...[/p][/quote]You shouldn't believe every word you read. Next thing you'll be telling me that the streets of London are paved with GOLD. Pull the other leg , there is so called deprivation everywhere if you use your eyes, there's quite a lot even in Southampton. By the same token there is affluence everywhere even in Liverpool or didn't you know that.[/p][/quote]No but I do believe the statistics that have been very well used by Liverpool to extract billions of pounds in government and EU funding. The council seem to revel in their yearly "how poor are we" publications. You do have to question however why EU funding is being used on projects like Central Village which is offices, shops and a cinema.... Kingontail
  • Score: 2

4:41pm Tue 25 Mar 14

northamboyofold says...

We don't really want to get rid of the cruise liners to Liverpool, this would cause unemployment in the city.
What we need is someone that understands the traffic flow requirements,
not someone who in their wisdom who decided to put a traffic island outside the Red Funnel terminal whereby traffic has to filter into one lane for about ten yards and then go back into the correct lane.
We don't really want to get rid of the cruise liners to Liverpool, this would cause unemployment in the city. What we need is someone that understands the traffic flow requirements, not someone who in their wisdom who decided to put a traffic island outside the Red Funnel terminal whereby traffic has to filter into one lane for about ten yards and then go back into the correct lane. northamboyofold
  • Score: 2

5:01pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
vag wrote:
redsnapper wrote:
Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning.

Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it.

Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days?

Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not.

Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation.
There are mobile matrix signs at the entry points to the city which warn people in plenty of time to take a better route. They are choosing not to. If the road works aren't progressed now, things will be a lot worse when the proper cruise traffic hits, later in the year.
The roadworks won't progress, they will be dragged out by the council then conveniently tied in to the central bridge closure, eventually leading us all to the end of a years worth of traffic chaos/disruption to our Port, Our City but most of all our City's Residents and our Economy.
THANKS A BUNCH TO OUR NU UNION/LABOUR RUN COUNCIL!
You should calm down before you have a heart attack
Knew it wouldn't be long before you crawled out from under your rock.
How you doin?
I'm ok, I don't stress, I just tell it as I see it.
Which I'll add, we are all perfectly entitled to do so.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]vag[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning. Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it. Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days? Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not. Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation.[/p][/quote]There are mobile matrix signs at the entry points to the city which warn people in plenty of time to take a better route. They are choosing not to. If the road works aren't progressed now, things will be a lot worse when the proper cruise traffic hits, later in the year.[/p][/quote]The roadworks won't progress, they will be dragged out by the council then conveniently tied in to the central bridge closure, eventually leading us all to the end of a years worth of traffic chaos/disruption to our Port, Our City but most of all our City's Residents and our Economy. THANKS A BUNCH TO OUR NU UNION/LABOUR RUN COUNCIL![/p][/quote]You should calm down before you have a heart attack[/p][/quote]Knew it wouldn't be long before you crawled out from under your rock. How you doin? I'm ok, I don't stress, I just tell it as I see it. Which I'll add, we are all perfectly entitled to do so. Ronnie G
  • Score: -1

5:05pm Tue 25 Mar 14

miltonarcher says...

Park and Ride.
Park and Ride. miltonarcher
  • Score: 1

5:15pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed.
.
Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ).
.
March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road
.
July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos.
.
But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.
Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT!
Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011?
I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote.

I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed. . Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ). . March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road . July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos. . But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.[/p][/quote]Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT! Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011? I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote. I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more. Ronnie G
  • Score: 1

5:16pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
vag wrote:
redsnapper wrote:
Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning.

Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it.

Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days?

Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not.

Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation.
There are mobile matrix signs at the entry points to the city which warn people in plenty of time to take a better route. They are choosing not to. If the road works aren't progressed now, things will be a lot worse when the proper cruise traffic hits, later in the year.
The roadworks won't progress, they will be dragged out by the council then conveniently tied in to the central bridge closure, eventually leading us all to the end of a years worth of traffic chaos/disruption to our Port, Our City but most of all our City's Residents and our Economy.
THANKS A BUNCH TO OUR NU UNION/LABOUR RUN COUNCIL!
You should calm down before you have a heart attack
Knew it wouldn't be long before you crawled out from under your rock.
How you doin?
I'm ok, I don't stress, I just tell it as I see it.
Which I'll add, we are all perfectly entitled to do so.
........ and you question as to why i ridicule you.

.
So where did you "SEE IT" then..... if you are telling the way you "see it" ....... or are you just reading it . ....... as you are asking questions about whether there is any communication for residents then i would suggest you havent seen it ....... just jumped on the band wagon again !!!
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]vag[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning. Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it. Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days? Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not. Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation.[/p][/quote]There are mobile matrix signs at the entry points to the city which warn people in plenty of time to take a better route. They are choosing not to. If the road works aren't progressed now, things will be a lot worse when the proper cruise traffic hits, later in the year.[/p][/quote]The roadworks won't progress, they will be dragged out by the council then conveniently tied in to the central bridge closure, eventually leading us all to the end of a years worth of traffic chaos/disruption to our Port, Our City but most of all our City's Residents and our Economy. THANKS A BUNCH TO OUR NU UNION/LABOUR RUN COUNCIL![/p][/quote]You should calm down before you have a heart attack[/p][/quote]Knew it wouldn't be long before you crawled out from under your rock. How you doin? I'm ok, I don't stress, I just tell it as I see it. Which I'll add, we are all perfectly entitled to do so.[/p][/quote]........ and you question as to why i ridicule you. . So where did you "SEE IT" then..... if you are telling the way you "see it" ....... or are you just reading it . ....... as you are asking questions about whether there is any communication for residents then i would suggest you havent seen it ....... just jumped on the band wagon again !!! Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -2

5:20pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed.
.
Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ).
.
March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road
.
July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos.
.
But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.
Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT!
Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011?
I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote.

I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.
Nice words ........ but nothing to do with my post
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed. . Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ). . March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road . July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos. . But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.[/p][/quote]Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT! Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011? I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote. I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.[/p][/quote]Nice words ........ but nothing to do with my post Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -2

5:20pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Barbender says...

One simple Solution, Build cruise terminals Dibden Bay side of river & use existing docks for freight.
One simple Solution, Build cruise terminals Dibden Bay side of river & use existing docks for freight. Barbender
  • Score: 2

5:29pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

Davehobnob wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
sotonbusdriver wrote:
WHAT A SHAME.....

I don't feel sorry for them at all....... After all they spent £1,000's on the cruise....

Personally I would love to be able to afford a holiday full stop... But on our poor income that isn't a chance....

Maybe as those passengers are so flushed with money to afford to take a cruise they should think about a helicopter to get home in......After all they should be able to afford it
Don't tell me Solent Blue Star??
Dont be a total idiot , I was on that cruise and I got stuck for two hours . All the people I met on board were not the idle rich but ordinary people who had worked hard and saved up for a long time to go as we did for two years . Whilst Im not suggesting you dont work hard with ocmments like that Im glad you couldnt afford it so we didnt get stuck with you for 2 weeks
Pardon you?
You are the total idiot.
My comment was in reference to Soton Bus Driver, his rude, ignorant comments remind me of a Solent Blue Star Bus Driver.
I have no desire to cruise, but at the same time I would not frown on others who choose to do so. Live and let live I say.
I can see the attraction in people taking cruises and I love seeing the shops in port, but I'm afraid it's just not for me.
[quote][p][bold]Davehobnob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: WHAT A SHAME..... I don't feel sorry for them at all....... After all they spent £1,000's on the cruise.... Personally I would love to be able to afford a holiday full stop... But on our poor income that isn't a chance.... Maybe as those passengers are so flushed with money to afford to take a cruise they should think about a helicopter to get home in......After all they should be able to afford it[/p][/quote]Don't tell me Solent Blue Star??[/p][/quote]Dont be a total idiot , I was on that cruise and I got stuck for two hours . All the people I met on board were not the idle rich but ordinary people who had worked hard and saved up for a long time to go as we did for two years . Whilst Im not suggesting you dont work hard with ocmments like that Im glad you couldnt afford it so we didnt get stuck with you for 2 weeks[/p][/quote]Pardon you? You are the total idiot. My comment was in reference to Soton Bus Driver, his rude, ignorant comments remind me of a Solent Blue Star Bus Driver. I have no desire to cruise, but at the same time I would not frown on others who choose to do so. Live and let live I say. I can see the attraction in people taking cruises and I love seeing the shops in port, but I'm afraid it's just not for me. Ronnie G
  • Score: 0

5:32pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

loosehead wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
vag wrote:
redsnapper wrote:
Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning.

Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it.

Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days?

Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not.

Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation.
There are mobile matrix signs at the entry points to the city which warn people in plenty of time to take a better route. They are choosing not to. If the road works aren't progressed now, things will be a lot worse when the proper cruise traffic hits, later in the year.
The roadworks won't progress, they will be dragged out by the council then conveniently tied in to the central bridge closure, eventually leading us all to the end of a years worth of traffic chaos/disruption to our Port, Our City but most of all our City's Residents and our Economy.
THANKS A BUNCH TO OUR NU UNION/LABOUR RUN COUNCIL!
Ronnie the easiest way to prove this isn't cruise ship related chaos is shut the Itchen Bridge direct all traffic to the Northam bridge & let's go back to the chaos we use to have on that bridge,
I thought the Echo said they were making one lane into dock only traffic around dock gate 4? so what happened to that plan?
Like all the other plans loose head, they ride off slowly into the sunset, never to be seen again!
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]vag[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning. Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it. Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days? Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not. Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation.[/p][/quote]There are mobile matrix signs at the entry points to the city which warn people in plenty of time to take a better route. They are choosing not to. If the road works aren't progressed now, things will be a lot worse when the proper cruise traffic hits, later in the year.[/p][/quote]The roadworks won't progress, they will be dragged out by the council then conveniently tied in to the central bridge closure, eventually leading us all to the end of a years worth of traffic chaos/disruption to our Port, Our City but most of all our City's Residents and our Economy. THANKS A BUNCH TO OUR NU UNION/LABOUR RUN COUNCIL![/p][/quote]Ronnie the easiest way to prove this isn't cruise ship related chaos is shut the Itchen Bridge direct all traffic to the Northam bridge & let's go back to the chaos we use to have on that bridge, I thought the Echo said they were making one lane into dock only traffic around dock gate 4? so what happened to that plan?[/p][/quote]Like all the other plans loose head, they ride off slowly into the sunset, never to be seen again! Ronnie G
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed.
.
Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ).
.
March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road
.
July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos.
.
But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.
Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT!
Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011?
I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote.

I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.
Nice words ........ but nothing to do with my post
Nothing to do with your post? LOL!!
With reference to the Unison and Unite feathers being ruffled by GMB member Labour Cllrs, on my earlier post, I see and read it on Unison website. Check it out and see for yourself....
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed. . Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ). . March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road . July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos. . But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.[/p][/quote]Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT! Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011? I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote. I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.[/p][/quote]Nice words ........ but nothing to do with my post[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with your post? LOL!! With reference to the Unison and Unite feathers being ruffled by GMB member Labour Cllrs, on my earlier post, I see and read it on Unison website. Check it out and see for yourself.... Ronnie G
  • Score: -1

6:06pm Tue 25 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed.
.
Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ).
.
March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road
.
July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos.
.
But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.
Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT!
Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011?
I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote.

I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.
Ronnie you voted Labour Why? look back at the 4 years of the Tory council then look at the 4 years of this shambles who is more capable of running this city?
I could quite easily vote Labour as I don't expect to live here for the next 4 years but even though I'm going I care for the city I was born in So I'll be voting Tory if I'm still here.
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed. . Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ). . March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road . July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos. . But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.[/p][/quote]Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT! Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011? I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote. I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.[/p][/quote]Ronnie you voted Labour Why? look back at the 4 years of the Tory council then look at the 4 years of this shambles who is more capable of running this city? I could quite easily vote Labour as I don't expect to live here for the next 4 years but even though I'm going I care for the city I was born in So I'll be voting Tory if I'm still here. loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:15pm Tue 25 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
vag wrote:
redsnapper wrote:
Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning.

Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it.

Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days?

Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not.

Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation.
There are mobile matrix signs at the entry points to the city which warn people in plenty of time to take a better route. They are choosing not to. If the road works aren't progressed now, things will be a lot worse when the proper cruise traffic hits, later in the year.
The roadworks won't progress, they will be dragged out by the council then conveniently tied in to the central bridge closure, eventually leading us all to the end of a years worth of traffic chaos/disruption to our Port, Our City but most of all our City's Residents and our Economy.
THANKS A BUNCH TO OUR NU UNION/LABOUR RUN COUNCIL!
You should calm down before you have a heart attack
Knew it wouldn't be long before you crawled out from under your rock.
How you doin?
I'm ok, I don't stress, I just tell it as I see it.
Which I'll add, we are all perfectly entitled to do so.
Ronnie would you believe this Lone Ranger says I should grow up & debate like an adult?
Now I know all the inmates have been released from the mental asylum.
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]vag[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning. Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it. Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days? Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not. Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation.[/p][/quote]There are mobile matrix signs at the entry points to the city which warn people in plenty of time to take a better route. They are choosing not to. If the road works aren't progressed now, things will be a lot worse when the proper cruise traffic hits, later in the year.[/p][/quote]The roadworks won't progress, they will be dragged out by the council then conveniently tied in to the central bridge closure, eventually leading us all to the end of a years worth of traffic chaos/disruption to our Port, Our City but most of all our City's Residents and our Economy. THANKS A BUNCH TO OUR NU UNION/LABOUR RUN COUNCIL![/p][/quote]You should calm down before you have a heart attack[/p][/quote]Knew it wouldn't be long before you crawled out from under your rock. How you doin? I'm ok, I don't stress, I just tell it as I see it. Which I'll add, we are all perfectly entitled to do so.[/p][/quote]Ronnie would you believe this Lone Ranger says I should grow up & debate like an adult? Now I know all the inmates have been released from the mental asylum. loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:17pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed.
.
Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ).
.
March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road
.
July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos.
.
But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.
Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT!
Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011?
I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote.

I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.
Nice words ........ but nothing to do with my post
Nothing to do with your post? LOL!!
With reference to the Unison and Unite feathers being ruffled by GMB member Labour Cllrs, on my earlier post, I see and read it on Unison website. Check it out and see for yourself....
LOL ....... indeed .... NO cant see anything that i have on this post that you have responded to.
.
My reference was to posters feathers being ruffled .... like yours ........
.
And the funniest part of your post was QUOTE:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Are you for real ......... Do you, or have you, EVER lived in Southampton.
.
Oh yes the other comical bit was about when you posted ( somewhere ) about "The way i see it" ......... Well you didnt see it did you ..... you just read it from the Echo ........ LOL
.
You really do need to polish up a bit ...... Very sloppy stuff ..... Not as good as your Daisy days ........ Now those were great ..... could feel your anger in every post ...... Now its just spite ...... LOL
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed. . Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ). . March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road . July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos. . But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.[/p][/quote]Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT! Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011? I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote. I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.[/p][/quote]Nice words ........ but nothing to do with my post[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with your post? LOL!! With reference to the Unison and Unite feathers being ruffled by GMB member Labour Cllrs, on my earlier post, I see and read it on Unison website. Check it out and see for yourself....[/p][/quote]LOL ....... indeed .... NO cant see anything that i have on this post that you have responded to. . My reference was to posters feathers being ruffled .... like yours ........ . And the funniest part of your post was QUOTE:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Are you for real ......... Do you, or have you, EVER lived in Southampton. . Oh yes the other comical bit was about when you posted ( somewhere ) about "The way i see it" ......... Well you didnt see it did you ..... you just read it from the Echo ........ LOL . You really do need to polish up a bit ...... Very sloppy stuff ..... Not as good as your Daisy days ........ Now those were great ..... could feel your anger in every post ...... Now its just spite ...... LOL Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -2

6:21pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Lone Ranger. says...

loosehead wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed.
.
Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ).
.
March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road
.
July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos.
.
But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.
Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT!
Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011?
I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote.

I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.
Ronnie you voted Labour Why? look back at the 4 years of the Tory council then look at the 4 years of this shambles who is more capable of running this city?
I could quite easily vote Labour as I don't expect to live here for the next 4 years but even though I'm going I care for the city I was born in So I'll be voting Tory if I'm still here.
You dont even know how long anyone has been in power ..... LOL
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed. . Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ). . March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road . July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos. . But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.[/p][/quote]Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT! Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011? I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote. I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.[/p][/quote]Ronnie you voted Labour Why? look back at the 4 years of the Tory council then look at the 4 years of this shambles who is more capable of running this city? I could quite easily vote Labour as I don't expect to live here for the next 4 years but even though I'm going I care for the city I was born in So I'll be voting Tory if I'm still here.[/p][/quote]You dont even know how long anyone has been in power ..... LOL Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -1

6:27pm Tue 25 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Let's remember back in time as one poster seems to want to do. Pre Itchen Bridge we had a floating bridge with little traffic going down the old docks roads & it was so quiet.
go up to Northam bridge & traffic jams were normal but then came the Itchen Bridge & traffic was funnelled to an area that just didn't have the road infrastructure & no way of getting it unless a one way system was used but it wasn't.
We had a one way system in place from dock gate 4 to Godshead Tower but then a normal road.
Coming from the west we had western esplanade a quiet road where Pirelli workers could play football on with no fear of any cars.
Then you head for the pier still no trouble then the one way system no problem then South western house & trouble.
I'm no expert but the only way to widen this road is make it one way & when Central Bridge is back in action make it one way.
But to the posters on here supporting this shambolic council what happened to making one lane for dock traffic only as was reported by this paper?
Let's remember back in time as one poster seems to want to do. Pre Itchen Bridge we had a floating bridge with little traffic going down the old docks roads & it was so quiet. go up to Northam bridge & traffic jams were normal but then came the Itchen Bridge & traffic was funnelled to an area that just didn't have the road infrastructure & no way of getting it unless a one way system was used but it wasn't. We had a one way system in place from dock gate 4 to Godshead Tower but then a normal road. Coming from the west we had western esplanade a quiet road where Pirelli workers could play football on with no fear of any cars. Then you head for the pier still no trouble then the one way system no problem then South western house & trouble. I'm no expert but the only way to widen this road is make it one way & when Central Bridge is back in action make it one way. But to the posters on here supporting this shambolic council what happened to making one lane for dock traffic only as was reported by this paper? loosehead
  • Score: -2

6:28pm Tue 25 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed.
.
Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ).
.
March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road
.
July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos.
.
But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.
Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT!
Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011?
I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote.

I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.
Nice words ........ but nothing to do with my post
Nothing to do with your post? LOL!!
With reference to the Unison and Unite feathers being ruffled by GMB member Labour Cllrs, on my earlier post, I see and read it on Unison website. Check it out and see for yourself....
LOL ....... indeed .... NO cant see anything that i have on this post that you have responded to.
.
My reference was to posters feathers being ruffled .... like yours ........
.
And the funniest part of your post was QUOTE:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Are you for real ......... Do you, or have you, EVER lived in Southampton.
.
Oh yes the other comical bit was about when you posted ( somewhere ) about "The way i see it" ......... Well you didnt see it did you ..... you just read it from the Echo ........ LOL
.
You really do need to polish up a bit ...... Very sloppy stuff ..... Not as good as your Daisy days ........ Now those were great ..... could feel your anger in every post ...... Now its just spite ...... LOL
Why not try debating as you're sounding like a ten year old? isn't it time for you to grow up?
I thought you debated not insulted posters?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed. . Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ). . March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road . July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos. . But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.[/p][/quote]Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT! Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011? I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote. I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.[/p][/quote]Nice words ........ but nothing to do with my post[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with your post? LOL!! With reference to the Unison and Unite feathers being ruffled by GMB member Labour Cllrs, on my earlier post, I see and read it on Unison website. Check it out and see for yourself....[/p][/quote]LOL ....... indeed .... NO cant see anything that i have on this post that you have responded to. . My reference was to posters feathers being ruffled .... like yours ........ . And the funniest part of your post was QUOTE:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Are you for real ......... Do you, or have you, EVER lived in Southampton. . Oh yes the other comical bit was about when you posted ( somewhere ) about "The way i see it" ......... Well you didnt see it did you ..... you just read it from the Echo ........ LOL . You really do need to polish up a bit ...... Very sloppy stuff ..... Not as good as your Daisy days ........ Now those were great ..... could feel your anger in every post ...... Now its just spite ...... LOL[/p][/quote]Why not try debating as you're sounding like a ten year old? isn't it time for you to grow up? I thought you debated not insulted posters? loosehead
  • Score: -1

6:32pm Tue 25 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed.
.
Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ).
.
March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road
.
July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos.
.
But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.
Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT!
Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011?
I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote.

I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.
Ronnie you voted Labour Why? look back at the 4 years of the Tory council then look at the 4 years of this shambles who is more capable of running this city?
I could quite easily vote Labour as I don't expect to live here for the next 4 years but even though I'm going I care for the city I was born in So I'll be voting Tory if I'm still here.
You dont even know how long anyone has been in power ..... LOL
well how many years did you say the Tory council had been in power? was it eight years when it was only 4 ? so Labour got elected in 2012 well it seems an awful lot longer with the mess they've made of things in what two years? GOD HELP this city if they're still here in another two years
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed. . Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ). . March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road . July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos. . But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.[/p][/quote]Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT! Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011? I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote. I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.[/p][/quote]Ronnie you voted Labour Why? look back at the 4 years of the Tory council then look at the 4 years of this shambles who is more capable of running this city? I could quite easily vote Labour as I don't expect to live here for the next 4 years but even though I'm going I care for the city I was born in So I'll be voting Tory if I'm still here.[/p][/quote]You dont even know how long anyone has been in power ..... LOL[/p][/quote]well how many years did you say the Tory council had been in power? was it eight years when it was only 4 ? so Labour got elected in 2012 well it seems an awful lot longer with the mess they've made of things in what two years? GOD HELP this city if they're still here in another two years loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:50pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Turtlebay says...

The docks cover quite a large area. Was it really necessary to dock two huge megaliners next door to each other?
The docks cover quite a large area. Was it really necessary to dock two huge megaliners next door to each other? Turtlebay
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-Graham says...

Mj-trucker wrote:
Poor rich pensioners can't get back to check on their garden and sit in the conservatory lol ;-)
Well said - these whinging old fossils don't know the meaning of "pressure". Like you say, they don't have to be anywhere by a certain time, unlike us working people who keep this city and the South in general moving.
Ooooh, so they were stuck in traffic for a couple of hours - cry me a river.
They should try a month in our shoes, stuck on the M27/M3/A34 for god knows how long when our heroic "police" "service" shut the roads due to a minor shunt between a couple or three cars/motorbikes.
Get over it!!
[quote][p][bold]Mj-trucker[/bold] wrote: Poor rich pensioners can't get back to check on their garden and sit in the conservatory lol ;-)[/p][/quote]Well said - these whinging old fossils don't know the meaning of "pressure". Like you say, they don't have to be anywhere by a certain time, unlike us working people who keep this city and the South in general moving. Ooooh, so they were stuck in traffic for a couple of hours - cry me a river. They should try a month in our shoes, stuck on the M27/M3/A34 for god knows how long when our heroic "police" "service" shut the roads due to a minor shunt between a couple or three cars/motorbikes. Get over it!! Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-Graham
  • Score: -2

7:32pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-Graham says...

sotonbusdriver wrote:
WHAT A SHAME..... I don't feel sorry for them at all....... After all they spent £1,000's on the cruise.... Personally I would love to be able to afford a holiday full stop... But on our poor income that isn't a chance.... Maybe as those passengers are so flushed with money to afford to take a cruise they should think about a helicopter to get home in......After all they should be able to afford it
Exactly! Is there anything more tiresome than listening to the "hard luck" stories of this bunch of consumerist Tories who think the WHOLE WORLD revolves around THEM? I think not!!!
[quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: WHAT A SHAME..... I don't feel sorry for them at all....... After all they spent £1,000's on the cruise.... Personally I would love to be able to afford a holiday full stop... But on our poor income that isn't a chance.... Maybe as those passengers are so flushed with money to afford to take a cruise they should think about a helicopter to get home in......After all they should be able to afford it[/p][/quote]Exactly! Is there anything more tiresome than listening to the "hard luck" stories of this bunch of consumerist Tories who think the WHOLE WORLD revolves around THEM? I think not!!! Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-Graham
  • Score: -2

7:34pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

loosehead wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed.
.
Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ).
.
March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road
.
July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos.
.
But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.
Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT!
Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011?
I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote.

