Petition to Prioritise the Ring Road over the Central Access Scheme

kikel

Threadhead wrote: »

Why are people for it though? That's the question that's never adequately answered. Greens Bridge is definitely in bad shape, no doubt about it but I can't see what the CAS will achieve that completing the ring road won't. I can't see why it's needed.

The Brewery site argument for the CAS is an absolutely ridiculous one too. Sure, it would be great to have another entrance to the site but it's entirely possible to knock the houses on Vicar Street and have a new street that accesses the Brewery site without having to build a bridge alongside it. Knocking the houses, I get. Building this bridge is the baffling part.

Well said

obezyana

When is the works due to start? And is the old mart site the big open space beside the army barracks?

Personally I think the works can be a good thing I'm not so sure it will divide the city in two. It might just provide relief from the traffic build up down that way as it can be bad down there at certain times and the old bridge can handle the flow of traffic anymore. Kilkenny is growing it is becoming more and more popular a lot more busier and it needs to move with the times and these works might just help it do that along with the works planned for the Smithwicks site.

I think in a few years time the Ring road will be completed and all of the arguments will be forgotten about as people will then see that the new bridge as with the completed Ring road were needed in order for Kilkenny to progress into a more vibrant busy place where access is easy into and around the town, these works if they both happen within a reasonably short period of time will help with that.

I do agree with the completion of the Ring road but personally at this stage I would lean more to the building of the new bridge.

If the folks in Waterford had the choice of a new bridge they would take it no questions asked as that place has been in dire need for a new bridge for years, I know they have the toll bridge but it's not in the city centre where it's badly needed. The fact that Kilkenny has the option and funds in place to have a new second bridge is a positive move for the town..... Oh how your white and blue neighbours would love that option.

kikel

obezyana wrote: »

When is the works due to start? And is the old mart site the big open space beside the army barracks.

That's the one.


I suppose, to see so many towns and cities trying to remove traffic in a modern day and age than I feel that in years to come we will regret this decision.

Is there an alternative? Do we have to spend this money just because we have been allocated it.

Alternatives:

• complete ring road
• pedestrian brings and promote cycling.
• a bus service for the city
• more car parks near city centre to get people into the main shopping tourist area.

obezyana

kikel wrote: »

That's the one.


I suppose, to see so many towns and cities trying to remove traffic in a modern day and age than I feel that in years to come we will regret this decision.

Is there an alternative? Do we have to spend this money just because we have been allocated it.

Alternatives:

• complete ring road
• pedestrian brings and promote cycling.
• a bus service for the city
• more car parks near city centre to get people into the main shopping tourist area.

.


Unforntunately if they don't spend the money then they won't get future funding as there would be an outlook that says 'well you didn't need it the last time so now you don't need it at all'

Kilkenny is such a nice place to visit and IMHO these works will add to it. I really do believe the Ring road will be completed in a few years time and all will be forgotten about.

Both works do need to happen and I reckon the council know that so they prob feel that the new bridge is the more important one as it ties in with the planned works on the Smithwicks site.

kikel

obezyana wrote: »

.


Unforntunately if they don't spend the money then they won't get future funding as there would be an outlook that says 'well you didn't need it the last time so now you don't need it at all'
.

That type of attitude in the public service really makes my blood boil. Why build sonething just to keep your f'n budget. Build it because it is needed and will make kk a better place to live.

The public service/council really need a change in attitude/thinking.

Threadhead

obezyana wrote: »

.

Both works do need to happen and I reckon the council know that so they prob feel that the new bridge is the more important one as it ties in with the planned works on the Smithwicks site.

This is where I have trouble tying the council's line of argument with what they're actually doing. They say we need the C.A.S. to properly access the Smithwicks site. I disagree. They need to knock the houses on Vicar Street and need to create a new entrance there in order to serve the site. Along with the new Market Yard entrance and the existant entrances, that's the Smithwicks site served. A bridge will do nothing for the Smithwicks site.

There's a line of anti CAS argument that says the Council only want this bridge built to serve what is now a derelict site. A new road might increase interest in buying the site, thus making the council a lot of money. If this were indeed the case (and I can't find much evidence that says otherwise) then we're talking about a huge city altering development for the sake of somebody getting to build a new shopping area in the city. Which, in my opinion, we don't need. The CAS is a Trojan Horse for somebody to make an awful lot of money.

The main argument for CAS is relieving traffic congestion. And again, the ring road solves this.

road_high

The city does need new infrastructure badly but this bridge is ugly and ill designed. I was in favour if it til I saw the pics. Something elegant, yes. Not a concrete block...

mick kk

As regards the new pedestrian bridge - there has been a lot of talk about the bridge that we got, not being the bridge that we were promised i.e. that it doesn't look like the bridge for which planning permission was granted. Does this mean its going to be changed to what it was supposed to look like or are we stuck with what has been built?

If they couldn't get a simple enough pedestrian bridge right, how is the new bridge going to look if it already looks terrible in the plans!

Bowlardo

road_high wrote: »

The city does need new infrastructure badly but this bridge is ugly and ill designed. I was in favour if it til I saw the pics. Something elegant, yes. Not a concrete block...

mick kk wrote: »

If they couldn't get a simple enough pedestrian bridge right, how is the new bridge going to look if it already looks terrible in the plans!

I think if the ring road extended to the Fresh ford road in the short term it would make a considerable difference to the traffic on Greens Bridge in the morning. I think this would take the majority of the heavy vehicles off Greens Bridge.
I can see why the new bridge would be good for developing the old mart site and Wolfe tone street but I have zero confidence in the council constructing a bridge befitting of the medieval city and this is nowhere more evident than the new pedestrian bridge ....it is horrendous. Whoever designed it should be genuinely embarrassed...perhaps there was budget restriction but it is a piss poor attempt - shocking.

catbear

In an unintended way the CAS genral support may be scuppered thanks to the pedestrian bridge!

