Jump to content

Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, John Wright said:

Fully agree, Liverpool has never made sense. However it’s not fast craft specific. It’s built for Ben and Ben replacements. We, hopefully, won’t have a fast raft by end of the decade. Just two new builds and the Ben as backup.

 

But at least a Fast Raft should be able to get in and out of Douglas Harbour without the need for dredging!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I proposed this in March last as the pandemic took hold. Close the project and take the hit on the expenditure so far. It was never the right thing to do, and Covid was the perfect face saving excuse

Is it fair to conclude that the taxpayer has been massively misled with this, and there has been no subsequent accountability in respect of the mounting costs of this project.  Running costs are

It really is mind blowing incompetence and seemingly no responsibility for the overspends and what the tax payer is left to fund. I asked on facebook maybe 8 years ago in a open question could anyone

Posted Images

15 hours ago, Max Power said:

What the absolute FCUK...

When did we get from 'no cost to the public purse' to this?

Image

Could you post the full answer  as I find it confusing or is this the full answer

or post a link to where it is as I can't find it in Hansard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Holte End said:

Could you post the full answer  as I find it confusing or is this the full answer

or post a link to where it is as I can't find it in Hansard.

Apparently it's something Jason Moorhouse posted on Facebook, I'll see what I can find out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Apparently it's something Jason Moorhouse posted on Facebook, I'll see what I can find out. 

There seems to be an interesting story here.  It started with a Written Question asked by Barber in the Keys on 2 March:

What green energy solutions were considered for the 10 largest approved Government infrastructure building projects in each year since 2016, broken down by (a) options considered and (b) options agreed for inclusion?

Harmer replied: The Answer to the above Question will take some time to calculate as it will require an assessment of over 50 infrastructure projects across the various Government Departments. I have therefore been unable to obtain the information needed in time for this sitting and expect to have this Answer to you by Wednesday, 10th March.

But as far as I can tell no such answer has been published - normally it should appear as a Hansard Appendix, but instead they seem to have tried their old trick of just informing a few select politicians behind the scenes.

You'll also notice that, according to that screenshot, they haven't even answered the question Barber asked.  She asked for the ten largest per year, not the ten largest in the whole period.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Max Power said:

I don't think there's anyone capable of cutting a sensible deal in the whole of IoM Govt. I can imagine the conversations....

IoM: Hi, just calling to see how things are going with the new ferry terminal?

L/pool: It's going well la, although it's gonna cost a bit more again like.

IoM: Oh no, well do the best you can mate, people are starting to ask questions.

L/pool: Will do la, you can trust us y'know.

 

Don't worry Max, the new Manx Development Corporation will be here soon to save us all.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

There seems to be an interesting story here.  It started with a Written Question asked by Barber in the Keys on 2 March:

What green energy solutions were considered for the 10 largest approved Government infrastructure building projects in each year since 2016, broken down by (a) options considered and (b) options agreed for inclusion?

Harmer replied: The Answer to the above Question will take some time to calculate as it will require an assessment of over 50 infrastructure projects across the various Government Departments. I have therefore been unable to obtain the information needed in time for this sitting and expect to have this Answer to you by Wednesday, 10th March.

But as far as I can tell no such answer has been published - normally it should appear as a Hansard Appendix, but instead they seem to have tried their old trick of just informing a few select politicians behind the scenes.

You'll also notice that, according to that screenshot, they haven't even answered the question Barber asked.  She asked for the ten largest per year, not the ten largest in the whole period.

There's a fair bit on twitter, KLB and TAH have posted about it if you're interested enough to go looking

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, John Wright said:

Fully agree, Liverpool has never made sense. However it’s not fast craft specific. It’s built for Ben and Ben replacements. We, hopefully, won’t have a fast craft by end of the decade. Just two new builds and the Ben as backup.

