Jump to content

Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock


Non-Believer
 Share

Recommended Posts

I cannot support the costs etc re Liverpool Dock and the fact they seem to be out of control. If there is a matter that the PAC should be looking at urgently it is this rather than Watterson's request for a Covid enquiry which just seems to be a bit of populism. 

Having said that long term we do need to need to secure a decent ferry terminal somewhere and a decision has to be made what we want. Do we want a ferry service that basically just caters for freight and people travelling in cars or do we want a ferry service that is generally attractive to the whole of the population and for weekend breaks?

If the latter then Liverpool is the only real option as far as I can see. If the former then there is much wider choice of options. Heysham is reasonable close but it has a tendency to silt up and has limited access at low tides. The entrance is narrow so sailings are cancelled as boats are not allowed in even though they can sail. Birkenhead and or Hollyhead might be better options for all year round use but the crossing is longer etc.

I remain in favour of the IoM having its own terminal on the Mersey. It is a question of where and at what cost as I doubt anybody would sell or enter into a long lease cheaply.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

I cannot support the costs etc re Liverpool Dock and the fact they seem to be out of control. If there is a matter that the PAC should be looking at urgently it is this rather than Watterson's request for a Covid enquiry which just seems to be a bit of populism. 

Having said that long term we do need to need to secure a decent ferry terminal somewhere and a decision has to be made what we want. Do we want a ferry service that basically just caters for freight and people travelling in cars or do we want a ferry service that is generally attractive to the whole of the population and for weekend breaks?

If the latter then Liverpool is the only real option as far as I can see. If the former then there is much wider choice of options. Heysham is reasonable close but it has a tendency to silt up and has limited access at low tides. The entrance is narrow so sailings are cancelled as boats are not allowed in even though they can sail. Birkenhead and or Hollyhead might be better options for all year round use but the crossing is longer etc.

I remain in favour of the IoM having its own terminal on the Mersey. It is a question of where and at what cost as I doubt anybody would sell or enter into a long lease cheaply.  

I think its a bit late for that:sweat:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, James Blonde said:

Just grass it over and walk away. 

it would be nice, and it might be the lowest cost option in the long run.

It would still be a very high cost option though and result in nothing gained at all.....well apart from a grassed area of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

I cannot support the costs etc re Liverpool Dock and the fact they seem to be out of control. If there is a matter that the PAC should be looking at urgently it is this rather than Watterson's request for a Covid enquiry which just seems to be a bit of populism. 

Having said that long term we do need to need to secure a decent ferry terminal somewhere and a decision has to be made what we want. Do we want a ferry service that basically just caters for freight and people travelling in cars or do we want a ferry service that is generally attractive to the whole of the population and for weekend breaks?

If the latter then Liverpool is the only real option as far as I can see. If the former then there is much wider choice of options. Heysham is reasonable close but it has a tendency to silt up and has limited access at low tides. The entrance is narrow so sailings are cancelled as boats are not allowed in even though they can sail. Birkenhead and or Hollyhead might be better options for all year round use but the crossing is longer etc.

I remain in favour of the IoM having its own terminal on the Mersey. It is a question of where and at what cost as I doubt anybody would sell or enter into a long lease cheaply.  

I fear that the new terminal in LPL will also require dredging to keep the silt away from building up against the wall.

I don't understand why the berth wasn't built out into the river in the same way as one on the opposite bank in Birkenhead, or indeed the existing Princes Parade. 

The disconnect between the developer and IOMSPCo is clearly evident when you drill down on the details of the project.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

it would be nice, and it might be the lowest cost option in the long run.

It would still be a very high cost option though and result in nothing gained at all.....well apart from a grassed area of course.

We have to be realistic but we also need to know how much money has already been handed over and what (if any) cancellation penalties there are. 

We just have to avoid the sunk cost fallacy of throwing good money after bad. 

 

All options should be on the table and Tynwald have to be brave. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Happier diner said:

it would be nice, and it might be the lowest cost option in the long run.

It would still be a very high cost option though and result in nothing gained at all.....well apart from a grassed area of course.

At least it won't be costing the Island tens of millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

3 hours ago, James Blonde said:

We have to be realistic but we also need to know how much money has already been handed over and what (if any) cancellation penalties there are. 

We just have to avoid the sunk cost fallacy of throwing good money after bad. 

 

All options should be on the table and Tynwald have to be brave. 

 

1 hour ago, Peter Layman said:

At least it won't be costing the Island tens of millions.

Such contracts do not lend themselves well to being cancelled. There will be a way out but let's not fool ourselves that it would be cheap. It would be horrendously expensive. Too late to back out now IMO of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

 

 

 

Such contracts do not lend themselves well to being cancelled. There will be a way out but let's not fool ourselves that it would be cheap. It would be horrendously expensive. Too late to back out now IMO of course.

If it's going to take another £60m to finish it v the money already sunk into it, then we should walk away. 

The real issue here is that DOI have weaved a very tangled web and it's hard to know what money has already been wasted, where the extra costs have come from (compared to the original £3m scheme). 

Edited by James Blonde
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

 

 

 

Such contracts do not lend themselves well to being cancelled. There will be a way out but let's not fool ourselves that it would be cheap. It would be horrendously expensive. Too late to back out now IMO of course.

I would imagine going from an under 10 million project to north of a 60 million project would be grounds to say thanks but no thanks

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...