Greenways [greenway map of Ireland in post 1]

MJohnston

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

I’m not on here 24/7 answering questions on demand.

LOL what?

Right now, we have limited access to the countryside. A number of years ago the Leader II programme attempted to create rights of way in cooperation with farmers. This collapsed when the farmers’ organisations withdrew cooperation from it.

Great! Maybe you can connect this to the whole "tarmac paths vs gravel paths" you kicked off, because it seems terribly unclear otherwise.

Now, all we have are a relatively small number of waymarked trails and the Greenways. Is it reasonable to make every single Greenway buggy accessible

It's reasonable to try but I've never suggested that it should be a blocker to the creation of greenways in the first place. I don't think anyone here has. If that's what you're trying to argue then (a) maybe you should just say that and (b) you're arguing with a POV that doesn't seem to exist.

but to make it unattractive to walking tourism?

Honestly, this seems like the kind of assertion that's so contrary to logic that you're going to have to back it up with something other than your opinion.

Lord Glentoran

MJohnston wrote: »

LOL what?



Great! Maybe you can connect this to the whole "tarmac paths vs gravel paths" you kicked off, because it seems terribly unclear otherwise.



It's reasonable to try but I've never suggested that it should be a blocker to the creation of greenways in the first place. I don't think anyone here has. If that's what you're trying to argue then (a) maybe you should just say that and (b) you're arguing with a POV that doesn't seem to exist.



Honestly, this seems like the kind of assertion that's so contrary to logic that you're going to have to back it up with something other than your opinion.

Already answered so I’ll use one of the tools of the board to improve my browsing experience.

MJohnston

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Already answered so I’ll use one of the tools of the board to improve my browsing experience.

Excellent - I sure hope it’s the unfollow thread button so you don’t come trolling again

Why are you all assuming that wheelchair users and those with mobility issues all live in cities and towns?

Disability is not an urban affliction

Muckyboots

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

While on the Dungarvan greenway I've seen clubs use it slowly and carefully. I don't see any problems with that.

Let's be fair. Unless they are a bunch of 9-year-olds, they shouldn't be using the Greenway for club or sportive rides.

hans aus dtschl

Muckyboots wrote: »

Let's be fair. Unless they are a bunch of 9-year-olds, they shouldn't be using the Greenway for club or sportive rides.

Could you explain why not? If they're going slowly and safely and leaving room for others, I don't see what the issue might be? I suspect you guys are thinking of a potential issue that doesn't occur in practice.

While on the Dungarvan greenway I have seen clubs use it slowly and carefully. I didn't see problems with it. I don't know their reasons but presumably some weak club member or less confident people in the group wanted to get off the road. I suspect I might also have seen a sportive one day, as 20+ people passed at around the same time. It wasn't a club and it was organised.

I've rarely seen bad behaviour on the Dungarvan greenway. A tiny minority sometimes do ignorant selfish things (mostly blocking the path or shouting at people to get out of their way) but I've never seen a specific user type being problematic. I've seen groups of stags and hens on bikes, and one guy dragging a tyre the length of the greenway for charity, but no problem with either!

In any case we then get into never-ending game of "what is a club ride". Is it two people who are in a club, cycling together? "What is a sportive". Is it a couple of octogenarians on e-bikes raising money?

Rather than clubs and sportives per se, what people might be more against is the idea of a large volume of people moving as a group, or a group moving at high pace, but I don't think the greenway lends itself to that kind of thing anyway because you can't really cycle safely at speed or in a large group on a greenway. It's not safe for pedestrian or cyclist. The onus is primarily on the faster user to give the slower user time, space, etc and keep them safe. What happens in practice is that fast-moving groups just avoid the greenway. But I wouldn't knock their right to be on there if they're behaving themselves, being courteous and allowing space for other users, same as anyone. That's not banning clubs and sportives though it's just common sense.

Muckyboots

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Could you explain why not? If they're going slowly and safely and leaving room for others, I don't see what the issue might be? I suspect you guys are thinking of a potential issue that doesn't occur in practice.

While on the Dungarvan greenway I have seen clubs use it slowly and carefully. I didn't see problems with it. I don't know their reasons but presumably some weak club member or less confident people in the group wanted to get off the road. I suspect I might also have seen a sportive one day, as 20+ people passed at around the same time. It wasn't a club and it was organised.

I've rarely seen bad behaviour on the Dungarvan greenway. A tiny minority sometimes do ignorant selfish things (mostly blocking the path or shouting at people to get out of their way) but I've never seen a specific user type being problematic. I've seen groups of stags and hens on bikes, and one guy dragging a tyre the length of the greenway for charity, but no problem with either!

In any case we then get into never-ending game of "what is a club ride". Is it two people who are in a club, cycling together? "What is a sportive". Is it a couple of octogenarians on e-bikes raising money?

