General New Stadium Plans - The Triangle - Land Deal

[Orkney Islands Yellow]

Either way, OCC gave the club enough indication that the Triangle would be suitable.

As for Vicky (Hi Vicky, hope the move went well)

Has she moved? Still showing as West Kidlington on Nextdoor. If a person moves or states to live in an area they do not you can report them to NextDoor. This has been a tool used by FoSB and their supporters in the past.

 

[Orkney Islands Yellow]

If Erick and Bakrie get our new home built I'm doing this!

 

[SupporttheTriangle]

Has she moved? Still showing as West Kidlington on Nextdoor. If a person moves or states to live in an area they do not you can report them to NextDoor. This has been a tool used by FoSB and their supporters in the past.

View attachment 14170

Property still showing “for sale” so questionable as to has she moved

 

[bazzer9461]

Property still showing “for sale” so questionable as to has she moved

I have asked her on Next door but I wait with baited breath for an answer

 

[OxShireWest]

People can use the empty park and rides if they want to drive.

Brighton have hardly any parking, Brentford have even less, loads more grounds which I can’t be bothered to type out are in very built up areas with no parking. The new ground will have more parking than most while being the second nearest to a train station and being on bus routes, plus the club will (most likely) run shuttles from various areas to the ground.

The more you post the more suspicious I get of you, no problem with a FOSB being on here but just do it honestly. Especially when you are posting nonsense.

It's interesting you use Brighton as an example.

The Amex is widely regarded as the best out of city stadium in the country for promotion of the use of public transport and the discouragement of car travel. So much so, it was the first building of it's kind to receive a BREEAM 'very good' rating.

The most recent/in depth travel census/survey I could find on the Amex was done for the 2015/16 season by the 'Healthy Stadia' group. During construction the council limited parking to 15% of the total capacity. However, around half of match-goers still use cars/taxis etc during their journey to the stadium - nowhere near the figure our club are claiming to achieve. This is even with a 'free public transport' scheme included in the ticket price for both home and away supporters, a scheme which is mainly subsidised by the club (something a club like Oxford almost certainly can't afford to do).

So even when at the best out of city stadium project of it's kind you actively discourage driving through both financial and physical means, promote public transport, and even give people the option of a free alternative, around half of people *still* choose to use a car. My genuine question is what evidence do you have that this will be any different at the Triangle, and what evidence do you have that the number of people not using cars will be anywhere even close to 90%?

I'm bemused as to the hostility I'm receiving for simply asking a question, and using real world data to question the legitimacy of a statement that's been made.

 

[SteMerritt]

I have asked her on Next door but I wait with baited breath for an answer

Bated breath even

 

[SteMerritt]

However, around half of match-goers still use cars/taxis etc during their journey to the stadium - nowhere near the figure our club are claiming to achieve.

Have you a source for that assertation?

 

[holdsteady]

It's interesting you use Brighton as an example.

The Amex is widely regarded as the best out of city stadium in the country for promotion of the use of public transport and the discouragement of car travel. So much so, it was the first building of it's kind to receive a BREEAM 'very good' rating.

The most recent/in depth travel census/survey I could find on the Amex was done for the 2015/16 season by the 'Healthy Stadia' group. During construction the council limited parking to 15% of the total capacity. However, around half of match-goers still use cars/taxis etc during their journey to the stadium - nowhere near the figure our club are claiming to achieve. This is even with a 'free public transport' scheme included in the ticket price for both home and away supporters, a scheme which is mainly subsidised by the club (something a club like Oxford almost certainly can't afford to do).

So even when at the best out of city stadium project of it's kind you actively discourage driving through both financial and physical means, promote public transport, and even give people the option of a free alternative, around half of people *still* choose to use a car. My genuine question is what evidence do you have that this will be any different at the Triangle, and what evidence do you have that the number of people not using cars will be anywhere even close to 90%?

I'm bemused as to the hostility I'm receiving for simply asking a question, and using real world data to question the legitimacy of a statement that's been made.

But they don’t park at Brightons ground do they? Nor do Brentford fans?

It’s not really anything to do with the club how people get to a bus stop, train station etc pre travelling to the ground, the club has to relinquish responsibility at some points for its fans behaviour, it’s not our daddy.

But most fans will not be travelling to the actual ground by personal car, this reducing the amount of traffic near the stadium.

 

[Steve Gilbert]

It's interesting you use Brighton as an example.

The Amex is widely regarded as the best out of city stadium in the country for promotion of the use of public transport and the discouragement of car travel. So much so, it was the first building of it's kind to receive a BREEAM 'very good' rating.

