hutton

Wow – Loos Bar is a real gem, never knew about it before – beautiful location 🙂

@Lotts wrote:

I’ll certaintly grant you that. It’s a good campain too by all accounts.

Wish I could agree, but they lost all credibitilty in my book when they came out with the following below – BTW – See nra.ie for details on the Limerick – Tuam motorway that is being planned. What cost while a railway already there gets no govt funding? Feck that and feck P11 for actually lobbying against people in the west getting use out of an existing rail corridor

Group opposed to Sligo rail network
Chris AshmoreTue, © The Irish Times
Apr 06, 04

The national rail transport pressure group, Platform 11, is opposing the reopening of the Western Rail Corridor (WRC) linking Sligo with Galway and Limerick.

The group maintains that the estimated €300 million it would cost to reopen and upgrade the link along a mostly disused line could be better spent on other rail projects, such as the Cork-Midleton, Dublin-Navan and Athlone-Mullingar lines.

The group’s spokesman, Mr Derek Wheeler, said €300 million would go a long way towards securing the future of existing regional rail routes such as the Limerick-Waterford line.

Mr Wheeler said that Dublin remained the only capital city in the EU still without a rail link of any kind to its airport.

Platform 11, he added, did not believe that the WRC would deliver value for money to Irish taxpayers.

“Rail transport in the west of Ireland would benefit more from increasing the frequency of current services into the region, which would, by default, also create viable commuter services in the west and midlands.”

He said there was no major population centre north of Tuam which was not currently served by rail.

Regarding road-traffic congestion, which may justify a WRC rail commuter service, he maintained that this currently exists only between Tuam and Galway city.

However, a spokesman for the West on Track campaign expressed surprise at the Platform 11 position.

He pointed out that the campaign to reopen the route was supported by three regional authorities and local-development and tourism groups.

© The Irish Times

😮 !

Planners reject road plan for first time
An Bord Pleanála makes landmark ruling on proposed inner relief road for Kildare town
Frank McDonald, Environment Editor

An Bord Pleanála has refused planning permission for a proposed inner relief route in Athy, Co Kildare, the first time that the board has rejected any road scheme that came before it.

The 1km route, first proposed in 1975, would run to the south of Duke and Leinster streets from a new roundabout west of the railway bridge on the Dublin road to another new roundabout on the Kilkenny road.

It would have included a new bridge over the Grand Canal and another over the River Barrow. Objectors argued that the route would run right past the rear of Athy’s courthouse – a protected structure – skirting the main square before rising to cross the river. In its decision to refuse permission, An Bord Pleanála said it considered that the proposed route “would fail both as a street and as a relief road because it would continue to bring traffic, including heavy commercial vehicles, through the town centre”.

The board noted, in particular, that the current Athy Development Plan included a proposed southern bypass, which would provide a new crossing of the River Barrow some 500 metres to the south of the inner relief route, but without any need to bridge the Grand Canal.

It said this bypass “offers opportunities for providing linkages between the growing eastern, southern and western suburbs of the town, while leaving the townscape of its historic core intact”, whereas the inner relief route would have “significant adverse effects”.

Spelling these out, the board said the proposed road would materially and adversely affect the character of the town centre of Athy and would detract from its townscape qualities by reason of visual intrusion, noise and general disturbance from traffic.

In reaching this conclusion, the board said it had regard to the composition of protected structures and other buildings of importance in the medieval core of Athy, to existing historic street patterns in the area and to their relationship to the River Barrow.

It considered that the introduction of vehicular traffic, including heavy commercial vehicles, into this “sensitive urban environment” and interference with the pattern of urban spaces would be “contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area”.

The board also ruled that the environmental impact statement (EIS) “is deficient in not adequately addressing the alternatives to this inner relief route in the context of present land use patterns, traffic movements, road developments and environmental constraints”.

Though Dom Hegarty, the inspector who conducted the public inquiry last March, recommended approval, the board said “the totality of the injurious effects on the town of Athy would be unacceptable in the context of proper planning and sustainable development”.