I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.
Ronnie you voted Labour Why? look back at the 4 years of the Tory council then look at the 4 years of this shambles who is more capable of running this city?
I could quite easily vote Labour as I don't expect to live here for the next 4 years but even though I'm going I care for the city I was born in So I'll be voting Tory if I'm still here.
I'll have to be honest loose, I was never really that bothered on voting at all, so I never felt I had the need or the right to comment. I've always worked, enjoyed my life my way and I leave others to do the same.
So yes after looking into things for my own purposes, I will be voting Tory next time round.
I gave Southampton Labour their chance and they blew it Big Style.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed. . Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ). . March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road . July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos. . But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.[/p][/quote]Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT! Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011? I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote. I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.[/p][/quote]Ronnie you voted Labour Why? look back at the 4 years of the Tory council then look at the 4 years of this shambles who is more capable of running this city? I could quite easily vote Labour as I don't expect to live here for the next 4 years but even though I'm going I care for the city I was born in So I'll be voting Tory if I'm still here.[/p][/quote]I'll have to be honest loose, I was never really that bothered on voting at all, so I never felt I had the need or the right to comment. I've always worked, enjoyed my life my way and I leave others to do the same. So yes after looking into things for my own purposes, I will be voting Tory next time round. I gave Southampton Labour their chance and they blew it Big Style. Ronnie G
  • Score: 2

8:59pm Tue 25 Mar 14

biggus2 says...

Best solution of all sends one of the Cruise Ships to Portsmouth.
Best solution of all sends one of the Cruise Ships to Portsmouth. biggus2
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Tue 25 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Ronnie G wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed.
.
Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ).
.
March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road
.
July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos.
.
But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.
Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT!
Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011?
I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote.

I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.
Ronnie you voted Labour Why? look back at the 4 years of the Tory council then look at the 4 years of this shambles who is more capable of running this city?
I could quite easily vote Labour as I don't expect to live here for the next 4 years but even though I'm going I care for the city I was born in So I'll be voting Tory if I'm still here.
I'll have to be honest loose, I was never really that bothered on voting at all, so I never felt I had the need or the right to comment. I've always worked, enjoyed my life my way and I leave others to do the same.
So yes after looking into things for my own purposes, I will be voting Tory next time round.
I gave Southampton Labour their chance and they blew it Big Style.
Ronnie I'm 57 & my friend is 70 what neither of us can understand is why was it this problem only seems to have got worse since Labour came to Power?
Yes we had queues when the Tories were in charge but Jeremy Moulton was in talks with ABP to try to sort this out.
Why is it a part of the Park is going to make the road wider so no road needs to close so why this chaos?
When the widening is complete then shut the one way street & enlarge the park surely?
Why couldn't the bridge be worked on in the winter months after the Park project was finished? why was a cycleway being done at the same time as the parks? Why was the cycleway so wrongly designed?
Surely if the talks with ABP had continued & they knew of what roadworks were taking place these ships could have gone to the new docks?
My friend said he remembers when in the 60's every berth in the old & new docks was full so this traffic can't be blamed on the ships as if only two ships cause this much problem then there's something seriously6 wrong with our road infrastructures in that part of town.
I would love to see two cruise ships in dock gate 4 & the Itchen bridge closed to see if there's the same problem?
[quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed. . Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ). . March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road . July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos. . But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.[/p][/quote]Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT! Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011? I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote. I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.[/p][/quote]Ronnie you voted Labour Why? look back at the 4 years of the Tory council then look at the 4 years of this shambles who is more capable of running this city? I could quite easily vote Labour as I don't expect to live here for the next 4 years but even though I'm going I care for the city I was born in So I'll be voting Tory if I'm still here.[/p][/quote]I'll have to be honest loose, I was never really that bothered on voting at all, so I never felt I had the need or the right to comment. I've always worked, enjoyed my life my way and I leave others to do the same. So yes after looking into things for my own purposes, I will be voting Tory next time round. I gave Southampton Labour their chance and they blew it Big Style.[/p][/quote]Ronnie I'm 57 & my friend is 70 what neither of us can understand is why was it this problem only seems to have got worse since Labour came to Power? Yes we had queues when the Tories were in charge but Jeremy Moulton was in talks with ABP to try to sort this out. Why is it a part of the Park is going to make the road wider so no road needs to close so why this chaos? When the widening is complete then shut the one way street & enlarge the park surely? Why couldn't the bridge be worked on in the winter months after the Park project was finished? why was a cycleway being done at the same time as the parks? Why was the cycleway so wrongly designed? Surely if the talks with ABP had continued & they knew of what roadworks were taking place these ships could have gone to the new docks? My friend said he remembers when in the 60's every berth in the old & new docks was full so this traffic can't be blamed on the ships as if only two ships cause this much problem then there's something seriously6 wrong with our road infrastructures in that part of town. I would love to see two cruise ships in dock gate 4 & the Itchen bridge closed to see if there's the same problem? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:18pm Tue 25 Mar 14

loosehead says...

So please tell me what happened to this council plan?
• 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.
This great plan by our council so where/what happened to it?

• Organise a command and control team to monitor the traffic situation around busy cruise days and take action where necessary.
So please tell me what happened to this council plan? • 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. This great plan by our council so where/what happened to it? • Organise a command and control team to monitor the traffic situation around busy cruise days and take action where necessary. loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:20pm Tue 25 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-G
raham
wrote:
Mj-trucker wrote:
Poor rich pensioners can't get back to check on their garden and sit in the conservatory lol ;-)
Well said - these whinging old fossils don't know the meaning of "pressure". Like you say, they don't have to be anywhere by a certain time, unlike us working people who keep this city and the South in general moving.
Ooooh, so they were stuck in traffic for a couple of hours - cry me a river.
They should try a month in our shoes, stuck on the M27/M3/A34 for god knows how long when our heroic "police" "service" shut the roads due to a minor shunt between a couple or three cars/motorbikes.
Get over it!!
I think you'll find hundreds of jobs revolve around them as if they say we don't want to cruise from Southampton will the cruise companies leave this city will you & hundreds more still have jobs? get a brain this city needs those ships & those passengers.
[quote][p][bold]Mr-La-De-Da-Gunner-G raham[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mj-trucker[/bold] wrote: Poor rich pensioners can't get back to check on their garden and sit in the conservatory lol ;-)[/p][/quote]Well said - these whinging old fossils don't know the meaning of "pressure". Like you say, they don't have to be anywhere by a certain time, unlike us working people who keep this city and the South in general moving. Ooooh, so they were stuck in traffic for a couple of hours - cry me a river. They should try a month in our shoes, stuck on the M27/M3/A34 for god knows how long when our heroic "police" "service" shut the roads due to a minor shunt between a couple or three cars/motorbikes. Get over it!![/p][/quote]I think you'll find hundreds of jobs revolve around them as if they say we don't want to cruise from Southampton will the cruise companies leave this city will you & hundreds more still have jobs? get a brain this city needs those ships & those passengers. loosehead
  • Score: -1

9:27pm Tue 25 Mar 14

phil maccavity says...

loosehead wrote:
So why are these two docking in dock gate4? why not dock them in the New Docks where they could happily exit dock gate 10 or 20?
Yes it's down to chaotically organised road works but surely ABP must know this is taking place so why not move the ships to the docks with little or no problems?
It has to be on ABP where the ships dock & until these road works end & a better traffic management scheme is put into place if we they can solely use the New/Western docks why don't they?
According to the Docking List Oriana was in the Eastern Docks and Aida Sol was berthed at the City Terminal in the Western Docks.
Not sure how the ships can be described as docking 'close together'
Also understand that the Aida Sol was a German 'calling cruise' where most of the passengers were going off on coach trips or walking into the City Centre
So the perceived traffic 'chaos' was effectively caused by one ship.
I went over to the IOW just after lunch and all seemed Ok at the bottom part of town.
Also understand that the other Western Docks terminal (Mayflower) is currently being upgraded so there is only one cruise terminal operational in the western Docks at the moment
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So why are these two docking in dock gate4? why not dock them in the New Docks where they could happily exit dock gate 10 or 20? Yes it's down to chaotically organised road works but surely ABP must know this is taking place so why not move the ships to the docks with little or no problems? It has to be on ABP where the ships dock & until these road works end & a better traffic management scheme is put into place if we they can solely use the New/Western docks why don't they?[/p][/quote]According to the Docking List Oriana was in the Eastern Docks and Aida Sol was berthed at the City Terminal in the Western Docks. Not sure how the ships can be described as docking 'close together' Also understand that the Aida Sol was a German 'calling cruise' where most of the passengers were going off on coach trips or walking into the City Centre So the perceived traffic 'chaos' was effectively caused by one ship. I went over to the IOW just after lunch and all seemed Ok at the bottom part of town. Also understand that the other Western Docks terminal (Mayflower) is currently being upgraded so there is only one cruise terminal operational in the western Docks at the moment phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

9:27pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed.
.
Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ).
.
March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road
.
July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos.
.
But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.
Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT!
Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011?
I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote.

I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.
Nice words ........ but nothing to do with my post
Nothing to do with your post? LOL!!
With reference to the Unison and Unite feathers being ruffled by GMB member Labour Cllrs, on my earlier post, I see and read it on Unison website. Check it out and see for yourself....
LOL ....... indeed .... NO cant see anything that i have on this post that you have responded to.
.
My reference was to posters feathers being ruffled .... like yours ........
.
And the funniest part of your post was QUOTE:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Are you for real ......... Do you, or have you, EVER lived in Southampton.
.
Oh yes the other comical bit was about when you posted ( somewhere ) about "The way i see it" ......... Well you didnt see it did you ..... you just read it from the Echo ........ LOL
.
You really do need to polish up a bit ...... Very sloppy stuff ..... Not as good as your Daisy days ........ Now those were great ..... could feel your anger in every post ...... Now its just spite ...... LOL
Time Out for Lone!! Jeeze man Get a Grip!!
You are obsessed with this poster called Daisy.
Your post is rather pointless and completely random.
I'm concerned for you as it appears you have a few issues at present.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Oh dear a few ruffled feathers again today, this time from the Union bashers ... still ... i suppose they think its an easy target ...... as they are so ilinformed. . Anyway .... Southampton has been affected by roadworks over the years by roadworks and subsequent traffic issues despite the Quote:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Seems like a bitter TORY with a (very) short memory ( Surely not ). . March to July in 2012 when Millbrook flyover was having months of work carried out on it. The tailbacks stretched back to the M271 and into Totton.Total chaos on every aproach road . July to August 2011 .... Bugle Street was closed at the Town Quay and traffic stacked back for miles ..... this coincided with a music festival on the IOW ..... total chaos. . But its very strange ......... Not once did the usual suspect posters above complain at all ........ Perhaps it was because the TORY council that screwed it up.[/p][/quote]Or it was simply down to the opposition council officers that at the time were in highways and planning and that are now promoted or in fact our present Labour Councillors that we are blessed with. NOT! Coz let's face it other things like making people redundant were being carried out by the opposition Labour Council officers at the time of July - August 2011? I am not a Tory, but if I feel that they would act in the appropriate, befitting manner of a Councillor representing us and our City ( putting us first ) then yes they'd get my vote. I did think Labour were the party for the job here in Southampton and YES I VOTED but NO I won't be voting any more.[/p][/quote]Nice words ........ but nothing to do with my post[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with your post? LOL!! With reference to the Unison and Unite feathers being ruffled by GMB member Labour Cllrs, on my earlier post, I see and read it on Unison website. Check it out and see for yourself....[/p][/quote]LOL ....... indeed .... NO cant see anything that i have on this post that you have responded to. . My reference was to posters feathers being ruffled .... like yours ........ . And the funniest part of your post was QUOTE:- ( never before experienced in this city ) ..... Are you for real ......... Do you, or have you, EVER lived in Southampton. . Oh yes the other comical bit was about when you posted ( somewhere ) about "The way i see it" ......... Well you didnt see it did you ..... you just read it from the Echo ........ LOL . You really do need to polish up a bit ...... Very sloppy stuff ..... Not as good as your Daisy days ........ Now those were great ..... could feel your anger in every post ...... Now its just spite ...... LOL[/p][/quote]Time Out for Lone!! Jeeze man Get a Grip!! You are obsessed with this poster called Daisy. Your post is rather pointless and completely random. I'm concerned for you as it appears you have a few issues at present. Ronnie G
  • Score: 1

9:59pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Bally_Hoo says...

Whilst I am not a fan of the current councils transport policy, in fairness, this problem is not really down to them.

The problem is that the cruise capacity has exploded, over the last 5 years, but without any planning as to access.

In the heyday of the liners back in the 1950's, most passengers arrived at the dockside by train, nowadays they all drive.

We need to reopen the rail links to the docks, and setup park and rail sites outside the city, with baggage handling facilities so that passengers and their bags can be shuttled to and from the ships by train.
Whilst I am not a fan of the current councils transport policy, in fairness, this problem is not really down to them. The problem is that the cruise capacity has exploded, over the last 5 years, but without any planning as to access. In the heyday of the liners back in the 1950's, most passengers arrived at the dockside by train, nowadays they all drive. We need to reopen the rail links to the docks, and setup park and rail sites outside the city, with baggage handling facilities so that passengers and their bags can be shuttled to and from the ships by train. Bally_Hoo
  • Score: 1

10:21pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Ronnie G says...

phil maccavity wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So why are these two docking in dock gate4? why not dock them in the New Docks where they could happily exit dock gate 10 or 20?
Yes it's down to chaotically organised road works but surely ABP must know this is taking place so why not move the ships to the docks with little or no problems?
It has to be on ABP where the ships dock & until these road works end & a better traffic management scheme is put into place if we they can solely use the New/Western docks why don't they?
According to the Docking List Oriana was in the Eastern Docks and Aida Sol was berthed at the City Terminal in the Western Docks.
Not sure how the ships can be described as docking 'close together'
Also understand that the Aida Sol was a German 'calling cruise' where most of the passengers were going off on coach trips or walking into the City Centre
So the perceived traffic 'chaos' was effectively caused by one ship.
I went over to the IOW just after lunch and all seemed Ok at the bottom part of town.
Also understand that the other Western Docks terminal (Mayflower) is currently being upgraded so there is only one cruise terminal operational in the western Docks at the moment
Which brings us back full circle to Southampton Cruise Parking Services who originally threw us the herring.

Now there's a surprise!
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So why are these two docking in dock gate4? why not dock them in the New Docks where they could happily exit dock gate 10 or 20? Yes it's down to chaotically organised road works but surely ABP must know this is taking place so why not move the ships to the docks with little or no problems? It has to be on ABP where the ships dock & until these road works end & a better traffic management scheme is put into place if we they can solely use the New/Western docks why don't they?[/p][/quote]According to the Docking List Oriana was in the Eastern Docks and Aida Sol was berthed at the City Terminal in the Western Docks. Not sure how the ships can be described as docking 'close together' Also understand that the Aida Sol was a German 'calling cruise' where most of the passengers were going off on coach trips or walking into the City Centre So the perceived traffic 'chaos' was effectively caused by one ship. I went over to the IOW just after lunch and all seemed Ok at the bottom part of town. Also understand that the other Western Docks terminal (Mayflower) is currently being upgraded so there is only one cruise terminal operational in the western Docks at the moment[/p][/quote]Which brings us back full circle to Southampton Cruise Parking Services who originally threw us the herring. Now there's a surprise! Ronnie G
  • Score: -1

1:22am Wed 26 Mar 14

IronLady2010 says...

Is there any need for all the Taxi's etc? They've been locked up in a vessel for several days, chuck them on a coach with a TV screen and send them to a Car Park somewhere.

I'm really not sure which is worse. Looking at seawater or cars.

Stop traffic to the docks and move it to the Holiday Inn area on M271, put on Coaches as they're used to being couped up like pigeons. Surely a few coaches is better than hundreds of cars.
Is there any need for all the Taxi's etc? They've been locked up in a vessel for several days, chuck them on a coach with a TV screen and send them to a Car Park somewhere. I'm really not sure which is worse. Looking at seawater or cars. Stop traffic to the docks and move it to the Holiday Inn area on M271, put on Coaches as they're used to being couped up like pigeons. Surely a few coaches is better than hundreds of cars. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

6:12am Wed 26 Mar 14

loosehead says...

phil maccavity wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So why are these two docking in dock gate4? why not dock them in the New Docks where they could happily exit dock gate 10 or 20?
Yes it's down to chaotically organised road works but surely ABP must know this is taking place so why not move the ships to the docks with little or no problems?
It has to be on ABP where the ships dock & until these road works end & a better traffic management scheme is put into place if we they can solely use the New/Western docks why don't they?
According to the Docking List Oriana was in the Eastern Docks and Aida Sol was berthed at the City Terminal in the Western Docks.
Not sure how the ships can be described as docking 'close together'
Also understand that the Aida Sol was a German 'calling cruise' where most of the passengers were going off on coach trips or walking into the City Centre
So the perceived traffic 'chaos' was effectively caused by one ship.
I went over to the IOW just after lunch and all seemed Ok at the bottom part of town.
Also understand that the other Western Docks terminal (Mayflower) is currently being upgraded so there is only one cruise terminal operational in the western Docks at the moment
so only one ship & they reckon this causes chaos? can't wait for the boat show.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So why are these two docking in dock gate4? why not dock them in the New Docks where they could happily exit dock gate 10 or 20? Yes it's down to chaotically organised road works but surely ABP must know this is taking place so why not move the ships to the docks with little or no problems? It has to be on ABP where the ships dock & until these road works end & a better traffic management scheme is put into place if we they can solely use the New/Western docks why don't they?[/p][/quote]According to the Docking List Oriana was in the Eastern Docks and Aida Sol was berthed at the City Terminal in the Western Docks. Not sure how the ships can be described as docking 'close together' Also understand that the Aida Sol was a German 'calling cruise' where most of the passengers were going off on coach trips or walking into the City Centre So the perceived traffic 'chaos' was effectively caused by one ship. I went over to the IOW just after lunch and all seemed Ok at the bottom part of town. Also understand that the other Western Docks terminal (Mayflower) is currently being upgraded so there is only one cruise terminal operational in the western Docks at the moment[/p][/quote]so only one ship & they reckon this causes chaos? can't wait for the boat show. loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:22am Wed 26 Mar 14

loosehead says...

After Living in Thailand & going to stay in London I can't believe this city?
We have traffic jams why? people know there's road works they know we have cruise ships they know we have both a Football Stadium & a boat show.
Yet do they take alternate routes on those days? do they check on dock movements?
I've been stuck in traffic in Bangkok & anyone going to Footballs Wembley Stadium will know what a traffic jam really is yet here we have idiots calling for night time visits by cruise ships? saying let them go to Liverpool?
Yes the who ever planned the road works should be shot but what about taking responsibility on ourselves once we know about these road works?
After Living in Thailand & going to stay in London I can't believe this city? We have traffic jams why? people know there's road works they know we have cruise ships they know we have both a Football Stadium & a boat show. Yet do they take alternate routes on those days? do they check on dock movements? I've been stuck in traffic in Bangkok & anyone going to Footballs Wembley Stadium will know what a traffic jam really is yet here we have idiots calling for night time visits by cruise ships? saying let them go to Liverpool? Yes the who ever planned the road works should be shot but what about taking responsibility on ourselves once we know about these road works? loosehead
  • Score: -1

7:27am Wed 26 Mar 14

in search of the truth says...

I was absolutely amazed at the high numbers of Southampton posters here who are so fed up with the chaos that Southampton goes through whenever a couple of cruise ships come into port . Quite a few even suggesting that Southampton would be better off if the cruise ships came here to Liverpool.

We regularly have 100,000 to 500,000 people within the city centre , enjoying various outdoor public events and sightseeing as people do. The only difference is we have no real problems despite increases in road traffic and large influxes of locals and tourists. It all adds to the atmosphere within this vibrant city and the money spent in the local economy is good for the city.

If you are serious, then I'm sure Liverpool would be able to help you out and you could have traffic jam free days once again.
I was absolutely amazed at the high numbers of Southampton posters here who are so fed up with the chaos that Southampton goes through whenever a couple of cruise ships come into port . Quite a few even suggesting that Southampton would be better off if the cruise ships came here to Liverpool. We regularly have 100,000 to 500,000 people within the city centre , enjoying various outdoor public events and sightseeing as people do. The only difference is we have no real problems despite increases in road traffic and large influxes of locals and tourists. It all adds to the atmosphere within this vibrant city and the money spent in the local economy is good for the city. If you are serious, then I'm sure Liverpool would be able to help you out and you could have traffic jam free days once again. in search of the truth
  • Score: -1

8:23am Wed 26 Mar 14

phil maccavity says...

in search of the truth wrote:
I was absolutely amazed at the high numbers of Southampton posters here who are so fed up with the chaos that Southampton goes through whenever a couple of cruise ships come into port . Quite a few even suggesting that Southampton would be better off if the cruise ships came here to Liverpool.

We regularly have 100,000 to 500,000 people within the city centre , enjoying various outdoor public events and sightseeing as people do. The only difference is we have no real problems despite increases in road traffic and large influxes of locals and tourists. It all adds to the atmosphere within this vibrant city and the money spent in the local economy is good for the city.

If you are serious, then I'm sure Liverpool would be able to help you out and you could have traffic jam free days once again.
Do you remember the traffic problems when the road improvements on the Goree in front of the 3 Graces were being carried out.?
Of course there was no cruise terminal in existence then
Think what the situation would have been if there had been a big turnround cruise ship on berth
I remember the situation well, especially all the signs proudly announcing that the roadworks are 'Another project funded by the EU and the NWDA''
These signwriters must have made a fortune!!
Good to see your obsession with this region continues
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: I was absolutely amazed at the high numbers of Southampton posters here who are so fed up with the chaos that Southampton goes through whenever a couple of cruise ships come into port . Quite a few even suggesting that Southampton would be better off if the cruise ships came here to Liverpool. We regularly have 100,000 to 500,000 people within the city centre , enjoying various outdoor public events and sightseeing as people do. The only difference is we have no real problems despite increases in road traffic and large influxes of locals and tourists. It all adds to the atmosphere within this vibrant city and the money spent in the local economy is good for the city. If you are serious, then I'm sure Liverpool would be able to help you out and you could have traffic jam free days once again.[/p][/quote]Do you remember the traffic problems when the road improvements on the Goree in front of the 3 Graces were being carried out.? Of course there was no cruise terminal in existence then Think what the situation would have been if there had been a big turnround cruise ship on berth I remember the situation well, especially all the signs proudly announcing that the roadworks are 'Another project funded by the EU and the NWDA'' These signwriters must have made a fortune!! Good to see your obsession with this region continues phil maccavity
  • Score: -1

8:32am Wed 26 Mar 14

southamptonadi says...

loosehead wrote:
Ronnie G wrote:
vag wrote:
redsnapper wrote:
Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning.

Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it.

Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days?

Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not.

Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation.
There are mobile matrix signs at the entry points to the city which warn people in plenty of time to take a better route. They are choosing not to. If the road works aren't progressed now, things will be a lot worse when the proper cruise traffic hits, later in the year.
The roadworks won't progress, they will be dragged out by the council then conveniently tied in to the central bridge closure, eventually leading us all to the end of a years worth of traffic chaos/disruption to our Port, Our City but most of all our City's Residents and our Economy.
THANKS A BUNCH TO OUR NU UNION/LABOUR RUN COUNCIL!
Ronnie the easiest way to prove this isn't cruise ship related chaos is shut the Itchen Bridge direct all traffic to the Northam bridge & let's go back to the chaos we use to have on that bridge,
I thought the Echo said they were making one lane into dock only traffic around dock gate 4? so what happened to that plan?
They have, when you go around the park the bus lane has been removed and is now for turning left and to the toll bridge/ocean village and the right lane for the docks when you go around the corner you will notice that the left lane can only go in the docks.

There is road markings and signs but every motorist I see ignores it and carries on like they used to. Poor driving, I get cut up going towards ocean village every day..

I for one am glad they are fixing one of the worst bottle necks in the city one we have been waiting to be fixed for years. I bet most people on here will be grateful when it's finished.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ronnie G[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]vag[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: Another feather in Rayments cap, one of many representing yet another day of misery for many, caused by her and her departments absolute lack of vision and planning. Is there any communication between her hopeless department and the port authorities--I doubt it. Is there any signage to drivers and residents warning of potential "bad" days? Is there any apology or number to ring for information-probably not. Jaqui Rayment- working hard to destroy the city's reputation.[/p][/quote]There are mobile matrix signs at the entry points to the city which warn people in plenty of time to take a better route. They are choosing not to. If the road works aren't progressed now, things will be a lot worse when the proper cruise traffic hits, later in the year.[/p][/quote]The roadworks won't progress, they will be dragged out by the council then conveniently tied in to the central bridge closure, eventually leading us all to the end of a years worth of traffic chaos/disruption to our Port, Our City but most of all our City's Residents and our Economy. THANKS A BUNCH TO OUR NU UNION/LABOUR RUN COUNCIL![/p][/quote]Ronnie the easiest way to prove this isn't cruise ship related chaos is shut the Itchen Bridge direct all traffic to the Northam bridge & let's go back to the chaos we use to have on that bridge, I thought the Echo said they were making one lane into dock only traffic around dock gate 4? so what happened to that plan?[/p][/quote]They have, when you go around the park the bus lane has been removed and is now for turning left and to the toll bridge/ocean village and the right lane for the docks when you go around the corner you will notice that the left lane can only go in the docks. There is road markings and signs but every motorist I see ignores it and carries on like they used to. Poor driving, I get cut up going towards ocean village every day.. I for one am glad they are fixing one of the worst bottle necks in the city one we have been waiting to be fixed for years. I bet most people on here will be grateful when it's finished. southamptonadi
  • Score: 1

8:43am Wed 26 Mar 14

southamptonadi says...

loosehead wrote:
So please tell me what happened to this council plan?
• 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.
This great plan by our council so where/what happened to it?

• Organise a command and control team to monitor the traffic situation around busy cruise days and take action where necessary.
See previous post about the bus lane.

There were big signs up warning of traffic yesterday, when I went through at half one there was little traffic and all that was in the docks lane, of which most went towards ocean village and not the docks.

Have a look next time you go through
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So please tell me what happened to this council plan? • 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. This great plan by our council so where/what happened to it? • Organise a command and control team to monitor the traffic situation around busy cruise days and take action where necessary.[/p][/quote]See previous post about the bus lane. There were big signs up warning of traffic yesterday, when I went through at half one there was little traffic and all that was in the docks lane, of which most went towards ocean village and not the docks. Have a look next time you go through southamptonadi
  • Score: 1

9:34am Wed 26 Mar 14

sotonboy84 says...

in search of the truth wrote:
Just at that moment in time when Southampton is starting to let it's cruise passengers down in a very big way, Liverpool comes to their rescue offering them a truly historic and unique cruise terminal from which they can embark and disembark on their cruise

----------------

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson finally got the keys to the Cunard Building after the council bought the landmark property to become the new cruise terminal next year.

Liverpool council acquired the Grade II*-listed building’s leasehold for £10m from owner Merseyside Pension Fund after announcing its intention back in September.

The giant office building, which has 10 acres of floors, was described as a “marvel” by Mayor Anderson, who is determined to secure the building as the new terminal.

For the full story and photographs inside the iconic " Cunard Building " see ....................



http://www.liverpool

echo.co.uk/news/live

rpool-news/video-liv

erpool-mayor-anderso

n-gets-6873034
But let's remind ourselves yet again - Liverpool's cruise terminal was built using underhand tactics and hundreds of millions pounds of EU and taxpayers money. Southampton's wasn't.

Southampton is a key port in the country due to its history and geographical location near to the capital and the country's major airports and will always maintain its position as a key port.

Joe Anderson is also the same mayor that didn't want to pay back millions of pounds of EU money to build their cruise terminal after the city received it under false pretences and launched a scathing attack on other ports in the country including Southampton. He's the same mayor that is moving people out of their homes and building expensive apartments on the land with no regard to the needs of the city of the people. The same man that's prepared to lose World Heritage site status of Liverpool's waterfront so he can build more flats.

If Liverpool was chosen to host more cruise ships and did so on a level playing field and competing farily with other ports in the country then it would do so on its own merits. Searching a news website miles away from the city of Liverpool to attack Southampton who is currently home to many cruise ships is childish and belittles your own argument.
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: Just at that moment in time when Southampton is starting to let it's cruise passengers down in a very big way, Liverpool comes to their rescue offering them a truly historic and unique cruise terminal from which they can embark and disembark on their cruise ---------------- Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson finally got the keys to the Cunard Building after the council bought the landmark property to become the new cruise terminal next year. Liverpool council acquired the Grade II*-listed building’s leasehold for £10m from owner Merseyside Pension Fund after announcing its intention back in September. The giant office building, which has 10 acres of floors, was described as a “marvel” by Mayor Anderson, who is determined to secure the building as the new terminal. For the full story and photographs inside the iconic " Cunard Building " see .................... http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/news/live rpool-news/video-liv erpool-mayor-anderso n-gets-6873034[/p][/quote]But let's remind ourselves yet again - Liverpool's cruise terminal was built using underhand tactics and hundreds of millions pounds of EU and taxpayers money. Southampton's wasn't. Southampton is a key port in the country due to its history and geographical location near to the capital and the country's major airports and will always maintain its position as a key port. Joe Anderson is also the same mayor that didn't want to pay back millions of pounds of EU money to build their cruise terminal after the city received it under false pretences and launched a scathing attack on other ports in the country including Southampton. He's the same mayor that is moving people out of their homes and building expensive apartments on the land with no regard to the needs of the city of the people. The same man that's prepared to lose World Heritage site status of Liverpool's waterfront so he can build more flats. If Liverpool was chosen to host more cruise ships and did so on a level playing field and competing farily with other ports in the country then it would do so on its own merits. Searching a news website miles away from the city of Liverpool to attack Southampton who is currently home to many cruise ships is childish and belittles your own argument. sotonboy84
  • Score: 0

11:26am Wed 26 Mar 14

loosehead says...

southamptonadi wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So please tell me what happened to this council plan?
• 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.
This great plan by our council so where/what happened to it?

• Organise a command and control team to monitor the traffic situation around busy cruise days and take action where necessary.
See previous post about the bus lane.

There were big signs up warning of traffic yesterday, when I went through at half one there was little traffic and all that was in the docks lane, of which most went towards ocean village and not the docks.

Have a look next time you go through
I'll be honest I haven't been down that way for at least a year, you say the bottleneck is gone really?
Look from dock gate 4 to the Itchen bridge was the bottleneck & as far as I've read that roads not being touched so surely that bottleneck will still be there won't it?
If the bus lanes are for dock traffic only & drivers are ignoring it & driving in that lane what an easy way to get Police figures up put a copper there & get Dock traffic to show tickets(like tax disc) in their windows or just blitz it & any traffic non dock related get tickets do it a couple of times & let's see if Traffic changes?
[quote][p][bold]southamptonadi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So please tell me what happened to this council plan? • 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. This great plan by our council so where/what happened to it? • Organise a command and control team to monitor the traffic situation around busy cruise days and take action where necessary.[/p][/quote]See previous post about the bus lane. There were big signs up warning of traffic yesterday, when I went through at half one there was little traffic and all that was in the docks lane, of which most went towards ocean village and not the docks. Have a look next time you go through[/p][/quote]I'll be honest I haven't been down that way for at least a year, you say the bottleneck is gone really? Look from dock gate 4 to the Itchen bridge was the bottleneck & as far as I've read that roads not being touched so surely that bottleneck will still be there won't it? If the bus lanes are for dock traffic only & drivers are ignoring it & driving in that lane what an easy way to get Police figures up put a copper there & get Dock traffic to show tickets(like tax disc) in their windows or just blitz it & any traffic non dock related get tickets do it a couple of times & let's see if Traffic changes? loosehead
  • Score: -1

11:52am Wed 26 Mar 14

still a happywanderer says...

It's disappointing that a lot of the comments on this thread are political but the bottom line is road improvements need to be made around the dock gate 4 area.
These improvements have been underway for sometime now but the length of time it is taking seems to be excessive. I travel to the area often and it appears to me that there is no sense of urgency.
It would be interesting for Councillor Rayment to go on record explaining timescales etc for the work and what financial penalties are in place to encourage the contractors to complete to spec and budget.

For those who would encourage the cruise lines to look elsewhere I suggest you consider the cost to the local economy as far as employment at the terminals, hotels, shops etc go. Each ship turnround probably involves up to 200 workers (Check in staff, security, dockworkers, car parking and so on).
It's disappointing that a lot of the comments on this thread are political but the bottom line is road improvements need to be made around the dock gate 4 area. These improvements have been underway for sometime now but the length of time it is taking seems to be excessive. I travel to the area often and it appears to me that there is no sense of urgency. It would be interesting for Councillor Rayment to go on record explaining timescales etc for the work and what financial penalties are in place to encourage the contractors to complete to spec and budget. For those who would encourage the cruise lines to look elsewhere I suggest you consider the cost to the local economy as far as employment at the terminals, hotels, shops etc go. Each ship turnround probably involves up to 200 workers (Check in staff, security, dockworkers, car parking and so on). still a happywanderer
  • Score: 2

12:17pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

sotonbusdriver wrote:
WHAT A SHAME.....

I don't feel sorry for them at all....... After all they spent £1,000's on the cruise....

Personally I would love to be able to afford a holiday full stop... But on our poor income that isn't a chance....

Maybe as those passengers are so flushed with money to afford to take a cruise they should think about a helicopter to get home in......After all they should be able to afford it
You are so right. What we need is the Soviet Union back, then no one (but the Party aparatchiks) will have a pot to pi** in and your bus driver's wages will buy you meat at least every 12th day.
[quote][p][bold]sotonbusdriver[/bold] wrote: WHAT A SHAME..... I don't feel sorry for them at all....... After all they spent £1,000's on the cruise.... Personally I would love to be able to afford a holiday full stop... But on our poor income that isn't a chance.... Maybe as those passengers are so flushed with money to afford to take a cruise they should think about a helicopter to get home in......After all they should be able to afford it[/p][/quote]You are so right. What we need is the Soviet Union back, then no one (but the Party aparatchiks) will have a pot to pi** in and your bus driver's wages will buy you meat at least every 12th day. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

3:11pm Wed 26 Mar 14

arizonan says...

phil maccavity wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
I was absolutely amazed at the high numbers of Southampton posters here who are so fed up with the chaos that Southampton goes through whenever a couple of cruise ships come into port . Quite a few even suggesting that Southampton would be better off if the cruise ships came here to Liverpool.

We regularly have 100,000 to 500,000 people within the city centre , enjoying various outdoor public events and sightseeing as people do. The only difference is we have no real problems despite increases in road traffic and large influxes of locals and tourists. It all adds to the atmosphere within this vibrant city and the money spent in the local economy is good for the city.

If you are serious, then I'm sure Liverpool would be able to help you out and you could have traffic jam free days once again.
Do you remember the traffic problems when the road improvements on the Goree in front of the 3 Graces were being carried out.?
Of course there was no cruise terminal in existence then
Think what the situation would have been if there had been a big turnround cruise ship on berth
I remember the situation well, especially all the signs proudly announcing that the roadworks are 'Another project funded by the EU and the NWDA''
These signwriters must have made a fortune!!
Good to see your obsession with this region continues
The Strand is on a very much bigger scale to the gridlocked roads pictured in this newspaper.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: I was absolutely amazed at the high numbers of Southampton posters here who are so fed up with the chaos that Southampton goes through whenever a couple of cruise ships come into port . Quite a few even suggesting that Southampton would be better off if the cruise ships came here to Liverpool. We regularly have 100,000 to 500,000 people within the city centre , enjoying various outdoor public events and sightseeing as people do. The only difference is we have no real problems despite increases in road traffic and large influxes of locals and tourists. It all adds to the atmosphere within this vibrant city and the money spent in the local economy is good for the city. If you are serious, then I'm sure Liverpool would be able to help you out and you could have traffic jam free days once again.[/p][/quote]Do you remember the traffic problems when the road improvements on the Goree in front of the 3 Graces were being carried out.? Of course there was no cruise terminal in existence then Think what the situation would have been if there had been a big turnround cruise ship on berth I remember the situation well, especially all the signs proudly announcing that the roadworks are 'Another project funded by the EU and the NWDA'' These signwriters must have made a fortune!! Good to see your obsession with this region continues[/p][/quote]The Strand is on a very much bigger scale to the gridlocked roads pictured in this newspaper. arizonan
  • Score: 1

3:58pm Wed 26 Mar 14

loosehead says...

still a happywanderer wrote:
It's disappointing that a lot of the comments on this thread are political but the bottom line is road improvements need to be made around the dock gate 4 area.
These improvements have been underway for sometime now but the length of time it is taking seems to be excessive. I travel to the area often and it appears to me that there is no sense of urgency.
It would be interesting for Councillor Rayment to go on record explaining timescales etc for the work and what financial penalties are in place to encourage the contractors to complete to spec and budget.

For those who would encourage the cruise lines to look elsewhere I suggest you consider the cost to the local economy as far as employment at the terminals, hotels, shops etc go. Each ship turnround probably involves up to 200 workers (Check in staff, security, dockworkers, car parking and so on).
You say the problem was dock gate 4? NO it wasn't it was from there to the Itchen Bridge From Dock gate 4 to Godshouse Tower was a two lane one way system it was only when the traffic hit Southwestern House the jams started & this wasn't so when we had an active Eastern Docks & a floating Bridge.
The road lay out change at dock gate 4 was started by the Tory council & I wrote my opposition to it & I'll keep on saying unless you can widen that road from dg4 to the Itchen Bridge the only answer is a one way system going to the Itchen Bridge over the repaired Central Bridge coming from Itchen down the dock route.
How's this political?
The political side comes in on who allowed this road works at the same time as the terribly thought out cycle way construction & that was Rayment who's a Labour councillor.
[quote][p][bold]still a happywanderer[/bold] wrote: It's disappointing that a lot of the comments on this thread are political but the bottom line is road improvements need to be made around the dock gate 4 area. These improvements have been underway for sometime now but the length of time it is taking seems to be excessive. I travel to the area often and it appears to me that there is no sense of urgency. It would be interesting for Councillor Rayment to go on record explaining timescales etc for the work and what financial penalties are in place to encourage the contractors to complete to spec and budget. For those who would encourage the cruise lines to look elsewhere I suggest you consider the cost to the local economy as far as employment at the terminals, hotels, shops etc go. Each ship turnround probably involves up to 200 workers (Check in staff, security, dockworkers, car parking and so on).[/p][/quote]You say the problem was dock gate 4? NO it wasn't it was from there to the Itchen Bridge From Dock gate 4 to Godshouse Tower was a two lane one way system it was only when the traffic hit Southwestern House the jams started & this wasn't so when we had an active Eastern Docks & a floating Bridge. The road lay out change at dock gate 4 was started by the Tory council & I wrote my opposition to it & I'll keep on saying unless you can widen that road from dg4 to the Itchen Bridge the only answer is a one way system going to the Itchen Bridge over the repaired Central Bridge coming from Itchen down the dock route. How's this political? The political side comes in on who allowed this road works at the same time as the terribly thought out cycle way construction & that was Rayment who's a Labour councillor. loosehead
  • Score: -1

4:01pm Wed 26 Mar 14

loosehead says...

arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
I was absolutely amazed at the high numbers of Southampton posters here who are so fed up with the chaos that Southampton goes through whenever a couple of cruise ships come into port . Quite a few even suggesting that Southampton would be better off if the cruise ships came here to Liverpool.

We regularly have 100,000 to 500,000 people within the city centre , enjoying various outdoor public events and sightseeing as people do. The only difference is we have no real problems despite increases in road traffic and large influxes of locals and tourists. It all adds to the atmosphere within this vibrant city and the money spent in the local economy is good for the city.

If you are serious, then I'm sure Liverpool would be able to help you out and you could have traffic jam free days once again.
Do you remember the traffic problems when the road improvements on the Goree in front of the 3 Graces were being carried out.?
Of course there was no cruise terminal in existence then
Think what the situation would have been if there had been a big turnround cruise ship on berth
I remember the situation well, especially all the signs proudly announcing that the roadworks are 'Another project funded by the EU and the NWDA''
These signwriters must have made a fortune!!
Good to see your obsession with this region continues
The Strand is on a very much bigger scale to the gridlocked roads pictured in this newspaper.
I've been & seen how busy the strand is & that's with out any large cruise ships in so you can't really compare the two areas.
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: I was absolutely amazed at the high numbers of Southampton posters here who are so fed up with the chaos that Southampton goes through whenever a couple of cruise ships come into port . Quite a few even suggesting that Southampton would be better off if the cruise ships came here to Liverpool. We regularly have 100,000 to 500,000 people within the city centre , enjoying various outdoor public events and sightseeing as people do. The only difference is we have no real problems despite increases in road traffic and large influxes of locals and tourists. It all adds to the atmosphere within this vibrant city and the money spent in the local economy is good for the city. If you are serious, then I'm sure Liverpool would be able to help you out and you could have traffic jam free days once again.[/p][/quote]Do you remember the traffic problems when the road improvements on the Goree in front of the 3 Graces were being carried out.? Of course there was no cruise terminal in existence then Think what the situation would have been if there had been a big turnround cruise ship on berth I remember the situation well, especially all the signs proudly announcing that the roadworks are 'Another project funded by the EU and the NWDA'' These signwriters must have made a fortune!! Good to see your obsession with this region continues[/p][/quote]The Strand is on a very much bigger scale to the gridlocked roads pictured in this newspaper.[/p][/quote]I've been & seen how busy the strand is & that's with out any large cruise ships in so you can't really compare the two areas. loosehead
  • Score: -1

4:25pm Wed 26 Mar 14

arizonan says...

loosehead wrote:
arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
I was absolutely amazed at the high numbers of Southampton posters here who are so fed up with the chaos that Southampton goes through whenever a couple of cruise ships come into port . Quite a few even suggesting that Southampton would be better off if the cruise ships came here to Liverpool.

We regularly have 100,000 to 500,000 people within the city centre , enjoying various outdoor public events and sightseeing as people do. The only difference is we have no real problems despite increases in road traffic and large influxes of locals and tourists. It all adds to the atmosphere within this vibrant city and the money spent in the local economy is good for the city.

If you are serious, then I'm sure Liverpool would be able to help you out and you could have traffic jam free days once again.
Do you remember the traffic problems when the road improvements on the Goree in front of the 3 Graces were being carried out.?
Of course there was no cruise terminal in existence then
Think what the situation would have been if there had been a big turnround cruise ship on berth
I remember the situation well, especially all the signs proudly announcing that the roadworks are 'Another project funded by the EU and the NWDA''
These signwriters must have made a fortune!!
Good to see your obsession with this region continues
The Strand is on a very much bigger scale to the gridlocked roads pictured in this newspaper.
I've been & seen how busy the strand is & that's with out any large cruise ships in so you can't really compare the two areas.
So have I and compare a photo of the Strand with the one in the Southern Echo. I bet you no one has been stuck for 2 hours in a traffic jam on the Strand.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: I was absolutely amazed at the high numbers of Southampton posters here who are so fed up with the chaos that Southampton goes through whenever a couple of cruise ships come into port . Quite a few even suggesting that Southampton would be better off if the cruise ships came here to Liverpool. We regularly have 100,000 to 500,000 people within the city centre , enjoying various outdoor public events and sightseeing as people do. The only difference is we have no real problems despite increases in road traffic and large influxes of locals and tourists. It all adds to the atmosphere within this vibrant city and the money spent in the local economy is good for the city. If you are serious, then I'm sure Liverpool would be able to help you out and you could have traffic jam free days once again.[/p][/quote]Do you remember the traffic problems when the road improvements on the Goree in front of the 3 Graces were being carried out.? Of course there was no cruise terminal in existence then Think what the situation would have been if there had been a big turnround cruise ship on berth I remember the situation well, especially all the signs proudly announcing that the roadworks are 'Another project funded by the EU and the NWDA'' These signwriters must have made a fortune!! Good to see your obsession with this region continues[/p][/quote]The Strand is on a very much bigger scale to the gridlocked roads pictured in this newspaper.[/p][/quote]I've been & seen how busy the strand is & that's with out any large cruise ships in so you can't really compare the two areas.[/p][/quote]So have I and compare a photo of the Strand with the one in the Southern Echo. I bet you no one has been stuck for 2 hours in a traffic jam on the Strand. arizonan
  • Score: 1

5:03pm Wed 26 Mar 14

loosehead says...

arizonan wrote:
loosehead wrote:
arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
I was absolutely amazed at the high numbers of Southampton posters here who are so fed up with the chaos that Southampton goes through whenever a couple of cruise ships come into port . Quite a few even suggesting that Southampton would be better off if the cruise ships came here to Liverpool.

We regularly have 100,000 to 500,000 people within the city centre , enjoying various outdoor public events and sightseeing as people do. The only difference is we have no real problems despite increases in road traffic and large influxes of locals and tourists. It all adds to the atmosphere within this vibrant city and the money spent in the local economy is good for the city.

