civilsaint
-
Posts
471 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by civilsaint
-
-
Reasonable idea. Far too sensible for the "cooncil" though...
Just wait and see ;)
-
I reckon they're replacing the traffic lights at the same time (at all three Junctions).
-
Plans of this scheme are now available at Renfrewshire House and local libraries for 1 week only.
Nothing on-line though bizarrely enough. Are the intentionally trying to limit viewings or is there a valid reason for this?
-
The shop is an complete embarrassment. As has been said previously the shop has NOT been open 10-2 consistantly on week days. When asked at the ticket office you are met with a shrug of the shoulders and "he doesn't always turn up, Come back later." There was certainly no offer from ticket office staff to facilitate purchasing.
Useless. But we've come to expect that sort of customer service.
-
Craking set of lights though.
-
Did someone take a shite in your kettle this morning?
Now that you mention it, there was a black and white St Mirren strip in there when I went to fill it up.
-
Just saw the Strip in person and I have to say, disappointed is an understatement. IMO it is the the worst strip we've had since before Hummel. Quality looks horrendous, sponsor transfer looks horrendous. As nice an idea as the paisley pattern is they've failed to do it justice. The pattern is far too dull, so much so that it looks like defective material, but that is probably as a result of the quality of material used.
I don't think I'd be too far off the mark if I said I'd seen better quality poly bags.
-
It isn't a black box per se that is the problem, its that black blox.
-
Textured black stripes against plain black sponsor logo is just wrong. There is no cohension between the sponsor logo and the rest of the strip.
I'm out.
-
Supermarket bread is shite anyway. Buy a bread machine.
-
If this is true I fully expect the Planning department to ensure the site is left in an acceptable state (i.e. hoardings removed and the plot grassed). I would assume there are conditions to this effect in their approval.
-
Notwithstanding any personal opinions, you make an extremely valid point from an entirely legalistic point of view. I look forward to hearin ghow this one pans out. Please do keep us updated.
-
ha f**king ha
-
Yes you should.
Whit?
-
Cheers. Nae sympathy for them. S
-
Where is that place?
-
Viennas tonight, top dollar. Why weren't Dany and Thomo there thought
I could greet. -
To be fair
I'm being more than fair. Read the report, it is very, very thin on substance. That report should not be the basis on which to make such a decision. Take another example, "Existing traffic calming combined with street scape will deter vehicles from travelling above a very low speed". Firstly, what do they define as "a very low speed"? 5mph or 25pmh or 30mph? Then consider the "existing taffic calming" which consists of no speed bumps on the High Street and one speed bump on Gilmour Street. Not exactly much in order to prevent cars from travelling "above a very low speed", wouldn't you agree?. Has a full risk assessment been carried out? The lack of dropped kerbs and little deliniation is rather concerning without a major upgrading of the streetscape. That document makes no mention of any major works.
-
Council Report on the proposal:-
Map:
Having read that report I'm even more appaulled and disturbed than before. It appears they don't actually plan to carry out any upgrading of the streetscape, it doesn't look like they plan to drop the kerbs. Other than the St Mirren Brae junction it looks like they are pretty much just going to open it to vehiccles in its current state.
What's more, they report:-
"Risk Implications - None"
"Health & Safety implications - None"
"Financial implications - met within existing approved budgets" [No detailed analysis provided]
If any supporting councillors are reading, come and justify your decision.
If the Director of Transport & Planning is reading, please come and explain your less than substantial report.
-
That disgusts me. The people of paisley, through a consultation, rejected this broad proposal 3 years ago. There has not been another consultation. This proposal does NOT have the support of the people of Paisley.
It appears Mark McMillan and his colleagues are no better than the previous mob. This "lets just try something different and see what happens" is absurd, it is irresponsible.
-
I try to think in the Glasgow Airport Link as more 'shelved' than cancelled - all the signalling works were completed earlier this year as part of the Paisley Corridor works, including putting in an extra line from Glasgow Central to Paisley. Its only the wee bit at the end that's needed (granted that's the important bit, but in terms of budget a large part of the infrastructure is already commissioned).
Given that the land, previously compulsory purchased, for the link route is being sold, the DNP have done their very best to make sure the link is cancelled. Disgraceful.
-
Do the council plan to hold a consultation on this proposal (like the last one in 2009) or are they intent on driving this through regardless of what the public want?
-
What was the buisness case for pedestrianising it in the first place?
I'm not going to write/quote a planning essay on the value of opening up access to the high street, but do a quick count work out the occupancy rate on Causwayside and on the top of the high street, bridge street and compare it to that on the pedestrainised Moss street and high street.
do the maths...... yir sel ya lazy bazzer.
The reason for pedestrianising the place in the first place was to provide a public realm befitting of the town. In the mid 90's the town was actually a horribly congested, polluted and dangerous place to shop. It was not a pleasant experience, and any move to return to that is a step backwards, a very large step. You ask for the business case, it was clearly to provide a safe and comfortable environment for people to go about their business and to provide a space that could be used for puclic events. Other than your rather crude and flawed count of shops on Causeyside St I've not seen a single credible piece of evidence that even suggests pedestrianisation was the cause of the demise of the town centre, let alone any evidence to suggest the re-introduction of cars would boost trade (these are two distinctively different points). The quality of public realm is Paisley town centre is actually exceptionally good, given that it has been down for coming up on 15 years.
I never asked you to write a "planning essay", I specific questions to assertain whether or not you were aware of the relevant facts on which to base a decision. I'm guessing, by your ainability to answer those questions, that the answer is simplly "no" to each one of them.
Like I say, if there is a credible business plan or any credible and substantial research I'd love to see it, my position may well change. But until then it is a crazy scheme going over old ground which will cost a considerable aount of money for little or no economical benefit and will make Paisley Town Centre a less desireable place to shop.
-
.... big infrastucture projects like... pedestrianisation and the north west by pass had the biggest (negative) impact in the past.
That tends to be convenient excuse, albeit a non-substantiated excuse. Feel free to answer my post above. Can yo uprovide us with a business case for re-opening the High St?
Causeyside St. / Gordon Street Junction
in General Nonsense
Posted
Aye, it's the same mole that been creating all the holes in the Afton/Corkers/Gordon/Causeyside/Canal junctions.