Is the south clasp coming? And if so, which route should it be? The local council discussed this. There was agreement that Hartpenning and Kurzenberg should not be left behind.
Holzkirchen - After the presentation of possible routes of a Holzkirchner Südspange by the State Building Authority Rosenheim, the municipal councils in the Oberbräusaal showed themselves in election campaign mode. In some cases, in addition to Variant 1, which runs through the fir wood and which Bernhard Bauer has already advised against from the road construction office, they excluded further routes. The political groups agreed that, regardless of the route, Hartpenning and Kurzenberg should not be disadvantaged.
"Could it be that we get the Holzkirchner bypass and then after 20 years that for Hartpenning and Kurzenberg?" Asked Birgit Eibl (FWG). Stefan Leitner, Head of Road Construction at the Rosenheim Building Authority, was unable to rule out this danger. "It may be that the federal government says that we will finance one part and then the other," he said with reference to the Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan (BVWG).
Bypassing without Hartpenning and Kurzenberg excluded
This lists the Holzkirchner bypass with priority needs until 2030, the bypass for Hartpenning and Kurzenberg only in further needs. Since the route between Groß- and Kleinhartpenning was only presented on the basis of the BVWP, Sebastian Franz (CSU) concluded that nobody wanted it. And a pure Holzkirchner bypass "cannot be done with us," he said.
SPD application: municipal apartments only for Holzkirchner?
Elisabeth Dasch (SPD) also saw it this way: "That is out of the question." Like Hubert Müller (FWG), she called for a bypass to be cast in one piece. That is why she sees the variant of the BVWP critically, although this is probably the best legal way to implement it. Therefore, she would like the routes north of the Tannholz, the variants 2 and 3, to be checked thoroughly before the municipal councils and citizens can make a decision. But that's where the crux lies. As Leitner explains when asked by our newspaper, it is the usual way for a municipality to first decide on a route before a so-called faunistic examination is carried out along this route.
Discussion ends in campaign banter
Christoph Schmid (CSU) also spoke in favor of a variant along the Tannholz. On the one hand, this corresponds to the wishes of the citizens of 2003. On the other hand, there is still the danger with the other routes that the excursion traffic goes through the residential areas instead of bypassing. And so the relief for citizens is significantly less.
Simon Ammer (SPD) also wanted to know the weight of the word of the Holzkirchner citizens. Leitner could not finally answer that, his personal opinion: "I would say emotionally that the federal government would not do this against the will of the municipality." Robert Wiechmann (Greens) would have liked that the road construction office gave the municipality council a clear recommendation for action Hand gives and not only shows the advantages and disadvantages. So the discussion ends only in a campaign banter, without paying attention to the legal feasibility. For the Greens, who prefer a zero variant, i.e. no bypass, nothing changes.
