Greenways [greenway map of Ireland in post 1]

loyatemu

nilhg wrote: »

Work has started close to me on the Barrow Blueway, roughly from a little east of Glenaree bridge to lock 20 at Ballyteague.

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipO_rPt-X1PkwPaXWHhfxVEK9kKc1WG0ch9qLiWx

Hopefully they'll make good progress back towards Rathangan.

I understand there's another site close to Athy but haven't seen that myself.

I thought the Barrow Blueway wasn't happening due to objections?

(photo link is broken BTW)

riddlinrussell

loyatemu wrote: »

I thought the Barrow Blueway wasn't happening due to objections?

(photo link is broken BTW)

I might be wrong on the specifics, but I believe that only Carlow denied planning? (Possibly also Kilkenny)

The Kildare section is still going ahead, there's less issues there anyway as its the primarily man made canal section rather than being navigable river. Hopefully we will see all major canal sections, Barrow route and Main Line Grand Canal, in Kildare completed within the next few years, still waiting on construction starting on the Sallins to Straffan section of the main line, which was supposed to have nearly finished by now...

Grassey

riddlinrussell wrote: »

still waiting on construction starting on the Sallins to Straffan section of the main line, which was supposed to have nearly finished by now...

Sallins to Ardclough? Did that section the other week, and only to Robertstown before I'd had enough of grass track

Though I'd be happy if they did the bit from Hazlehatch to 12th lock first

riddlinrussell

Grassey wrote: »

Sallins to Ardclough? Did that section the other week, and only to Robertstown before I'd had enough of grass track

Though I'd be happy if they did the bit from Hazlehatch to 12th lock first

Yeah that's the one, the first section out of Sallins isn't too bad, the second to Ardclough is poor, the stretch between Hazelhatch and Lucan is diabolical, is it still hugely rutted from the digger they drove up to fix some leaks from the canal a month or two ago?

To clarify, that section is under South Dublin County Council, and missed the last round of funding due to a planning objection, now resolved, so it will await the next tranche, possibly in the next budget?

Grassey

riddlinrussell wrote: »

is it still hugely rutted from the digger they drove up to fix some leaks from the canal a month or two ago?

Ah... that's what did it!

Not so bad now, been flattened out since (mid July) when I first did it it in the wet . Made far better time on it last week in the dry as the ruts have been leveled from bikes/feet

nilhg

loyatemu wrote: »

I thought the Barrow Blueway wasn't happening due to objections?

(photo link is broken BTW)

Fixed the link.

Only the section on the actual Barrow river were refused, as said above the canal section from Lowtown to Athy goes ahead

Not really inclined to publicise the antis but their site is below

http://www.savethebarrowline.com/

loyatemu

nilhg wrote: »

Fixed the link.

Only the section on the actual Barrow river were refused, as said above the canal section from Lowtown to Athy goes ahead

Not really inclined to publicise the antis but their site is below

http://www.savethebarrowline.com/

yeah I was down in St Mullins recently. The section of riverbank from there to Graiguenamanagh seems reasonably cycleable already (and I saw people cycling on it); not sure about further upriver.

riddlinrussell

loyatemu wrote: »

yeah I was down in St Mullins recently. The section of riverbank from there to Graiguenamanagh seems reasonably cycleable already (and I saw people cycling on it); not sure about further upriver.

I think for that section the primary argument for improvement would be for greater accessibility, but given there is an adjacent railway route option that could tie in to the route in some places I think in this case they might have reasonable objections.

Similarly to the Naas-Corbally Canal, its rough track but not in a terrible state, I'd advocate for improved access along the route (there are a few locked gates etc. and improved links to Naas and Newbridge, but the surface is probably ok enough and could be improved as a 'grassy' trail rather than dumping down blacktop.

Key arteries I'm all for quality, accessible surface, but care needs to be taken not to simply tarmac every possible route for greenways.

