Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
10-05-2012, 13:21   #61
old gregg
Registered User
 
old gregg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Shpongleland
Posts: 2,841
OK I take it all back. I don't drive much so seldom get hassled over the quay (hence previous statements of mine on this topic).

This morning changed all that. A tailback that went the entire length of the quay from the Tower Lights right up to those at the bridge. 35 mins to go the length of the quay starting at 08:30am.

The cause? An absolute asshole of a coach driver parked outside Tracey's Hotel, not using the inadequate loading bay outside. Oh no, this clown parked at the traffic lights and completely blocked the left lane for nearly an hour. Traffic going over the bridge from the quay at that hour usually gets very little time. This clown cut that in half.

Dozens of people late for work and school.

I can understand the need to pick up/set down guests but peak times and to obstruct traffic lights? I don't think so.

Hotel emailed, City Council cc'd.

So endeth my first ever bitch-fit on Boards

old gregg is offline  
Advertisement
10-05-2012, 20:38   #62
Funfair
Registered User
 
Funfair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 679
RE: The Quay.
City Council should level the eye soar on the North Warf e.g. old flour mill, build a new car park on the site, build a covered foot bridge over the Suir to in or around the clock tower area.
Revenue from car park will pay for the bridge over 10-20 years.
You remove the eye soar, you have extra parking for the city with a short stroll over a visually stunning walk way. You have less traffic going down the quay etc etc..
I can only see the plus signs of this can somebody point out the negatives?
Funfair is offline  
10-05-2012, 20:52   #63
kensutz
Registered User
 
kensutz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 8,283
Send a message via Skype™ to kensutz
How are boats meant to get under the bridge? How many people would actually use it? The silos can't be knocked because of health & safety.
kensutz is offline  
10-05-2012, 23:12   #64
mike65
Registered User
 
mike65's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: waterford
Posts: 81,405
If it was done correctly the volume of sail traffic is so low it could be done. The silos are not an issue as annoying as they are there is room for hundreds of cars on the north quays as it stands.

The Frank Cassin Wharf area is very roomy now.

http://www.griffinsoft.com/cruise11/TallShipsMap1.JPG
mike65 is offline  
10-05-2012, 23:20   #65
abouttobebanned
Closed Account
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,811
A foot bridge located at the tower hotel would get some savage use. People would even pay 50cent a pop to cross it. I'm no architect but Im sure something could be done to make it high up or retractable, drawable or liftable.
abouttobebanned is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
11-05-2012, 13:55   #66
Psychedelic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Funfair View Post
RE: The Quay.
City Council should level the eye soar on the North Warf e.g. old flour mill, build a new car park on the site, build a covered foot bridge over the Suir to in or around the clock tower area.
Revenue from car park will pay for the bridge over 10-20 years.
You remove the eye soar, you have extra parking for the city with a short stroll over a visually stunning walk way. You have less traffic going down the quay etc etc..
I can only see the plus signs of this can somebody point out the negatives?
Yeah I know this seems like an obvious solution, unfortunately though there seems to be some sort of stalemate situation about the North Quays, between City Council, the Port and possibly some other private parties. I don't understand it myself, think it's all legal/finance issues and some people who want to make money on a development there. Sadly though it's like no one really cares enough to just to come to some arrangement and sort it out.

I asked Cllr Mary Roche on her blog why nothing was being done about it and she basically said have you've been hiding under a rock or something like as it was well-documented in local media, and that it's not that simple.

Maybe someone here could spell out exactly what the situation is and why the City Council aren't trying to do something about it.
Psychedelic is offline  
11-05-2012, 14:14   #67
wellboytoo
Registered User
 
wellboytoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Waterford
Posts: 1,109
Mc Inerneys, (in Liquidation) own the former flour mills, so City council have no power over it and even if they got it for €1 from the liquidator, it is the first reinforced concrete structure ever built in Ireland over a very old dock, so the cost of demolitioning this would be a seven figure sum.
The Port of Waterford own every thing else other than the Train tracks, they are a private company who either want to operate or sell the land for big money.
Waterford City Council have no hold over any of it, that is the situation.
wellboytoo is offline  
Thanks from:
11-05-2012, 15:01   #68
Psychedelic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,789
Okay, so the Council can knock the buildings if they wanted. Seven figures is a lot but wouldn't have been back years ago - why didn't they? And even now they could spread the cost over a few years. For such an important thing that would revitalise the city centre (which is their primary objective), why don't they pay to knock the buildings, it would be an investment well spent.

The Council/Port could then pay to set up a car park which they could gain income from. I know it's probably a lot trickier than that but surely some sort of compromise can be made for the betterment of the city and the Port. I wonder would some EU or Government funding be available to support this kind of thing, like an urban regeneration fund.

It sounds like the Port are the bad guys here, sitting on land they want to see rise in value, but wouldn't the land be more valuable if the buildings were knocked. Ah I dunno, I doubt anything will ever happen there, not in the next 10 or 20 years anyway.
Psychedelic is offline  
11-05-2012, 15:43   #69
Bards
Registered User
 
Bards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Waterford City
Posts: 2,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychedelic View Post
Okay, so the Council can knock the buildings if they wanted. Seven figures is a lot but wouldn't have been back years ago - why didn't they? And even now they could spread the cost over a few years. For such an important thing that would revitalise the city centre (which is their primary objective), why don't they pay to knock the buildings, it would be an investment well spent.

The Council/Port could then pay to set up a car park which they could gain income from. I know it's probably a lot trickier than that but surely some sort of compromise can be made for the betterment of the city and the Port. I wonder would some EU or Government funding be available to support this kind of thing, like an urban regeneration fund.

It sounds like the Port are the bad guys here, sitting on land they want to see rise in value, but wouldn't the land be more valuable if the buildings were knocked. Ah I dunno, I doubt anything will ever happen there, not in the next 10 or 20 years anyway.
IIRC it's Irish Rail who are the main blockers to the development of the North Quays as they own the railway tracks and the permanent way. they will not relinquish rights, hence the stalemate situation we find ourselves in
Bards is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
11-05-2012, 16:24   #70
hardybuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bards View Post
IIRC it's Irish Rail who are the main blockers to the development of the North Quays as they own the railway tracks and the permanent way. they will not relinquish rights, hence the stalemate situation we find ourselves in
Remember hearing this. If there was any political will at all for this to happen, Irish Rail would be forced into backing down fairly sharpish.
hardybuck is offline  
11-05-2012, 17:25   #71
tonc76
Registered User
 
tonc76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Dublin
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardybuck View Post
Remember hearing this. If there was any political will at all for this to happen, Irish Rail would be forced into backing down fairly sharpish.
Irish Rail are a law onto themselves and I couldn't see them backing down for anyone!
tonc76 is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search