If you are serious, then I'm sure Liverpool would be able to help you out and you could have traffic jam free days once again.
Do you remember the traffic problems when the road improvements on the Goree in front of the 3 Graces were being carried out.?
Of course there was no cruise terminal in existence then
Think what the situation would have been if there had been a big turnround cruise ship on berth
I remember the situation well, especially all the signs proudly announcing that the roadworks are 'Another project funded by the EU and the NWDA''
These signwriters must have made a fortune!!
Good to see your obsession with this region continues
The Strand is on a very much bigger scale to the gridlocked roads pictured in this newspaper.
I've been & seen how busy the strand is & that's with out any large cruise ships in so you can't really compare the two areas.
So have I and compare a photo of the Strand with the one in the Southern Echo. I bet you no one has been stuck for 2 hours in a traffic jam on the Strand.
you win.
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: I was absolutely amazed at the high numbers of Southampton posters here who are so fed up with the chaos that Southampton goes through whenever a couple of cruise ships come into port . Quite a few even suggesting that Southampton would be better off if the cruise ships came here to Liverpool. We regularly have 100,000 to 500,000 people within the city centre , enjoying various outdoor public events and sightseeing as people do. The only difference is we have no real problems despite increases in road traffic and large influxes of locals and tourists. It all adds to the atmosphere within this vibrant city and the money spent in the local economy is good for the city. If you are serious, then I'm sure Liverpool would be able to help you out and you could have traffic jam free days once again.[/p][/quote]Do you remember the traffic problems when the road improvements on the Goree in front of the 3 Graces were being carried out.? Of course there was no cruise terminal in existence then Think what the situation would have been if there had been a big turnround cruise ship on berth I remember the situation well, especially all the signs proudly announcing that the roadworks are 'Another project funded by the EU and the NWDA'' These signwriters must have made a fortune!! Good to see your obsession with this region continues[/p][/quote]The Strand is on a very much bigger scale to the gridlocked roads pictured in this newspaper.[/p][/quote]I've been & seen how busy the strand is & that's with out any large cruise ships in so you can't really compare the two areas.[/p][/quote]So have I and compare a photo of the Strand with the one in the Southern Echo. I bet you no one has been stuck for 2 hours in a traffic jam on the Strand.[/p][/quote]you win. loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:49pm Wed 26 Mar 14

phil maccavity says...

You cant compare like for like as the current cruise related traffic issues in Soton relate to ongoing roadworks around one part of the port
When the Goree/Strand Street road works were carried out, there was no Cruise Terminal on the Liverpool Waterfront
There were seven cruise ships in Soton a while ago and the road system coped pretty well as there were no roadworks to hamper free movement of traffic.
Thanks for your ongoing interest
You cant compare like for like as the current cruise related traffic issues in Soton relate to ongoing roadworks around one part of the port When the Goree/Strand Street road works were carried out, there was no Cruise Terminal on the Liverpool Waterfront There were seven cruise ships in Soton a while ago and the road system coped pretty well as there were no roadworks to hamper free movement of traffic. Thanks for your ongoing interest phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

5:51pm Thu 27 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

gazdance wrote:
So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.
I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service.
The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital.
These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default.
Come on planners..get your thinking caps on!
[quote][p][bold]gazdance[/bold] wrote: So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.[/p][/quote]I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service. The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital. These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default. Come on planners..get your thinking caps on! Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

10:55am Fri 28 Mar 14

Chris storey says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
gazdance wrote:
So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.
I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service.
The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital.
These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default.
Come on planners..get your thinking caps on!
Did you know that on the 15th of September 1830, the worlds first scheduled, ticketed and timetabled rail service left Liverpool for Manchester.

The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was the world's first twin-track inter-urban passenger railway in which all the trains were timetabled and ticketed. Trains were hauled by company steam locomotives between the two towns, though private waggons and carriages were allowed. The line opened on 15 September 1830 and ran between the towns of Liverpool and Manchester in North West England in the United Kingdom.

It took the far sighted merchants of the 2 towns 10 years of struggling and determination to get to that stage, so the next time you board a train down there just remember how it all came about, it was Liverpool and Manchester that gave the world rail travel, enjoy!
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazdance[/bold] wrote: So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.[/p][/quote]I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service. The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital. These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default. Come on planners..get your thinking caps on![/p][/quote]Did you know that on the 15th of September 1830, the worlds first scheduled, ticketed and timetabled rail service left Liverpool for Manchester. The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was the world's first twin-track inter-urban passenger railway in which all the trains were timetabled and ticketed. Trains were hauled by company steam locomotives between the two towns, though private waggons and carriages were allowed. The line opened on 15 September 1830 and ran between the towns of Liverpool and Manchester in North West England in the United Kingdom. It took the far sighted merchants of the 2 towns 10 years of struggling and determination to get to that stage, so the next time you board a train down there just remember how it all came about, it was Liverpool and Manchester that gave the world rail travel, enjoy! Chris storey
  • Score: 0

11:24am Fri 28 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
gazdance wrote:
So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.
I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service.
The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital.
These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default.
Come on planners..get your thinking caps on!
Okay so all cruise ship passengers get dropped off at a local train station & then take a short train ride to the terminals but what about the Hotels & Taxi drivers who rely on their trade?
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazdance[/bold] wrote: So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.[/p][/quote]I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service. The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital. These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default. Come on planners..get your thinking caps on![/p][/quote]Okay so all cruise ship passengers get dropped off at a local train station & then take a short train ride to the terminals but what about the Hotels & Taxi drivers who rely on their trade? loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:32am Fri 28 Mar 14

loosehead says...

There's a lot6 of people who post on this subject who don't seem to have a clue.
I've been to Liverpool & I've seen the huge tourism industry they have & for some weird reason the roads aren't congested.
We had a thriving old docks/ eastern docks but the ships were getting to big foe many parts of that dock.
I admit it was a mistake for any council to allow Ocean Village for flats it should be or stayed a leisure area.
You had roads that could cope with the huge amount of traffic coming from the Itchen Bridge but cope was the word so why put all these extra homes with all these drivers there?
as a leisure area these roads only saw extra traffic at night but by then workers & passengers had gone home so if it was a Tory council that allowed the change of usage this was a mistake.
I can only suggest what I've seen in other cities here & abroad & make that road from the Itchen bridge to Dock gate 4 one way & the same for Central bridge this would allow traffic to move faster stopping the tail backs.
There's a lot6 of people who post on this subject who don't seem to have a clue. I've been to Liverpool & I've seen the huge tourism industry they have & for some weird reason the roads aren't congested. We had a thriving old docks/ eastern docks but the ships were getting to big foe many parts of that dock. I admit it was a mistake for any council to allow Ocean Village for flats it should be or stayed a leisure area. You had roads that could cope with the huge amount of traffic coming from the Itchen Bridge but cope was the word so why put all these extra homes with all these drivers there? as a leisure area these roads only saw extra traffic at night but by then workers & passengers had gone home so if it was a Tory council that allowed the change of usage this was a mistake. I can only suggest what I've seen in other cities here & abroad & make that road from the Itchen bridge to Dock gate 4 one way & the same for Central bridge this would allow traffic to move faster stopping the tail backs. loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:35am Fri 28 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Chris storey wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
gazdance wrote:
So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.
I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service.
The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital.
These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default.
Come on planners..get your thinking caps on!
Did you know that on the 15th of September 1830, the worlds first scheduled, ticketed and timetabled rail service left Liverpool for Manchester.

The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was the world's first twin-track inter-urban passenger railway in which all the trains were timetabled and ticketed. Trains were hauled by company steam locomotives between the two towns, though private waggons and carriages were allowed. The line opened on 15 September 1830 and ran between the towns of Liverpool and Manchester in North West England in the United Kingdom.

It took the far sighted merchants of the 2 towns 10 years of struggling and determination to get to that stage, so the next time you board a train down there just remember how it all came about, it was Liverpool and Manchester that gave the world rail travel, enjoy!
They had the worlds first rail death too..poor old Mr Huskisson.
[quote][p][bold]Chris storey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazdance[/bold] wrote: So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.[/p][/quote]I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service. The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital. These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default. Come on planners..get your thinking caps on![/p][/quote]Did you know that on the 15th of September 1830, the worlds first scheduled, ticketed and timetabled rail service left Liverpool for Manchester. The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was the world's first twin-track inter-urban passenger railway in which all the trains were timetabled and ticketed. Trains were hauled by company steam locomotives between the two towns, though private waggons and carriages were allowed. The line opened on 15 September 1830 and ran between the towns of Liverpool and Manchester in North West England in the United Kingdom. It took the far sighted merchants of the 2 towns 10 years of struggling and determination to get to that stage, so the next time you board a train down there just remember how it all came about, it was Liverpool and Manchester that gave the world rail travel, enjoy![/p][/quote]They had the worlds first rail death too..poor old Mr Huskisson. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 1

11:57am Fri 28 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

loosehead wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
gazdance wrote:
So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.
I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service.
The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital.
These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default.
Come on planners..get your thinking caps on!
Okay so all cruise ship passengers get dropped off at a local train station & then take a short train ride to the terminals but what about the Hotels & Taxi drivers who rely on their trade?
Well what trade are they going to get,if passengers are put off by the congestion, and travel from other ports?
It'll be a lot more than hotels and taxi's that lose out then.But that's capitalism for you.
I was only making a humble suggestion about what might help to sort out the congestion problem,as for the effct that would have on the local economy,no doubt someone would do a feasibility study,and then come up with the wrong conclusion..as with the Waterside line.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazdance[/bold] wrote: So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.[/p][/quote]I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service. The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital. These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default. Come on planners..get your thinking caps on![/p][/quote]Okay so all cruise ship passengers get dropped off at a local train station & then take a short train ride to the terminals but what about the Hotels & Taxi drivers who rely on their trade?[/p][/quote]Well what trade are they going to get,if passengers are put off by the congestion, and travel from other ports? It'll be a lot more than hotels and taxi's that lose out then.But that's capitalism for you. I was only making a humble suggestion about what might help to sort out the congestion problem,as for the effct that would have on the local economy,no doubt someone would do a feasibility study,and then come up with the wrong conclusion..as with the Waterside line. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Chris storey says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Chris storey wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
gazdance wrote:
So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.
I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service.
The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital.
These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default.
Come on planners..get your thinking caps on!
Did you know that on the 15th of September 1830, the worlds first scheduled, ticketed and timetabled rail service left Liverpool for Manchester.

The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was the world's first twin-track inter-urban passenger railway in which all the trains were timetabled and ticketed. Trains were hauled by company steam locomotives between the two towns, though private waggons and carriages were allowed. The line opened on 15 September 1830 and ran between the towns of Liverpool and Manchester in North West England in the United Kingdom.

It took the far sighted merchants of the 2 towns 10 years of struggling and determination to get to that stage, so the next time you board a train down there just remember how it all came about, it was Liverpool and Manchester that gave the world rail travel, enjoy!
They had the worlds first rail death too..poor old Mr Huskisson.
Indeed poor old Mr Huskisson, another first for Liverpool out of so many!
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris storey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazdance[/bold] wrote: So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.[/p][/quote]I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service. The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital. These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default. Come on planners..get your thinking caps on![/p][/quote]Did you know that on the 15th of September 1830, the worlds first scheduled, ticketed and timetabled rail service left Liverpool for Manchester. The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was the world's first twin-track inter-urban passenger railway in which all the trains were timetabled and ticketed. Trains were hauled by company steam locomotives between the two towns, though private waggons and carriages were allowed. The line opened on 15 September 1830 and ran between the towns of Liverpool and Manchester in North West England in the United Kingdom. It took the far sighted merchants of the 2 towns 10 years of struggling and determination to get to that stage, so the next time you board a train down there just remember how it all came about, it was Liverpool and Manchester that gave the world rail travel, enjoy![/p][/quote]They had the worlds first rail death too..poor old Mr Huskisson.[/p][/quote]Indeed poor old Mr Huskisson, another first for Liverpool out of so many! Chris storey
  • Score: 1

12:13pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Chris storey says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Chris storey wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
gazdance wrote:
So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.
I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service.
The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital.
These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default.
Come on planners..get your thinking caps on!
Did you know that on the 15th of September 1830, the worlds first scheduled, ticketed and timetabled rail service left Liverpool for Manchester.

The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was the world's first twin-track inter-urban passenger railway in which all the trains were timetabled and ticketed. Trains were hauled by company steam locomotives between the two towns, though private waggons and carriages were allowed. The line opened on 15 September 1830 and ran between the towns of Liverpool and Manchester in North West England in the United Kingdom.

It took the far sighted merchants of the 2 towns 10 years of struggling and determination to get to that stage, so the next time you board a train down there just remember how it all came about, it was Liverpool and Manchester that gave the world rail travel, enjoy!
They had the worlds first rail death too..poor old Mr Huskisson.
Indeed poor old Mr Huskisson, another first for Liverpool!
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris storey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazdance[/bold] wrote: So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.[/p][/quote]I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service. The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital. These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default. Come on planners..get your thinking caps on![/p][/quote]Did you know that on the 15th of September 1830, the worlds first scheduled, ticketed and timetabled rail service left Liverpool for Manchester. The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was the world's first twin-track inter-urban passenger railway in which all the trains were timetabled and ticketed. Trains were hauled by company steam locomotives between the two towns, though private waggons and carriages were allowed. The line opened on 15 September 1830 and ran between the towns of Liverpool and Manchester in North West England in the United Kingdom. It took the far sighted merchants of the 2 towns 10 years of struggling and determination to get to that stage, so the next time you board a train down there just remember how it all came about, it was Liverpool and Manchester that gave the world rail travel, enjoy![/p][/quote]They had the worlds first rail death too..poor old Mr Huskisson.[/p][/quote]Indeed poor old Mr Huskisson, another first for Liverpool! Chris storey
  • Score: 0

12:20pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Chris storey wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Chris storey wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
gazdance wrote:
So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.
I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service.
The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital.
These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default.
Come on planners..get your thinking caps on!
Did you know that on the 15th of September 1830, the worlds first scheduled, ticketed and timetabled rail service left Liverpool for Manchester.

The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was the world's first twin-track inter-urban passenger railway in which all the trains were timetabled and ticketed. Trains were hauled by company steam locomotives between the two towns, though private waggons and carriages were allowed. The line opened on 15 September 1830 and ran between the towns of Liverpool and Manchester in North West England in the United Kingdom.

It took the far sighted merchants of the 2 towns 10 years of struggling and determination to get to that stage, so the next time you board a train down there just remember how it all came about, it was Liverpool and Manchester that gave the world rail travel, enjoy!
They had the worlds first rail death too..poor old Mr Huskisson.
Indeed poor old Mr Huskisson, another first for Liverpool!
Did quite well out of the slave trade too! ;0)
[quote][p][bold]Chris storey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris storey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazdance[/bold] wrote: So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.[/p][/quote]I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service. The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital. These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default. Come on planners..get your thinking caps on![/p][/quote]Did you know that on the 15th of September 1830, the worlds first scheduled, ticketed and timetabled rail service left Liverpool for Manchester. The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was the world's first twin-track inter-urban passenger railway in which all the trains were timetabled and ticketed. Trains were hauled by company steam locomotives between the two towns, though private waggons and carriages were allowed. The line opened on 15 September 1830 and ran between the towns of Liverpool and Manchester in North West England in the United Kingdom. It took the far sighted merchants of the 2 towns 10 years of struggling and determination to get to that stage, so the next time you board a train down there just remember how it all came about, it was Liverpool and Manchester that gave the world rail travel, enjoy![/p][/quote]They had the worlds first rail death too..poor old Mr Huskisson.[/p][/quote]Indeed poor old Mr Huskisson, another first for Liverpool![/p][/quote]Did quite well out of the slave trade too! ;0) Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

12:26pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Chris storey says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Chris storey wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Chris storey wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
gazdance wrote:
So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.
I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service.
The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital.
These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default.
Come on planners..get your thinking caps on!
Did you know that on the 15th of September 1830, the worlds first scheduled, ticketed and timetabled rail service left Liverpool for Manchester.

The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was the world's first twin-track inter-urban passenger railway in which all the trains were timetabled and ticketed. Trains were hauled by company steam locomotives between the two towns, though private waggons and carriages were allowed. The line opened on 15 September 1830 and ran between the towns of Liverpool and Manchester in North West England in the United Kingdom.

It took the far sighted merchants of the 2 towns 10 years of struggling and determination to get to that stage, so the next time you board a train down there just remember how it all came about, it was Liverpool and Manchester that gave the world rail travel, enjoy!
They had the worlds first rail death too..poor old Mr Huskisson.
Indeed poor old Mr Huskisson, another first for Liverpool!
Did quite well out of the slave trade too! ;0)
Yes, you missed another opportunity to get rich.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris storey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris storey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazdance[/bold] wrote: So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.[/p][/quote]I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service. The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital. These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default. Come on planners..get your thinking caps on![/p][/quote]Did you know that on the 15th of September 1830, the worlds first scheduled, ticketed and timetabled rail service left Liverpool for Manchester. The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was the world's first twin-track inter-urban passenger railway in which all the trains were timetabled and ticketed. Trains were hauled by company steam locomotives between the two towns, though private waggons and carriages were allowed. The line opened on 15 September 1830 and ran between the towns of Liverpool and Manchester in North West England in the United Kingdom. It took the far sighted merchants of the 2 towns 10 years of struggling and determination to get to that stage, so the next time you board a train down there just remember how it all came about, it was Liverpool and Manchester that gave the world rail travel, enjoy![/p][/quote]They had the worlds first rail death too..poor old Mr Huskisson.[/p][/quote]Indeed poor old Mr Huskisson, another first for Liverpool![/p][/quote]Did quite well out of the slave trade too! ;0)[/p][/quote]Yes, you missed another opportunity to get rich. Chris storey
  • Score: 1

12:45pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Chris storey wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Chris storey wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Chris storey wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
gazdance wrote:
So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.
I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service.
The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital.
These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default.
Come on planners..get your thinking caps on!
Did you know that on the 15th of September 1830, the worlds first scheduled, ticketed and timetabled rail service left Liverpool for Manchester.

The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was the world's first twin-track inter-urban passenger railway in which all the trains were timetabled and ticketed. Trains were hauled by company steam locomotives between the two towns, though private waggons and carriages were allowed. The line opened on 15 September 1830 and ran between the towns of Liverpool and Manchester in North West England in the United Kingdom.

It took the far sighted merchants of the 2 towns 10 years of struggling and determination to get to that stage, so the next time you board a train down there just remember how it all came about, it was Liverpool and Manchester that gave the world rail travel, enjoy!
They had the worlds first rail death too..poor old Mr Huskisson.
Indeed poor old Mr Huskisson, another first for Liverpool!
Did quite well out of the slave trade too! ;0)
Yes, you missed another opportunity to get rich.
I bet The Beatles loved Benny Hill though!
[quote][p][bold]Chris storey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris storey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris storey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazdance[/bold] wrote: So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.[/p][/quote]I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service. The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital. These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default. Come on planners..get your thinking caps on![/p][/quote]Did you know that on the 15th of September 1830, the worlds first scheduled, ticketed and timetabled rail service left Liverpool for Manchester. The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was the world's first twin-track inter-urban passenger railway in which all the trains were timetabled and ticketed. Trains were hauled by company steam locomotives between the two towns, though private waggons and carriages were allowed. The line opened on 15 September 1830 and ran between the towns of Liverpool and Manchester in North West England in the United Kingdom. It took the far sighted merchants of the 2 towns 10 years of struggling and determination to get to that stage, so the next time you board a train down there just remember how it all came about, it was Liverpool and Manchester that gave the world rail travel, enjoy![/p][/quote]They had the worlds first rail death too..poor old Mr Huskisson.[/p][/quote]Indeed poor old Mr Huskisson, another first for Liverpool![/p][/quote]Did quite well out of the slave trade too! ;0)[/p][/quote]Yes, you missed another opportunity to get rich.[/p][/quote]I bet The Beatles loved Benny Hill though! Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Chris storey says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Chris storey wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Chris storey wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Chris storey wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
gazdance wrote:
So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.
I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service.
The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital.
These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default.
Come on planners..get your thinking caps on!
Did you know that on the 15th of September 1830, the worlds first scheduled, ticketed and timetabled rail service left Liverpool for Manchester.

The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was the world's first twin-track inter-urban passenger railway in which all the trains were timetabled and ticketed. Trains were hauled by company steam locomotives between the two towns, though private waggons and carriages were allowed. The line opened on 15 September 1830 and ran between the towns of Liverpool and Manchester in North West England in the United Kingdom.

It took the far sighted merchants of the 2 towns 10 years of struggling and determination to get to that stage, so the next time you board a train down there just remember how it all came about, it was Liverpool and Manchester that gave the world rail travel, enjoy!
They had the worlds first rail death too..poor old Mr Huskisson.
Indeed poor old Mr Huskisson, another first for Liverpool!
Did quite well out of the slave trade too! ;0)
Yes, you missed another opportunity to get rich.
I bet The Beatles loved Benny Hill though!
I'm sure they did, so did I, a very funny talented man, the sketch about the birds and bees was pure genius and i still laugh my socks off when I watch it.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris storey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris storey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chris storey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazdance[/bold] wrote: So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.[/p][/quote]I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service. The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital. These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default. Come on planners..get your thinking caps on![/p][/quote]Did you know that on the 15th of September 1830, the worlds first scheduled, ticketed and timetabled rail service left Liverpool for Manchester. The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was the world's first twin-track inter-urban passenger railway in which all the trains were timetabled and ticketed. Trains were hauled by company steam locomotives between the two towns, though private waggons and carriages were allowed. The line opened on 15 September 1830 and ran between the towns of Liverpool and Manchester in North West England in the United Kingdom. It took the far sighted merchants of the 2 towns 10 years of struggling and determination to get to that stage, so the next time you board a train down there just remember how it all came about, it was Liverpool and Manchester that gave the world rail travel, enjoy![/p][/quote]They had the worlds first rail death too..poor old Mr Huskisson.[/p][/quote]Indeed poor old Mr Huskisson, another first for Liverpool![/p][/quote]Did quite well out of the slave trade too! ;0)[/p][/quote]Yes, you missed another opportunity to get rich.[/p][/quote]I bet The Beatles loved Benny Hill though![/p][/quote]I'm sure they did, so did I, a very funny talented man, the sketch about the birds and bees was pure genius and i still laugh my socks off when I watch it. Chris storey
  • Score: 1

3:10pm Fri 28 Mar 14

in search of the truth says...

loosehead wrote:
There's a lot6 of people who post on this subject who don't seem to have a clue.
I've been to Liverpool & I've seen the huge tourism industry they have & for some weird reason the roads aren't congested.
We had a thriving old docks/ eastern docks but the ships were getting to big foe many parts of that dock.
I admit it was a mistake for any council to allow Ocean Village for flats it should be or stayed a leisure area.
You had roads that could cope with the huge amount of traffic coming from the Itchen Bridge but cope was the word so why put all these extra homes with all these drivers there?
as a leisure area these roads only saw extra traffic at night but by then workers & passengers had gone home so if it was a Tory council that allowed the change of usage this was a mistake.
I can only suggest what I've seen in other cities here & abroad & make that road from the Itchen bridge to Dock gate 4 one way & the same for Central bridge this would allow traffic to move faster stopping the tail backs.
As you have said ,

" I've been to Liverpool & I've seen the huge tourism industry they have & for some weird reason the roads aren't congested."

Considering that there are regularly when major events are on in the city centre, anything from 100,000 to in excess of 500.000 people and any congestion is very limited. Then surely it is in the best interests of Southampton to study and learn from how cities like Liverpool , Birmingham or London deal with large volumes of pedestrian and motor traffic.