Del.Monte

A bit late for rethinking greenway (mini roads) all over the country. As a matter of interest, what percentage of greenways are tarmac rather than some form of grit/gravel etc.?

riddlinrussell

Del.Monte wrote: »

A bit late for rethinking greenway (mini roads) all over the country. As a matter of interest, what percentage of greenways are tarmac rather than some form of grit/gravel etc.?

Not sure on your question, highly dependent on what is properly classified as 'Greenway' (Quite a lot of them still feature lightly used local roads)

I don't see why its 'a bit late' to 'rethink' greenways? So far I haven't seen a specific route built, or even in planning that I would classify under 'don't need to make this fully accessible'.

Specifically with the Barrow route I would advocate for it to be completed to Mhuine Bheag, or a high quality alternate route, and then the greenway continues down to link with the Rosslaire to Cork Greenway via the old railway.

Del.Monte

Well the main ones - Waterford/Dungarvan; Great Southern trail in Limerick and the Great Western one. Are they all tarmac?

mr spuckler

Del.Monte wrote: »

Well the main ones - Waterford/Dungarvan; Great Southern trail in Limerick and the Great Western one. Are they all tarmac?

Great Western at the very least has long stretches of quarry dust and also uses some short stretches of backroads.

Quackster

Yep, the old Carlow to New Ross line should be used for the greenway south of Carlow and leave the Barrow Way as is. Build a link from St Mullins to connect to the new greenway so Barrow Way walkers can continue on to New Ross. This would fix the Barrow Way's greatest weakness - the lack of public transport at St Mullins for point-to-point walkers.

For Athy to Carlow, a greenway along the Barrow should remain on the table unless another viable option can be found.

Edit: South of Bagnelstown rather than south of Carlow.

Quackster

Del.Monte wrote: »

Well the main ones - Waterford/Dungarvan; Great Southern trail in Limerick and the Great Western one. Are they all tarmac?

Older sections of GST were originally built with an unbound surface but are currently being resurfaced with blacktop. Newer sections are/will be blacktop from the get-go.

riddlinrussell

Del.Monte wrote: »

Well the main ones - Waterford/Dungarvan; Great Southern trail in Limerick and the Great Western one. Are they all tarmac?

Waterford/Dungarvan is primarily tarmac, think I recall a few unbound sections but not many. Anywhere the trail is replacing a railway route I think tarmac is probably most suitable, Canals/Rivers you want to select the most environmentally suitable material that wont dramatically impede travellers.

Per the spec, greenways, to qualify for greenway funding, must be tarmaced.

They can use compacted gravel if they choose, but won't receive greenway funding from the govt. Thats not to say they wouldn't receive some other form of funding to get built to that spec

riddlinrussell

Deleted User wrote: »

Per the spec, greenways, to qualify for greenway funding, must be tarmaced.

They can use compacted gravel if they choose, but won't receive greenway funding from the govt. Thats not to say they wouldn't receive some other form of funding to get built to that spec

Do you have a link to that? Assuming its a government application process. I wouldn't have expected it to be that prescriptive, greenways may need to use entirely novel surfaces in their design depending on requirements to pass environmental assessments.

hans aus dtschl

The Dunkettle Interchange "greenway" under construction now has blue "Shared Space" signs showing symbols for cars, pedestrians and bicycles.

I was under the impression that greenways which cars were allowed to drive on were...roads...

IMO this is the natural result of diverging from "cycleways" (adheres to regulations/specifications) to "greenways" (wriggle room to avoid complying with good practice) to just having roads with a blue sign. Completely pointless.

riddlinrussell

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

The Dunkettle Interchange "greenway" under construction now has blue "Shared Space" signs showing symbols for cars, pedestrians and bicycles.

I was under the impression that greenways which cars were allowed to drive on were...roads...

IMO this is the natural result of diverging from "cycleways" (adheres to regulations/specifications) to "greenways" (wriggle room to avoid complying with good practice) to just having roads with a blue sign. Completely pointless.