£5 million on Heysham would have been more than adequate

John I must disagree. Liverpool has always made sense. The majority of those traveling from the IoM to the UK will be traveling south of Liverpool or certainly Heysham. You can arrive in the middle of Liverpool and have a city break. Not sure Heysham does that for me.
Without a car you end up in Heysham, a port in the arse end of nowhere with terrible public transport connectivity. With a car you are normally faced with an extra sixty miles travel to where you want to go.

Heysham, great if you want to spend time in the Lake District or go up to Scotland but otherwise no thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

John I must disagree. Liverpool has always made sense. The majority of those traveling from the IoM to the UK will be traveling south of Liverpool or certainly Heysham. You can arrive in the middle of Liverpool and have a city break. Not sure Heysham does that for me.
Without a car you end up in Heysham, a port in the arse end of nowhere with terrible public transport connectivity. With a car you are normally faced with an extra sixty miles travel to where you want to go.

Heysham, great if you want to spend time in the Lake District or go up to Scotland but otherwise no thanks

Heysham is fine with a car.  The new road set up has you on the M6 in about 15 minutes.  60 miles is really nothing to worry about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

John I must disagree. Liverpool has always made sense. The majority of those traveling from the IoM to the UK will be traveling south of Liverpool or certainly Heysham. You can arrive in the middle of Liverpool and have a city break. Not sure Heysham does that for me.
Without a car you end up in Heysham, a port in the arse end of nowhere with terrible public transport connectivity. With a car you are normally faced with an extra sixty miles travel to where you want to go.

Heysham, great if you want to spend time in the Lake District or go up to Scotland but otherwise no thanks

Not really. By the time you’ve got out of Liverpool and got onto the M6 you are within 15 minutes, perhaps less, difference in time going south than if you’d gone to Heysham, especially now with the Bay Gateway. Time to Manchester or East to Yorkshire and Hull or North or east England is less. London South and SouthWest are 10 minutes more. But the driving is easier as you don’t have to do the drive out of Liverpool.

Agree Heysham isn’t a destination in itself or for foot passengers. If you want a Liverpool. City break then fly. The cost of parking in city centres is prohibitive.

Heysham to Fernhead ( M62/M6 junction)  is 55 miles. Pierhead is 35 miles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Not really. By the time you’ve got out of Liverpool and got onto the M6 you are within 15 minutes, perhaps less, difference in time going south than if you’d gone to Heysham, especially now with the Bay Gateway. Time to Manchester or East to Yorkshire and Hull or North or east England is less. London South and SouthWest are 10 minutes more. But the driving is easier as you don’t have to do the drive out of Liverpool.

Agree Heysham isn’t a destination in itself or for foot passengers. If you want a Liverpool. City break then fly. The cost of parking in city centres is prohibitive.

Heysham to Fernhead ( M62/M6 junction)  is 55 miles. Pierhead is 35 miles.

The drive out of Liverpool has never presented a problem to me.

” If you want a Liverpool city break then fly” Does sound a bit like “ let them eat cake”. If you arrive in the city centre by boat you don’t need to pay prohibitive parking costs. You can walk or get a taxi to your city centre hotel. Although I do appreciate that may cause issues for people with mobility issues but most places do.
 

I would take Liverpool over Heysham any day but maybe that’s just bad memories. I recall one time (as a foot passenger) the boat from Heysham was going to be delayed by many hours. The IOMSPCO said it would provide coaches to Morecambe but people would have to make their own way back to the terminal for when the boat would sail in the wee small hours. There was a revolt amongst the passengers and they eventually agreed to put a coach on from Morecambe train station.This was many years ago but it has really colored my judgement.

Besides the journey to Liverpool is at least an hour shorter than to Heysham so you need to factor that in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, asitis said:

I'm sure Liverpool did make sense, at a price, I cannot see that the decisions were made with this price in mind though. 

 

The initial assurance was that there was no cost to the IoM taxpayer. Then it was £3M and via increments to £15M and then further on up to, "We are where we are".

There have been reports of extra expenses for previously unforeseen dredging requirements and clearance of contaminated ground of the purchased site.

This looks like another long haul that will "cost what it costs".

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...