Southampton by its own admission over recent times needs to do something or you will drive potential visitors away, if you don't want them we in Liverpool will be more than happy to offer them a truly wonderful welcome , once they have tasted our unique brand of hospitality , you'll never be able to persuade them to return.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: There's a lot6 of people who post on this subject who don't seem to have a clue. I've been to Liverpool & I've seen the huge tourism industry they have & for some weird reason the roads aren't congested. We had a thriving old docks/ eastern docks but the ships were getting to big foe many parts of that dock. I admit it was a mistake for any council to allow Ocean Village for flats it should be or stayed a leisure area. You had roads that could cope with the huge amount of traffic coming from the Itchen Bridge but cope was the word so why put all these extra homes with all these drivers there? as a leisure area these roads only saw extra traffic at night but by then workers & passengers had gone home so if it was a Tory council that allowed the change of usage this was a mistake. I can only suggest what I've seen in other cities here & abroad & make that road from the Itchen bridge to Dock gate 4 one way & the same for Central bridge this would allow traffic to move faster stopping the tail backs.[/p][/quote]As you have said , " I've been to Liverpool & I've seen the huge tourism industry they have & for some weird reason the roads aren't congested." Considering that there are regularly when major events are on in the city centre, anything from 100,000 to in excess of 500.000 people and any congestion is very limited. Then surely it is in the best interests of Southampton to study and learn from how cities like Liverpool , Birmingham or London deal with large volumes of pedestrian and motor traffic. Southampton by its own admission over recent times needs to do something or you will drive potential visitors away, if you don't want them we in Liverpool will be more than happy to offer them a truly wonderful welcome , once they have tasted our unique brand of hospitality , you'll never be able to persuade them to return. in search of the truth
  • Score: 1

3:45pm Fri 28 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
gazdance wrote:
So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.
I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service.
The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital.
These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default.
Come on planners..get your thinking caps on!
Okay so all cruise ship passengers get dropped off at a local train station & then take a short train ride to the terminals but what about the Hotels & Taxi drivers who rely on their trade?
Well what trade are they going to get,if passengers are put off by the congestion, and travel from other ports?
It'll be a lot more than hotels and taxi's that lose out then.But that's capitalism for you.
I was only making a humble suggestion about what might help to sort out the congestion problem,as for the effct that would have on the local economy,no doubt someone would do a feasibility study,and then come up with the wrong conclusion..as with the Waterside line.
I was trying to point out the down side to all passengers coming by train.
I think that passengers who don't wish to stay in the city this would be a good idea,
I'm no traffic expert but nor are our councillors & I've witnessed one way systems on roads the size of the dock road & I can't believe we haven't got a system in place on that road.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazdance[/bold] wrote: So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.[/p][/quote]I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service. The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital. These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default. Come on planners..get your thinking caps on![/p][/quote]Okay so all cruise ship passengers get dropped off at a local train station & then take a short train ride to the terminals but what about the Hotels & Taxi drivers who rely on their trade?[/p][/quote]Well what trade are they going to get,if passengers are put off by the congestion, and travel from other ports? It'll be a lot more than hotels and taxi's that lose out then.But that's capitalism for you. I was only making a humble suggestion about what might help to sort out the congestion problem,as for the effct that would have on the local economy,no doubt someone would do a feasibility study,and then come up with the wrong conclusion..as with the Waterside line.[/p][/quote]I was trying to point out the down side to all passengers coming by train. I think that passengers who don't wish to stay in the city this would be a good idea, I'm no traffic expert but nor are our councillors & I've witnessed one way systems on roads the size of the dock road & I can't believe we haven't got a system in place on that road. loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:56pm Fri 28 Mar 14

in search of the truth says...

loosehead wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
gazdance wrote:
So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.
I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service.
The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital.
These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default.
Come on planners..get your thinking caps on!
Okay so all cruise ship passengers get dropped off at a local train station & then take a short train ride to the terminals but what about the Hotels & Taxi drivers who rely on their trade?
Well what trade are they going to get,if passengers are put off by the congestion, and travel from other ports?
It'll be a lot more than hotels and taxi's that lose out then.But that's capitalism for you.
I was only making a humble suggestion about what might help to sort out the congestion problem,as for the effct that would have on the local economy,no doubt someone would do a feasibility study,and then come up with the wrong conclusion..as with the Waterside line.
I was trying to point out the down side to all passengers coming by train.
I think that passengers who don't wish to stay in the city this would be a good idea,
I'm no traffic expert but nor are our councillors & I've witnessed one way systems on roads the size of the dock road & I can't believe we haven't got a system in place on that road.
But you've forgotten a most important factor in all this........

Southampton is years behind other cities and it will probably take another 10 years for the council there to adopt any such scheme.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazdance[/bold] wrote: So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.[/p][/quote]I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service. The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital. These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default. Come on planners..get your thinking caps on![/p][/quote]Okay so all cruise ship passengers get dropped off at a local train station & then take a short train ride to the terminals but what about the Hotels & Taxi drivers who rely on their trade?[/p][/quote]Well what trade are they going to get,if passengers are put off by the congestion, and travel from other ports? It'll be a lot more than hotels and taxi's that lose out then.But that's capitalism for you. I was only making a humble suggestion about what might help to sort out the congestion problem,as for the effct that would have on the local economy,no doubt someone would do a feasibility study,and then come up with the wrong conclusion..as with the Waterside line.[/p][/quote]I was trying to point out the down side to all passengers coming by train. I think that passengers who don't wish to stay in the city this would be a good idea, I'm no traffic expert but nor are our councillors & I've witnessed one way systems on roads the size of the dock road & I can't believe we haven't got a system in place on that road.[/p][/quote]But you've forgotten a most important factor in all this........ Southampton is years behind other cities and it will probably take another 10 years for the council there to adopt any such scheme. in search of the truth
  • Score: 1

5:19pm Fri 28 Mar 14

phil maccavity says...

in search of the truth wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
gazdance wrote:
So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.
I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service.
The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital.
These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default.
Come on planners..get your thinking caps on!
Okay so all cruise ship passengers get dropped off at a local train station & then take a short train ride to the terminals but what about the Hotels & Taxi drivers who rely on their trade?
Well what trade are they going to get,if passengers are put off by the congestion, and travel from other ports?
It'll be a lot more than hotels and taxi's that lose out then.But that's capitalism for you.
I was only making a humble suggestion about what might help to sort out the congestion problem,as for the effct that would have on the local economy,no doubt someone would do a feasibility study,and then come up with the wrong conclusion..as with the Waterside line.
I was trying to point out the down side to all passengers coming by train.
I think that passengers who don't wish to stay in the city this would be a good idea,
I'm no traffic expert but nor are our councillors & I've witnessed one way systems on roads the size of the dock road & I can't believe we haven't got a system in place on that road.
But you've forgotten a most important factor in all this........

Southampton is years behind other cities and it will probably take another 10 years for the council there to adopt any such scheme.
If only our Council could plead poverty and get £2 Billion of Grant Aid over 20 years
That would help somewhat
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gazdance[/bold] wrote: So Southampton suffers from congestion - just like every where else. It's only made worse due to the major roadworks taking place, obviously. The Echo is obsessed with making an issue out of something very ordinary. Get over it.[/p][/quote]I still think the railways might be the answer to Southampton's congestion problems.The City is well served by them,though little use of them is currently made of them by planners in an effort to reduce congestion at a local level,apart from one local shuttle service. The area in question,the cruise terminals, is directly served by a major rail trunk route,linking the docks to any other part of the country,and not least,the Capital. These lines have the advantage of not only cutting through,but also being totally unaffected by Southampton's traffic congestion,and have priority at every point in the City,where it comes into direct contact with it (Canute Road/Mount Pleasant etc),so an added advantage would be of effectively reducing the congestion load by default. Come on planners..get your thinking caps on![/p][/quote]Okay so all cruise ship passengers get dropped off at a local train station & then take a short train ride to the terminals but what about the Hotels & Taxi drivers who rely on their trade?[/p][/quote]Well what trade are they going to get,if passengers are put off by the congestion, and travel from other ports? It'll be a lot more than hotels and taxi's that lose out then.But that's capitalism for you. I was only making a humble suggestion about what might help to sort out the congestion problem,as for the effct that would have on the local economy,no doubt someone would do a feasibility study,and then come up with the wrong conclusion..as with the Waterside line.[/p][/quote]I was trying to point out the down side to all passengers coming by train. I think that passengers who don't wish to stay in the city this would be a good idea, I'm no traffic expert but nor are our councillors & I've witnessed one way systems on roads the size of the dock road & I can't believe we haven't got a system in place on that road.[/p][/quote]But you've forgotten a most important factor in all this........ Southampton is years behind other cities and it will probably take another 10 years for the council there to adopt any such scheme.[/p][/quote]If only our Council could plead poverty and get £2 Billion of Grant Aid over 20 years That would help somewhat phil maccavity
  • Score: -1

8:35pm Fri 28 Mar 14

WoolstonSean says...

loosehead wrote:
So why are these two docking in dock gate4? why not dock them in the New Docks where they could happily exit dock gate 10 or 20?
Yes it's down to chaotically organised road works but surely ABP must know this is taking place so why not move the ships to the docks with little or no problems?
It has to be on ABP where the ships dock & until these road works end & a better traffic management scheme is put into place if we they can solely use the New/Western docks why don't they?
The Mayflower Terminal at berth 106 is currently being reconstructed and the City Cruise Terminal at berth 101 was holding a function, both these terminal's are in the Western Docks and were unavailable as was the Fruit Terminal at berth 104 thats often used as an overflow passenger terminal was in use as there was a fruit ship discharging.

So the only cruise terminals available were the QEII Cruise Terminal at berths 38/39 and the Ocean Terminal at berth 46/47 both in the Eastern Docks so your point is not valid I am afraid.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So why are these two docking in dock gate4? why not dock them in the New Docks where they could happily exit dock gate 10 or 20? Yes it's down to chaotically organised road works but surely ABP must know this is taking place so why not move the ships to the docks with little or no problems? It has to be on ABP where the ships dock & until these road works end & a better traffic management scheme is put into place if we they can solely use the New/Western docks why don't they?[/p][/quote]The Mayflower Terminal at berth 106 is currently being reconstructed and the City Cruise Terminal at berth 101 was holding a function, both these terminal's are in the Western Docks and were unavailable as was the Fruit Terminal at berth 104 thats often used as an overflow passenger terminal was in use as there was a fruit ship discharging. So the only cruise terminals available were the QEII Cruise Terminal at berths 38/39 and the Ocean Terminal at berth 46/47 both in the Eastern Docks so your point is not valid I am afraid. WoolstonSean
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Fri 28 Mar 14

WoolstonSean says...

03alpe01 wrote:
Pool, Pool, Liverpool!!!
What to do about this ongoing situation? Build more cruise terminals to cope with demand- in Liverpool. Send Cunard back to their original home- Liverpool. Send other Cruise Operators to join Cunard back in their original home of erm Liverpool.

Some phrases I fully expect to hear later are:

" This City has an emergency traffic problems act, but we do not feel that this is bad enough for us to implement it "

" We weren't aware of any traffic problems in the City today "

Rayment strikes again people!

How to solve this mess in one word? Liverpool.
And do you honestly think that Liverpool would be any better traffic wise especially around the Pier Head.

The MAJOR cruise companies are NOT interested in using Liverpool as a turnaround port for MANY reasons so idiotic comments like you constantly keep mentioning are ill informed and immature so if you love Liverpool so much move there.
[quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Pool, Pool, Liverpool!!! What to do about this ongoing situation? Build more cruise terminals to cope with demand- in Liverpool. Send Cunard back to their original home- Liverpool. Send other Cruise Operators to join Cunard back in their original home of erm Liverpool. Some phrases I fully expect to hear later are: " This City has an emergency traffic problems act, but we do not feel that this is bad enough for us to implement it " " We weren't aware of any traffic problems in the City today " Rayment strikes again people! How to solve this mess in one word? Liverpool.[/p][/quote]And do you honestly think that Liverpool would be any better traffic wise especially around the Pier Head. The MAJOR cruise companies are NOT interested in using Liverpool as a turnaround port for MANY reasons so idiotic comments like you constantly keep mentioning are ill informed and immature so if you love Liverpool so much move there. WoolstonSean
  • Score: 0

8:48pm Fri 28 Mar 14

WoolstonSean says...

in search of the truth wrote:
If you have more roadworks and cannot cope, I think we can.

2014 Cruise Season from Liverpool

Ships range from three-star rated to the brand new six-star German liner MS Europa 2

The capacity of ships on Liverpool'as cruise calendar ranges from the 694-passenger Azamara Journey to the 3,020- passenger 113,000 megaliner Ruby Princess, another new visitor which will make four repeat calls to Liverpool.

Mr Wood said: “A key example of Liverpool’s growing importance is the visit of the MSC Magnifica, after her owner said a few years ago it would never operate in the Irish Sea.

“For them to reconsider means MSC either had pressure from competitors or customers or both.

"MSC are tough businessmen so this an important indicator of the step-change achieved in improving the port and facilities.

For more details see

http://www.liverpool

echo.co.uk/incoming/

record-year-ahead-li

verpool-cruise-67926

45
Yeah a total of ONE visit big deal, what the CEO was referring to was thathat's joined! hadn't expected to have roujd Britain cruises in their itineraries so this call is JUST a port of call NOT a turn around.

I've been away from these forums for a while but I see we have a new **** that's joined in the discussions!
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: If you have more roadworks and cannot cope, I think we can. 2014 Cruise Season from Liverpool Ships range from three-star rated to the brand new six-star German liner MS Europa 2 The capacity of ships on Liverpool'as cruise calendar ranges from the 694-passenger Azamara Journey to the 3,020- passenger 113,000 megaliner Ruby Princess, another new visitor which will make four repeat calls to Liverpool. Mr Wood said: “A key example of Liverpool’s growing importance is the visit of the MSC Magnifica, after her owner said a few years ago it would never operate in the Irish Sea. “For them to reconsider means MSC either had pressure from competitors or customers or both. "MSC are tough businessmen so this an important indicator of the step-change achieved in improving the port and facilities. For more details see http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/incoming/ record-year-ahead-li verpool-cruise-67926 45[/p][/quote]Yeah a total of ONE visit big deal, what the CEO was referring to was thathat's joined! hadn't expected to have roujd Britain cruises in their itineraries so this call is JUST a port of call NOT a turn around. I've been away from these forums for a while but I see we have a new **** that's joined in the discussions! WoolstonSean
  • Score: -1

9:03pm Fri 28 Mar 14

phil maccavity says...

A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west.

1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!!

2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?
A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west. 1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!! 2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid? phil maccavity
  • Score: -1

9:06pm Fri 28 Mar 14

loosehead says...

WoolstonSean wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So why are these two docking in dock gate4? why not dock them in the New Docks where they could happily exit dock gate 10 or 20?
Yes it's down to chaotically organised road works but surely ABP must know this is taking place so why not move the ships to the docks with little or no problems?
It has to be on ABP where the ships dock & until these road works end & a better traffic management scheme is put into place if we they can solely use the New/Western docks why don't they?
The Mayflower Terminal at berth 106 is currently being reconstructed and the City Cruise Terminal at berth 101 was holding a function, both these terminal's are in the Western Docks and were unavailable as was the Fruit Terminal at berth 104 thats often used as an overflow passenger terminal was in use as there was a fruit ship discharging.

So the only cruise terminals available were the QEII Cruise Terminal at berths 38/39 and the Ocean Terminal at berth 46/47 both in the Eastern Docks so your point is not valid I am afraid.
So why with a question mark didn't register as a question in your books then?
I personally can't understand why this has suddenly become a problem.
When the Tories were in & we had all those cruise ships in with free round the port busses & hundreds came to town to see them we never had traffic chaos so what's the difference now?
It has to be trying to do all the alterations to the road network at once & who gave the go ahead for it?
Was the cycle layout that urgent?
Would it not be better to reinstate the floating bridge for cyclists & pedestrians? (just an idea?)
[quote][p][bold]WoolstonSean[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So why are these two docking in dock gate4? why not dock them in the New Docks where they could happily exit dock gate 10 or 20? Yes it's down to chaotically organised road works but surely ABP must know this is taking place so why not move the ships to the docks with little or no problems? It has to be on ABP where the ships dock & until these road works end & a better traffic management scheme is put into place if we they can solely use the New/Western docks why don't they?[/p][/quote]The Mayflower Terminal at berth 106 is currently being reconstructed and the City Cruise Terminal at berth 101 was holding a function, both these terminal's are in the Western Docks and were unavailable as was the Fruit Terminal at berth 104 thats often used as an overflow passenger terminal was in use as there was a fruit ship discharging. So the only cruise terminals available were the QEII Cruise Terminal at berths 38/39 and the Ocean Terminal at berth 46/47 both in the Eastern Docks so your point is not valid I am afraid.[/p][/quote]So why with a question mark didn't register as a question in your books then? I personally can't understand why this has suddenly become a problem. When the Tories were in & we had all those cruise ships in with free round the port busses & hundreds came to town to see them we never had traffic chaos so what's the difference now? It has to be trying to do all the alterations to the road network at once & who gave the go ahead for it? Was the cycle layout that urgent? Would it not be better to reinstate the floating bridge for cyclists & pedestrians? (just an idea?) loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Sat 29 Mar 14

arizonan says...

phil maccavity wrote:
A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west.

1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!!

2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?
It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port.
Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool.
There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want.
Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage.
Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes!
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west. 1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!! 2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?[/p][/quote]It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port. Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool. There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want. Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage. Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes! arizonan
  • Score: 1

11:38am Sun 30 Mar 14

robich says...

It's interesting how traffic gridlock is mentioned whenever cruise ships visit but nt when we have a major football event.
I was trapped in gridlock following the Saints v Newcastle match last night (Sat 29 Mar) making me an hour late for a function.
It's interesting how traffic gridlock is mentioned whenever cruise ships visit but nt when we have a major football event. I was trapped in gridlock following the Saints v Newcastle match last night (Sat 29 Mar) making me an hour late for a function. robich
  • Score: 0

10:19am Mon 31 Mar 14

phil maccavity says...

arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west.

1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!!

2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?
It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port.
Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool.
There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want.
Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage.
Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes!
If you read your local paper for a change you will find the explanation given by a Cunard rep. They were concerned about the capability of the new terminal's ability to cope!!
So the Council may be spending even more of local taxpayers money on a very ornate building which may not be suitable for big ship turnrounds
Of course you can counter with the old chestnut.. 'it was the southern mafia wot did it'..as you did with the 'reason' why the Liverpool Boat Show failed (btw there are still quite a few businesses still suffering from the repercussions of this)
To ensure a balanced view it should be pointed out that the Southampton departure of the voyage you refer to also sold very strongly on the first day of sale and actually surpassed the Liverpool total
I presume from your post you don't live on Merseyside? I assumed you did
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west. 1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!! 2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?[/p][/quote]It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port. Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool. There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want. Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage. Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes![/p][/quote]If you read your local paper for a change you will find the explanation given by a Cunard rep. They were concerned about the capability of the new terminal's ability to cope!! So the Council may be spending even more of local taxpayers money on a very ornate building which may not be suitable for big ship turnrounds Of course you can counter with the old chestnut.. 'it was the southern mafia wot did it'..as you did with the 'reason' why the Liverpool Boat Show failed (btw there are still quite a few businesses still suffering from the repercussions of this) To ensure a balanced view it should be pointed out that the Southampton departure of the voyage you refer to also sold very strongly on the first day of sale and actually surpassed the Liverpool total I presume from your post you don't live on Merseyside? I assumed you did phil maccavity
  • Score: -1

11:35am Mon 31 Mar 14

loosehead says...

phil maccavity wrote:
arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west.

1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!!

2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?
It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port.
Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool.
There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want.
Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage.
Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes!
If you read your local paper for a change you will find the explanation given by a Cunard rep. They were concerned about the capability of the new terminal's ability to cope!!
So the Council may be spending even more of local taxpayers money on a very ornate building which may not be suitable for big ship turnrounds
Of course you can counter with the old chestnut.. 'it was the southern mafia wot did it'..as you did with the 'reason' why the Liverpool Boat Show failed (btw there are still quite a few businesses still suffering from the repercussions of this)
To ensure a balanced view it should be pointed out that the Southampton departure of the voyage you refer to also sold very strongly on the first day of sale and actually surpassed the Liverpool total
I presume from your post you don't live on Merseyside? I assumed you did
Phil he has said in the past he doesn't live in Liverpool.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west. 1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!! 2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?[/p][/quote]It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port. Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool. There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want. Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage. Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes![/p][/quote]If you read your local paper for a change you will find the explanation given by a Cunard rep. They were concerned about the capability of the new terminal's ability to cope!! So the Council may be spending even more of local taxpayers money on a very ornate building which may not be suitable for big ship turnrounds Of course you can counter with the old chestnut.. 'it was the southern mafia wot did it'..as you did with the 'reason' why the Liverpool Boat Show failed (btw there are still quite a few businesses still suffering from the repercussions of this) To ensure a balanced view it should be pointed out that the Southampton departure of the voyage you refer to also sold very strongly on the first day of sale and actually surpassed the Liverpool total I presume from your post you don't live on Merseyside? I assumed you did[/p][/quote]Phil he has said in the past he doesn't live in Liverpool. loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:38pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west.

1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!!

2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?
It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port.
Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool.
There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want.
Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage.
Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes!
If you read your local paper for a change you will find the explanation given by a Cunard rep. They were concerned about the capability of the new terminal's ability to cope!!
So the Council may be spending even more of local taxpayers money on a very ornate building which may not be suitable for big ship turnrounds
Of course you can counter with the old chestnut.. 'it was the southern mafia wot did it'..as you did with the 'reason' why the Liverpool Boat Show failed (btw there are still quite a few businesses still suffering from the repercussions of this)
To ensure a balanced view it should be pointed out that the Southampton departure of the voyage you refer to also sold very strongly on the first day of sale and actually surpassed the Liverpool total
I presume from your post you don't live on Merseyside? I assumed you did
Phil he has said in the past he doesn't live in Liverpool.
Calm down,calm down!
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west. 1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!! 2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?[/p][/quote]It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port. Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool. There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want. Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage. Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes![/p][/quote]If you read your local paper for a change you will find the explanation given by a Cunard rep. They were concerned about the capability of the new terminal's ability to cope!! So the Council may be spending even more of local taxpayers money on a very ornate building which may not be suitable for big ship turnrounds Of course you can counter with the old chestnut.. 'it was the southern mafia wot did it'..as you did with the 'reason' why the Liverpool Boat Show failed (btw there are still quite a few businesses still suffering from the repercussions of this) To ensure a balanced view it should be pointed out that the Southampton departure of the voyage you refer to also sold very strongly on the first day of sale and actually surpassed the Liverpool total I presume from your post you don't live on Merseyside? I assumed you did[/p][/quote]Phil he has said in the past he doesn't live in Liverpool.[/p][/quote]Calm down,calm down! Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 1

2:39pm Mon 31 Mar 14

phil maccavity says...

loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west.

1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!!

2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?
It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port.
Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool.
There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want.
Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage.
Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes!
If you read your local paper for a change you will find the explanation given by a Cunard rep. They were concerned about the capability of the new terminal's ability to cope!!
So the Council may be spending even more of local taxpayers money on a very ornate building which may not be suitable for big ship turnrounds
Of course you can counter with the old chestnut.. 'it was the southern mafia wot did it'..as you did with the 'reason' why the Liverpool Boat Show failed (btw there are still quite a few businesses still suffering from the repercussions of this)
To ensure a balanced view it should be pointed out that the Southampton departure of the voyage you refer to also sold very strongly on the first day of sale and actually surpassed the Liverpool total
I presume from your post you don't live on Merseyside? I assumed you did
Phil he has said in the past he doesn't live in Liverpool.
Thanks for this

It probably explains a lot

There are quite a few Liverpudlians down here and the vast majority of them are decent people who enjoy living in this neck of the woods.