An Taisce welcomed An Bord Pleanála’s decision, saying it was a vindication of its role as a prescribed body under the Planning Acts.

“Kildare County Council weren’t even going to do an EIS until we referred the matter to the board, which directed that it be done,” it added.

Mr Ian Lumley, the trust’s heritage officer, said the case raised questions about the competence of inspectors holding road hearings in relation to how the EU directive on environmental impact assessment is applied, particularly the requirement to consider alternatives.

“More often than not, these inspectors are retired engineers from local authorities or the Department of the Environment, whose thinking on roads seems not to have changed from what was happening in Dublin in the 1980s, when whole streets were being pulled down.”

One of the most vocal opponents of the inner relief route was local solicitor Frank Taffe. He made it clear at the hearing last March that there was no need “to destroy the character of our town” when the alternative of an outer ring road was available.

© The Irish Times

Yep Frank you have that spot on; relic of when Dublin was “European Capital of Culture”.
Pleasantly reassuring how Cork comes second to Dublin in everything, including the denotion as a capital of culture 😀

H.

PS – We also managed to have 2 “milleniums” within a dozen years, so yez can also add that to your list of gripes like, ye chippy types down south :p

@emf wrote:

When I saw this post I got goose bumps as I was just discussing it with someone the other day. We wondered if perhaps they might have been the first in the City??

First traffic lights in Dublin were at the corner of Merrion Square beside the Mount Clare Hotel, circa mid 30’s methinks.

I note that works seems to have recommenced on the lights at Baggot St… Better not touch the fluted standards or I’ll be very very X 😡 !

PS I do have to fess up to having probably been the one responsible for CC thinking twice as to whiping theses lights out – I got onto a no of different councillors last summer when I saw that de feckers were about to replace them… 😉

H.

Hearing deadline for Abbeyleix – Mitchelstown is coming up in July. Current NRA proposals are for a (greenfield) road adjacent to existing road.
What do people think about routing Dublin – Cork via Kilkenny, roughly along Durrow-Kilkenny (N77) and Kilkenny-Clonmel (N76) route?

By my calculations, it would add approx 10 miles onto Dublin – Cork journey, or less than 10 minutes extra journey time.
If such a route was chosen, it might be best complimented by having the existing road to Waterford from Kilkenny upgraded as a 2+1, likewise with that from Kilcullen to Carlow.

All of this would result in 65 miles less of motorway needed to be built while also providing Kilkenny with motorway connections, not just to Dublin, but to Cork as well.

Is all of this nonsense, or what do people think?

@Sue wrote:

What a bunch of loony lefty tweedy conservation types infest this site. I think you’d all be better moving over to the An Taisce chatboard. This is supposed to be an architecture site – and you can’t build stuff without either knocking other stuff down or “destroying” a previously pristine landscape

I note you dont acknowledge the Woodstown reroute win-win for all. Sham argument on your part!

@Sue wrote:

It would be a huge victory for the anti-road lobby, without them having to spend a penny or a day in court, and it would fuel their campaigns against other bypasses and motorways.

No, let them do their worst in court. A la Carrickmines and Glen of the Downes, the road will get built in the end and by-passing motorists will wonder what the hell the fuss was ever about

Sue youre either deliberately taking the piss or talking bollox – Woodstown viking site is now saved as the Waterford bypass is being rerouted. So there you go – historic site kept and road goes ahead; everybody wins, or am I missing something? Maybe I just haven’t noticed, but so far I don’t see an “anti-road lobby” celebrating!

@patty wrote:

Are there any three lane motorways in Ireland? Are there any projects? Is the project to upgrade all main routes to motorway status?

FYI – This is what happens when ….

