Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
slinkydevil

Promenade/Peel Road Megathread

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Max Power said:

To be fair, the surface, particularly on Loch Prom looked like there was a lot of subsidence, in fact the whole prom was like a MotoX track when I tootled along on the little scooter I use for nipping about. We all complained about the thing often enough, even on here!  

Yes, but much of the grounds for complaint about the road surface were quickly rectified by incomer Harmer's resurfacing strategy.

But we were seemingly already "locked in" to the in-depth, £25M restructuring of the prom with the reasons given at the time already now being refuted by the DOI itself. What I'm getting at here is, are we now up to our waists in something that didn't need to be done, either in depth, literally, or expense?

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The road is a mess,something should be done

The road is a mess,the workers are too slow

The road is a mess,they're spending tax payers money

This road is much better now,but it cost too much.

 

Zzzzzzzzzz

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Max Power said:

To be fair, the surface, particularly on Loch Prom looked like there was a lot of subsidence, in fact the whole prom was like a MotoX track when I tootled along on the little scooter I use for nipping about. We all complained about the thing often enough, even on here!  

Listening to the Tynwald debates at the time the cost was being justified, I feel sure that we were told the works required would need to be much more extensive than we are seeing. We were assured that the whole thing was virtually in a state of collapse and it needed starting again from scratch. Although on here https://www.myprom.im/plans/scheme-details#cont it does say a metre and a half of digging. Is that what we have? Appearances may be deceptive.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, woolley said:

Listening to the Tynwald debates at the time the cost was being justified, I feel sure that we were told the works required would need to be much more extensive than we are seeing. We were assured that the whole thing was virtually in a state of collapse and it needed starting again from scratch. Although on here https://www.myprom.im/plans/scheme-details#cont it does say a metre and a half of digging. Is that what we have? Appearances may be deceptive.

 

1.5 meters is chest height on the average male. Unless the workers are giants they aren't going down that far. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, woolley said:

Listening to the Tynwald debates at the time the cost was being justified, I feel sure that we were told the works required would need to be much more extensive than we are seeing. We were assured that the whole thing was virtually in a state of collapse and it needed starting again from scratch. Although on here https://www.myprom.im/plans/scheme-details#cont it does say a metre and a half of digging. Is that what we have? Appearances may be deceptive.

 

Let’s wait and see what they do once work starts on the seaward side of Loch Prom

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, woolley said:

Listening to the Tynwald debates at the time the cost was being justified, I feel sure that we were told the works required would need to be much more extensive than we are seeing. We were assured that the whole thing was virtually in a state of collapse and it needed starting again from scratch. Although on here https://www.myprom.im/plans/scheme-details#cont it does say a metre and a half of digging. Is that what we have? Appearances may be deceptive.

 

it's not getting a proper job,  it's getting a band aid that was dropped in dog shit before being applied.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, kevster said:

Let’s wait and see what they do once work starts on the seaward side of Loch Prom

Much of that should be sound at the top (Sea Terminal) end down through the gardens anyway as it was reconstructed during the process of the IRIS holding tanks installation?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Max Power said:

I've seen massive high street projects lasting ages in the UK, people just get on with it, it has to be done. The fact is, nobody is preventing access to these businesses, people just have to walk a little further. What does everyone think should have been done to mitigate any disruption? We all knew what was happening and when, did the businesses not know what we knew? They are simply out for a bit of compo, they are probably manufacturing their claims now and fudging the accounts. Make enough noise and the government will fold.

That is one of the most unfeeling posts I have read on Manx Forums, from a usually level headed and informed poster.. You should be ashamed.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, gettafa said:

That is one of the most unfeeling posts I have read on Manx Forums, from a usually level headed and informed poster.. You should be ashamed.

I was trying to provoke a reaction to be fair, to see what the mood is. The promenade needed a revamp and heavy maintenance at least and it's easy to jump on government at every opportunity without any idea of what they could have done differently.  I do think there is a level of exaggeration in these things. I remember the TT being cancelled due to the foot and mouth outbreak. The government paid out willy nilly to all sorts of tourism related businesses on some very large claims. Some had their best TT ever!  

Edited by Max Power
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Max Power said:

I do think there is a level of exaggeration in these things.

Is that exaggeration as in the business losses incurred?

Or exaggeration as to how much the prom needed doing to it? :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, the stinking enigma said:

and before anyone asks, no, i don't have any formal civil engineering qualifications to speak of.

DOI highways designer then 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not alone in this enigma I doubt any of the so called experts on this forum have a clue what they are on about regarding the promenade, keeping all the services working and traffic flowing must be a nightmare .    I also have no civil engineering qualifications before anyone asks.   If the promenade could have been closed, which of course is not on it would have been quicker and less of a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Max Power said:

 They are simply out for a bit of compo, they are probably manufacturing their claims now and fudging the accounts. Make enough noise and the government will fold.

I suspect there may be a large element of truth in this. When the hoteliers were on the radio last week, there was a lot of comment about terrible reviews of Tripadvisor etc. and the long term damage that such reviews could do, in 2020 and beyond. However, when I looked at recent reviews of six or seven hotels (Sefton, Palace, Chesterhouse, Claremont, Regency etc.) there were only two mentions of the work in around two dozen recent reviews (total). There were many more positive reviews and happy punters. There were far more negative comments about the generally run-down and tatty appearance of the Palace.

If Treasury do decide to put together some sort of financial package, it should be geared towards attracting tourists, improving occupancy rates, improving the hotel stock generally, to match the lovely new Promenade. This can be done through promotion and advertising support, loans and grants for focused improvements, and (possibly) some financial support geared to  getting 'heads on beds' off season. It shouldn't just be about spraying random cash in their direction, to compensate for alleged loss of revenue, which will be impossible to substantiate.

 

Edited by Nellie
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...