|
London Assembly report on Match Day Travel to Spurs etc.
http://www.hornseyjournal.co.uk/cont...A36%3A27%3A240
quote Fans plead for Tube extension to stop Spurs moving home 31 October 2007 SPURS fans have issued a fresh call for the Victoria Line service to be extended to Northumberland Park. Some believe it would help keep the football club at White Hart Lane amid continuing speculation it is eyeing a move to a new, larger- capacity stadium and also help regenerate one of London's most deprived wards. Justin Hinchcliffe, chairman of Tottenham Conservatives and a Spurs fan, said: "Not only is Spurs a much-loved local club, it's a major employer in the area. Spurs may stay if their fans can easily get to the stadium on match days." He added: "We're calling on Mayor Livingstone to give the green light to expand the Victoria Line to Northumberland Park, which Spurs and local residents would really welcome." The call comes hot on the heels of a London Assembly transport committee report into transport to and from sports grounds, which described the stadium as "poorly served" by rail and underground services compared to other grounds. See: http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/re...rts_travel.pdf The committee has asked London Underground to draw up a business case on extending the line. Tottenham Hotspur Supporters Trust, which contributed to the committee's report, has backed the calls as it braces itself for the introduction of council parking restrictions around the ground from January. Bernie Kingsley, trust board member, said: "We made the case very strongly that the Victoria Line should be extended to Northumberland Park. "The tracks are already there; basically, all they need to do is put a platform there so people could get on and off. In term so of the CPZ that is exactly what should be done." A Transport for London spokesman said: "London Underground (LU) has examined the possibility of extending the Victoria line to Northumberland Park, and this has proved not to be a viable option. The only viable location for a station at Northumberland Park is to the east of the WAGN tracks, which would mean that either large crowds would be using the level crossing or existing narrow footbridge, or that a new footbridge would have to be constructed at great expense. We will continue to work with the club to look at how supporters can best travel to games. unquote |
London Assembly report on Match Day Travel to Spurs etc.
In article . com,
(Mwmbwls) wrote: http://www.hornseyjournal.co.uk/cont...nal/news/story ..aspx?brand=HCEJOnline&category=news&tBrand=north london24&tCategory=newshc ej&itemid=WeED31%20Oct%202007%2011%3A36%3A27%3A24 0 - or http://snurl.com/1t5vu quote Fans plead for Tube extension to stop Spurs moving home 31 October 2007 SPURS fans have issued a fresh call for the Victoria Line service to be extended to Northumberland Park. Some believe it would help keep the football club at White Hart Lane amid continuing speculation it is eyeing a move to a new, larger- capacity stadium and also help regenerate one of London's most deprived wards. Justin Hinchcliffe, chairman of Tottenham Conservatives and a Spurs fan, said: "Not only is Spurs a much-loved local club, it's a major employer in the area. Spurs may stay if their fans can easily get to the stadium on match days." He added: "We're calling on Mayor Livingstone to give the green light to expand the Victoria Line to Northumberland Park, which Spurs and local residents would really welcome." The call comes hot on the heels of a London Assembly transport committee report into transport to and from sports grounds, which described the stadium as "poorly served" by rail and underground services compared to other grounds. See: http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/re...rts_travel.pdf The committee has asked London Underground to draw up a business case on extending the line. Tottenham Hotspur Supporters Trust, which contributed to the committee's report, has backed the calls as it braces itself for the introduction of council parking restrictions around the ground from January. Bernie Kingsley, trust board member, said: "We made the case very strongly that the Victoria Line should be extended to Northumberland Park. "The tracks are already there; basically, all they need to do is put a platform there so people could get on and off. In term so of the CPZ that is exactly what should be done." A Transport for London spokesman said: "London Underground (LU) has examined the possibility of extending the Victoria line to Northumberland Park, and this has proved not to be a viable option. The only viable location for a station at Northumberland Park is to the east of the WAGN tracks, which would mean that either large crowds would be using the level crossing or existing narrow footbridge, or that a new footbridge would have to be constructed at great expense. We will continue to work with the club to look at how supporters can best travel to games. unquote Good grief! If Justin Hinchcliffe is their best spokesman then Spurs are doomed! -- Colin Rosenstiel |
London Assembly report on Match Day Travel to Spurs etc.
