Jump to content

Save Whin Park and the Canal pitches


Recommended Posts

Highland Council are currently proposing building the distributor road extension through Whin Park and the canal pitches. West Link Protest Group has set up a website, Facebook Group and online petition in order for people to find out how to make representations to the council if they disagree with this planned approach.

Whin Park is a fantastic public space for young families and one of the things that makes Inverness a great place to live. We think its really short-sighted of the council to propose this and if you do too, please lend your support by visiting the website and emailing the template letter to the Council and also signing the online petition linked above.

The closing date for representations is tomorrow so please act quickly! If we don't speak up then it will ruin these public amenities.

Many thanks,

Fraser

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've lodged my objection with the Council. Apart from the fact that all of the proposed routes to cross the river go through important amenity areas on the North of the river, none of the proposed routes actually link with the existing distributor road at Holm Mains - crazy!

As the OP states, the closing date for objections is Friday 11th so please get on the website and record your objections to these stupid proposals NOW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Original plans to go through the quarry were rejected pretty much outright and largely on the basis of environmental impact. This is an extract from the Transport Scotland - Strategic Transport Projects Review from those original plans....

The Inverness Southern Bypass would have adverse effects on heritage, geology and landscape (mainly the urban fringe of Inverness), particularly resulting from the new section of road, which would necessitate crossing the Torvean Landforms Site of Special Scientific Interest, the Caledonian Canal, which is also a Scheduled Monument, and the River Ness. Even with standard mitigation in place, there could be substantial effects on these sites.

To be honest, I can't see them having much more success with the new proposals for very similar reasons.

It's going to end up being a tunnel or nothing and I can't see a tunnel happening any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I cant fathom out what they are trying to achieve. They say a tunnel is not viable and look to puting another bridge alongside the existing one. (I think) What is that going to achieve. Surely there's no route from the bridge to, I assume, the Telford street roundabout and, ultimately, Longman Road without using the existing Glenurquart Road/ Tomnahurich/ Kenneth Street route. All I can envisage is even more congestion than there is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're looking to link up the distributor road (Sir Walter Scott Dr) that runs from Inshes all the way round past fairways down through Holm to Dores Road with the A82. The idea being that it would take any traffic heading from the A9/A96 to the west away from the city centre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're looking to link up the distributor road (Sir Walter Scott Dr) that runs from Inshes all the way round past fairways down through Holm to Dores Road with the A82. The idea being that it would take any traffic heading from the A9/A96 to the west away from the city centre.

Right. Understand now. I would have thought that the most sensible option in that case would be a flyover bridge spanning both river and canal of suitable hieght to allow free movement of boats. Looking on Google Maps I would have thought this could be done with pretty minimal loss of farmland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its bonkers bringing any traffic along Dores Road as I think it will actually encourage traffic along Dores Road from the town as well. Dores Road has services underneath it too, so you can imagine the hold-ups if they have to dig the road up any point.

The point of the bypass is to reduce the traffic burden but if they're proposing another swing bridge that too will just cause hold-ups when boats are passing through. Emergency vehicles could be held up as they are at the moment when the swing bridges open. I mind seeing Ronnie the bridge keeper at Tomnahurich Bridge being unable to get the bridge closed for a fire engine on a shout, due to a malfunction with the bridge. Absolute nightmare.

I created a Twitter account for the protest group. Search for West Link Protest on Twitter if you wan't to follow it.

Cheers,

Fraser

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of the bypass is to reduce the traffic burden but if they're proposing another swing bridge that too will just cause hold-ups when boats are passing through. Emergency vehicles could be held up as they are at the moment when the swing bridges open. I mind seeing Ronnie the bridge keeper at Tomnahurich Bridge being unable to get the bridge closed for a fire engine on a shout, due to a malfunction with the bridge. Absolute nightmare.

And dont forget the element of cost .... not sure if it is still the same, but in years gone by, the emergency services were obliged to send two vehicles to every shout that occured to the west of the canal. One would take a route that would take it across the Tomnahurich Bridge, another with a route for the Muirtown Bridge ... just in case one of the bridges was closed to traffic ......