The most recent/in depth travel census/survey I could find on the Amex was done for the 2015/16 season by the 'Healthy Stadia' group. During construction the council limited parking to 15% of the total capacity. However, around half of match-goers still use cars/taxis etc during their journey to the stadium - nowhere near the figure our club are claiming to achieve. This is even with a 'free public transport' scheme included in the ticket price for both home and away supporters, a scheme which is mainly subsidised by the club (something a club like Oxford almost certainly can't afford to do).

So even when at the best out of city stadium project of it's kind you actively discourage driving through both financial and physical means, promote public transport, and even give people the option of a free alternative, around half of people *still* choose to use a car. My genuine question is what evidence do you have that this will be any different at the Triangle, and what evidence do you have that the number of people not using cars will be anywhere even close to 90%?

I'm bemused as to the hostility I'm receiving for simply asking a question, and using real world data to question the legitimacy of a statement that's been made.

How about you answer the question I’ve asked you twice now….what do you think the positives are to having the new stadium for the local area and community?

 

[m]

It's interesting you use Brighton as an example.

The Amex is widely regarded as the best out of city stadium in the country for promotion of the use of public transport and the discouragement of car travel. So much so, it was the first building of it's kind to receive a BREEAM 'very good' rating.

The most recent/in depth travel census/survey I could find on the Amex was done for the 2015/16 season by the 'Healthy Stadia' group. During construction the council limited parking to 15% of the total capacity. However, around half of match-goers still use cars/taxis etc during their journey to the stadium - nowhere near the figure our club are claiming to achieve. This is even with a 'free public transport' scheme included in the ticket price for both home and away supporters, a scheme which is mainly subsidised by the club (something a club like Oxford almost certainly can't afford to do).

So even when at the best out of city stadium project of it's kind you actively discourage driving through both financial and physical means, promote public transport, and even give people the option of a free alternative, around half of people *still* choose to use a car. My genuine question is what evidence do you have that this will be any different at the Triangle, and what evidence do you have that the number of people not using cars will be anywhere even close to 90%?

I'm bemused as to the hostility I'm receiving for simply asking a question, and using real world data to question the legitimacy of a statement that's been made.

The hostility you receive is directly related to the horseshit you type.

Take the highlighted phrase: the club are claiming to achieve nothing of the sort. How could they when the events in question are still years in the future?

 

[SiHath]

However, around half of match-goers still use cars/taxis etc during their journey to the stadium

and

what evidence do you have that the number of people not using cars will be anywhere even close to 90%?

This is what the club have said in their documents:
"Through the new stadium development, we are targeting 90% of fans and site users to travel by sustainable modes."

So if someone in Thame (or any other place around the county close to a train station) gets a lift from their other half, or with a group of fellow fans in a taxi to Haddenham and Thame Parkway station, then travel by train to Oxford Parkway, then you think they shouldn't be included in the club's claim of 90% using sustainable modes of transport?

 

[Charles]

Are e cars sustainable modes ?

 

[Scotchegg]

However, around half of match-goers still use cars/taxis etc during their journey to the stadium

If someone drives to a designated park and ride then jumps on a shuttle bus to the ground, what is the harm in that?

Or someone uses a taxi to their local station before using a train to get to the ground?

That is how public transport works!

 

[Headley]

This is even with a 'free public transport' scheme included in the ticket price for both home and away supporters, a scheme which is mainly subsidised by the club (something a club like Oxford almost certainly can't afford to do).

This statement is laughable because you've actually answered yourself without realising.

If something is included in the ticket price then that's how the club will afford it.

Doesn't take a genius to work out that you only have to add a couple of quid onto the ticket price.

 

[Berliner]

This statement is laughable because you've actually answered yourself without realising.

If something is included in the ticket price then that's how the club will afford it.

Doesn't take a genius to work out that you only have to add a couple of quid onto the ticket price.

Same is done at Hertha Berlin and a lot of other German clubs, ticket is also a ticket for transport on matchday up to 3 next morning. Net result is around 50,000 to 60,000 fans who mostly travel by public transport.

 

[OxShireWest]

How about you answer the question I’ve asked you twice now….what do you think the positives are to having the new stadium for the local area and community?

I personally don't live in the local area around the stadium so not really for me to say! Obviously you have the created jobs, but I suppose beyond that it all depends on the details of what is actually going to be around the stadium. They've referred to 'outdoor community' spaces and 'multi-functional plazas', but haven't gone into much detail about what those spaces will actually have within them. I would assume things like bars, restaurants, shops but I don't know enough about the layout and facilities already in/around Kidlington to say whether they're actually needed or in demand. I can only say for certain how it'll effect me as an Oxford fan not living in or on the outskirts of Kidlington.

Obviously it's good for sport in the local area, with funding being put into local sports teams by the club (although again, it's unclear how much or how it'll be funded), and obviously it's a good thing for football fans countywide. I really like the idea of the club developing mental health outreach programmes within the community, and that the stadium and it's facilities can be used by the local and wider community for various events and purposes. Would love to see mini-tournaments for all ages ran on the main pitch (like they've done at Southampton).