Mwmbwls wrote:
http://www.hornseyjournal.co.uk/cont...A36%3A27%3A240 quote Fans plead for Tube extension to stop Spurs moving home 31 October 2007 SPURS fans have issued a fresh call for the Victoria Line service to be extended to Northumberland Park. Some believe it would help keep the football club at White Hart Lane amid continuing speculation it is eyeing a move to a new, larger- capacity stadium and also help regenerate one of London's most deprived wards. Justin Hinchcliffe, chairman of Tottenham Conservatives and a Spurs fan, said: "Not only is Spurs a much-loved local club, it's a major employer in the area. Spurs may stay if their fans can easily get to the stadium on match days." He added: "We're calling on Mayor Livingstone to give the green light to expand the Victoria Line to Northumberland Park, which Spurs and local residents would really welcome." The call comes hot on the heels of a London Assembly transport committee report into transport to and from sports grounds, which described the stadium as "poorly served" by rail and underground services compared to other grounds. See: http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/re...rts_travel.pdf The committee has asked London Underground to draw up a business case on extending the line. Tottenham Hotspur Supporters Trust, which contributed to the committee's report, has backed the calls as it braces itself for the introduction of council parking restrictions around the ground from January. Bernie Kingsley, trust board member, said: "We made the case very strongly that the Victoria Line should be extended to Northumberland Park. "The tracks are already there; basically, all they need to do is put a platform there so people could get on and off. In term so of the CPZ that is exactly what should be done." A Transport for London spokesman said: "London Underground (LU) has examined the possibility of extending the Victoria line to Northumberland Park, and this has proved not to be a viable option. The only viable location for a station at Northumberland Park is to the east of the WAGN tracks, which would mean that either large crowds would be using the level crossing or existing narrow footbridge, or that a new footbridge would have to be constructed at great expense. We will continue to work with the club to look at how supporters can best travel to games. unquote Since Spurs are looking to enlarge their ground anyway, a new Ashburton Grove-sized stadium would just about fit on the allotments and bus depot at Marsh Lane. Call the new stadium Northumberland Park, so that everyone knows which mainline station and tube station are best. The new tube station, the A1055 and the stadium would all be on the same side of the railway. |
London Assembly report on Match Day Travel to Spurs etc.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Mwmbwls quoted:
A Transport for London spokesman said: "London Underground (LU) has examined the possibility of extending the Victoria line to Northumberland Park, and this has proved not to be a viable option. The only viable location for a station at Northumberland Park is to the east of the WAGN tracks, which would mean that either large crowds would be using the level crossing or existing narrow footbridge, or that a new footbridge would have to be constructed at great expense. How great an expense could a new footbridge possibly be? Are TfL assuming they'd be paying for it? How much dough could be extracted from Spurs? If it meant they could stay where they were rather than moving to a whole new site, surely they'd be willing to pay quite a bit for it? How would a Northumberland Park spur (excuse the pun) affect Vic operations? The junction is between Seven Sisters and Tottenham Hale, right? Would this mean diverting trains away from Tottenham and Walthamstow? Or are there enough Seven Sisters reversers to cover the branch, in terms of paths? Could you run Seven Sisters - Northumberland Park shuttles? Either way, you'd need more trains, right? Is the junction flat or graded? Are there two tubes to the depot, or one? tom -- First man to add a mixer get a shoeing! -- The Laird |
London Assembly report on Match Day Travel to Spurs etc.
"Mwmbwls" wrote in message ups.com... Some believe it would help keep the football club at White Hart Lane amid continuing speculation it is eyeing a move to a new, larger- capacity stadium and also help regenerate one of London's most deprived wards. Justin Hinchcliffe, chairman of Tottenham Conservatives and a Spurs fan, said: "Not only is Spurs a much-loved local club, it's a major employer in the area. Spurs may stay if their fans can easily get to the stadium on match days." Typical overprivileged nitpicking Spurs fans - don't know they're born. White Hart Lane station is not far from the Stadium, and there are another three or four rail and tube stations within feasible walking distance. Try going somewhere like Stoke or Coventry or Shrewsbury, where the ground is miles away from any kind of railway service, on a regular basis. BTN |
London Assembly report on Match Day Travel to Spurs etc.
|
London Assembly report on Match Day Travel to Spurs etc.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Sir Benjamin Nunn wrote:
"Mwmbwls" wrote in message ups.com... Justin Hinchcliffe, chairman of Tottenham Conservatives and a Spurs fan, said: "Not only is Spurs a much-loved local club, it's a major employer in the area. Spurs may stay if their fans can easily get to the stadium on match days." Typical overprivileged nitpicking Spurs fans - don't know they're born. White Hart Lane station is not far from the Stadium, and there are another three or four rail and tube stations within feasible walking distance. Try going somewhere like Stoke or Coventry or Shrewsbury, where the ground is miles away from any kind of railway service, on a regular basis. But somewhere with rather more parking? tom -- 102 FX 6 (goblins) |
London Assembly report on Match Day Travel to Spurs etc.
