General New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Land Deal

[Orkney Islands Yellow]

FoSB update. They're playing the demographic game by targeting middle class areas it seems.

 

[Foley]

But this is the point of my original post... we're asking people to get on board with something, then providing them with ambiguous if's, but's, and maybe's.

Unless you're directly invested in something like us as fans are, it's hard to hold an opinion or support something when you don't have the information or details required to form said opinion.

Middleton's lot had a poll taken well before this information was available ( what a huge waste of money)
From those who understand this process, it appears to be followed to the letter at the moment

 

[Coffin dodger]

The opposition really are detached from reality.

View attachment 14064

£1000 an hour and he chooses to live in Tackley.

 

[bazzer9461]

From the document: 'e. Promoting innovation – utilise technology to improve the way things are done, nurturing a culture of collaboration and new ideas'... what technology? how will it improve the way things are done, and what is meant by 'things'? what ideas are to be collaborated on, and with who?

'We are investigating the potential for clean energy generation on site, with solar panels possible on the stadium’s extensive roof space'... this is just a statement of 'maybe'.

I've read the documents, and so have most people on this thread, yet look at all the questions still being asked. You can be as condescending as you like, it doesn't change the fact there are countless unanswered questions and a lot of ambiguity.

What is your problem? You’ve been so negative about the stadium and trying to find faults or question what the professionals are going to do. OxShireWest does that mean Tackley Steve?

 

[OxShireWest]

I wouldn't say any of that displays a "chronic lack of clarity".

Obviously it's not as detailed as it would need to be in the planning application, but this gives some overview into what the club are looking at for the stadium, without turning the 32 page document (that you don't think anyone will read) into a much bigger document.

Technology and new ideas:. Grey water and rainwater capture. Solar. Green roof. All things that aren't part of the Kassam.

I'm sorry you feel I'm being condesending, but I'm just respnding to a poster who seems determinged to misrepresesent the situation.

This document isn't a planning application. There are lots of detail that will be part of that application, that simply can't be published yet.

Imagine the club putting into the public domain their confidential discussions with public transport providers, local organisations that might want to be part of the stadium use, etc, before the club have a decision on the sale/lease of the land. The opposition would have a field day, quite rightly, becuase that would be putting the cart before the horse.

This consultation is mainly about the 7 strategic priorities set by OCC. The club have put enough information for people to make a decision on if they believe they have been achieved.

No they haven't.

Another example. The club have said they aim to only have 150 parking spaces to 'reduce the need for car travel' and 'encourage sustainable transport'. This is a message mentioned countless times in multiple documents. This clearly implies that within this plan car travel/driving to games is seem as 'bad' or unsustainable. Fair enough.. but let's read further.

The clubs aim is to have 90% of match-goers travel to the stadium using 'sustainable travel modes' - something we have already established car travel/driving doesn't include. Again, fair enough, but let's read on.

'The proposed development has a reduced number of new car parking spaces with approximately 150 match day stadium car parking spaces being proposed. Nearby pre-existing public car parking spaces, such as the nearby park and rides, will be used with fans arriving at the stadium via shuttle buses.' - Ah. So as it transpires, plenty of people will still be using cars to get to the game, they'll just be doing the last 5 minutes in a bus. Does this really make it sustainable? What's the difference between that and just driving the extra couple of miles and parking at the stadium? Also, nearly 80% of people used a car to get to the Kassam - how many of these were drop-offs? Plus, how many of the 20-25% of people who used a bus or train drove to the bus/train station in the first instance?

Doesn't seem likely, or even possible, to have a minimum of 90% of people not using a car in any way to get to the game, does it?

Again, we all want this but let's not pretend these plans are flawless and detailed.

It's quite shocking how someone merely pointing out a potential fault is instantly jumped on and criticised by so many fellow fans.

 

[bazzer9461]

But this is the point of my original post... we're asking people to get on board with something, then providing them with ambiguous if's, but's, and maybe's.

Unless you're directly invested in something like us as fans are, it's hard to hold an opinion or support something when you don't have the information or details required to form said opinion.

Why should you be privileged. Be patient like the rest of us Steve, you’re nearly as bad as your cronies demanding to see privileged information about why we can’t stay at the breeze block.

 

[bazzer9461]

No they haven't.

Another example. The club have said they aim to only have 150 parking spaces to 'reduce the need for car travel' and 'encourage sustainable transport'. This is a message mentioned countless times in multiple documents. This clearly implies that within this plan car travel/driving to games is seem as 'bad' or unsustainable. Fair enough.. but let's read further.

The clubs aim is to have 90% of match-goers travel to the stadium using 'sustainable travel modes' - something we have already established car travel/driving doesn't include. Again, fair enough, but let's read on.

'The proposed development has a reduced number of new car parking spaces with approximately 150 match day stadium car parking spaces being proposed. Nearby pre-existing public car parking spaces, such as the nearby park and rides, will be used with fans arriving at the stadium via shuttle buses.' - Ah. So as it transpires, plenty of people will still be using cars to get to the game, they'll just be doing the last 5 minutes in a bus. Does this really make it sustainable? What's the difference between that and just driving the extra couple of miles and parking at the stadium? Also, nearly 80% of people used a car to get to the Kassam - how many of these were drop-offs? Plus, how many of the 20-25% of people who used a bus or train drove to the bus/train station in the first instance?

Doesn't seem likely, or even possible, to have a minimum of 90% of people not using a car in any way to get to the game, does it?

Again, we all want this but let's not pretend these plans are flawless and detailed.

It's quite shocking how someone merely pointing out a potential fault is instantly jumped on and criticised by so many fellow fans.

But you’re not a football fan are you Steve? You’re just some bloke who took great pride in kicking out people out of their homes then boast about.
What’s t**t you are.

 

[Thomas/Brock/Jones]

Such a strange very negative, anti Stadium vibe comes over which seems supportive of OUFC's opponents rather than the Club and our future.
Always on the negative side of the proceedings rather than overall positive with a query or two.
Massive chance for us that surely all fans are excited about not the weirdly anti way you are going about things.

 

[BristolOx]

No they haven't.

Another example. The club have said they aim to only have 150 parking spaces to 'reduce the need for car travel' and 'encourage sustainable transport'. This is a message mentioned countless times in multiple documents. This clearly implies that within this plan car travel/driving to games is seem as 'bad' or unsustainable. Fair enough.. but let's read further.

The clubs aim is to have 90% of match-goers travel to the stadium using 'sustainable travel modes' - something we have already established car travel/driving doesn't include. Again, fair enough, but let's read on.

'The proposed development has a reduced number of new car parking spaces with approximately 150 match day stadium car parking spaces being proposed. Nearby pre-existing public car parking spaces, such as the nearby park and rides, will be used with fans arriving at the stadium via shuttle buses.' - Ah. So as it transpires, plenty of people will still be using cars to get to the game, they'll just be doing the last 5 minutes in a bus. Does this really make it sustainable? What's the difference between that and just driving the extra couple of miles and parking at the stadium? Also, nearly 80% of people used a car to get to the Kassam - how many of these were drop-offs? Plus, how many of the 20-25% of people who used a bus or train drove to the bus/train station in the first instance?

Doesn't seem likely, or even possible, to have a minimum of 90% of people not using a car in any way to get to the game, does it?

Again, we all want this but let's not pretend these plans are flawless and detailed.

It's quite shocking how someone merely pointing out a potential fault is instantly jumped on and criticised by so many fellow fans.

What fault? You’re picking holes in plans that aren’t being released until September. i don’t know anyone from bicester who is planning to drive when the stadium moves. The proposed travel options have gone from car only, to bus, train & park and ride.

are you really suggesting that the club could do more in this regard??

the fact only 150 on-site parking spaces means traffic is directed away from the stadium which keeps kidlington’s road less busy.

The whole argument from an environmental perspective is inarguable - even if we don’t hit 90% non-car travel - the vehicle emissions will be dramatically reduced.

I’m not sure why i’m writing this reply this is all easily accessible info that’s been about for ages

 

[SiHath]

No they haven't.

Another example. The club have said they aim to only have 150 parking spaces to 'reduce the need for car travel' and 'encourage sustainable transport'. This is a message mentioned countless times in multiple documents. This clearly implies that within this plan car travel/driving to games is seem as 'bad' or unsustainable. Fair enough.. but let's read further.

The clubs aim is to have 90% of match-goers travel to the stadium using 'sustainable travel modes' - something we have already established car travel/driving doesn't include. Again, fair enough, but let's read on.