On my last visit back to Inverness, I have to say that the whole ring road implementation seems to be a complete cluster**** !!!! There seems little or no planning involved and its more a case of which existing roads can we join up for the cheapest amount of money. The only bit that seems well constructed is the portion between the A9 and Dores Rd (which even ends in a roundabout designed to link to a crossing !!!) but that is hardly surprising considering there was little or no development there when it started.

If you want to cross the canal within the city limits then it should be a tunnel. I know its the most expensive option but there are too many bridges already. A tunnel can be hidden and still leave the existing land use in place.

Alternatively ... If you want give people entering the Highlands the option to bypass the City Centre altogether then why not take an approach similar to Perth? If you head into Perth from the south, while you are still several miles away from the main traffic and business areas you are able to bear left and avoid the town until you get to the main A9 roundabout. If you want to go to Aberdeen, you bear right and take that route. Either way you pass through pretty much countryside (or it was when built) until you connect with the major roads going to either place.

In Inverness terms, why not branch the A9 into 3 options somewhere south of the city limits ... a western bypass that allows you to connect with the A82, an eastern bypass that allows you to connect with the A96 and the existing A9 that goes right up the middle. Upgrade some of the roads in the town so they connect to these arteries, as well as the General Booth Rd <--> Friars Bridge portion and hey presto, less hassle !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The connecting of the distributor road out to the A82 will, IMO, do little to reduce traffic burden and the plan is already 10 years (or more) out of date.....as happens with most road projects they plan for the "now" which is outdated by the time it gains approval and even further outdated byt the time it is implemented. In reality, how many people coming up the A9 want to head west without going through the city? The majority of people on that route will be tourists and will almost certainly want to see/stop off in the city....any business/trade traffic coming from the central belt going to Fort William will head up the West Coast.

As was pointed out when the project was shelved the last time, the benefits of the link up are minor and relate mostly to local traffic....the benefit/cost ratio was nowhere near that required to gain approval and the only thing that has changed is that they have taken large swathes of the land which the road would have originally followed and earmarked it for projects which would be asked to contribute to the cost of the development. The thinking seems to be one of "if the need doesn't exist, let's create it", which is a bit like starting a war to justify having an army......oh wait a minute, we're actually pretty good at that one!!!!

The link up is nothing more than a "nice to have" in my book and if they want to go ahead with it then they should set a 10 year plan for raising the funding to put in a tunnel.....for all the reasons stated above and the fact they could pretty much run it from the roundabout already in place and pick the point they wanted to exit it on the A82 side without disrupting anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so sure the Caledonian Canal should be held up as an example of how to do anything since it took 12 years longer to complete than initially estimated (7 years) and cost more than twice the original quote (?900+k instead of ?410k). In fact, going back to what I said about the plans for the distributor link up already being out of date, the exact same thing happened with the Canal. By the time it was finished the boats being used were too big to pass through it and it was never used as intended. It was more by chance than any grand plan that the canal managed to justify it's existence through tourism instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're looking to link up the distributor road (Sir Walter Scott Dr) that runs from Inshes all the way round past fairways down through Holm to Dores Road with the A82. The idea being that it would take any traffic heading from the A9/A96 to the west away from the city centre.

Right. Understand now. I would have thought that the most sensible option in that case would be a flyover bridge spanning both river and canal of suitable hieght to allow free movement of boats. Looking on Google Maps I would have thought this could be done with pretty minimal loss of farmland.

Unfortunatley....Highland Council and "most sensible option" go together like chalk and cheese!

Edited by SMEE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also fail to see what difference this planned road would make to the bigger picture. I mean....what percentage of traffic going thro inverness are looking to head out the Loch Ness Road? I will bet its actually a pretty small percentage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have heard that a tunnel would be too expensive and a bridge would be too high, now they cant even put the bridge in the correct location.