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message . li... On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Mwmbwls quoted: A Transport for London spokesman said: "London Underground (LU) has examined the possibility of extending the Victoria line to Northumberland Park, and this has proved not to be a viable option. The only viable location for a station at Northumberland Park is to the east of the WAGN tracks, which would mean that either large crowds would be using the level crossing or existing narrow footbridge, or that a new footbridge would have to be constructed at great expense. How great an expense could a new footbridge possibly be? Are TfL assuming they'd be paying for it? How much dough could be extracted from Spurs? If it meant they could stay where they were rather than moving to a whole new site, surely they'd be willing to pay quite a bit for it? I have no idea why Spurs want to move, but I would doubt that 'insufficient transport links' is the reason. tim |
London Assembly report on Match Day Travel to Spurs etc.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:51:26 -0000, "tim....."
wrote: "Tom Anderson" wrote in message .li... On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Mwmbwls quoted: A Transport for London spokesman said: "London Underground (LU) has examined the possibility of extending the Victoria line to Northumberland Park, and this has proved not to be a viable option. The only viable location for a station at Northumberland Park is to the east of the WAGN tracks, which would mean that either large crowds would be using the level crossing or existing narrow footbridge, or that a new footbridge would have to be constructed at great expense. How great an expense could a new footbridge possibly be? Are TfL assuming they'd be paying for it? How much dough could be extracted from Spurs? If it meant they could stay where they were rather than moving to a whole new site, surely they'd be willing to pay quite a bit for it? I have no idea why Spurs want to move, but I would doubt that 'insufficient transport links' is the reason. I suspect that the capacity being only 36k would be the reason. |
London Assembly report on Match Day Travel to Spurs etc.
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message h.li... On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Sir Benjamin Nunn wrote: "Mwmbwls" wrote in message ups.com... Justin Hinchcliffe, chairman of Tottenham Conservatives and a Spurs fan, said: "Not only is Spurs a much-loved local club, it's a major employer in the area. Spurs may stay if their fans can easily get to the stadium on match days." Typical overprivileged nitpicking Spurs fans - don't know they're born. White Hart Lane station is not far from the Stadium, and there are another three or four rail and tube stations within feasible walking distance. Try going somewhere like Stoke or Coventry or Shrewsbury, where the ground is miles away from any kind of railway service, on a regular basis. But somewhere with rather more parking? Which is the point. It isn't the fans who want improved PT to the ground so that they don't have to drive there. It's the LA that has to build the roads to deal with all this extra traffic. tim |
London Assembly report on Match Day Travel to Spurs etc.
In message , James Farrar
writes On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:51:26 -0000, "tim....." wrote: I have no idea why Spurs want to move, but I would doubt that 'insufficient transport links' is the reason. I suspect that the capacity being only 36k would be the reason. Well, there's an 80,000-seater stadium going begging in 2012 ... but, of course, the planned reduction in size of the Olympic stadium after the games means it will then be too small for either Spurs or West Ham. I wonder why they didn't design it so that, when reduced in size, it was actually suitable for a premier-league club looking for a new ground? -- Paul Terry |
London Assembly report on Match Day Travel to Spurs etc.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 18:15:32 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote: In message , James Farrar writes On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:51:26 -0000, "tim....." wrote: I have no idea why Spurs want to move, but I would doubt that 'insufficient transport links' is the reason. I suspect that the capacity being only 36k would be the reason. Well, there's an 80,000-seater stadium going begging in 2012 ... but, of course, the planned reduction in size of the Olympic stadium after the games means it will then be too small for either Spurs or West Ham. I wonder why they didn't design it so that, when reduced in size, it was actually suitable for a premier-league club looking for a new ground? I suspect they wanted to avoid the football-or-athletics arguments which delayed the new Wembley for about five years and tripled its cost... |
London Assembly report on Match Day Travel to Spurs etc.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , James Farrar writes On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 17:51:26 -0000, "tim....." wrote: I have no idea why Spurs want to move, but I would doubt that 'insufficient transport links' is the reason. I suspect that the capacity being only 36k would be the reason. Well, there's an 80,000-seater stadium going begging in 2012 ... but, of course, the planned reduction in size of the Olympic stadium after the games means it will then be too small for either Spurs or West Ham. I wonder why they didn't design it so that, when reduced in size, it was actually suitable for a premier-league club looking for a new ground? ISTR they tried that, but they needed a club to sign up to take it before it was built, and none of them did. Can't cite source on that, though. tom -- We start here and head south. |
London Assembly report on Match Day Travel to Spurs etc.