I guess Arizonan didn't come down here by choice and that may have a bearing on his views
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west. 1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!! 2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?[/p][/quote]It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port. Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool. There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want. Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage. Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes![/p][/quote]If you read your local paper for a change you will find the explanation given by a Cunard rep. They were concerned about the capability of the new terminal's ability to cope!! So the Council may be spending even more of local taxpayers money on a very ornate building which may not be suitable for big ship turnrounds Of course you can counter with the old chestnut.. 'it was the southern mafia wot did it'..as you did with the 'reason' why the Liverpool Boat Show failed (btw there are still quite a few businesses still suffering from the repercussions of this) To ensure a balanced view it should be pointed out that the Southampton departure of the voyage you refer to also sold very strongly on the first day of sale and actually surpassed the Liverpool total I presume from your post you don't live on Merseyside? I assumed you did[/p][/quote]Phil he has said in the past he doesn't live in Liverpool.[/p][/quote]Thanks for this It probably explains a lot There are quite a few Liverpudlians down here and the vast majority of them are decent people who enjoy living in this neck of the woods. I guess Arizonan didn't come down here by choice and that may have a bearing on his views phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

7:22am Tue 1 Apr 14

arizonan says...

phil maccavity wrote:
arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west.

1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!!

2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?
It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port.
Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool.
There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want.
Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage.
Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes!
If you read your local paper for a change you will find the explanation given by a Cunard rep. They were concerned about the capability of the new terminal's ability to cope!!
So the Council may be spending even more of local taxpayers money on a very ornate building which may not be suitable for big ship turnrounds
Of course you can counter with the old chestnut.. 'it was the southern mafia wot did it'..as you did with the 'reason' why the Liverpool Boat Show failed (btw there are still quite a few businesses still suffering from the repercussions of this)
To ensure a balanced view it should be pointed out that the Southampton departure of the voyage you refer to also sold very strongly on the first day of sale and actually surpassed the Liverpool total
I presume from your post you don't live on Merseyside? I assumed you did
Fact, only a few hundred berths were available from Liverpool.
Cunard advised customers who could not sail from Liverpool told to book from Southampton, at a higher cost.
So obviously, if you restrict Liverpool to say 400 berths, and force passengers who would rather depart from Liverpool to trek down to Southampton, you are obviously going to have greater numbers booking from Southampton.
The Cunard statement re. the reason for restricting the number of berths from Liverpool was mystifying.
The new Cunard terminal is 10 times bigger than the present facility, which has a capacity of 1500 pax.
If this is not going to be available, then Cunard could have offered 1500 berths from Liverpool.
May I remind you that the present terminal and its staff, have won praise from cruise lines in the past for their efficiency.
Finally, I have never given my location. Perhaps a course in lateral thinking should be considered by Phil and loosehead.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west. 1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!! 2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?[/p][/quote]It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port. Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool. There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want. Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage. Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes![/p][/quote]If you read your local paper for a change you will find the explanation given by a Cunard rep. They were concerned about the capability of the new terminal's ability to cope!! So the Council may be spending even more of local taxpayers money on a very ornate building which may not be suitable for big ship turnrounds Of course you can counter with the old chestnut.. 'it was the southern mafia wot did it'..as you did with the 'reason' why the Liverpool Boat Show failed (btw there are still quite a few businesses still suffering from the repercussions of this) To ensure a balanced view it should be pointed out that the Southampton departure of the voyage you refer to also sold very strongly on the first day of sale and actually surpassed the Liverpool total I presume from your post you don't live on Merseyside? I assumed you did[/p][/quote]Fact, only a few hundred berths were available from Liverpool. Cunard advised customers who could not sail from Liverpool told to book from Southampton, at a higher cost. So obviously, if you restrict Liverpool to say 400 berths, and force passengers who would rather depart from Liverpool to trek down to Southampton, you are obviously going to have greater numbers booking from Southampton. The Cunard statement re. the reason for restricting the number of berths from Liverpool was mystifying. The new Cunard terminal is 10 times bigger than the present facility, which has a capacity of 1500 pax. If this is not going to be available, then Cunard could have offered 1500 berths from Liverpool. May I remind you that the present terminal and its staff, have won praise from cruise lines in the past for their efficiency. Finally, I have never given my location. Perhaps a course in lateral thinking should be considered by Phil and loosehead. arizonan
  • Score: 0

11:11am Tue 1 Apr 14

phil maccavity says...

The current terminal facility, via the adjacent marque, is licensed for 1,200 passengers (not 1,500).
Presumably the new arrangement from 2015 (in the very iconic Cunard
Building) is designed to increase space and allow larger ships to turnround.
It therefore seems odd that Cunard restricted bookings because they appear to be concerned about 'comfort levels' at the new terminal
If the new terminal is '10 times bigger than the current one' as you state then, using a simple extrapolation this would allow between 12,000 - 15,000 passengers to be accommodated making it probably the world's largest terminal and all the major lines, operating large cruise ships, will be flocking to Liverpool for full turnrounds
As you say this makes the Cunard decision 'mystifying' but I sure the facts will emerge one day.
With regard to your location you admit in an earlier post to have watched an item on BBC South so, unless you really are so totally immersed in the goings on this area you pick local news up from a remote location, I reckon you live locally. .
btw if you don't watch the programme already, I recommend you watch 'Sea City' every Sunday PM on BBC South.
The current terminal facility, via the adjacent marque, is licensed for 1,200 passengers (not 1,500). Presumably the new arrangement from 2015 (in the very iconic Cunard Building) is designed to increase space and allow larger ships to turnround. It therefore seems odd that Cunard restricted bookings because they appear to be concerned about 'comfort levels' at the new terminal If the new terminal is '10 times bigger than the current one' as you state then, using a simple extrapolation this would allow between 12,000 - 15,000 passengers to be accommodated making it probably the world's largest terminal and all the major lines, operating large cruise ships, will be flocking to Liverpool for full turnrounds As you say this makes the Cunard decision 'mystifying' but I sure the facts will emerge one day. With regard to your location you admit in an earlier post to have watched an item on BBC South so, unless you really are so totally immersed in the goings on this area you pick local news up from a remote location, I reckon you live locally. . btw if you don't watch the programme already, I recommend you watch 'Sea City' every Sunday PM on BBC South. phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

11:32am Tue 1 Apr 14

loosehead says...

arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west.

1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!!

2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?
It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port.
Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool.
There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want.
Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage.
Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes!
If you read your local paper for a change you will find the explanation given by a Cunard rep. They were concerned about the capability of the new terminal's ability to cope!!
So the Council may be spending even more of local taxpayers money on a very ornate building which may not be suitable for big ship turnrounds
Of course you can counter with the old chestnut.. 'it was the southern mafia wot did it'..as you did with the 'reason' why the Liverpool Boat Show failed (btw there are still quite a few businesses still suffering from the repercussions of this)
To ensure a balanced view it should be pointed out that the Southampton departure of the voyage you refer to also sold very strongly on the first day of sale and actually surpassed the Liverpool total
I presume from your post you don't live on Merseyside? I assumed you did
Fact, only a few hundred berths were available from Liverpool.
Cunard advised customers who could not sail from Liverpool told to book from Southampton, at a higher cost.
So obviously, if you restrict Liverpool to say 400 berths, and force passengers who would rather depart from Liverpool to trek down to Southampton, you are obviously going to have greater numbers booking from Southampton.
The Cunard statement re. the reason for restricting the number of berths from Liverpool was mystifying.
The new Cunard terminal is 10 times bigger than the present facility, which has a capacity of 1500 pax.
If this is not going to be available, then Cunard could have offered 1500 berths from Liverpool.
May I remind you that the present terminal and its staff, have won praise from cruise lines in the past for their efficiency.
Finally, I have never given my location. Perhaps a course in lateral thinking should be considered by Phil and loosehead.
I asked you questions about certain areas of Liverpool as I'm moving there & you said you didn't know as you didn't live there so was that wrong?
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west. 1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!! 2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?[/p][/quote]It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port. Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool. There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want. Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage. Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes![/p][/quote]If you read your local paper for a change you will find the explanation given by a Cunard rep. They were concerned about the capability of the new terminal's ability to cope!! So the Council may be spending even more of local taxpayers money on a very ornate building which may not be suitable for big ship turnrounds Of course you can counter with the old chestnut.. 'it was the southern mafia wot did it'..as you did with the 'reason' why the Liverpool Boat Show failed (btw there are still quite a few businesses still suffering from the repercussions of this) To ensure a balanced view it should be pointed out that the Southampton departure of the voyage you refer to also sold very strongly on the first day of sale and actually surpassed the Liverpool total I presume from your post you don't live on Merseyside? I assumed you did[/p][/quote]Fact, only a few hundred berths were available from Liverpool. Cunard advised customers who could not sail from Liverpool told to book from Southampton, at a higher cost. So obviously, if you restrict Liverpool to say 400 berths, and force passengers who would rather depart from Liverpool to trek down to Southampton, you are obviously going to have greater numbers booking from Southampton. The Cunard statement re. the reason for restricting the number of berths from Liverpool was mystifying. The new Cunard terminal is 10 times bigger than the present facility, which has a capacity of 1500 pax. If this is not going to be available, then Cunard could have offered 1500 berths from Liverpool. May I remind you that the present terminal and its staff, have won praise from cruise lines in the past for their efficiency. Finally, I have never given my location. Perhaps a course in lateral thinking should be considered by Phil and loosehead.[/p][/quote]I asked you questions about certain areas of Liverpool as I'm moving there & you said you didn't know as you didn't live there so was that wrong? loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:35am Tue 1 Apr 14

loosehead says...

phil maccavity wrote:
The current terminal facility, via the adjacent marque, is licensed for 1,200 passengers (not 1,500).
Presumably the new arrangement from 2015 (in the very iconic Cunard
Building) is designed to increase space and allow larger ships to turnround.
It therefore seems odd that Cunard restricted bookings because they appear to be concerned about 'comfort levels' at the new terminal
If the new terminal is '10 times bigger than the current one' as you state then, using a simple extrapolation this would allow between 12,000 - 15,000 passengers to be accommodated making it probably the world's largest terminal and all the major lines, operating large cruise ships, will be flocking to Liverpool for full turnrounds
As you say this makes the Cunard decision 'mystifying' but I sure the facts will emerge one day.
With regard to your location you admit in an earlier post to have watched an item on BBC South so, unless you really are so totally immersed in the goings on this area you pick local news up from a remote location, I reckon you live locally. .
btw if you don't watch the programme already, I recommend you watch 'Sea City' every Sunday PM on BBC South.
Phil surely the problem with Liverpool isn't any building it's the pontoon passengers have to use to board ships?
A friend asked me as he's actually disembarked at Liverpool how they get all the pallets of supplies on the ship from this pontoon?
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: The current terminal facility, via the adjacent marque, is licensed for 1,200 passengers (not 1,500). Presumably the new arrangement from 2015 (in the very iconic Cunard Building) is designed to increase space and allow larger ships to turnround. It therefore seems odd that Cunard restricted bookings because they appear to be concerned about 'comfort levels' at the new terminal If the new terminal is '10 times bigger than the current one' as you state then, using a simple extrapolation this would allow between 12,000 - 15,000 passengers to be accommodated making it probably the world's largest terminal and all the major lines, operating large cruise ships, will be flocking to Liverpool for full turnrounds As you say this makes the Cunard decision 'mystifying' but I sure the facts will emerge one day. With regard to your location you admit in an earlier post to have watched an item on BBC South so, unless you really are so totally immersed in the goings on this area you pick local news up from a remote location, I reckon you live locally. . btw if you don't watch the programme already, I recommend you watch 'Sea City' every Sunday PM on BBC South.[/p][/quote]Phil surely the problem with Liverpool isn't any building it's the pontoon passengers have to use to board ships? A friend asked me as he's actually disembarked at Liverpool how they get all the pallets of supplies on the ship from this pontoon? loosehead
  • Score: 0

2:24pm Tue 1 Apr 14

arizonan says...

loosehead wrote:
arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west.

1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!!

2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?
It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port.
Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool.
There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want.
Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage.
Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes!
If you read your local paper for a change you will find the explanation given by a Cunard rep. They were concerned about the capability of the new terminal's ability to cope!!
So the Council may be spending even more of local taxpayers money on a very ornate building which may not be suitable for big ship turnrounds
Of course you can counter with the old chestnut.. 'it was the southern mafia wot did it'..as you did with the 'reason' why the Liverpool Boat Show failed (btw there are still quite a few businesses still suffering from the repercussions of this)
To ensure a balanced view it should be pointed out that the Southampton departure of the voyage you refer to also sold very strongly on the first day of sale and actually surpassed the Liverpool total
I presume from your post you don't live on Merseyside? I assumed you did
Fact, only a few hundred berths were available from Liverpool.
Cunard advised customers who could not sail from Liverpool told to book from Southampton, at a higher cost.
So obviously, if you restrict Liverpool to say 400 berths, and force passengers who would rather depart from Liverpool to trek down to Southampton, you are obviously going to have greater numbers booking from Southampton.
The Cunard statement re. the reason for restricting the number of berths from Liverpool was mystifying.
The new Cunard terminal is 10 times bigger than the present facility, which has a capacity of 1500 pax.
If this is not going to be available, then Cunard could have offered 1500 berths from Liverpool.
May I remind you that the present terminal and its staff, have won praise from cruise lines in the past for their efficiency.
Finally, I have never given my location. Perhaps a course in lateral thinking should be considered by Phil and loosehead.
I asked you questions about certain areas of Liverpool as I'm moving there & you said you didn't know as you didn't live there so was that wrong?
I have never given my location.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west. 1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!! 2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?[/p][/quote]It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port. Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool. There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want. Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage. Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes![/p][/quote]If you read your local paper for a change you will find the explanation given by a Cunard rep. They were concerned about the capability of the new terminal's ability to cope!! So the Council may be spending even more of local taxpayers money on a very ornate building which may not be suitable for big ship turnrounds Of course you can counter with the old chestnut.. 'it was the southern mafia wot did it'..as you did with the 'reason' why the Liverpool Boat Show failed (btw there are still quite a few businesses still suffering from the repercussions of this) To ensure a balanced view it should be pointed out that the Southampton departure of the voyage you refer to also sold very strongly on the first day of sale and actually surpassed the Liverpool total I presume from your post you don't live on Merseyside? I assumed you did[/p][/quote]Fact, only a few hundred berths were available from Liverpool. Cunard advised customers who could not sail from Liverpool told to book from Southampton, at a higher cost. So obviously, if you restrict Liverpool to say 400 berths, and force passengers who would rather depart from Liverpool to trek down to Southampton, you are obviously going to have greater numbers booking from Southampton. The Cunard statement re. the reason for restricting the number of berths from Liverpool was mystifying. The new Cunard terminal is 10 times bigger than the present facility, which has a capacity of 1500 pax. If this is not going to be available, then Cunard could have offered 1500 berths from Liverpool. May I remind you that the present terminal and its staff, have won praise from cruise lines in the past for their efficiency. Finally, I have never given my location. Perhaps a course in lateral thinking should be considered by Phil and loosehead.[/p][/quote]I asked you questions about certain areas of Liverpool as I'm moving there & you said you didn't know as you didn't live there so was that wrong?[/p][/quote]I have never given my location. arizonan
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Tue 1 Apr 14

loosehead says...

arizonan wrote:
loosehead wrote:
arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west.

1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!!

2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?
It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port.
Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool.
There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want.
Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage.
Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes!
If you read your local paper for a change you will find the explanation given by a Cunard rep. They were concerned about the capability of the new terminal's ability to cope!!
So the Council may be spending even more of local taxpayers money on a very ornate building which may not be suitable for big ship turnrounds
Of course you can counter with the old chestnut.. 'it was the southern mafia wot did it'..as you did with the 'reason' why the Liverpool Boat Show failed (btw there are still quite a few businesses still suffering from the repercussions of this)
To ensure a balanced view it should be pointed out that the Southampton departure of the voyage you refer to also sold very strongly on the first day of sale and actually surpassed the Liverpool total
I presume from your post you don't live on Merseyside? I assumed you did
Fact, only a few hundred berths were available from Liverpool.
Cunard advised customers who could not sail from Liverpool told to book from Southampton, at a higher cost.
So obviously, if you restrict Liverpool to say 400 berths, and force passengers who would rather depart from Liverpool to trek down to Southampton, you are obviously going to have greater numbers booking from Southampton.
The Cunard statement re. the reason for restricting the number of berths from Liverpool was mystifying.
The new Cunard terminal is 10 times bigger than the present facility, which has a capacity of 1500 pax.
If this is not going to be available, then Cunard could have offered 1500 berths from Liverpool.
May I remind you that the present terminal and its staff, have won praise from cruise lines in the past for their efficiency.
Finally, I have never given my location. Perhaps a course in lateral thinking should be considered by Phil and loosehead.
I asked you questions about certain areas of Liverpool as I'm moving there & you said you didn't know as you didn't live there so was that wrong?
I have never given my location.
Have you not said you don't live in Liverpool?
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west. 1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!! 2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?[/p][/quote]It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port. Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool. There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want. Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage. Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes![/p][/quote]If you read your local paper for a change you will find the explanation given by a Cunard rep. They were concerned about the capability of the new terminal's ability to cope!! So the Council may be spending even more of local taxpayers money on a very ornate building which may not be suitable for big ship turnrounds Of course you can counter with the old chestnut.. 'it was the southern mafia wot did it'..as you did with the 'reason' why the Liverpool Boat Show failed (btw there are still quite a few businesses still suffering from the repercussions of this) To ensure a balanced view it should be pointed out that the Southampton departure of the voyage you refer to also sold very strongly on the first day of sale and actually surpassed the Liverpool total I presume from your post you don't live on Merseyside? I assumed you did[/p][/quote]Fact, only a few hundred berths were available from Liverpool. Cunard advised customers who could not sail from Liverpool told to book from Southampton, at a higher cost. So obviously, if you restrict Liverpool to say 400 berths, and force passengers who would rather depart from Liverpool to trek down to Southampton, you are obviously going to have greater numbers booking from Southampton. The Cunard statement re. the reason for restricting the number of berths from Liverpool was mystifying. The new Cunard terminal is 10 times bigger than the present facility, which has a capacity of 1500 pax. If this is not going to be available, then Cunard could have offered 1500 berths from Liverpool. May I remind you that the present terminal and its staff, have won praise from cruise lines in the past for their efficiency. Finally, I have never given my location. Perhaps a course in lateral thinking should be considered by Phil and loosehead.[/p][/quote]I asked you questions about certain areas of Liverpool as I'm moving there & you said you didn't know as you didn't live there so was that wrong?[/p][/quote]I have never given my location.[/p][/quote]Have you not said you don't live in Liverpool? loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:53pm Tue 1 Apr 14

phil maccavity says...

And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton.
I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising.
In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses
And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton. I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising. In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

9:19pm Tue 1 Apr 14

loosehead says...

phil maccavity wrote:
And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton.
I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising.
In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses
phil to post a reply on their paper you have to go to facebook.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton. I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising. In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses[/p][/quote]phil to post a reply on their paper you have to go to facebook. loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:49pm Tue 1 Apr 14

in search of the truth says...

loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton.
I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising.
In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses
phil to post a reply on their paper you have to go to facebook.
Loosehead , you are correct. In order to comment in the Liverpool Echo you have to subscribe to Facebook.
I do not however believe in social network sites so I will never under any circumstances join either Facebook or Twitter.

Incidentally I do not know where Arizonan lives but I am quite happy to state that I live in Wallasey on the Wirral Peninsular on the opposite side of the River Mersey from Liverpool.
Proud to have been born in Liverpool, I will defend my home city when I feel that it is being wrongly represented in your local newspaper.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton. I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising. In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses[/p][/quote]phil to post a reply on their paper you have to go to facebook.[/p][/quote]Loosehead , you are correct. In order to comment in the Liverpool Echo you have to subscribe to Facebook. I do not however believe in social network sites so I will never under any circumstances join either Facebook or Twitter. Incidentally I do not know where Arizonan lives but I am quite happy to state that I live in Wallasey on the Wirral Peninsular on the opposite side of the River Mersey from Liverpool. Proud to have been born in Liverpool, I will defend my home city when I feel that it is being wrongly represented in your local newspaper. in search of the truth
  • Score: 0

6:07am Wed 2 Apr 14

loosehead says...

in search of the truth wrote:
loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton.
I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising.
In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses
phil to post a reply on their paper you have to go to facebook.
Loosehead , you are correct. In order to comment in the Liverpool Echo you have to subscribe to Facebook.
I do not however believe in social network sites so I will never under any circumstances join either Facebook or Twitter.

Incidentally I do not know where Arizonan lives but I am quite happy to state that I live in Wallasey on the Wirral Peninsular on the opposite side of the River Mersey from Liverpool.
Proud to have been born in Liverpool, I will defend my home city when I feel that it is being wrongly represented in your local newspaper.
I know I have cousins in Wallasey & Birkenhead.
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton. I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising. In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses[/p][/quote]phil to post a reply on their paper you have to go to facebook.[/p][/quote]Loosehead , you are correct. In order to comment in the Liverpool Echo you have to subscribe to Facebook. I do not however believe in social network sites so I will never under any circumstances join either Facebook or Twitter. Incidentally I do not know where Arizonan lives but I am quite happy to state that I live in Wallasey on the Wirral Peninsular on the opposite side of the River Mersey from Liverpool. Proud to have been born in Liverpool, I will defend my home city when I feel that it is being wrongly represented in your local newspaper.[/p][/quote]I know I have cousins in Wallasey & Birkenhead. loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:56am Wed 2 Apr 14

phil maccavity says...

in search of the truth wrote:
loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton.
I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising.
In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses
phil to post a reply on their paper you have to go to facebook.
Loosehead , you are correct. In order to comment in the Liverpool Echo you have to subscribe to Facebook.
I do not however believe in social network sites so I will never under any circumstances join either Facebook or Twitter.