Rather than clubs and sportives per se, what people might be more against is the idea of a large volume of people moving as a group, or a group moving at high pace, but I don't think the greenway lends itself to that kind of thing anyway because you can't really cycle safely at speed or in a large group on a greenway. It's not safe for pedestrian or cyclist. The onus is primarily on the faster user to give the slower user time, space, etc and keep them safe. What happens in practice is that fast-moving groups just avoid the greenway. But I wouldn't knock their right to be on there if they're behaving themselves, being courteous and allowing space for other users, same as anyone. That's not banning clubs and sportives though it's just common sense.

I agree there needs to be room for common sense but I also see some cyclists complaining about the number of speed controls, chicanes and gates, on greenways. There is a clear difference between leisure cycling and sports cycling. Sports cycling has no place on a greenway.

MJohnston

Muckyboots wrote: »

I agree there needs to be room for common sense but I also see some cyclists complaining about the number of speed controls, chicanes and gates, on greenways. There is a clear difference between leisure cycling and sports cycling. Sports cycling has no place on a greenway.

This is all self-selecting though. If there are speed controls, sports cyclists will be mostly happy to go elsewhere, and most pedestrians and leisure cyclists will be happy to share the space at reasonable spaces.

There's not really any point bringing outlier opinions into this - if some small number of sports cyclists are complaining, whatever, leave them to it. Let the rest of us enjoy it.

Gates — those can be a different story. They're sometimes badly designed and exclude a wide range of prams, less-abled folks, and larger bikes.

hans aus dtschl

Muckyboots wrote: »

I agree there needs to be room for common sense but I also see some cyclists complaining about the number of speed controls, chicanes and gates, on greenways. There is a clear difference between leisure cycling and sports cycling. Sports cycling has no place on a greenway.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about gates and chicanes other than cargo bike users to be honest? They don't pose any difficulty to a person on a road bike, where the bars are narrow and maneuverability is high. I saw one lad on a mountain bike in a tracksuit get a nasty fall trying to pass through one of the gates at speed one day but that's about it.

MJohnston

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about gates and chicanes other than cargo bike users to be honest? They don't pose any difficulty to a person on a road bike, where the bars are narrow and maneuverability is high. I saw one lad on a mountain bike in a tracksuit get a nasty fall trying to pass through one of the gates at speed one day but that's about it.

Some of the ones along the Royal Canal are hell even if you just have a buggy. Struggled with them more than once when my kid was in his.

what_traffic

MJohnston wrote: »

Gates — those can be a different story. They're sometimes badly designed and exclude a wide range of prams, less-abled folks, and larger bikes.

Can add lots of users to that list
Even an ordinary touring bike fully laden panniers and tent - kissing gates are a pain in the ....:mad:

Carawaystick

no.8 wrote: »

A half decent pram can easily handle a loose surface. If you have a path such as that near you, you buy a buggy with large airfilled tires (and not the ones designed for town or. airport

Telling people with small children, who might be financially stretched, to spend money to conform to your desired method,
isn't a great look.
Would you advocate the same approach to footpaths?

Carawaystick

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

As someone who runs I find the loose gravel surface more forgiving on the legs than tarmac. Another plus point for gravel is that you have no issues with an icy surface. This is a huge bonus in winter when many tarred surfaces are very dangerous.

I can understand why tarmacadam is used.

One thing about gravel surfaces is that they hold up better and are easier to patch up when the ground subsides and the surface breaks.

A good solution would be to have tarred surfaces around towns or villages and leave the gravel surface in the middle sections.

If the tarmac route is salted, and has good drainage, I can't see the issue.

The park in my town has a dust finish on its path, and has had to be rebuilt several times due to subsidence and surface water erosion, and ponding has had slippy surfaces, just like on hard surfaces.

Sam Russell

Mod: @ MJohnson and Lord Glentoran.

Stop the sniping at each other and cool it.

Pete_Cavan

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Looks like we're almost all in agreement here: tarmacadam just a few km from the population centres and crushed bitumen thereafter.

Given walkers/joggers are more likely to be close to population centres and they generally cover shorter distances than cyclists, would it not make more sense for the unbound surface to be close to the population centres? The reasons given in support of the unbound surface are it is more forgiving to walkers/joggers and less susceptible to frost for the benefit of walkers, why have it further out where fewer walkers will benefit. Cyclists are also likely to travel faster away from population centres as likely fewer people so having the bound surface further out makes more sense.

To go back to the wider topic of conversation, I think Greenways should have a bound surface. I don't buy the idea of the Greenway needing a surface with a more "natural" feel, particularly when any imported surface is not going to look or feel natural anyway. Also most Greenways are along disused rail lines or canal towpaths which are far from natural and have plenty of man-made features. If natural is what you are looking for, there are plenty* of more natural walking routes, some with no imported surface at all, in parks, forest parks, National Parks, and various other hiking trails and trekking routes. As has been already said, tar surface suits a wider spectrum of users, I don't see what is gained from deviating from that.

*before anyone jumps on this, I'm not saying that there are enough of these or that more shouldn't be provided.

no.8

Nonsense. I fit that bill. You buy to suit the application. Small babies require prams which are generally sturdier anyway. We're not talking about cars or bikes here. Buggies aren't cheap. You buy new or second hand, but most importantly you buy to fit the purpose.

Yes i would actually advocate that, because it's often necessary. The paths in towns in Ireland can be so narrow that you haven't a hope of getting by without a small, narrow stroller.

Markcheese

I've seen paths done with tar and chip on a well compacted surface ,they're visually a lot less jarring than tarmac (in a rural setting ) ,would be fine for buggies ,wheelchairs and bikes , mightnt suit very skinny tyres though ,
Kind of a halfway house , cheaper than tarmac ,more stable than compacted quarry dust....and feels more "rural" too ðŸ˜

Golden Horde

What's the feeling re Greenways funding given the likelihood that exchequer funding is likely to be tight for the next few years.

Specifically interested in the Grand Canal Greenway as I know funds were previously allocated. I'm hoping that they'll still proceed as I think the tourist benefits would pay off as well as quality of life improvements for locals to have an amenity like a greenway close by.

serfboard

Golden Horde wrote: »

What's the feeling re Greenways funding given the likelihood that exchequer funding is likely to be tight for the next few years.

There will need to be massive investments by governments all over the world to restore the global economy - infrastructure spending is how a lot of that spending is going to be carried out.

And given the fact that a) Greenway spending is as cheap as (gravel) chips, and b) the Greens are going to be in government, I expect to see Greenway funding increased.

Sam Russell

serfboard wrote: »

There will need to be massive investments by governments all over the world to restore the global economy - infrastructure spending is how a lot of that spending is going to be carried out.

And given the fact that a) Greenway spending is as cheap as (gravel) chips, and b) the Greens are going to be in government, I expect to see Greenway funding increased.

Also, it is a quick build.

Pete_Cavan

Markcheese wrote: »

I've seen paths done with tar and chip on a well compacted surface ,they're visually a lot less jarring than tarmac (in a rural setting ) ,would be fine for buggies ,wheelchairs and bikes , mightnt suit very skinny tyres though ,
Kind of a halfway house , cheaper than tarmac ,more stable than compacted quarry dust....and feels more "rural" too ðŸ˜

Yes tar and chip is adequate, that's why I talked about bound v unbound surfaces.

John Hutton

Folks, anyone know if the path between Navan and Slane along the river suitable for bikes? 28 wheels touring bike

John Hutton

John Hutton wrote: »

Folks, anyone know if the path between Navan and Slane along the river suitable for bikes? 28 wheels touring bike

I should say I think it doesn't go all the way to Slane but there is a path

Stops at Stackallen bridge I think

riddlinrussell

https://www.independent.ie/life/travel/ireland/top-10-family-cycles-in-ireland-where-you-dont-have-to-worry-about-traffic-39237687.html

Good article for covering a lot of the existing greenways, a little poorly researched saying that the Great Western is the oldest, forgetting the Great Southern and the Royal Canal (Although given its length I suppose it doesn't fit their 'family day out' vibe...)

Grassey

Can't remember where I saw details online last week, but...

last year there was a grant of €92,000, for Longwood to Ribbontail walk to Royal Canal Greenway, and construction of greenway to Longwood.

This was apparently completed last week here
https://maps.app.goo.gl/pdxNeP52roKVfxm98

Zubeneschamali

There is a barge in Athlone drilling for a ground survey for the new bridge over the Shannon for the green way.

whisky_galore

riddlinrussell wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/life/travel/ireland/top-10-family-cycles-in-ireland-where-you-dont-have-to-worry-about-traffic-39237687.html

Good article for covering a lot of the existing greenways, a little poorly researched saying that the Great Western is the oldest, forgetting the Great Southern and the Royal Canal (Although given its length I suppose it doesn't fit their 'family day out' vibe...)

The Blackrock (Cork) walkway is probably the oldest purpose built one. There since the 70s or 80s long before they became sexy and called greenways.

marno21

Some new information about the proposed 72km Sligo Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway greenway.

https://www.leitrimobserver.ie/news/local-news/548188/push-for-funding-to-secure-completion-of-slncr-greenway-project-is-vital-for-region.html

whisky_galore

EndaHonesty wrote: »

The Great Southern Trail was/is the first "greenway".
Work was started on it in 1988 by local volunteers.


According to Wikipedia the Blackrock walkway wasn't worked on until "the late 1990s"

Cork county council created a public footpath from Hop Island to the outskirts of Passage in 1970, the scheme was extended by a government grant in 1984 for construction on an amenity walk from the Marina to Douglas estuary viaduct.

Wikipedia is not the fount of all knowledge.

EndaHonesty

whisky_galore wrote: »

Cork county council created a public footpath from Hop Island to the outskirts of Passage in 1970, the scheme was extended by a government grant in 1984 for construction on an amenity walk from the Marina to Douglas estuary viaduct.

Wikipedia is not the fount of all knowledge.

Yes, it's a footpath, not a purpose built greenway as you claimed.


The Great Southern Trail was/is the first purpose built greenway in Ireland.