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, John Rowland wrote:
Mwmbwls wrote: A Transport for London spokesman said: "London Underground (LU) has examined the possibility of extending the Victoria line to Northumberland Park, and this has proved not to be a viable option. The only viable location for a station at Northumberland Park is to the east of the WAGN tracks, which would mean that either large crowds would be using the level crossing or existing narrow footbridge, or that a new footbridge would have to be constructed at great expense. We will continue to work with the club to look at how supporters can best travel to games. Since Spurs are looking to enlarge their ground anyway, a new Ashburton Grove-sized stadium would just about fit on the allotments and bus depot at Marsh Lane. Call the new stadium Northumberland Park, so that everyone knows which mainline station and tube station are best. The new tube station, the A1055 and the stadium would all be on the same side of the railway. They'd still have to traverse the footbridge or level crossing to get from the NR down platform to the stadium, though, so we're back to square one! :) tom -- We start here and head south. |
London Assembly report on Match Day Travel to Spurs etc.
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message h.li... Try going somewhere like Stoke or Coventry or Shrewsbury, where the ground is miles away from any kind of railway service, on a regular basis. But somewhere with rather more parking? Not at the Ricoh there isn't! BTN |
London Assembly report on Match Day Travel to Spurs etc.
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Sir Benjamin Nunn wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message h.li... Try going somewhere like Stoke or Coventry or Shrewsbury, where the ground is miles away from any kind of railway service, on a regular basis. But somewhere with rather more parking? Not at the Ricoh there isn't! Is that a fax? Well, what do you expect from a copycat outfit like that .... tom -- But for [Flavor Flav's] "YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAH BOYYYYYYYYYY"s alone he should be given Rap Legend status. -- Nate Patrin, ILX |
London Assembly report on Match Day Travel to Spurs etc.
On Nov 5, 12:44 pm, Mwmbwls wrote:
http://www.hornseyjournal.co.uk/cont...yjournal/news/... Bernie Kingsley, trust board member, said: "We made the case very strongly that the Victoria Line should be extended to Northumberland Park. "The tracks are already there; basically, all they need to do is put a platform there so people could get on and off. In term so of the CPZ that is exactly what should be done." A Transport for London spokesman said: "London Underground (LU) has examined the possibility of extending the Victoria line to Northumberland Park, and this has proved not to be a viable option. The only viable location for a station at Northumberland Park is to the east of the WAGN tracks, which would mean that either large crowds would be using the level crossing or existing narrow footbridge, or that a new footbridge would have to be constructed at great expense. We will continue to work with the club to look at how supporters can best travel to games. The major problem with extending the Victoria Line to Northumberland Park is that it would appear to need to occupy the same ground that is being looked at for the quadrupling of the line from Coppermill Junction to Broxbourne as part of the proposed expansion of Stansted Airport. The following quotations include London TravelWatch's response to the BAA and two concerning the relocation of Spurs. Perhaps in the end scrapping the runnig track at Stratford - especially if the Olympics cost look like over running may well be the best option. http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/document/2762/get Extract from London TravelWatch Response to BAA Stansted Expansion Consultation 1st May 2005 Quote (a) Rail Strategy. Currently 62% of all airport users from central and inner London use the rail network to access the airport. By 2030 it is estimated that substantial additional capacity will be required between Stansted and Central London, and Stansted and Cambridge to meet demand from both airport passengers and the projected growth area on this corridor. The High Level Option Assessment concluded that these two corridors were those most likely to be viable for rail operation, and requiring additional capacity. It therefore recommended that proposals for new lines between Stansted and Chelmsford, Cambridge and Oxford, and Stansted and Braintree, should not be pursued as relevant to this planning application. The High Level Option Assessment looked also at various options for increasing capacity between Stansted Airport and Central London including options for making best use of existing infrastructure, enhanced train capacity (double deck or longer trains), a new station at Stansted West, various loop and new lines from the West Anglia Main Line, alternative London terminals, on line enhancements, new lines from Harlow to Stansted, Chingford to Stansted and an extension of the Central Line from Epping to Stansted. Of these only the on line enhancement scheme was able to accommodate all of the objectives