Jump to content

Stop the Canal/River Bridges and Roads


BornCaley

Recommended Posts

Im sure like me you have taken a stroll on the river Ness or the Canal. 2 areas of Inverness pretty much unspoiled in a long time. Well there is a proposal to add New Road and bridges to the canal and River Ness. I for one; albiet an ex pat, find this just wrong.   Add your voice, share with your FB/Tweeter friends.

 

http://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=neighbourComments&keyVal=MUEN97IH7R000

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've been talking about thus for years tbh. It would make my life easier tbh coming from the A82. HOWEVER the route the council are proposing right through the rugby club and whin park is awful. If this is the best they can cone up with us rather they just left things as they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you can get a petition going that will be signed by 10's of 1000's then it'll go ahead. debate has taken place and votes counted in favour. Unfortunately, at the review and planning stages, there were not enough significant objections.

 

I think its a wrong move and will only increase conjestion in the city centre but then I'm only a mere road user.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have NO chance of getting the council to alter their plans, they have already sold the land/agreed outline planning permission to developers along the route to the new bridge/crossing.

I would imagine brown envelopes dropping into letter boxes a few years ago to 'help' the decision making process.

Also keep an eye on how much this will end up costing by the completion of the project - not far less than the high bridge / torvean bridge plan i'll bet.

These b'stards should be made to resign if it does! 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest im only really bothered about the bridge over the Ness. Its such a stunning place it doesn't need a seventh bridge.

 

I'm sure the Brahan Seer made a prophecy about a 7th bridge over the Ness and it flowing with Blood. There was a bridge near the old Slaughterhouse so maybe that's what he meant. Anyway I digress!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:cry:

Another way of getting across the river is badly needed.  I've wasted far too much time trying to get from one side to the other at busy times of day.

Agreed! A sizeable slice of the traffic crossing the Ness Bridge is going from Culduthel, Hilton, Holm, Lochardil to the other side of town and vice versa. Another crossing is vital not only to relieve that pressure but also to provide a link between the A82 and the A9/96 which doesn't go through Inverness. Inverness is progressively becoming more and more gridlocked which is made worse by this city's long held obsession with digging up the streets!

As for the various options, I lost track of that debate years ago and I just don't understand what's taking the Council so long.

On the other hand I did observe in detail their decision process in relation to giving Caley Thistle their £900,000 grant and Caley's Carse application before that...... :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cant wait until its done. Cant see how it will add to the traffic in the city center, quite the opposite. But agree, rather they missed Whin Park, Torvean and the Canal pitches.

At the moment there's one single lane into the centre from the other side of the canal. The new bridge and road plans that go with it provide for two lanes going into one. Result equals added congestion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last thing we need is another swing bridge. That's just ridiculous.

It certainly is! Especially given that boats actually have the right of way, above the traffic on the roads. Not many peeps know that. There needs to be a change, stating that boats can only go thro at certain, quiet times.

Not only that, the two swing bridges are a few yards apart....so if Boats are going thro the canal.....chances are.....traffic at BOTH bridges will be held up at the same time. how does that help the situation?

Like many things.....very few, apart from the powers that be, seem to be in favour of option 6....but...as usual, they know they will be able to charge ahead with the project, coz of public apathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The last thing we need is another swing bridge. That's just ridiculous.

It certainly is! Especially given that boats actually have the right of way, above the traffic on the roads. Not many peeps know that. There needs to be a change, stating that boats can only go thro at certain, quiet times.

Not only that, the two swing bridges are a few yards apart....so if Boats are going thro the canal.....chances are.....traffic at BOTH bridges will be held up at the same time. how does that help the situation?

Like many things.....very few, apart from the powers that be, seem to be in favour of option 6....but...as usual, they know they will be able to charge ahead with the project, coz of public apathy

 

 

The traffic estimates show that 70% of the traffic will head back into Inverness from the crossing so the impact of the swing bridge is marginal to the main benefits.

 

Suffering the hassle of trying to cross town at the moment I am simply looking forward to anything being built.

 

The alternative is to discuss the matter for another 20 years and see the capital expenditure being used for the benefit of three sheep in the middle of nowhere.

 

Whilst not directly related, in excess of £12m was generated from the sale of land from the Inverness Common Good for Eastgate 2 and Morrisons and this in effect has been used elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with the new road is that it's being built to open land up for development. Nothing wrong with that in itself but, anyone who has driven up to Milton of leys knows that, with its countless mini roundabouts leading nowhere, that road isn't suitable for large vehicles. That's what we will get with the new road. Therefore, the problem of lorries thundering through the town remains unresolved. I know certain councillors have argued that it isn't a bypass. It's clear that it's a bypass that's required not this piece of nonsense.

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