Petition to Prioritise the Ring Road over the Central Access Scheme

Captain Havoc

Internet petitions and emails aren't worth the paper they're written on.

1984baby

Complete the ring road and get rid of the footpath on Greensbridge. Build a small pedestrian bridge beside it. This would make the current bridge wide enough for 2 large vehicles to pass at the same time - cutting the traffic congestion there.
Maybe put a roundabout instead of the lights at Irishtown?

S28382

1984baby wrote: »

Complete the ring road and get rid of the footpath on Greensbridge. Build a small pedestrian bridge beside it. This would make the current bridge wide enough for 2 large vehicles to pass at the same time - cutting the traffic congestion there.
Maybe put a roundabout instead of the lights at Irishtown?

Yeah +1 on this.

Schindlers Pissed

There's no need for a pedestrian bridge beside Greens Bridge......next time you walk over it have a look at the large pipe that runs alongside it on the footpath side.

Take out the existing footpath as you said to increase the width for two vehicles, use that pipe and existing steelwork as an anchor point for a new footpath (with strengtheners of course), and hey presto.......the job is done.

mick kk

So what happens now with all this?
Does anyone know when they are going to knock those houses and start the project. Personally, I think its a shame what they are doing - and am I correct in saying that it is all about boosting the value of the mart site by funnelling traffic through it?

Einhard

Are people over-reacting a bit? Isn't this going to be a two-lane carriageway? Hardly dividing the city in two. You'd swear they were building a motorway through the Cathedral!! Not sure if it's the right thing or not, but I always get a tad skeptical when I see hyperbole thrown around, and there seems to be a bit of it surrounding this project.

Threadhead

Why is it happening?

To service the new mart site because Greensbridge isn't up to it? Good idea!

Is there anything happening to the mart site? No!

So, why is it happening now in 2013?

catbear

It is simply financially and economically logical and reasonable that the ringroad be completed instead of putting another traffic artery through the urban area.

The mart site isn't a just reason for the push for the inner road but I believe it's the only reason at hand for vested interests who need the inner relief road to go ahead if they're to profit from land purchases.

The mart site is a red herring, the question really is who benefits financially in the short term as ignoring completion of the ring road shows that decisions are not been made with longterm considerations.

Find out who owns the lands required for the inner relief road and if they have political connections to influence the whole project.

Completing the ring road is a longterm progressive move that opens up access to another side of the urban area.

Einhard

catbear wrote: »

It is simply financially and economically logical and reasonable that the ringroad be completed instead of putting another traffic artery through the urban area.

The mart site isn't a just reason for the push for the inner road but I believe it's the only reason at hand for vested interests who need the inner relief road to go ahead if they're to profit from land purchases.

The mart site is a red herring, the question really is who benefits financially in the short term as ignoring completion of the ring road shows that decisions are not been made with longterm considerations.

Find out who owns the lands required for the inner relief road and if they have political connections to influence the whole project.

Completing the ring road is a longterm progressive move that opens up access to another side of the urban area.

As far as I know, the IRR has been on tthe agenda for decades now, so it would really be playing the waiting game for it to be motivated bu ulterior financial motives.

catbear

The scheme may have been on the table for a long time but it was never a priority for vested interests during the housing bubble. However now that the only major buyer is the taxpayer then the project becomes of vital importance, especially when in the short to medium term there may be no other opportunity to cash out.

It's nice to believe that ultimately government is motivated by the interests of the greater good but too often and especially in the last two decades we've been reminded that public office has been a means by which to live at everyones expense.

The completion of the ring road is the logical long term option for the public good.

Einhard

catbear wrote: »

The scheme may have been on the table for a long time but it was never a priority for vested interests during the housing bubble. However now that the only major buyer is the taxpayer then the project becomes of vital importance, especially when in the short to medium term there may be no other opportunity to cash out.

So you don't think the Mart developers would have been in any way interested in bringing the IRR to fruitition. Cynicism is all well and good, but cynicism for the sake of it, and especially throwing around unfounded accusations without a shred of evidence is a bit much.

Just because people do things with which you disagree, doesn't at all mean that their motives are underhand.

catbear

Those owners of the mart site are not the ones who set the conditions regarding access.

For a moment just imagine you live on the johns well road and you need to get to the clonmel road but you know town traffic is busy because of schools etc, you'll naturally chose the ringroad.

Now imagine you had to go to Freshford rd instead, you're stuck in the same traffic either way. the completion of the ringroad avoids the funneling of traffic.

It's so logical and obvious that only alterer motives could see it being ignored.

NoGutsNoGlory

amazing the way the people against this road keep rehashing the same auld bluff.. now that the scheme is going to start soon, they are all back on the hobby horses ... the new road went through the planning process a few years ago all all the above stuff was mentioned again and again..
if all the objectors stay off the new road, it will be plain sailing for those of use who want to move forward in the city ..

nuttz

NoGutsNoGlory wrote: »

amazing the way the people against this road keep rehashing the same auld bluff.. now that the scheme is going to start soon, they are all back on the hobby horses ... the new road went through the planning process a few years ago all all the above stuff was mentioned again and again..
if all the objectors stay off the new road, it will be plain sailing for those of use who want to move forward in the city ..

Give me one solid argument for bringing HGVs into the center of the town.

This is a ridiculous decision altogether. It doesn't take a genius to realise that even just completing some or the remaining sections of the ring road will to reduce congestion in the center(i.e Freshford road to Castlecomer road or Tullaroan road to Freshford road). To out of hand dismiss the ulterior motives in this case is naive.
Sean O'hArgain is another gutless politician for agreeing to this, how the board in the Gaelscoil let him continue as principal is beyond me, <mod snip of inappropriate comment>.

randylonghorn

NoGutsNoGlory wrote: »

if all the objectors stay off the new road, it will be plain sailing for those of use who want to move forward in the city ..

Would you ever consider that those who don't think the CAS is the best option may also want to see the city move forward, but in the way which is best for the city both now and in the long term?

redtelephone

Quote from An Bord Pleanala Inspector's report which gave approval for the scheme:

Page 95 -96 : "Notwithstanding the reduced scope of the scheme, it is still a matter of concern that the predicted traffic levels for Dean Street for peak hour are over 1500 vehicles per hour........ therefore it is strongly recommended that further traffic management proposals be developed with the objective of limiting and reducing the level of traffic."

http://www.pleanala.ie/documents/reports/HA0/RHA0014A.pdf

Even An Bord Pleanala thinks there will be too much traffic although they gave it approval. It's totally ridiculous to approve something like this and then try to limit its effects. Just goes to show it should never have been allowed.

Captain Havoc

I've deleted posts, one by myself also, as I don't think we should be discussing the subject, which is why a card was given in the first place.

Einhard

redtelephone wrote: »

Quote from An Bord Pleanala Inspector's report which gave approval for the scheme:

Page 95 -96 : "Notwithstanding the reduced scope of the scheme, it is still a matter of concern that the predicted traffic levels for Dean Street for peak hour are over 1500 vehicles per hour........ therefore it is strongly recommended that further traffic management proposals be developed with the objective of limiting and reducing the level of traffic."

http://www.pleanala.ie/documents/reports/HA0/RHA0014A.pdf

Just to give a little context, the document states elsewhere that traffic will increase from 1162 vehicles an hour to 1531, an increase of 369. Not exactly a massive figure, and the reason why the scheme was approved. It shoudl also be noted that a huge reduction from 1239 vehicles per hour to 262 vehicles per hour is envisaged for Vicar's St, which I'm sure will come as pleasant news to those who live there.

Even An Bord Pleanala thinks there will be too much traffic although they gave it approval. It's totally ridiculous to approve something like this and then try to limit its effects. Just goes to show it should never have been allowed.

An Bord Pleanala said no such thing. I've read the report, and while they note the increase in traffic, and recommend traffic management measures, nowehere do they state that "there will be too much traffic". I appreciate that you hold strong views about this scheme, but such hyperbole only undermines your own position.

redtelephone

Einhard wrote: »

Just to give a little context, the document states elsewhere that traffic will increase from 1162 vehicles an hour to 1531, an increase of 369. Not exactly a massive figure, and the reason why the scheme was approved. It shoudl also be noted that a huge reduction from 1239 vehicles per hour to 262 vehicles per hour is envisaged for Vicar's St, which I'm sure will come as pleasant news to those who live there.

According to the document the maximum sustainable volume on Dean St is 800 vehicles per hour. With this scheme in place, it will be 1531, almost twice the maximum, which will lead to congestion. Here is the quote:

"It is noted that the predictions for Dean Street would indicate an increase in traffic from 8,442 vehicles per day to 12,173 vehicles per day. The conclusion in the original report to the traffic flow of 800 vehicles per hour should be the maximum sustainable volume on Dean Street has not changed."
10HA0014A An Bord Pleanála Page 85 of 97

Einhard wrote: »

An Bord Pleanala said no such thing. I've read the report, and while they note the increase in traffic, and recommend traffic management measures, nowehere do they state that "there will be too much traffic". I appreciate that you hold strong views about this scheme, but such hyperbole only undermines your own position.

I was not quoting Bord Pleanala nor did I claim to be I was paraphrasing what I had already quoted. Bord Pleanala said ".... it is strongly recommended that further traffic management proposals be developed with the objective of limiting and reducing the level of traffic." Is there any other reason why they would recommend limiting and reducing the level of traffic if they did not foresee a problem with traffic levels being too high? There's no hyperbole here.

foxcoverteddy

There seems to be very little info on Boards regarding the demonstration over the proposed knocking of Vicar Street for the building of the new road through our city.
If as the e.mail I received suggests that many people do not agree with the council, why is the council we elected going ahead with the rape of the old city, one asks?
Why wasn't a more sympathetic approach undertaken like joining the proposed new road from the end of the road that has already been built.
That is one scenario, however one might ask is there anything in vicar street worth saving, is architecture fundamental to the cities ancient past, I can't see it but there must be some who do.
Is this a devious plan to develop the mart site, is someone going to benefit personally from such a development, do we have noses in a trough?
Of course there will be compensation to the owners of the somewhat dilapidated properties, one might ask who are the beneficial owners of the properties, did someone do their homework and had a vision of the future plans of the council.
I think much could be said as to why all of this is taking place, who wants to build in the mart? At the present it is rather a blot on the landscape.
How will the new road interact with the schools in the area and ease of getting to and fro from St Lukes.
Surely this is the time to ask our ministerial TD to investigate.

Captain Havoc

Threads merged

Bowlardo

Does anyone know if that march is on tomorrow?
Where is from?
Where is to?
What time is at?

Sorry lots of questions

Threadhead

It's on tomorrow at 12.30pm with the march itself starting at 1pm.

It starts at the Peace Park by the old swimming pool, it goes to the Parade via Greensbridge, Irishtown and High Street and the organisers are keen to get as many people attending as possible. This is one of those ridiculous decisions that can only possibly be stopped by a good showing of people power. Because common sense and logic isn't going to do it.

€10 million thrown into a black hole for a scheme that was proposed in the late 1970's and hasn't been updated since. Think of the things Kilkenny could do with an extra €10 million!

foxcoverteddy

Look at the different points of view; do we just leave the council to get on and do what they have to do to keep our city up to-date or do we walk and let the city stagnate?
What would we do with a spare 10mill? How could we squander the money? Yes, extending the ring road would no doubt make sense; equally why not make the Callan Road safer by getting rid of the bends after Teenypark, the road to Castlecomer leaves a great deal to be desired.
What do we expect from a Council that could not manage a one way system in the city, leaves a retail park part empty because they do not want food sold?
Isn't the Irishtown part of the city just about the pits, but who owns the property going to be knocked?
The area certainly will not attract tourists, probably the other way round, a complete contrast from the Mayor's Walk.
What a very complex time we live in, just one more thought what happens if Supervalu decide to move from Market Cross?