of meeting airport and regional demands, and being affordable and deliverable, with limited environmental impact and having minimal detriment to existing users. This is being recommended for further work alongside proposals for longer trains and making best use of the existing network. BAA acknowledges that in pursuing these options it will be necessary add two additional tracks between Broxbourne Junction (Broxbourne) and Copper Mill Junction (Tottenham Hale) and to provide a second tunnelinto Stansted Airport itself. (There is recognition also that with the additional tracks between Broxbourne and Tottenham Hale that the provision of level crossings needs to be reviewed and this could have significant implications for pedestrian access to stations and to the provision of local bus services, including those within the London TravelWatch remit). In addition it is recognised that additional capacity is required on the Stansted Airport - Cambridge - Birmingham service is required, and this would be achieved by lengthening all trains to 3 car operation (Network Rail's draft Greater Anglia Route Utilisation Strategy also highlights the need for increased capacity on this service elsewhere). The Rail Strategy needs to be read alongside Network Rail's Draft Greater Anglia Route Utilisation Strategy and Transport for London's Rail 2025 strategy. Both these documents and processes are acknowledged within the BAA submission and there has been much collaborative working in this area between BAA, TfL and Network Rail. The proposals by BAA do not conflict with the options recommended for development in the Draft Greater Anglia Route Utilisation Strategy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/low/foo...r/6056714..stm Quote Monday, 16 October 2006, 17:50 GMT 18:50 UK Spurs rule out 2012 stadium move Tottenham say they are no longer interested in a switch to the 2012 Olympic Stadium because of plans to retain a running track at the venue. Chairman Daniel Levy hinted last year he may bid to take Spurs to the new 80,000 stadium once the Games are over. But sporting director Damien Comolli revealed: "There is no way we are looking to move there. "All grounds with a track have a poor atmosphere, attendances are down and clubs say moving there was a mistake." Monday, 5 November 2007, 23:32 GMT Unquote http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle2821147.ece Quote November 7, 2007 Spurs consider groundshare in talks about stadium plans Gary Jacob Nearly 30 years ago Tottenham Hotspur looked to take a radical step when they discussed a groundshare with Arsenal at Alexandra Palace in North London, but now they are playing catchup with their local rivals. While Tottenham's search for a new stadium continues, Arsenal are in their second season at the Emirates Stadium, Manchester City have moved into a new facility, Old Trafford has been increased to hold 76,000 and Liverpool were given the go-ahead yesterday to build a £400 million stadium. Even West Ham United are pressing ahead with leaving Upton Park, a stadium that Tottenham supporters will be alarmed to hear they could be temporarily calling home after the club held a meeting with their rivals about a groundshare. Daniel Levy, the Tottenham chairman, has promised a decision on the future of White Hart Lane, which has a capacity of about 36,000, for early next year. He has asked architects to draw up plans for a new 50,000-seat stadium on the site, extending it to the Tottenham High Road, but the club are also considering three sites in the boroughs of Enfield and Haringey. Each option has significant obstacles. Tottenham have bought all but three properties around their stadium, but its redevelopment would require a significant improvement in the transport links. Severe traffic congestion makes driving to games an arduous task and Seven Sisters, the local Underground station, is too far from the stadium. Despite pressure from Tottenham, Haringey Council and Transport for London are unwilling to pay for the £80 million cost of extending the Victoria Line to Northumberland Park, which is 500 yards from the ground and where tracks exist. Rebuilding White Hart Lane would also require playing at another stadium for about two years. Wembley has been ruled out, because it has a licence for about 35 events a year, and Upton Park will not go down well. Levy is conscious that Arsenal's proximity to a train station and Central London means that they are able to attract a corporate audience, which has led the Tottenham chairman to consider sites near Tottenham Hale Underground station and Edmonton, in the Lee Valley. They are not without problems, because the club would need to buy land, which, as Arsenal found, can stir local opposition into trying to prevent the project. The cost of a new ground could be about £300 million, most of which will need to be borrowed. Arsenal were fortunate that Highbury is worth about £100 million as a residential development, but White Hart Lane would probably fetch half that, because it is in a less desirable area. The problem for Enic, Tottenham's largest shareholder, is that few people will be willing to buy the club while these uncertainties exist. Unquote |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk