Kilkenny Central Access Scheme Analysis

Download Technical Results  (1.data (.dat) 2. Full list of statements (.txt and .sta))

Analysis of Perspectives (Stage 1 of study)

Between 1st November and 15th December 2013 CiviQ conducted a study of the subjective perspectives of individuals holding opposing points of view on the issue of the Central Access Scheme in Kilkenny. 20 people across all diverse stakeholder groups including citizens, Councillors, protest groups, commerce, heritage groups, archaeology, Council officials and those expressing opposing views in the media were invited to participate. 18 individuals responded representing positions that were both in favour and in opposition to the CAS. These included, Council officials, Companies engaged in the CAS development, heritage, archaeology groups, environmental activists, citizens and Councillors. Following feedback from initial participants on results of the small sample the consultation will be made available to the general public. 

Each individual was asked to sort a set of 43 opinion statements that represented most diversity in a stream of 150 opinions drawn from personal interviews, newspapers, radio interviews, Twitter, oral hearings, online discussion boards, Council documents, Facebook and others.  Participants were asked to place each opinion on a grid from -4 to +4 depending on how close it was to their opinion. All of the completed patterns were then analysed using Centroid Factor analysis. Four factors were extracted where there were more than two participants significantly loadings. The following set of findings reports the most important opinions for each perspective. The interpretations of factors were fed-back to participants to ensure that they were an accurate summary of their view. As such, all interpretations below have been validated by participants. Statements where there is ‘consensus’ across opposing perspectives are also reported.

 

Perspectives

Four coherent perspectives emerged from participants ranking of the 43 diverse opinions. These can be interpreted as follows:

 

A. Ringroad.

 

This perspective opposes the CAS, similar to perspective C and D. However, the way it sees the problem and the solution are somewhat different. The Ringroad perspective prioritises the uniqueness of Kilkenny as a medieval city with significant archaeological heritage. Holders of this perspective reject the idea that the CAS will have no affect on Kilkenny's archaeology as it will be situated in the 'medieval mile'. They see that Kilkenny's uniqueness, important both to tourism and communities' quality of life, will be severely compromised by the CAS. The CAS will make Kilkenny like ‘any other town’. Also important to this perspective is the danger posed by current traffic routes through the town which the CAS will further develop. To maintain a good quality of life defined by Kilkenny’s unique heritage, safety and communities, this perspective promotes one main solution – the completion of the Ringroad. The Ringroad will solve the safety issues, remove traffic from the city thus safeguarding Kilkenny’s uniqueness and heritage which in turn will support the tourism industry. 

View the top ranked statements for the Ringroad perspective

Perspective A: Ringroad

The ring road around the city would be much more beneficial and a more prudent use of the funds. [Link]
KKs greatest charm is its preservation of its archaeological past. A highway right through town will compromise this irrevocably. [Link1] [Link2]

Kilkenny's present road system forces dangerous levels of commercial and commuter traffic through residential areas passing 6 schools, 3 hospitals and 5 churches. The Ring Road will solve this, the CAS will make it worse.  [Link]

If you do this, Kilkenny will be the same as any other little town. Its unique beauty will have been destroyed. [Link]
The CAS could seriously jeopardize the future tourism potential and economy of the city. [Link]

 

 

View the bottom ranked statements for the Ringroad perspective

Perspective A: Ringroad

CAS will improve accessibility for emergency services and access to health facilities and hospitals
For the Diageo site you have to put in infrastructure, its unavoidable.

Infrastructure is required to serve heritage. The CAS is a macro-heritage support mechanism.

The city's Inner Relief Road (IRR) will indeed be a relief for drivers when it is completed.
Kilkenny city has to be commercially 'turnkey' ready for its post-recession development and the Central Access Scheme is immediately critical - as indeed also is the completion of the Outer Ring Road – in the coming years.
I am looking at this issue not so much for myself but more for the future of my children - its about the economic future of Kilkenny.
A development of this type will bring significant investment and jobs.