I've never doubted or denied there are positives to the plans, I've merely just raised concerns about details, clarity, and whether some claims made are feasible.

I think that's fair enough, no?

 

[BristolOx]

I personally don't live in the local area around the stadium so not really for me to say! Obviously you have the created jobs, but I suppose beyond that it all depends on the details of what is actually going to be around the stadium. They've referred to 'outdoor community' spaces and 'multi-functional plazas', but haven't gone into much detail about what those spaces will actually have within them. I would assume things like bars, restaurants, shops but I don't know enough about the layout and facilities already in/around Kidlington to say whether they're actually needed or in demand. I can only say for certain how it'll effect me as an Oxford fan not living in or on the outskirts of Kidlington.

Obviously it's good for sport in the local area, with funding being put into local sports teams by the club (although again, it's unclear how much or how it'll be funded), and obviously it's a good thing for football fans countywide. I really like the idea of the club developing mental health outreach programmes within the community, and that the stadium and it's facilities can be used by the local and wider community for various events and purposes. Would love to see mini-tournaments for all ages ran on the main pitch (like they've done at Southampton).

I've never doubted or denied there are positives to the plans, I've merely just raised concerns about details, clarity, and whether some claims made are feasible.

I think that's fair enough, no?

do you currently live near the Kassam? the only fans i know who don’t want to move live within walking distance.

the other thing that makes me disbelieve you is you’ve been called out as FOSB on numerous occasions yet you’ve not reacted as i would expect a proper fan would in that scenario

 

[OUFCwaffle]

I personally don't live in the local area around the stadium so not really for me to say! Obviously you have the created jobs, but I suppose beyond that it all depends on the details of what is actually going to be around the stadium. They've referred to 'outdoor community' spaces and 'multi-functional plazas', but haven't gone into much detail about what those spaces will actually have within them. I would assume things like bars, restaurants, shops but I don't know enough about the layout and facilities already in/around Kidlington to say whether they're actually needed or in demand. I can only say for certain how it'll effect me as an Oxford fan not living in or on the outskirts of Kidlington.

Obviously it's good for sport in the local area, with funding being put into local sports teams by the club (although again, it's unclear how much or how it'll be funded), and obviously it's a good thing for football fans countywide. I really like the idea of the club developing mental health outreach programmes within the community, and that the stadium and it's facilities can be used by the local and wider community for various events and purposes. Would love to see mini-tournaments for all ages ran on the main pitch (like they've done at Southampton).

I've never doubted or denied there are positives to the plans, I've merely just raised concerns about details, clarity, and whether some claims made are feasible.

I think that's fair enough, no?

Your concerns are reasonable, however you're falling into the trap of expecting too much detail too soon. For now the only goal is to convince the county council that we have met all of their criteria to lease the land.

Specific details will be provided but only once OCC have agreed the lease and planning has started. Then and only then will your concerns be addressed.

For now though as a supporter of the club, the best thing you can do is to answer the survey in a positive light and to support the project. There is no alternative and if OCC decide to deny us the lease then the club will cease to exist in the very near future. Something as a supporter I can only assume you would hate to happen.

There will be other consultations later down the line where you can scrutinise the fine details, just be patient and trust in the process for the time being.

 

[Orkney Islands Yellow]

Your concerns are reasonable, however you're falling into the trap of expecting too much detail too soon. For now the only goal is to convince the county council that we have met all of their criteria to lease the land.

Specific details will be provided but only once OCC have agreed the lease and planning has started. Then and only then will your concerns be addressed.

For now though as a supporter of the club, the best thing you can do is to answer the survey in a positive light and to support the project. There is no alternative and if OCC decide to deny us the lease then the club will cease to exist in the very near future. Something as a supporter I can only assume you would hate to happen.

There will be other consultations later down the line where you can scrutinise the fine details, just be patient and trust in the process for the time being.

Another consultation?!

Has everyone completed the current one?

How do Oxford United’s proposals for the land known as ‘the Triangle’ impact the communities of Oxfordshire?

This survey offers you the opportunity to give your views on the response of Oxford United Football Club (OUFC) to the seven key strategic priorities set out by the council for the use of the land known as 'the Triangle'. We are also holding a small number of drop-in

letstalk.oxfordshire.gov.uk

 

[guyellow]

A big push on the biodiversity from Vicky & coView attachment 14138View attachment 14139View attachment 14140View attachment 14141View attachment 14142View attachment 14143View attachment 14144View attachment 14145

Have you a source for that assertation?

But if they are driving, for example, to a local station then getting a train for the vast majority of the journey then that has to be better than 100% car journey.
It won't happen overnight but it can happen.