Threadhead

Some nice observations there foxcoverteddy but I have to point out that your statement 'the area will not attract tourists' is outlandishly false to the point of ridiculousness. On the contrary, it attracts most of the tourists. It is the area where St. Canice's Cathedral lies, it is the area surrounding the Black Abbey, the whole city wall and St. Francis Abbey as well as the brewery itself. During tourist season it is vibrant, alive and is a huge and essential part of Kilkenny's tourism trade. It is the oldest part of our city, steeped in history and it deserves to be treated with respect. The CAS will completely undermine that, hence why most protestors main argument is that it will destroy the medieval heart of our city. And they're right.

This is not about knocking down a few derelict buildings, it's about putting a useless road through an area that is historically valuable and integral to the city.

foxcoverteddy

The video I watched was only knocking Vicar Street area, from the traffic lights in Irishtown up to Greens Bridge, certainly no one can touch Canices or the Black Abbey or St Francis.
Hopefully someone will define the actual area, otherwise I think you are correct and thanks for putting me straight, well as straight as you can.
Foxy

Rantan

foxcoverteddy wrote: »

The video I watched was only knocking Vicar Street area, from the traffic lights in Irishtown up to Greens Bridge, certainly no one can touch Canices or the Black Abbey or St Francis.
Hopefully someone will define the actual area, otherwise I think you are correct and thanks for putting me straight, well as straight as you can.
Foxy

I think threadhead is suggesting(sorry of I'm mis represemnting you!) that we should consider irishtown/dean st/vicar st as a mediveal area and not just consider canices, the black abbey etc. as individual elelments removed from the context of the environment in which they have existed relatively unchanged for 100's of years.
The streetscape of that area reflects parts of the old city wall lines and has echoes of the earliest origins of kilkenny visible even today. By altering the basic pattern and layout you are erasing the historc fabric of killkenny and once that is gone its gone forever. Have a look in to the carpark beside Autofix on the corner there at the back of the brewery. THe wall to the right is 100's of years old - you dont need to be an archaeologist to regonise the old bits of structures still standing there. Funny how they were categorised in the arch. survey that was done of the area...;)

foxcoverteddy

Thanks for that, I wasn't thinking the whole context scenario, true once you start knocking it changes everything, there is so precious little left of the old city wall, what is left must be preserved.
It would be a shame to destroy our heritage, I know there are bits around the back of places in William St and of course the Talbot Tower, one can understand why Chester has taken great care of their wall, no doubt a heritage site.
So it looks like all hands to the pump on Saturday, tell them this is only the start; eh.
Foxy the defiant

Rantan

foxcoverteddy wrote: »

Thanks for that, I wasn't thinking the whole context scenario, true once you start knocking it changes everything, there is so precious little left of the old city wall, what is left must be preserved.
It would be a shame to destroy our heritage, I know there are bits around the back of places in William St and of course the Talbot Tower, one can understand why Chester has taken great care of their wall, no doubt a heritage site.
So it looks like all hands to the pump on Saturday, tell them this is only the start; eh.
Foxy the defiant

sorry Fox..I was prob a bit misleading in my post...I dont thinnk there are any actual bits of the wall standing down there...but I believe that the layout of the road where dean street sweeps around to vicar srteet follows what was the original wall line. So in a way preserves the original fabric if not the actualky stones of the wall. But I do know that some of the old buildings there are very old -but not the actaul city wall - spose some of it could be still there incorprated into existing stuff?

Captain Havoc

City wall is further down at Watergate bridge.