The Irish Times – Thu, Apr 08, 04

Hearing into proposed €250m road between Limerick and Nenagh ends
Karl Hanlon

An oral hearing into a controversial proposal to build a €250 million motorway between Limerick and Nenagh concluded yesterday amid heated scenes.
The seven-day hearing was told that there were objections from more than 100 landowners who have been served with compulsory purchase orders on their homes and property.
An Bord Pleanála inspector, Mr Michael Ward, also heard submissions from groups and individuals in relation to the Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed route.
On the final day of the hearing in Limerick yesterday, conservationist Mr Ruadhan MacEoin, made a lengthy submission on alternative proposals to the new 37 km road.
Central to his argument was a proposal to upgrade the existing N7 route between Limerick and Nenagh along the lines of the “two plus one” routes.
This is basically a three-lane carriageway which allows safe overtaking at 2 km sections in both directions along the route.
The conservationist argued that this proposal would be less damaging to the environment and be considerably more cost effective.
At the end of Mr MacEoin’s submission, Mr James Macken SC, for the local authorities, made his final address and Mr Ward closed the hearing.
At this point, Mr MacEoin made several attempts to ask the expert panel to address the points he had just raised in his alternative proposal.
However, his request was repeatedly denied by Mr Ward, who told him the hearing had closed.
“I am deeply upset at the way in which the inspector concluded the hearing in such a needlessly aggressive manner without allowing the experts to address my questions,” Mr MacEoin said afterwards.

© The Irish Times

So there you go. As to lack of strategic positioning of the routes, this thread may also be of interest:

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=3633

From a factual perspective, in relation to Dublin – Cork / Limerick / Waterford route siting one does note 2 clear historic trends:

1) Infrastructure has been successful – provided the route selection process also gave due consideration to population centres other than just the end destinations. Hence, the Dublin – Cork mail coach roads went via Carlow and Kilkenny, while the Dublin – Cork railway went close enough to Limerick so as to also serve that by spur from Limerick Jcn.

2) Infrastructure has been unsuccessful and/ or commercially unviable where routes were run too close together. The 2 best examples from Irish experience are the Turnpike roads built in the 18th century – where the network was too dense and overly focused on the Dublin / S.E. of the country (Plus ca change! See “Atlas of the Irish Rural Landscape” pub 1997 for more), and the Royal Canal, built in the 19th C., practically paralell to the Grand Canal and a financial black hole from day 1.

Point being that there were really 2 choices when it came to servicing cities, either build slightly circuitious routes between the major cities, or alternatively upgrade with 2 + 1 systems along existing routes. Given that the NRA overspend to date equates with €5000 overspend per taxpayer, it does not strike me as value for money to build a motorway solely for only 800 vehicles per day that currently are on the Waterford road south of Kilkenny.
From the perspective that a bit of strategic planning would have got far better bang-for-buck, it is depressing to watch billions of taxpayers money needlessly wasted while rats infest class rooms and hospitals fall apart. That said, and if one accepts that a mistake was made by building a motorway via Portlaoise, there may actually still be time to get more efficient motorway route selection. Were the political will there, it might be found that the Dublin – Galway and the Dublin – Limerick routes could be amalgamated with a junction somewhere near Birr, and likewise Dublin – Cork should go via Carlow, Kilkenny, Clonmel with a spur or 2 + 1 to Waterford.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why Carlow and Kilkenny Chambers of Commerce, County Cos, etc, did not see that both their access, and the actual financial justifiacation of construction would be better advanced were they to push for such a route choice.
In the meantime Jack’s last comment as to a tribunal is probably on the money 😀

Ah! Thats that off my chest !

H.

For my twopence, Marino Casino wins hands down! :p That said maybe theres a bit of bias in this thread towards historical/ classical architecture… Or then again, one can always make the case that it was par for the course for pre-20th C architecture to have its emphasis on outward appearance – rather then the form-follow-function dogma since. Ah yes who needs function when you can have proportion!

From: http://www.iol.ie/~stdavids/The_Casino_at_Marino.html

“The Casino at Marino is a magnificent building situated on a hill just off the Malahide Road, north of Fairview a suburb in the north side of Dublin. It was built for James Caulfield the Earl of Charlemont. The building commenced around 1759 and was not finished until 1771

As a building it is one of the finest in Europe. Architectural experts rank it with Andrea Pallido’s “Villa Rotunda” at Vicenza in Italy built around 1567 and Inigo Jones’ “Queens House” at Greenwich in London built from 1619-1622. It is the only Irish building which has a high international reputation.”

For more click link above –

H