Grats

catbear wrote: »

In an unintended way the CAS genral support may be scuppered thanks to the pedestrian bridge!

And does that mean the CAS won't go ahead now?

catbear

Grats wrote: »

And does that mean the CAS won't go ahead now?

Who knows but the new pedestrian bridge has certainly given people a visual idea of what brutalist design does for a town that has traded very successfully off its antiquarian uniqueness.

However Grats there could be still an influential cohort who could make your ambition to dilute that uniqueness come true. The Congestion Acceleration Scheme could do it's bit to make Kilkenny just like a lot of other places that would love our tourism take.

Really you don't realise what you've got until you meet Australians and Americans who say that out of all the places they visited in Europe little Kilkenny was their favorite and they were serious. Although overlooked when other Irish towns were "modernised" Kilkenny was actually spared ordinariness.

Complete the ringroad and retain that uniqueness, trade on that advantage and create more sustainable jobs that will be there in the long term rather than tarnishing that advantage for the sake of a few hundred short term jobs that would be created on the ringroad completion anyway.

Economically completing the ringroad has the better longterm and short term value.

Mankbag

Threadhead wrote: »

Why are people for it though? That's the question that's never adequately answered. Greens Bridge is definitely in bad shape, no doubt about it but I can't see what the CAS will achieve that completing the ring road won't. I can't see why it's needed.

The Brewery site argument for the CAS is an absolutely ridiculous one too. Sure, it would be great to have another entrance to the site but it's entirely possible to knock the houses on Vicar Street and have a new street that accesses the Brewery site without having to build a bridge alongside it. Knocking the houses, I get. Building this bridge is the baffling part.

Nail on the head there as regards the Brewery site. This is a red herring that has been thrown into the mix very late on by the local authorities. The original argument - and to me a very tenuous one, but that's a personal opinion - was that the CAS was needed to open up the Mart site. Now the Mart site is a non-runner for the foreseeable future, so what are the local authorities and the Chamber of Commerce saying? Why, the new bridge is needed for the Brewery site!

It's clear that they're simply making it up as they go along.

Grats

If it was accepted that the bridge was indeed required for the mart site then the Council are showing foresight by pressing ahead. The economy will be back on track some day and the bridge will be beneficial for both the mart and brewery sites. I shudder to think of the criticism that would be directed at the Council in years to come should they not show that foresight now.

kikel

I'd be against the Mart Site as a commercial development. Really don't think it is needed especially now that the brewery site is available.

The city has changed since the bridge and the mart site plans were put in place. We need to take a step back as a city review our options with fresh eyes.


I'd love to see some options of the following report implemented into our city.

http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Freiburg_IJST_BuehlerPucher.pdf

catbear

Grats wrote: »

If it was accepted that the bridge was indeed required for the mart site then the Council are showing foresight by pressing ahead. The economy will be back on track some day and the bridge will be beneficial for both the mart and brewery sites. I shudder to think of the criticism that would be directed at the Council in years to come should they not show that foresight now.

What's your definition of "back on track"?

kikel

How can we trust the current council to look after our city?

http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/news/kilkenny-news/council-to-retain-gable-of-no-22-vicar-street-1-6043876

Cabaal

kikel wrote: »

How can we trust the current council to look after our city?

http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/news/kilkenny-news/council-to-retain-gable-of-no-22-vicar-street-1-6043876

so council say its not important and it has no historic value but now they are going to retain it? Nonsense,

This whole plan is a disaster, we'll look back at this in 20 years and see the poor planning involved in this whole road scheme

Grats

Glad that this episode is finally coming to a conclusion. No matter what the council do they can't win but the long suffering bridge users will be the winners.

catbear

Grats wrote: »

Glad that this episode is finally coming to a conclusion. No matter what the council do they can't win but the long suffering bridge users will be the winners.

You never answered my question.

kikel

Cabaal wrote: »

so council say its not important and it has no historic value but now they are going to retain it? Nonsense,

This whole plan is a disaster, we'll look back at this in 20 years and see the poor planning involved in this whole road scheme

I think it shows the councils survey of the site was flawed, maybe their was pressure to ensure nothing was found. According to this letter the council had previously admitted their was some historic value to the site.

Cabaal

Grats wrote: »

Glad that this episode is finally coming to a conclusion. No matter what the council do they can't win but the long suffering bridge users will be the winners.

A bridge at any cost eh?
Shame it'll be an awful eyesore right in the middle of the city where it can be seen from the castle and John's Bridge. Its totally out of character, even more then the smaller bridge recently installed

Cabaal

kikel wrote: »

I think it shows the councils survey of the site was flawed, maybe their was pressure to ensure nothing was found. According to this letter the council had previously admitted their was some historic value to the site.

Flawed by mistake or flawed on purpose in order to try and fasttrack the CAS?
If they know the proper depth then this suggests to me that they tried to just fast track things by not doing things right,

Grats

It's over, move on.

catbear

Grats wrote: »

It's over, move on.

That's all you can say and you still haven't answered my question.

miece16

build a bridge and get over it guys

catbear

miece16 wrote: »

build a bridge and get over it guys

A bridge too far?

miece16

a bridge over the river "just do it"

catbear

miece16 wrote: »

a bridge over the river "just do it"

No reason required then other just do it? Sounds like a rattler is all you need.

Grats

miece16 wrote: »

build a bridge and get over it guys

You just stole my lines!