Incidentally I do not know where Arizonan lives but I am quite happy to state that I live in Wallasey on the Wirral Peninsular on the opposite side of the River Mersey from Liverpool.
Proud to have been born in Liverpool, I will defend my home city when I feel that it is being wrongly represented in your local newspaper.
The removal of the Comments section in the Liverpool Echo is relatively new.
Comments were still be posted on the Liverpool Echo site last month.
One I liked was on 10th March by George McIver who suggested it was 'time for another birth' in relation to a cruise specific item.
Perhaps he was so excited about the news he intended to increase the population of Liverpool at some stage!!
I applaud In Search of the Truth defending the city of his birth (although he is technically now a 'Woolyback' rather than a 'Scouser')
However I suggest he has to be selective in his defence of his home city's Council.
If he really believes that Liverpool Council were not duplicitous (and worse) in the way they went about obtaining Grant Aid to pay for what should have been a commercially funded operation, then he does a real disservice to the honest and decent people of the city across the water from the Wirrall
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton. I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising. In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses[/p][/quote]phil to post a reply on their paper you have to go to facebook.[/p][/quote]Loosehead , you are correct. In order to comment in the Liverpool Echo you have to subscribe to Facebook. I do not however believe in social network sites so I will never under any circumstances join either Facebook or Twitter. Incidentally I do not know where Arizonan lives but I am quite happy to state that I live in Wallasey on the Wirral Peninsular on the opposite side of the River Mersey from Liverpool. Proud to have been born in Liverpool, I will defend my home city when I feel that it is being wrongly represented in your local newspaper.[/p][/quote]The removal of the Comments section in the Liverpool Echo is relatively new. Comments were still be posted on the Liverpool Echo site last month. One I liked was on 10th March by George McIver who suggested it was 'time for another birth' in relation to a cruise specific item. Perhaps he was so excited about the news he intended to increase the population of Liverpool at some stage!! I applaud In Search of the Truth defending the city of his birth (although he is technically now a 'Woolyback' rather than a 'Scouser') However I suggest he has to be selective in his defence of his home city's Council. If he really believes that Liverpool Council were not duplicitous (and worse) in the way they went about obtaining Grant Aid to pay for what should have been a commercially funded operation, then he does a real disservice to the honest and decent people of the city across the water from the Wirrall phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

11:35am Wed 2 Apr 14

loosehead says...

phil maccavity wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton.
I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising.
In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses
phil to post a reply on their paper you have to go to facebook.
Loosehead , you are correct. In order to comment in the Liverpool Echo you have to subscribe to Facebook.
I do not however believe in social network sites so I will never under any circumstances join either Facebook or Twitter.

Incidentally I do not know where Arizonan lives but I am quite happy to state that I live in Wallasey on the Wirral Peninsular on the opposite side of the River Mersey from Liverpool.
Proud to have been born in Liverpool, I will defend my home city when I feel that it is being wrongly represented in your local newspaper.
The removal of the Comments section in the Liverpool Echo is relatively new.
Comments were still be posted on the Liverpool Echo site last month.
One I liked was on 10th March by George McIver who suggested it was 'time for another birth' in relation to a cruise specific item.
Perhaps he was so excited about the news he intended to increase the population of Liverpool at some stage!!
I applaud In Search of the Truth defending the city of his birth (although he is technically now a 'Woolyback' rather than a 'Scouser')
However I suggest he has to be selective in his defence of his home city's Council.
If he really believes that Liverpool Council were not duplicitous (and worse) in the way they went about obtaining Grant Aid to pay for what should have been a commercially funded operation, then he does a real disservice to the honest and decent people of the city across the water from the Wirrall
Phil when I was up there I was told my cousins were plastic scousers?
My friend had said in April he would drive us up there & around to look at houses but now it's April he says he won't leave his car in a secure hotel car park in Liverpool & he lives in Shirley Warren?
I've spoken to scousers who are living here for work reasons,I've looked at the Police website & this city has a far worse crime problem than Liverpool it seems to me comedians & TV shows have persuaded people not to live in Liverpool.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton. I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising. In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses[/p][/quote]phil to post a reply on their paper you have to go to facebook.[/p][/quote]Loosehead , you are correct. In order to comment in the Liverpool Echo you have to subscribe to Facebook. I do not however believe in social network sites so I will never under any circumstances join either Facebook or Twitter. Incidentally I do not know where Arizonan lives but I am quite happy to state that I live in Wallasey on the Wirral Peninsular on the opposite side of the River Mersey from Liverpool. Proud to have been born in Liverpool, I will defend my home city when I feel that it is being wrongly represented in your local newspaper.[/p][/quote]The removal of the Comments section in the Liverpool Echo is relatively new. Comments were still be posted on the Liverpool Echo site last month. One I liked was on 10th March by George McIver who suggested it was 'time for another birth' in relation to a cruise specific item. Perhaps he was so excited about the news he intended to increase the population of Liverpool at some stage!! I applaud In Search of the Truth defending the city of his birth (although he is technically now a 'Woolyback' rather than a 'Scouser') However I suggest he has to be selective in his defence of his home city's Council. If he really believes that Liverpool Council were not duplicitous (and worse) in the way they went about obtaining Grant Aid to pay for what should have been a commercially funded operation, then he does a real disservice to the honest and decent people of the city across the water from the Wirrall[/p][/quote]Phil when I was up there I was told my cousins were plastic scousers? My friend had said in April he would drive us up there & around to look at houses but now it's April he says he won't leave his car in a secure hotel car park in Liverpool & he lives in Shirley Warren? I've spoken to scousers who are living here for work reasons,I've looked at the Police website & this city has a far worse crime problem than Liverpool it seems to me comedians & TV shows have persuaded people not to live in Liverpool. loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:25pm Wed 2 Apr 14

arizonan says...

loosehead wrote:
arizonan wrote:
loosehead wrote:
arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
arizonan wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west.

1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!!

2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?
It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port.
Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool.
There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want.
Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage.
Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes!
If you read your local paper for a change you will find the explanation given by a Cunard rep. They were concerned about the capability of the new terminal's ability to cope!!
So the Council may be spending even more of local taxpayers money on a very ornate building which may not be suitable for big ship turnrounds
Of course you can counter with the old chestnut.. 'it was the southern mafia wot did it'..as you did with the 'reason' why the Liverpool Boat Show failed (btw there are still quite a few businesses still suffering from the repercussions of this)
To ensure a balanced view it should be pointed out that the Southampton departure of the voyage you refer to also sold very strongly on the first day of sale and actually surpassed the Liverpool total
I presume from your post you don't live on Merseyside? I assumed you did
Fact, only a few hundred berths were available from Liverpool.
Cunard advised customers who could not sail from Liverpool told to book from Southampton, at a higher cost.
So obviously, if you restrict Liverpool to say 400 berths, and force passengers who would rather depart from Liverpool to trek down to Southampton, you are obviously going to have greater numbers booking from Southampton.
The Cunard statement re. the reason for restricting the number of berths from Liverpool was mystifying.
The new Cunard terminal is 10 times bigger than the present facility, which has a capacity of 1500 pax.
If this is not going to be available, then Cunard could have offered 1500 berths from Liverpool.
May I remind you that the present terminal and its staff, have won praise from cruise lines in the past for their efficiency.
Finally, I have never given my location. Perhaps a course in lateral thinking should be considered by Phil and loosehead.
I asked you questions about certain areas of Liverpool as I'm moving there & you said you didn't know as you didn't live there so was that wrong?
I have never given my location.
Have you not said you don't live in Liverpool?
I have NEVER given my location. I find it very amusing indeed that there is speculation about same.
By the way, have you ever considered the multifarious ways of receiving video to-day?
There again, I could be living in Portsmouth or somewhere else within BBC South's region, or in the Great City of Liverpool.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: A couple of questions for our regular posters from the north west. 1. How come the 'uninteresting' and commercially funded ports of Southampton, Dover , Harwich and Tilbury will welcome over 600 cruise calls this year whilst the grant aided port of Liverpool gets very excited about 50!! 2. Why does the North West have such a high ratio of cruise passengers to population when the region pleads 'poverty' and has to depend on very substantial levels of EU and UK grant aid?[/p][/quote]It is not only pax from the North West of England that would make use of Liverpool as a turnaround port. Even the BBC's south today , when interviewing departing passengers from Southampton, were told by a couple from Scotland, that they would use Liverpool. There is no doubt that the Cruise lines are not giving the 'Guests' what they want. Look at the pathetic allocation of berths from Liverpool, for the 175th Liverpool/New York voyage. Liverpool berths sell out in 3 minutes![/p][/quote]If you read your local paper for a change you will find the explanation given by a Cunard rep. They were concerned about the capability of the new terminal's ability to cope!! So the Council may be spending even more of local taxpayers money on a very ornate building which may not be suitable for big ship turnrounds Of course you can counter with the old chestnut.. 'it was the southern mafia wot did it'..as you did with the 'reason' why the Liverpool Boat Show failed (btw there are still quite a few businesses still suffering from the repercussions of this) To ensure a balanced view it should be pointed out that the Southampton departure of the voyage you refer to also sold very strongly on the first day of sale and actually surpassed the Liverpool total I presume from your post you don't live on Merseyside? I assumed you did[/p][/quote]Fact, only a few hundred berths were available from Liverpool. Cunard advised customers who could not sail from Liverpool told to book from Southampton, at a higher cost. So obviously, if you restrict Liverpool to say 400 berths, and force passengers who would rather depart from Liverpool to trek down to Southampton, you are obviously going to have greater numbers booking from Southampton. The Cunard statement re. the reason for restricting the number of berths from Liverpool was mystifying. The new Cunard terminal is 10 times bigger than the present facility, which has a capacity of 1500 pax. If this is not going to be available, then Cunard could have offered 1500 berths from Liverpool. May I remind you that the present terminal and its staff, have won praise from cruise lines in the past for their efficiency. Finally, I have never given my location. Perhaps a course in lateral thinking should be considered by Phil and loosehead.[/p][/quote]I asked you questions about certain areas of Liverpool as I'm moving there & you said you didn't know as you didn't live there so was that wrong?[/p][/quote]I have never given my location.[/p][/quote]Have you not said you don't live in Liverpool?[/p][/quote]I have NEVER given my location. I find it very amusing indeed that there is speculation about same. By the way, have you ever considered the multifarious ways of receiving video to-day? There again, I could be living in Portsmouth or somewhere else within BBC South's region, or in the Great City of Liverpool. arizonan
  • Score: 2

5:54pm Wed 2 Apr 14

phil maccavity says...

loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton.
I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising.
In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses
phil to post a reply on their paper you have to go to facebook.
Loosehead , you are correct. In order to comment in the Liverpool Echo you have to subscribe to Facebook.
I do not however believe in social network sites so I will never under any circumstances join either Facebook or Twitter.

Incidentally I do not know where Arizonan lives but I am quite happy to state that I live in Wallasey on the Wirral Peninsular on the opposite side of the River Mersey from Liverpool.
Proud to have been born in Liverpool, I will defend my home city when I feel that it is being wrongly represented in your local newspaper.
The removal of the Comments section in the Liverpool Echo is relatively new.
Comments were still be posted on the Liverpool Echo site last month.
One I liked was on 10th March by George McIver who suggested it was 'time for another birth' in relation to a cruise specific item.
Perhaps he was so excited about the news he intended to increase the population of Liverpool at some stage!!
I applaud In Search of the Truth defending the city of his birth (although he is technically now a 'Woolyback' rather than a 'Scouser')
However I suggest he has to be selective in his defence of his home city's Council.
If he really believes that Liverpool Council were not duplicitous (and worse) in the way they went about obtaining Grant Aid to pay for what should have been a commercially funded operation, then he does a real disservice to the honest and decent people of the city across the water from the Wirrall
Phil when I was up there I was told my cousins were plastic scousers?
My friend had said in April he would drive us up there & around to look at houses but now it's April he says he won't leave his car in a secure hotel car park in Liverpool & he lives in Shirley Warren?
I've spoken to scousers who are living here for work reasons,I've looked at the Police website & this city has a far worse crime problem than Liverpool it seems to me comedians & TV shows have persuaded people not to live in Liverpool.
Loosehead
Interested to know what Police website you looked at
Of course Statistics can be interpreted in any number of ways.
However the Police Uk info gives the number of reported crimes in Liverppol City Centre in Feb 2014 as 1,117, compared to 230 in Soton City centre.
To be fair to Liverpool, their city centre attracts a lot more people on average than Soton but the figures show a considerable difference.
The L1 post code recorded the 5th highest crime rate in the country with Birkenhead (not a mecca for night time revellers) in at 13th with 935 recorded offences.
If you look at Merseyside as a whole the crime rate was 0,0089 offences per head of population in February compared to 0.006 in Hampshire.
I have generally felt fairly safe in Liverpool during my visits but you have to be quite selective about where you go and who you mix with
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton. I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising. In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses[/p][/quote]phil to post a reply on their paper you have to go to facebook.[/p][/quote]Loosehead , you are correct. In order to comment in the Liverpool Echo you have to subscribe to Facebook. I do not however believe in social network sites so I will never under any circumstances join either Facebook or Twitter. Incidentally I do not know where Arizonan lives but I am quite happy to state that I live in Wallasey on the Wirral Peninsular on the opposite side of the River Mersey from Liverpool. Proud to have been born in Liverpool, I will defend my home city when I feel that it is being wrongly represented in your local newspaper.[/p][/quote]The removal of the Comments section in the Liverpool Echo is relatively new. Comments were still be posted on the Liverpool Echo site last month. One I liked was on 10th March by George McIver who suggested it was 'time for another birth' in relation to a cruise specific item. Perhaps he was so excited about the news he intended to increase the population of Liverpool at some stage!! I applaud In Search of the Truth defending the city of his birth (although he is technically now a 'Woolyback' rather than a 'Scouser') However I suggest he has to be selective in his defence of his home city's Council. If he really believes that Liverpool Council were not duplicitous (and worse) in the way they went about obtaining Grant Aid to pay for what should have been a commercially funded operation, then he does a real disservice to the honest and decent people of the city across the water from the Wirrall[/p][/quote]Phil when I was up there I was told my cousins were plastic scousers? My friend had said in April he would drive us up there & around to look at houses but now it's April he says he won't leave his car in a secure hotel car park in Liverpool & he lives in Shirley Warren? I've spoken to scousers who are living here for work reasons,I've looked at the Police website & this city has a far worse crime problem than Liverpool it seems to me comedians & TV shows have persuaded people not to live in Liverpool.[/p][/quote]Loosehead Interested to know what Police website you looked at Of course Statistics can be interpreted in any number of ways. However the Police Uk info gives the number of reported crimes in Liverppol City Centre in Feb 2014 as 1,117, compared to 230 in Soton City centre. To be fair to Liverpool, their city centre attracts a lot more people on average than Soton but the figures show a considerable difference. The L1 post code recorded the 5th highest crime rate in the country with Birkenhead (not a mecca for night time revellers) in at 13th with 935 recorded offences. If you look at Merseyside as a whole the crime rate was 0,0089 offences per head of population in February compared to 0.006 in Hampshire. I have generally felt fairly safe in Liverpool during my visits but you have to be quite selective about where you go and who you mix with phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Wed 2 Apr 14

loosehead says...

phil maccavity wrote:
loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton.
I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising.
In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses
phil to post a reply on their paper you have to go to facebook.
Loosehead , you are correct. In order to comment in the Liverpool Echo you have to subscribe to Facebook.
I do not however believe in social network sites so I will never under any circumstances join either Facebook or Twitter.

Incidentally I do not know where Arizonan lives but I am quite happy to state that I live in Wallasey on the Wirral Peninsular on the opposite side of the River Mersey from Liverpool.
Proud to have been born in Liverpool, I will defend my home city when I feel that it is being wrongly represented in your local newspaper.
The removal of the Comments section in the Liverpool Echo is relatively new.
Comments were still be posted on the Liverpool Echo site last month.
One I liked was on 10th March by George McIver who suggested it was 'time for another birth' in relation to a cruise specific item.
Perhaps he was so excited about the news he intended to increase the population of Liverpool at some stage!!
I applaud In Search of the Truth defending the city of his birth (although he is technically now a 'Woolyback' rather than a 'Scouser')
However I suggest he has to be selective in his defence of his home city's Council.
If he really believes that Liverpool Council were not duplicitous (and worse) in the way they went about obtaining Grant Aid to pay for what should have been a commercially funded operation, then he does a real disservice to the honest and decent people of the city across the water from the Wirrall
Phil when I was up there I was told my cousins were plastic scousers?
My friend had said in April he would drive us up there & around to look at houses but now it's April he says he won't leave his car in a secure hotel car park in Liverpool & he lives in Shirley Warren?
I've spoken to scousers who are living here for work reasons,I've looked at the Police website & this city has a far worse crime problem than Liverpool it seems to me comedians & TV shows have persuaded people not to live in Liverpool.
Loosehead
Interested to know what Police website you looked at
Of course Statistics can be interpreted in any number of ways.
However the Police Uk info gives the number of reported crimes in Liverppol City Centre in Feb 2014 as 1,117, compared to 230 in Soton City centre.
To be fair to Liverpool, their city centre attracts a lot more people on average than Soton but the figures show a considerable difference.
The L1 post code recorded the 5th highest crime rate in the country with Birkenhead (not a mecca for night time revellers) in at 13th with 935 recorded offences.
If you look at Merseyside as a whole the crime rate was 0,0089 offences per head of population in February compared to 0.006 in Hampshire.
I have generally felt fairly safe in Liverpool during my visits but you have to be quite selective about where you go and who you mix with
I've compared Bootle,Huyton,Kirby with my post code in Lordshill & we have worse physical assaults ,more burglaries more car thefts & more car break ins than those areas.
The worse place in Liverpool is the city centre at night, but there's only one area in this city that has a better crime rating than those areas.
I went on the Police crime figures website & did comparisons & unlike Lordshill there were no reports of man on man rapes..
The areas with the bad burglary rates were surprise surprise those with the more expensive houses.
I was told by an ex Liverpool Uni student to avoid Birkenhead & Anfield?
now where I live there have been a few burglaries whilst people are in bed, across Romsey road there's been a fatal stabbing plus two women raped .
When up there the hotels warned about the city centre & the Police site warned it was worse than Southampton but then went on to point out that other areas were better then here so I'll keep out of the city centre at night.
OH! did you see the program where they showed Romanian Roma Gypseys targeting Liverpool city centre pubs to pick pocket? That is the biggest level of crime at night.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton. I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising. In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses[/p][/quote]phil to post a reply on their paper you have to go to facebook.[/p][/quote]Loosehead , you are correct. In order to comment in the Liverpool Echo you have to subscribe to Facebook. I do not however believe in social network sites so I will never under any circumstances join either Facebook or Twitter. Incidentally I do not know where Arizonan lives but I am quite happy to state that I live in Wallasey on the Wirral Peninsular on the opposite side of the River Mersey from Liverpool. Proud to have been born in Liverpool, I will defend my home city when I feel that it is being wrongly represented in your local newspaper.[/p][/quote]The removal of the Comments section in the Liverpool Echo is relatively new. Comments were still be posted on the Liverpool Echo site last month. One I liked was on 10th March by George McIver who suggested it was 'time for another birth' in relation to a cruise specific item. Perhaps he was so excited about the news he intended to increase the population of Liverpool at some stage!! I applaud In Search of the Truth defending the city of his birth (although he is technically now a 'Woolyback' rather than a 'Scouser') However I suggest he has to be selective in his defence of his home city's Council. If he really believes that Liverpool Council were not duplicitous (and worse) in the way they went about obtaining Grant Aid to pay for what should have been a commercially funded operation, then he does a real disservice to the honest and decent people of the city across the water from the Wirrall[/p][/quote]Phil when I was up there I was told my cousins were plastic scousers? My friend had said in April he would drive us up there & around to look at houses but now it's April he says he won't leave his car in a secure hotel car park in Liverpool & he lives in Shirley Warren? I've spoken to scousers who are living here for work reasons,I've looked at the Police website & this city has a far worse crime problem than Liverpool it seems to me comedians & TV shows have persuaded people not to live in Liverpool.[/p][/quote]Loosehead Interested to know what Police website you looked at Of course Statistics can be interpreted in any number of ways. However the Police Uk info gives the number of reported crimes in Liverppol City Centre in Feb 2014 as 1,117, compared to 230 in Soton City centre. To be fair to Liverpool, their city centre attracts a lot more people on average than Soton but the figures show a considerable difference. The L1 post code recorded the 5th highest crime rate in the country with Birkenhead (not a mecca for night time revellers) in at 13th with 935 recorded offences. If you look at Merseyside as a whole the crime rate was 0,0089 offences per head of population in February compared to 0.006 in Hampshire. I have generally felt fairly safe in Liverpool during my visits but you have to be quite selective about where you go and who you mix with[/p][/quote]I've compared Bootle,Huyton,Kirby with my post code in Lordshill & we have worse physical assaults ,more burglaries more car thefts & more car break ins than those areas. The worse place in Liverpool is the city centre at night, but there's only one area in this city that has a better crime rating than those areas. I went on the Police crime figures website & did comparisons & unlike Lordshill there were no reports of man on man rapes.. The areas with the bad burglary rates were surprise surprise those with the more expensive houses. I was told by an ex Liverpool Uni student to avoid Birkenhead & Anfield? now where I live there have been a few burglaries whilst people are in bed, across Romsey road there's been a fatal stabbing plus two women raped . When up there the hotels warned about the city centre & the Police site warned it was worse than Southampton but then went on to point out that other areas were better then here so I'll keep out of the city centre at night. OH! did you see the program where they showed Romanian Roma Gypseys targeting Liverpool city centre pubs to pick pocket? That is the biggest level of crime at night. loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:16am Thu 3 Apr 14

in search of the truth says...

phil maccavity wrote:
loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton.
I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising.
In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses
phil to post a reply on their paper you have to go to facebook.
Loosehead , you are correct. In order to comment in the Liverpool Echo you have to subscribe to Facebook.
I do not however believe in social network sites so I will never under any circumstances join either Facebook or Twitter.

Incidentally I do not know where Arizonan lives but I am quite happy to state that I live in Wallasey on the Wirral Peninsular on the opposite side of the River Mersey from Liverpool.
Proud to have been born in Liverpool, I will defend my home city when I feel that it is being wrongly represented in your local newspaper.
The removal of the Comments section in the Liverpool Echo is relatively new.
Comments were still be posted on the Liverpool Echo site last month.
One I liked was on 10th March by George McIver who suggested it was 'time for another birth' in relation to a cruise specific item.
Perhaps he was so excited about the news he intended to increase the population of Liverpool at some stage!!
I applaud In Search of the Truth defending the city of his birth (although he is technically now a 'Woolyback' rather than a 'Scouser')
However I suggest he has to be selective in his defence of his home city's Council.
If he really believes that Liverpool Council were not duplicitous (and worse) in the way they went about obtaining Grant Aid to pay for what should have been a commercially funded operation, then he does a real disservice to the honest and decent people of the city across the water from the Wirrall
Phil when I was up there I was told my cousins were plastic scousers?
My friend had said in April he would drive us up there & around to look at houses but now it's April he says he won't leave his car in a secure hotel car park in Liverpool & he lives in Shirley Warren?
I've spoken to scousers who are living here for work reasons,I've looked at the Police website & this city has a far worse crime problem than Liverpool it seems to me comedians & TV shows have persuaded people not to live in Liverpool.
Loosehead
Interested to know what Police website you looked at
Of course Statistics can be interpreted in any number of ways.
However the Police Uk info gives the number of reported crimes in Liverppol City Centre in Feb 2014 as 1,117, compared to 230 in Soton City centre.
To be fair to Liverpool, their city centre attracts a lot more people on average than Soton but the figures show a considerable difference.
The L1 post code recorded the 5th highest crime rate in the country with Birkenhead (not a mecca for night time revellers) in at 13th with 935 recorded offences.
If you look at Merseyside as a whole the crime rate was 0,0089 offences per head of population in February compared to 0.006 in Hampshire.
I have generally felt fairly safe in Liverpool during my visits but you have to be quite selective about where you go and who you mix with
If you look at the police websites .....

http://www.police.uk
/hampshire/1SW01/cri
me/+VpEXX8/

http://www.police.uk
/merseyside/E1/crime
/

and under performance go to COMPARE YOUR AREA you will see that the crime rate per 1000 is the same for both Southampton and Liverpool.
A figure of approx 89 per 1000.