 

 

 

B. Economic.

 

This perspective is highly positive about the Central Access Scheme and is predominantly future looking with respect to the economy. While it agrees that historic towns need traffic routed away from them there is the issue of keeping heritage cities alive. It sees the CAS as critical for the future economic development of Kilkenny. The CAS will ensure that consumers can get into the city to shop keeping the centre active avoiding the situation where business locate at the peripheries of the town. Futhermore, this perspective holds that current infrastructure cannot handle its current traffic and that is set to worsen into the future. Unlike the other perspectives, it does not see measures to reduce traffic as a long term solution. It also does not accept the argument that the CAS will cut the city in two because Dean's street already has traffic.  In summary, supporters of this perspective see an inevitable link between enabling future traffic flows and economic development while protecting Kilkenny as a 'living' heritage town. However, similar to the other perspectives, the Economic Perspective agrees that the Ringroad is a very important and necessary solution to Kilkenny's transport needs. While on its own, it will not meet all of Kilkenny's infrastructural challenges, for example, Green’s bridge needs to be replaced, the Ringroad does represent a decent compomise between the needs for heritage conservation and the needs of Kilkenny's commuters and residents. 

View the top ranked statements for the Economic perspective

Perspective B: Economic

I am looking at this issue not so much for myself but more for the future of my children – it is about the economic future of Kilkenny. [Link]
With the CAS and then Outer Relief road completed, we will be in an exceptional position in the coming years. [Link]
The infrastructure can’t handle the current traffic. Kilkenny cannot live in the past. We need to move forward. [Link]

Kilkenny city has to be commercially 'turnkey' ready for its post-recession development and the Central Access Scheme is immediately critical - as indeed also is the completion of the Outer ring road - in the coming years. [Link]

For the Diageo site you ‘have’ to put in infrastructure, its unavoidable.  [Link]
CAS is going to be continuing dean street where there is always traffic. I cannot see how it will cut the city in two. [Link]
Historic towns and buildings need traffic taken away from them, not through them - and town-centre users and visitors will benefit from less vehicular pollution. [Link]

The ring road is a really important piece of infrastructure which should be built, but that does not replace the need for green bridge to be replaced. It needs to be. [Link]

The Kilkenny Ring Road represents a decent compromise.  [Link]

 

 

View the bottom ranked statements for the Economic perspective

Perspective B: Economic

CThe integrity of the urban heritage of Kilkenny is too important to be irreversibly damaged by the Central Access Scheme as presently planned.
That unjustifiable central access road would slice off part of the historical city. Those two parts of town need bringing together, the very opposite of what is planned

CAS is a waste of public funds which could be better utilised elsewhere.

The wishes of the majority of residents in Kilkenny are being wilfully misrepresented by the majority of their Local Representatives.
The CAS will not bring any benefit to Kilkenny and in fact will be detrimental to the city.
This New Road will be an eye sore to this beautiful City.
The CAS could seriously jeopardize the future tourism potential and economy of the city.

 

 

C. Sustainable Transport.

 

This perspective is very similar to Perspective A (and Perspective D). However, it opposes the CAS on the grounds that it goes against the notion of sustainability from both a transport and heritage perspective. Holders of this perspective support alternatives to CAS which they see as catering to traffic rather than managing it. The focus is on alternatives such as cycling, buses, a one way system or completing the ring road. It believes that the fundamental approach to transport is wrong, as exemplified in the CAS, and transport policy should be rethought. From an environmental and economic sustainability point of view the CAS makes no sense. Sustainable transport is key to long term economic and social development. Furthermore, the CAS is seen as damaging to Kilkenny’s heritage, being in effect 'cultural vandalism'

 

 

View the top ranked statements for the Sustainable Transport perspective

Perspective C: Sustainability

There are alternatives [to the CAS] Get more people cycling. Trial a one way system. A local bus scheme. Complete the ring road. Don't ruin the city.  [Link]
The integrity of the urban heritage of Kilkenny is too important to be irreversibly damaged by the Central Access Scheme as presently planned. [Link]
We need to radically re-think transport in this country and recognise that it is in fact sustainable transport that delivers true economic and social gains. [Link1] [Link2]
Too much of our ancient heritage has been sacrificed for short term goals which will in 20-30 years’ time, be seen for what they are - cultural vandalism  [Link]
We've got to stop catering for traffic and start managing it. [Link]
Historic towns and buildings need traffic taken away from them, not through them - and town-centre users and visitors will benefit from less vehicular pollution.  [Link1] [Link2]
I cannot understand the rationale for the Central Access Scheme being given priority over the completion of the Ring Road. [Link]

 

 

View the bottom ranked statements for the Sustainable Transport perspective

Perspective C: Sustainability

CAS is going to be continuing dean street where there is always traffic. I cannot see how it will cut the city in two.
For the Diageo site you ‘have’ to put in infrastructure, its unavoidable.
I am looking at this issue not so much for myself but more for the future of my children - its about the economic future of Kilkenny.
Kilkenny city has to be commercially 'turnkey' ready for its post-recession development and the Central Access Scheme is immediately critical - as indeed also is the completion of the Outer Ring Road – in the coming years.
With €11 million of funding available to build the Central Access Scheme, it simply has to be done.
CAS would cut down the traffic congestion over all in the town.
A development of this type will bring significant investment and jobs.

 

 

D.Democracy

 

People who hold this perspective agree with Perspective A – Ringroad and Perspective C – Sustainability). They also call for a radical rethink of transport policy, in favour of sustainable transport, that respects Kilkenny’s heritage and keeps traffic out of the city. However, the main difference is their focus on an unresponsive non-democratic consultation process. They feel their concerns over the CAS splitting the city in two (along the Medieval Mile between Canice’s Cathedral and the Castle), are not being heard. The feel that Kilkenny residents are being misrepresented by their political representatives and that information from the Council has been choreographed to minimize debate and discourse.

View the top ranked statements for the Democracy perspective

Perspective D: Democracy

Too much of our ancient heritage has been sacrificed for short term goals which will in 20-30 years time be seen for what they are - cultural vandalism [Link1] [Link2]
The wishes of the majority of residents in Kilkenny are being wilfully misrepresented by the majority of their Local Representatives [Link]

That unjustifiable central access road would slice off part of the historical city. Those two parts of town need bringing together, the very opposite of what’s planned. [Link1] [Link2]

We need to radically re-think transport in this country and recognise that it is in fact sustainable transport that delivers true economic and and social gains going forward, not out-moded road-building and transport policies from the 1960s.  [Link1] [Link2]

Historic towns and buildings need traffic taken away from them, not through them - and town-centre users and visitors will benefit from less vehicular pollution. [Link]
KKs greatest charm is its preservation of its archaeological past. A highway right through town will compromise this irrevocably.  [Link1] [Link2]
The communication of information from the local authorities has been carefully choreographed to minimise real debate and discourse. [Link]

 

 

View the bottom ranked statements for the Democracy perspective

Perspective D: Democracy

With the CAS and then Outer Relief road completed, we will be in an exceptional position in the coming years.
CAS would cut down the traffic congestion over all in the town.
Kilkenny city has to be commercially 'turnkey' ready for its post-recession development and the Central Access Scheme is immediately critical - as indeed also is the completion of the Outer Ring Road – in the coming years.
Some other ideas are to reduce the amount of traffic, but does this work in reality?
People need to get into the town and if they cannot easily , they will park and shop at the edge of town.
With €11 million of funding available to build the Central Access Scheme, it simply has to be done.
Infrastructure is required to serve heritage. The CAS is a ‘macro’ heritage support mechanism.

 

 

Consensus statements

While Perspective B is significantly different to A, C and D, all four perspectives ranked the following statements in a similar location, indicating some overlap or consensus on these views.  All perspectives ranked highly the importance of the RingRoad and the fact that Historic Towns and Buildings need traffic taken away from them. Proponents of the Economic perspective shared the view with perspectives A, C and D that we should stop catering to traffic and start managing it.

Table 5: Statements of consensus between all perspectives

Opinion

Rank from -4 to +4
 
Ringroad
Economic
Sustainability
Democracy
The Kilkenny Ring Road represents a decent compromise between heritage preservation and the needs of Kilkenny's residents and commuters. [Link]
3
2
2
0
We’ve got to stop catering for traffic and start managing it. [Link]
0
1
3
0
Historic towns and buildings need traffic taken away from them, not through them - and town-centre users and visitors will benefit from less vehicular pollution. [Link1] [Link2]
2
3
3
3

 

 

 

Ring Road Line Graph   Ringroad Economic Sustainable Democracy

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.