If it meant putting a bridge close to the original, upsetting all the residents in Dores road with wall rattling HGVs passing by, heavier traffic and losing a beautiful tranquil park,perfect for getting youngsters outside with the family and away from the temptation of vandalism and worse, which happens when there is nowhere to go.Then I would rather the whole idea was scrapped until the A9-A96 link road is put in place, instead of just chucking money away.

The council seem to bow down to the wealthy who dont want to see a bridge in the distance from their expensive homes and to hell with the majority who will have heavy traffic right on their doorstep and a beautiful tranquil park lost forever.

Considering we dont have the volume of traffic as the Clyde tunnel nor do we have the need to build a bridge high enough for ocean built racing yachts to pass under them, then my solution would be to build a swing bridge that is high enough to let motor cruisers pass below and allow walkers and cyclists to follow the canal unimpeded and open the bridge for higher vessels causing minimal disruption and put it in the most sensible place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the options seem to be a low level swing bridge built in tandem with with the existing to keep the movement of traffic constant.

This will be one of the biggest most expensive white elephants in the councils history.

There is nothing to suggest that any of the proposed routes will save any time for the majority of traffic and the existing routes will still be taken .

What about bridges between Dochfour and Dochgarroch and link with the dores mains road on the south west side of holm mains, it could follow the tree line along fields and build embankments to cut down on noise and visibility of traffic.

The bridges would then cross where the canal and river are at more equal heights this would effectively reduce journey times open up the loch ness tourist circuit, allow traffic to flow more smoothly as the adjacent swing bridge plan will just encourage bottlenecks.

With embankments and tree planting in 20 years the new roads and bridges should blend in beautifully at that location and really will open up transport links for the future.

This would equate to the same length of new road being created as the short sighted tandem bridge crossing but would be in a more efficient location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Council have missed a trick here, why don't we put a twist on a new canal crossing creating a new tourist attraction akin to the Falkirk wheel? I'm sure Freda Rapson would be all for the idea as it would bring a whole new load of customers to her business. The road can remain unimpeded when canal traffic needs to cross the road, a river crossing bridge doesn't need to be as high because there's no river traffic and the road reaches the north bank of the canal at ground level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Council have missed a trick here, why don't we put a twist on a new canal crossing creating a new tourist attraction akin to the Falkirk wheel? I'm sure Freda Rapson would be all for the idea as it would bring a whole new load of customers to her business. The road can remain unimpeded when canal traffic needs to cross the road, a river crossing bridge doesn't need to be as high because there's no river traffic and the road reaches the north bank of the canal at ground level.

I think it would be far too expensive to design a working wheel suitable for our requirements, the Falkirk wheel joins 2 canals of different heights, does not have traffic passing below it, has height restrictions so no sail boats can use it and is used by small tug boats infrequently and a tourist boat.

Its a clever efficient design but if I'm being honest I would say its a loss making attraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of increasing the amount of crossings why dont we reduce the number of bridges across the river.

This will give more excitement, it will make the crossing more competitive and will of course encourage more people to use bridges.

Mr Doncaster.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be far too expensive to design a working wheel suitable for our requirements, the Falkirk wheel joins 2 canals of different heights, does not have traffic passing below it, has height restrictions so no sail boats can use it and is used by small tug boats infrequently and a tourist boat.

Its a clever efficient design but if I'm being honest I would say its a loss making attraction.

If the council/executive contributed to the capital cost they'd be saving money and getting a better crossing. This would reduce the portion of income required to cover any capital interest. It would never happen anyway as it would involve too many people to get an agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Any new news on the by pass I think this could be shelved for the next five years or at least till the A96 is running behind Tesco and the Inshes flyover becomes a roundabout.

Why would traffic from the North or East want to drive through Inshes, drive at 40 mph for miles and negotiate umteen roundabouts just to head back to the Inverness direction to head South West.

Swing bridges are fine anyway just make a bridge high enough for pleasure boats to pass and open it for yachts Perfectly accepted in Holland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy