Tue Apr 28, 2015 3:44 pm
Mr Blue Sky. Lets discuss your incessant politicking.
1) "no-one will be able to catch buses".
As I understand it, that was what the consultants recommended. A station for long-distance travel, and turnaround for local travel. Local buses would instead pick up nearby (on Wood St, say). Must say it doesn't seem completely ridiculous to me.
But following the stories, this was ruled out by the council, who confirmed the bus station would be a place of embarkation and disembarkation for local routes too. Did you forget this?
2) The route to the rear of the station is not "very circuitous" for most people from outside the city centre. It is easier if one is approaching from the South, West, or East. If approaching from the North, its somewhat more difficult, but not hugely - just go down Lower Cathedral Road and Penarth Road rather than Westgate Street and Wood Street.
3) Taxis can access the city centre quite easily from the alternative taxi ranks - even from that on the South Side of the station. Just go under the railway bridges.
As far as I'm aware, people on this forum support a range of political parties (or none), and certainly don't slavishly follow the thinking of the current council or any of its councillors.
What a number of us have done is:
a) point out that Network Rail's objections seem more about getting money than real objections. Their own plans for the station would require the same closure of the existing taxi rank. They're just trying to get someone other than themselves to pay for the replacement.
b) show a bit of exasperation at the Civic Society's posturing, and failure to realise that big redevelopments will entail some short-term costs.
Are they seriously suggesting that development cannot start until the replacement bus station is built? That pushes back the BBCs move in-date, and the development of 2 Central Square by around 2-3 years. Will they still go ahead with that delay?
A bus station is also something that could never be secured via S106. S106 is about contributions based on the demands created by a development, not replacing infrastructure lost for a development. That replacement necessarily needs to be negotiated in separate commercial agreements. The article suggests the council is out of pocket. But I'm not sure it is given (a) its ownership of the land, for which it will have signed a long-leasehold with the developers. It would therefore have been "paid" for the land. (b) its desire to rebuild the bus station anyway, to make it fit-for-purpose. The existing one was poorly laid out and dingy. If it would have had to spend the money anyway, how has it lost out?
Now I agree we probably should have more information published. Too much of the City and Welsh Government's office and land dealings are shrouded in the secrecy of "commercial confidentiality" - the same was true of the previous administration in County Hall too though. This information would let us see if those who think taxpayers are getting a bad deal are right - or if the council is getting a suitable return on its landholdings.