Manchester has a crime rate of 99.01 per 1000, even Lincoln has a crime rate of 103.01 per 1000 and Nottingham has a crime rate of 101.55 per 1000.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton. I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising. In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses[/p][/quote]phil to post a reply on their paper you have to go to facebook.[/p][/quote]Loosehead , you are correct. In order to comment in the Liverpool Echo you have to subscribe to Facebook. I do not however believe in social network sites so I will never under any circumstances join either Facebook or Twitter. Incidentally I do not know where Arizonan lives but I am quite happy to state that I live in Wallasey on the Wirral Peninsular on the opposite side of the River Mersey from Liverpool. Proud to have been born in Liverpool, I will defend my home city when I feel that it is being wrongly represented in your local newspaper.[/p][/quote]The removal of the Comments section in the Liverpool Echo is relatively new. Comments were still be posted on the Liverpool Echo site last month. One I liked was on 10th March by George McIver who suggested it was 'time for another birth' in relation to a cruise specific item. Perhaps he was so excited about the news he intended to increase the population of Liverpool at some stage!! I applaud In Search of the Truth defending the city of his birth (although he is technically now a 'Woolyback' rather than a 'Scouser') However I suggest he has to be selective in his defence of his home city's Council. If he really believes that Liverpool Council were not duplicitous (and worse) in the way they went about obtaining Grant Aid to pay for what should have been a commercially funded operation, then he does a real disservice to the honest and decent people of the city across the water from the Wirrall[/p][/quote]Phil when I was up there I was told my cousins were plastic scousers? My friend had said in April he would drive us up there & around to look at houses but now it's April he says he won't leave his car in a secure hotel car park in Liverpool & he lives in Shirley Warren? I've spoken to scousers who are living here for work reasons,I've looked at the Police website & this city has a far worse crime problem than Liverpool it seems to me comedians & TV shows have persuaded people not to live in Liverpool.[/p][/quote]Loosehead Interested to know what Police website you looked at Of course Statistics can be interpreted in any number of ways. However the Police Uk info gives the number of reported crimes in Liverppol City Centre in Feb 2014 as 1,117, compared to 230 in Soton City centre. To be fair to Liverpool, their city centre attracts a lot more people on average than Soton but the figures show a considerable difference. The L1 post code recorded the 5th highest crime rate in the country with Birkenhead (not a mecca for night time revellers) in at 13th with 935 recorded offences. If you look at Merseyside as a whole the crime rate was 0,0089 offences per head of population in February compared to 0.006 in Hampshire. I have generally felt fairly safe in Liverpool during my visits but you have to be quite selective about where you go and who you mix with[/p][/quote]If you look at the police websites ..... http://www.police.uk /hampshire/1SW01/cri me/+VpEXX8/ http://www.police.uk /merseyside/E1/crime / and under performance go to COMPARE YOUR AREA you will see that the crime rate per 1000 is the same for both Southampton and Liverpool. A figure of approx 89 per 1000. Manchester has a crime rate of 99.01 per 1000, even Lincoln has a crime rate of 103.01 per 1000 and Nottingham has a crime rate of 101.55 per 1000. in search of the truth
  • Score: 0

7:56am Thu 3 Apr 14

loosehead says...

in search of the truth wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton.
I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising.
In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses
phil to post a reply on their paper you have to go to facebook.
Loosehead , you are correct. In order to comment in the Liverpool Echo you have to subscribe to Facebook.
I do not however believe in social network sites so I will never under any circumstances join either Facebook or Twitter.

Incidentally I do not know where Arizonan lives but I am quite happy to state that I live in Wallasey on the Wirral Peninsular on the opposite side of the River Mersey from Liverpool.
Proud to have been born in Liverpool, I will defend my home city when I feel that it is being wrongly represented in your local newspaper.
The removal of the Comments section in the Liverpool Echo is relatively new.
Comments were still be posted on the Liverpool Echo site last month.
One I liked was on 10th March by George McIver who suggested it was 'time for another birth' in relation to a cruise specific item.
Perhaps he was so excited about the news he intended to increase the population of Liverpool at some stage!!
I applaud In Search of the Truth defending the city of his birth (although he is technically now a 'Woolyback' rather than a 'Scouser')
However I suggest he has to be selective in his defence of his home city's Council.
If he really believes that Liverpool Council were not duplicitous (and worse) in the way they went about obtaining Grant Aid to pay for what should have been a commercially funded operation, then he does a real disservice to the honest and decent people of the city across the water from the Wirrall
Phil when I was up there I was told my cousins were plastic scousers?
My friend had said in April he would drive us up there & around to look at houses but now it's April he says he won't leave his car in a secure hotel car park in Liverpool & he lives in Shirley Warren?
I've spoken to scousers who are living here for work reasons,I've looked at the Police website & this city has a far worse crime problem than Liverpool it seems to me comedians & TV shows have persuaded people not to live in Liverpool.
Loosehead
Interested to know what Police website you looked at
Of course Statistics can be interpreted in any number of ways.
However the Police Uk info gives the number of reported crimes in Liverppol City Centre in Feb 2014 as 1,117, compared to 230 in Soton City centre.
To be fair to Liverpool, their city centre attracts a lot more people on average than Soton but the figures show a considerable difference.
The L1 post code recorded the 5th highest crime rate in the country with Birkenhead (not a mecca for night time revellers) in at 13th with 935 recorded offences.
If you look at Merseyside as a whole the crime rate was 0,0089 offences per head of population in February compared to 0.006 in Hampshire.
I have generally felt fairly safe in Liverpool during my visits but you have to be quite selective about where you go and who you mix with
If you look at the police websites .....

http://www.police.uk

/hampshire/1SW01/cri

me/+VpEXX8/

http://www.police.uk

/merseyside/E1/crime

/

and under performance go to COMPARE YOUR AREA you will see that the crime rate per 1000 is the same for both Southampton and Liverpool.
A figure of approx 89 per 1000.

Manchester has a crime rate of 99.01 per 1000, even Lincoln has a crime rate of 103.01 per 1000 and Nottingham has a crime rate of 101.55 per 1000.
Here's a website, Crime rates England & Wales/Crime rates.
I looked on the police figures & was shocked when a city with two universities only had 5 drug arrests yet Liverpool had 89 ? are the police up there doing their job better than our police force I mean Millbrook Green Park estate only 5 drug arrests?
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: And Arizonan watches BBC South so it doesn't take too much of a sleuth to deduce he/she lives in this region but perhaps not in Southampton. I guess the good thing here is, irrespective where the poster lives, is that the Daily Echo gets a significant amount of forum posts which then helps sell advertising. In comparison comments on most Liverpool Echo stories are very limited and the Liverpool Daily Post had to cease publication after many years due to continuing losses[/p][/quote]phil to post a reply on their paper you have to go to facebook.[/p][/quote]Loosehead , you are correct. In order to comment in the Liverpool Echo you have to subscribe to Facebook. I do not however believe in social network sites so I will never under any circumstances join either Facebook or Twitter. Incidentally I do not know where Arizonan lives but I am quite happy to state that I live in Wallasey on the Wirral Peninsular on the opposite side of the River Mersey from Liverpool. Proud to have been born in Liverpool, I will defend my home city when I feel that it is being wrongly represented in your local newspaper.[/p][/quote]The removal of the Comments section in the Liverpool Echo is relatively new. Comments were still be posted on the Liverpool Echo site last month. One I liked was on 10th March by George McIver who suggested it was 'time for another birth' in relation to a cruise specific item. Perhaps he was so excited about the news he intended to increase the population of Liverpool at some stage!! I applaud In Search of the Truth defending the city of his birth (although he is technically now a 'Woolyback' rather than a 'Scouser') However I suggest he has to be selective in his defence of his home city's Council. If he really believes that Liverpool Council were not duplicitous (and worse) in the way they went about obtaining Grant Aid to pay for what should have been a commercially funded operation, then he does a real disservice to the honest and decent people of the city across the water from the Wirrall[/p][/quote]Phil when I was up there I was told my cousins were plastic scousers? My friend had said in April he would drive us up there & around to look at houses but now it's April he says he won't leave his car in a secure hotel car park in Liverpool & he lives in Shirley Warren? I've spoken to scousers who are living here for work reasons,I've looked at the Police website & this city has a far worse crime problem than Liverpool it seems to me comedians & TV shows have persuaded people not to live in Liverpool.[/p][/quote]Loosehead Interested to know what Police website you looked at Of course Statistics can be interpreted in any number of ways. However the Police Uk info gives the number of reported crimes in Liverppol City Centre in Feb 2014 as 1,117, compared to 230 in Soton City centre. To be fair to Liverpool, their city centre attracts a lot more people on average than Soton but the figures show a considerable difference. The L1 post code recorded the 5th highest crime rate in the country with Birkenhead (not a mecca for night time revellers) in at 13th with 935 recorded offences. If you look at Merseyside as a whole the crime rate was 0,0089 offences per head of population in February compared to 0.006 in Hampshire. I have generally felt fairly safe in Liverpool during my visits but you have to be quite selective about where you go and who you mix with[/p][/quote]If you look at the police websites ..... http://www.police.uk /hampshire/1SW01/cri me/+VpEXX8/ http://www.police.uk /merseyside/E1/crime / and under performance go to COMPARE YOUR AREA you will see that the crime rate per 1000 is the same for both Southampton and Liverpool. A figure of approx 89 per 1000. Manchester has a crime rate of 99.01 per 1000, even Lincoln has a crime rate of 103.01 per 1000 and Nottingham has a crime rate of 101.55 per 1000.[/p][/quote]Here's a website, Crime rates England & Wales/Crime rates. I looked on the police figures & was shocked when a city with two universities only had 5 drug arrests yet Liverpool had 89 ? are the police up there doing their job better than our police force I mean Millbrook Green Park estate only 5 drug arrests? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:06am Thu 3 Apr 14

in search of the truth says...

When you take into account the sheer number of events and the number of visitors ( both uk and foreign ) that pack Liverpool throughout the year, Liverpool's crime rate is quite reasonable relative to smaller less vibrant visitor starved towns / cities whose crime rate is of a similar figure.

Today see's the start of the GRAND NATIONAL .

A British sporting institution, the Grand National attracts over 154,000 racegoers for three days, which includes Grand Opening Day, Ladies’ Day and the main event - The Crabbie’s Grand National Day.

Over 13 million viewers tuned in to watch the 2013 race while a sell-out crowd of 70,000 watched 66-1 outsider Auroras Encore make it first past the famous finishing post.

For more details see

http://www.liverpool
echo.co.uk/news/live
rpool-news/80-extra-
trains-100000-more-6
902743
When you take into account the sheer number of events and the number of visitors ( both uk and foreign ) that pack Liverpool throughout the year, Liverpool's crime rate is quite reasonable relative to smaller less vibrant visitor starved towns / cities whose crime rate is of a similar figure. Today see's the start of the GRAND NATIONAL . A British sporting institution, the Grand National attracts over 154,000 racegoers for three days, which includes Grand Opening Day, Ladies’ Day and the main event - The Crabbie’s Grand National Day. Over 13 million viewers tuned in to watch the 2013 race while a sell-out crowd of 70,000 watched 66-1 outsider Auroras Encore make it first past the famous finishing post. For more details see http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/news/live rpool-news/80-extra- trains-100000-more-6 902743 in search of the truth
  • Score: 0

12:02pm Thu 3 Apr 14

loosehead says...

in search of the truth wrote:
When you take into account the sheer number of events and the number of visitors ( both uk and foreign ) that pack Liverpool throughout the year, Liverpool's crime rate is quite reasonable relative to smaller less vibrant visitor starved towns / cities whose crime rate is of a similar figure.

Today see's the start of the GRAND NATIONAL .

A British sporting institution, the Grand National attracts over 154,000 racegoers for three days, which includes Grand Opening Day, Ladies’ Day and the main event - The Crabbie’s Grand National Day.

Over 13 million viewers tuned in to watch the 2013 race while a sell-out crowd of 70,000 watched 66-1 outsider Auroras Encore make it first past the famous finishing post.

For more details see

http://www.liverpool

echo.co.uk/news/live

rpool-news/80-extra-

trains-100000-more-6

902743
Please can you reassure me. my wife & I will be looking up there in the next three weeks to buy a house & I have to take into consideration my wife's safety.
I have looked at many comparison site & the police site,I found the Police site not a true figure of what's actually happening as in my estate it's heaven with low drugs & violence arrests which I know to be false or they just haven't charged anyone.
What would your advice be to any one looking to move to merseyside?
I have cousins up there one family are McManus I have to find out the others names & addresses but please give me some advice Thank You.
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: When you take into account the sheer number of events and the number of visitors ( both uk and foreign ) that pack Liverpool throughout the year, Liverpool's crime rate is quite reasonable relative to smaller less vibrant visitor starved towns / cities whose crime rate is of a similar figure. Today see's the start of the GRAND NATIONAL . A British sporting institution, the Grand National attracts over 154,000 racegoers for three days, which includes Grand Opening Day, Ladies’ Day and the main event - The Crabbie’s Grand National Day. Over 13 million viewers tuned in to watch the 2013 race while a sell-out crowd of 70,000 watched 66-1 outsider Auroras Encore make it first past the famous finishing post. For more details see http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/news/live rpool-news/80-extra- trains-100000-more-6 902743[/p][/quote]Please can you reassure me. my wife & I will be looking up there in the next three weeks to buy a house & I have to take into consideration my wife's safety. I have looked at many comparison site & the police site,I found the Police site not a true figure of what's actually happening as in my estate it's heaven with low drugs & violence arrests which I know to be false or they just haven't charged anyone. What would your advice be to any one looking to move to merseyside? I have cousins up there one family are McManus I have to find out the others names & addresses but please give me some advice Thank You. loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Thu 3 Apr 14

in search of the truth says...

loosehead wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
When you take into account the sheer number of events and the number of visitors ( both uk and foreign ) that pack Liverpool throughout the year, Liverpool's crime rate is quite reasonable relative to smaller less vibrant visitor starved towns / cities whose crime rate is of a similar figure.

Today see's the start of the GRAND NATIONAL .

A British sporting institution, the Grand National attracts over 154,000 racegoers for three days, which includes Grand Opening Day, Ladies’ Day and the main event - The Crabbie’s Grand National Day.

Over 13 million viewers tuned in to watch the 2013 race while a sell-out crowd of 70,000 watched 66-1 outsider Auroras Encore make it first past the famous finishing post.

For more details see

http://www.liverpool


echo.co.uk/news/live


rpool-news/80-extra-


trains-100000-more-6


902743
Please can you reassure me. my wife & I will be looking up there in the next three weeks to buy a house & I have to take into consideration my wife's safety.
I have looked at many comparison site & the police site,I found the Police site not a true figure of what's actually happening as in my estate it's heaven with low drugs & violence arrests which I know to be false or they just haven't charged anyone.
What would your advice be to any one looking to move to merseyside?
I have cousins up there one family are McManus I have to find out the others names & addresses but please give me some advice Thank You.
Loosehead here are some suggestions, however prices can be a lot higher than you might already think.

Woolton
Mossley Hill
Allerton
Gateacre
Childwall
Aigburth
Blundellsands
Crosby
Bowring Park
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: When you take into account the sheer number of events and the number of visitors ( both uk and foreign ) that pack Liverpool throughout the year, Liverpool's crime rate is quite reasonable relative to smaller less vibrant visitor starved towns / cities whose crime rate is of a similar figure. Today see's the start of the GRAND NATIONAL . A British sporting institution, the Grand National attracts over 154,000 racegoers for three days, which includes Grand Opening Day, Ladies’ Day and the main event - The Crabbie’s Grand National Day. Over 13 million viewers tuned in to watch the 2013 race while a sell-out crowd of 70,000 watched 66-1 outsider Auroras Encore make it first past the famous finishing post. For more details see http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/news/live rpool-news/80-extra- trains-100000-more-6 902743[/p][/quote]Please can you reassure me. my wife & I will be looking up there in the next three weeks to buy a house & I have to take into consideration my wife's safety. I have looked at many comparison site & the police site,I found the Police site not a true figure of what's actually happening as in my estate it's heaven with low drugs & violence arrests which I know to be false or they just haven't charged anyone. What would your advice be to any one looking to move to merseyside? I have cousins up there one family are McManus I have to find out the others names & addresses but please give me some advice Thank You.[/p][/quote]Loosehead here are some suggestions, however prices can be a lot higher than you might already think. Woolton Mossley Hill Allerton Gateacre Childwall Aigburth Blundellsands Crosby Bowring Park in search of the truth
  • Score: 0

6:20pm Thu 3 Apr 14

loosehead says...

in search of the truth wrote:
loosehead wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
When you take into account the sheer number of events and the number of visitors ( both uk and foreign ) that pack Liverpool throughout the year, Liverpool's crime rate is quite reasonable relative to smaller less vibrant visitor starved towns / cities whose crime rate is of a similar figure.

Today see's the start of the GRAND NATIONAL .

A British sporting institution, the Grand National attracts over 154,000 racegoers for three days, which includes Grand Opening Day, Ladies’ Day and the main event - The Crabbie’s Grand National Day.

Over 13 million viewers tuned in to watch the 2013 race while a sell-out crowd of 70,000 watched 66-1 outsider Auroras Encore make it first past the famous finishing post.

For more details see

http://www.liverpool



echo.co.uk/news/live



rpool-news/80-extra-



trains-100000-more-6



902743
Please can you reassure me. my wife & I will be looking up there in the next three weeks to buy a house & I have to take into consideration my wife's safety.
I have looked at many comparison site & the police site,I found the Police site not a true figure of what's actually happening as in my estate it's heaven with low drugs & violence arrests which I know to be false or they just haven't charged anyone.
What would your advice be to any one looking to move to merseyside?
I have cousins up there one family are McManus I have to find out the others names & addresses but please give me some advice Thank You.
Loosehead here are some suggestions, however prices can be a lot higher than you might already think.

Woolton
Mossley Hill
Allerton
Gateacre
Childwall
Aigburth
Blundellsands
Crosby
Bowring Park
what about Bootle,Huyton,Clubmo
or,Birkenhead & Wallasey?
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: When you take into account the sheer number of events and the number of visitors ( both uk and foreign ) that pack Liverpool throughout the year, Liverpool's crime rate is quite reasonable relative to smaller less vibrant visitor starved towns / cities whose crime rate is of a similar figure. Today see's the start of the GRAND NATIONAL . A British sporting institution, the Grand National attracts over 154,000 racegoers for three days, which includes Grand Opening Day, Ladies’ Day and the main event - The Crabbie’s Grand National Day. Over 13 million viewers tuned in to watch the 2013 race while a sell-out crowd of 70,000 watched 66-1 outsider Auroras Encore make it first past the famous finishing post. For more details see http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/news/live rpool-news/80-extra- trains-100000-more-6 902743[/p][/quote]Please can you reassure me. my wife & I will be looking up there in the next three weeks to buy a house & I have to take into consideration my wife's safety. I have looked at many comparison site & the police site,I found the Police site not a true figure of what's actually happening as in my estate it's heaven with low drugs & violence arrests which I know to be false or they just haven't charged anyone. What would your advice be to any one looking to move to merseyside? I have cousins up there one family are McManus I have to find out the others names & addresses but please give me some advice Thank You.[/p][/quote]Loosehead here are some suggestions, however prices can be a lot higher than you might already think. Woolton Mossley Hill Allerton Gateacre Childwall Aigburth Blundellsands Crosby Bowring Park[/p][/quote]what about Bootle,Huyton,Clubmo or,Birkenhead & Wallasey? loosehead
  • Score: 0

7:34pm Thu 3 Apr 14

in search of the truth says...

loosehead wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
loosehead wrote:
in search of the truth wrote:
When you take into account the sheer number of events and the number of visitors ( both uk and foreign ) that pack Liverpool throughout the year, Liverpool's crime rate is quite reasonable relative to smaller less vibrant visitor starved towns / cities whose crime rate is of a similar figure.

Today see's the start of the GRAND NATIONAL .

A British sporting institution, the Grand National attracts over 154,000 racegoers for three days, which includes Grand Opening Day, Ladies’ Day and the main event - The Crabbie’s Grand National Day.

Over 13 million viewers tuned in to watch the 2013 race while a sell-out crowd of 70,000 watched 66-1 outsider Auroras Encore make it first past the famous finishing post.

For more details see

http://www.liverpool




echo.co.uk/news/live




rpool-news/80-extra-




trains-100000-more-6




902743
Please can you reassure me. my wife & I will be looking up there in the next three weeks to buy a house & I have to take into consideration my wife's safety.
I have looked at many comparison site & the police site,I found the Police site not a true figure of what's actually happening as in my estate it's heaven with low drugs & violence arrests which I know to be false or they just haven't charged anyone.
What would your advice be to any one looking to move to merseyside?
I have cousins up there one family are McManus I have to find out the others names & addresses but please give me some advice Thank You.
Loosehead here are some suggestions, however prices can be a lot higher than you might already think.

Woolton
Mossley Hill
Allerton
Gateacre
Childwall
Aigburth
Blundellsands
Crosby
Bowring Park
what about Bootle,Huyton,Clubmo

or,Birkenhead & Wallasey?
Don't really know Bootle . Parts of Huyton around Archway Road are alright.
I wouldn't really recommend Clubmoor or Central or Northern Birkenhead, though Claughton , Oxton and Upton are good.
New Brighton is quite nice and has a lovely sandy beach ( until 1919 it had a tower higher than Blackpool tower ), Wallasey Village is a very nice area as well.
Why don't you go on Google Earth and use Street View, it is almost as good as being there and walking down the street.
Good Luck.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: When you take into account the sheer number of events and the number of visitors ( both uk and foreign ) that pack Liverpool throughout the year, Liverpool's crime rate is quite reasonable relative to smaller less vibrant visitor starved towns / cities whose crime rate is of a similar figure. Today see's the start of the GRAND NATIONAL . A British sporting institution, the Grand National attracts over 154,000 racegoers for three days, which includes Grand Opening Day, Ladies’ Day and the main event - The Crabbie’s Grand National Day. Over 13 million viewers tuned in to watch the 2013 race while a sell-out crowd of 70,000 watched 66-1 outsider Auroras Encore make it first past the famous finishing post. For more details see http://www.liverpool echo.co.uk/news/live rpool-news/80-extra- trains-100000-more-6 902743[/p][/quote]Please can you reassure me. my wife & I will be looking up there in the next three weeks to buy a house & I have to take into consideration my wife's safety. I have looked at many comparison site & the police site,I found the Police site not a true figure of what's actually happening as in my estate it's heaven with low drugs & violence arrests which I know to be false or they just haven't charged anyone. What would your advice be to any one looking to move to merseyside? I have cousins up there one family are McManus I have to find out the others names & addresses but please give me some advice Thank You.[/p][/quote]Loosehead here are some suggestions, however prices can be a lot higher than you might already think. Woolton Mossley Hill Allerton Gateacre Childwall Aigburth Blundellsands Crosby Bowring Park[/p][/quote]what about Bootle,Huyton,Clubmo or,Birkenhead & Wallasey?[/p][/quote]Don't really know Bootle . Parts of Huyton around Archway Road are alright. I wouldn't really recommend Clubmoor or Central or Northern Birkenhead, though Claughton , Oxton and Upton are good. New Brighton is quite nice and has a lovely sandy beach ( until 1919 it had a tower higher than Blackpool tower ), Wallasey Village is a very nice area as well. Why don't you go on Google Earth and use Street View, it is almost as good as being there and walking down the street. Good Luck. in search of the truth
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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