€300M Investment into Waterford City

Gardner

IanVW wrote: »

https://waterford-news.ie/2019/03/12/327525/?fbclid=IwAR2vJmS3Y28RQ9_mzN0X2oHsA7ghlxqnDrLtsrSiitq3Z0h3oBrlwVPbU8U

so that's an update of an update that nothing has changed......

Aquos76

Gardner wrote: »

so that's an update of an update that nothing has changed......

It now an OFFICIAL update though, rather than just previous speculation:D

robcass78

Aquos76 wrote: »

Lads, I think ye are all actually missing something here, this is a very positive move as its the first time that the company has actually publicly released a statement on these developments, hence the reason why local media are carrying it as major news. Everything up to this was purely speculation.

Well said.

mooseknunkle

curmudgeonly wrote: »

Seems like all the naysayers may have been wrong, Alkohair have committed to spending 7.5 million on prep work on NQ immediately and Michael street to start before the end of summer is what I am hearing, albeit with an internal design change for one large anchor tenant.

You called it ,but nothing about Michael St this morning is that still starting by the end of the summer ?

There is something about michael st WLR just had on the headline news that there wasnt anything said about it

Johnboy1951

BBM77 wrote: »

https://www.wlrfm.com/2019/03/12/85442/

WLR has the complete statement. Can't see it as anything other than a positive that a company "reasserts its commitment" to a project in Waterford. No matter what the reason behind issuing the statement is.

Thankfully they printed the actual statement, which lends some credence to the whole thing.

I continue to think this statement is to remind the gov that they are still waiting for the gov to step up to the mark and get behind the project rather than just paying lip service to it.

Nonetheless it is good to hear that they are still waiting and not pulled the plug.
Hopefully this will have the desired effect and bring this more fully into public awareness.

hardybuck

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Thankfully they printed the actual statement, which lends some credence to the whole thing.

I continue to think this statement is to remind the gov that they are still waiting for the gov to step up to the mark and get behind the project rather than just paying lip service to it.

Nonetheless it is good to hear that they are still waiting and not pulled the plug.
Hopefully this will have the desired effect and bring this more fully into public awareness.

Agreed, at least some statement came out. The N&S really need to look at themselves.

Expect all sources of Government capital funding to proceed with far more caution and checks than before after the most recent HSE fiasco.

Also expect an election before anything happens with NQs.

IanVW

7 submissions to an bord pleanala in relation to the new bridge so will have to be an oral hearing on that

robcass78

For those who want to keep up to date on official updates, our Marketing team have now created:

@Falcon__RED as the official Twitter account & https://www.facebook.com/FalconRealEstateDevelopementLtd/?view_public_for=337022193824678
to follow updates

The official website will be launched end of this week.

My suggestion is to raise queries, questions & solutions there.

alta stare

robcass78 wrote: »

For those who want to keep up to date on official updates, our Marketing team have now created:

@Falcon__RED as the official Twitter account & https://www.facebook.com/FalconRealEstateDevelopementLtd/?view_public_for=337022193824678
to follow updates

The official website will be launched end of this week.

My suggestion is to raise queries, questions & solutions there.

Good man Rob that's what we need to see. Official press releases are welcome.

Bards

robcass78 wrote: »

For those who want to keep up to date on official updates, our Marketing team have now created:

@Falcon__RED as the official Twitter account & https://www.facebook.com/FalconRealEstateDevelopementLtd/?view_public_for=337022193824678
to follow updates

The official website will be launched end of this week.

My suggestion is to raise queries, questions & solutions there.

Any and all timelines will be most welcome... The last thing we want is a vacuum which allows rumours and scaremongering to spread

Wanderer78

Bards wrote:

Any and all timelines will be most welcome... The last thing we want is a vacuum which allows rumours and scaremongering to spread

That ll happen anyway

debok

Bards wrote: »

Any and all timelines will be most welcome... The last thing we want is a vacuum which allows rumours and scaremongering to spread

Don't think anything apart from a finished project will stop rumours and scaremongering spreading around here!!!

Johnboy1951

debok wrote: »

Don't think anything apart from a finished project will stop rumours and scaremongering spreading around here!!!

Oh there will be a lot to complain about when it is finished too ....... traffic control, some specialised outlet not present, not being run properly or a myriad of others that will be imagined

Deise Vu

IanVW wrote: »

7 submissions to an bord pleanala in relation to the new bridge so will have to be an oral hearing on that

Assuming the design will deal with shipping access, what possible objection could anyone have to a footbridge connecting the North and South Quays?

Also, I thought the whole point of being designated a SDZ was to expedite the planning process, is it really true than an oral hearing will be required?

IanVW

Deise Vu wrote: »

Assuming the design will deal with shipping access, what possible objection could anyone have to a footbridge connecting the North and South Quays?

Also, I thought the whole point of being designated a SDZ was to expedite the planning process, is it really true than an oral hearing will be required?

Think the SDZ only relates to the actual north quays site. Maybe its the same guy that objected before on the grounds that cruise ships couldnt come up the river:D
Does anyone have a link to the submissions? I thought they could be viewed on the an bord pleanala website?

TheQuietFella

IanVW wrote: »

Think the SDZ only relates to the actual north quays site. Maybe its the same guy that objected before on the grounds that cruise ships couldnt come up the river:D
Does anyone have a link to the submissions? I thought they could be viewed on the an bord pleanala website?

Well I hope that it wouldn't impact on the tall ships if they were to return
(I know that they're not Cruise Liners) but hopefully it will be given the due
consideration that it deserves. We don't want another debacle like we
have with 'road improvements' on The Quay!

robtri

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Well I hope that it wouldn't impact on the tall ships if they were to return
(I know that they're not Cruise Liners) but hopefully it will be given the due
consideration that it deserves. We don't want another debacle like we
have with 'road improvements' on The Quay!

While I loved the tall ships when they where here...
I really don't think we should be objecting to the developments for something that MIGHT happen one every 9 years....

Road-Hog

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Well I hope that it wouldn't impact on the tall ships if they were to return
(I know that they're not Cruise Liners) but hopefully it will be given the due
consideration that it deserves. We don't want another debacle like we
have with 'road improvements' on The Quay!

Yeah. Tall ships. Twice in Waterford in the last 14 years.....we need to keep things as tall ship friendly as possible it is such a loyal event....!

Waterboy2014

This point is irrelevant. There is an opening span designed into the bridge so it wouldn't have impacted the Tall Ships. Or any passing traffic. Would be interesting to see the objections.

Road-Hog

Waterboy2014 wrote: »

This point is irrelevant. There is an opening span designed into the bridge so it wouldn't have impacted the Tall Ships. Or any passing traffic. Would be interesting to see the objections.

Yes would be interesting to see what the basis for the ‘objections’ are. In any case 7 would appear to be a low number....maybe they are available on the An Bord Pleanala web site....the tall ships people may have put something in....?

Harry Palmr

Seven objectors thequietfella, his wife and the children!

Aquos76

Lads, seriously can ye just stop now, there are NOT 7 OBJECTIONS, there are 7 submissions, and these submissions will not be made available to the public until the the bord has made their decision.

alta stare

Wouldnt it be nice if we were talking about a vehicular bridge and not a pedestrian bridge. The traffic in the mornings and evenings is getting beyond bonkers.

hardybuck

alta stare wrote: »

Wouldnt it be nice if we were talking about a vehicular bridge and not a pedestrian bridge. The traffic in the mornings and evenings is getting beyond bonkers.

Only if private cars were banned from using it from 8am until 6 in the evening, and if it was only for public transport and cyclists.

Gavlor

alta stare wrote: »

Wouldnt it be nice if we were talking about a vehicular bridge and not a pedestrian bridge. The traffic in the mornings and evenings is getting beyond bonkers.

So adding a second bridge in the middle of town will help that??

Traffic on the quay flows perfectly 95% of the time. A 3 minute wait at the bridge doesn’t constitute a traffic issue

BBM77

hardybuck wrote: »

Only if private cars were banned from using it from 8am until 6 in the evening, and if it was only for public transport and cyclists.

A traffic bridge on the middle of The Quay will do little. What is needed is a toll-free bridge around Maypark so traffic coming from all directions into the city from the North is not concentrated on one bridge. The problem with the bypass is it is tolled and it is a bypass, it was not designed to deal with traffic coming into the city.

hardybuck

BBM77 wrote: »

A traffic bridge on the middle of The Quay will do little. What is needed is a toll-free bridge around Maypark so traffic coming from all directions into the city from the North is not concentrated on one bridge. The problem with the bypass is it is tolled and it is a bypass, it was not designed to deal with traffic coming into the city.

This should have been done in 1990. Doing it now would be nearly impossible with the single lane Dunmore Road. The road is already unsuitable for the population living out there.

If you had a single lane on the bridge which buses could use, and obviously have an improved bus service with a park and ride facility, you could actually reduce some of the traffic coming into the city.

Too much of the traffic on the quays involves people from south Wexford and South Kilkenny driving their kids into school, WIT and to the industrial estates.

What's needed is orbital bus routes, incorporating park and ride facilities, which stop near the quays, Parnell St, out the Cork Road to WIT and the industrial estates, and back again around by the train station and Ferrybank.

alta stare

Gavlor wrote: »

So adding a second bridge in the middle of town will help that??

Traffic on the quay flows perfectly 95% of the time. A 3 minute wait at the bridge doesn’t constitute a traffic issue

Did i say the middle of town? I think not.

3 minute wait at the bridge??? You clearly dont come into the city from ferrybank/sallypark in the mornings.

MartyMcFly84

The longer term solution is flexible working and education times.

the vast majority of jobs and schools starting at 9am is a legacy thing. If different workplaces and schools staggered their start times over say 1.5 hours from 8am - 9.30am it would relieve a massive amount of traffic.

Harry Palmr

Is there a secondary school on Ferrybank?