'The proposed development has a reduced number of new car parking spaces with approximately 150 match day stadium car parking spaces being proposed. Nearby pre-existing public car parking spaces, such as the nearby park and rides, will be used with fans arriving at the stadium via shuttle buses.' - Ah. So as it transpires, plenty of people will still be using cars to get to the game, they'll just be doing the last 5 minutes in a bus. Does this really make it sustainable? What's the difference between that and just driving the extra couple of miles and parking at the stadium? Also, nearly 80% of people used a car to get to the Kassam - how many of these were drop-offs? Plus, how many of the 20-25% of people who used a bus or train drove to the bus/train station in the first instance?

Doesn't seem likely, or even possible, to have a minimum of 90% of people not using a car in any way to get to the game, does it?

Again, we all want this but let's not pretend these plans are flawless and detailed.

It's quite shocking how someone merely pointing out a potential fault is instantly jumped on and criticised by so many fellow fans.

Who's pretending that "these plans are flawless and detailed"? In my reply, I said they weren't detailed plans. You're using a strawman argument.

"What's the difference between that and just driving the extra couple of miles and parking at the stadium?" Unless you have a blue badge, or dedicated space because youare staff (perhaps), then you won't be able to.

The whole transport issue needs fans to take responsibility for improving things. I've already said I'll be taking the bus/train/game/train/bus as my travel for the day. You've made it clear in previous posts that you don't like the bus because other people are on there making noises. I can't understand that mindset, but I'm pretty hopeful that you are in a minority. Certainly among people I know, and have spoken to about transport, they're all looking forward to a much more connected stadium location. It's possible.

EDIT: I think you're the only person I've spoken to who seems to think the public transport options aren't very good at the Triangle, to the extent that people will just continue to use their cars. I honest;y can't think of anyone I've spoken to who isn't looking forward to leaving the car at home and using public transport.

 

[Orkney Islands Yellow]

Mods, let's play FoSB at their own game and block OxShireWest .

 

[SupporttheTriangle]

Just saw a copy of Tacky Steve and his mates at his retirement party. He looks lonely

 

[ZeroTheHero]

Again, we all want this but let's not pretend these plans are flawless and detailed.

Nobody is! The detailed plans will come later, when we get to the planning stage.

You have a very strange attitude to this!

 

[Charles]

Any good pubs in Tackley?

 

[Foley]

But you’re not a football fan are you Steve? You’re just some bloke who took great pride in kicking out people out of their homes then boast about.
What’s t**t you are.

Tackley Steve does sound a thoroughly unpleasant man, but even he wouldn't come on here pretending to be an Oxford United supporter?

 

[BristolOx]

Mods, let's play FoSB at their own game and block OxShireWest .

Don’t agree with stifling debate personally and the line hasn't been crossed yet imo. However it does seem like we're speaking to a FOSB member not an OUFC fan.

 

[RgYellows]

So you must think that the poll held in Kidlington was an awful waste of limited resources? Shame on those who called for it at that stage?

@OxShireWest any words of condemnation for the people wasting public money on a poll that couldn’t possibly carry any meaning at this stage?

 

[OxShireWest]

So you must think that the poll held in Kidlington was an awful waste of limited resources? Shame on those who called for it at that stage?

Agreed!

 

[OxShireWest]

What is your problem? You’ve been so negative about the stadium and trying to find faults or question what the professionals are going to do. OxShireWest does that mean Tackley Steve?

I'm finding faults because they exist, Bazzer.

You may choose to bury your head in the sand and pretend they're perfect but I see no benefit in that.

 

[OxShireWest]

What fault? You’re picking holes in plans that aren’t being released until September. i don’t know anyone from bicester who is planning to drive when the stadium moves. The proposed travel options have gone from car only, to bus, train & park and ride.

are you really suggesting that the club could do more in this regard??

the fact only 150 on-site parking spaces means traffic is directed away from the stadium which keeps kidlington’s road less busy.

The whole argument from an environmental perspective is inarguable - even if we don’t hit 90% non-car travel - the vehicle emissions will be dramatically reduced.

I’m not sure why i’m writing this reply this is all easily accessible info that’s been about for ages

So you agree that what the club are claiming they will do isn't feasible, then? There isn't a club in the country that has reduced car usage by even close to that figure.

And let's not get started on 'emissions'...