I am inclined to agree with you on this, although I don't think there is anything provided for in the cycleway specifications that would handle what I would call a proper 'greenway environment' (Long distance, primarily off road routes).

I would argue that you need to have a separate 'design standards' specification for greenways to ensure quality, with a minimum requirement that when the greenway reaches a shared space that it then follows the cycleway specifications, whether that be making quiet country roads semi permeable or full segregation along those sections.

riddlinrussell

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Do you have a link to that? Assuming its a government application process. I wouldn't have expected it to be that prescriptive, greenways may need to use entirely novel surfaces in their design depending on requirements to pass environmental assessments.

Sure. Its laid out in the "Strategy for the Future Development of National and Regional Greenways" which states "Greenways funded under this Strategy will be built following the criteria set out in the Transport Infrastructure Ireland Rural Cycleway Design Standard (Offline)"

This document states the following

Asphalt surfacing is the most popular among cyclists because of its evenness and high skid resistance. It is recommended that an aggregate grading of 0/6 to 0/11 is provided. It is recommended that a closed surface pavement construction should be made up of the following:

• a) 20 mm thin surface course macadam
• b) 40 mm to 55 mm base course
• c) 150 Clause 804 sub base (machine laid to achieve correct ride quality)
• d) Geotextile layer (where necessary)
• e) Capping (where necessary)

Like asphalt paving, cement concrete offers a closed surface with a high level of evenness and is an acceptable surface for a cycleway. However, shrinkage joints, thermal joints and construction joints need to be installed correctly to achieve a high level of comfort for cyclists. The preferred surface finish
is fine brooming, which will provide a high level of skid resistance. Concrete will offer excellent drainage and it is a material that possesses high durability. The occurrence of potholes and rutting will be minimal.

Although a closed pavement construction is preferred by cyclists in terms of comfort and safety, there are occasions where a surface is required to give a sense of the environment. In rural cycleway and greenway situations, where the cycleways attractiveness is just as important as comfort, dust path construction or other loose material construction maybe the preferred option in order to blend with the environment and to avoid unnecessary impacts in forests, along protected heritage trails, tow paths and along river banks. The application of loose surfaces can enhance the cycleways’ appeal to its users due to its more natural aesthetics.

As an alternative to unbound surfaces in environmentally sensitive locations the provision of surface dressed base course is an acceptable alternative.

I've bolded the bit that contradicts my earlier statement. I missed that the first time around reading it and just spotted it now

hans aus dtschl

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I am inclined to agree with you on this, although I don't think there is anything provided for in the cycleway specifications that would handle what I would call a proper 'greenway environment' (Long distance, primarily off road routes).

I would argue that you need to have a separate 'design standards' specification for greenways to ensure quality, with a minimum requirement that when the greenway reaches a shared space that it then follows the cycleway specifications, whether that be making quiet country roads semi permeable or full segregation along those sections.

I'm happy with all of that and fully agree on all points.

What I'm seeing extensive use of in the Dunkettle area can be described in the best cases as "wide tarmac footpaths" and the worst cases as "blue signs on a road".
The Cork Councils have apparently progressed from designing a tar strip beside a concrete footpath to tarring a wider footpath, which still loses priority at every road and junction.

I'll be cycling on the road - where I always was - with "perfectly good" cycle infrastructure unusable beside me. It amounts to wasting public money in my eyes, and is irritating to both motorists and cyclists.
To add insult to injury, the next step here will be to ban cyclists from the interchange itself on the grounds that "dedicated infrastructure was built".

loyatemu

describing them as mini-roads is a bit disingenuous. The main negative feature of roads is the traffic, not the tarmac itself. I'd be happy with compacted dirt on the greenways, but I'm able bodied and reasonably fit.

hans aus dtschl

loyatemu wrote: »

describing them as mini-roads is a bit disingenuous. The main negative feature of roads is the traffic, not the tarmac itself. I'd be happy with compacted dirt on the greenways, but I'm able bodied and reasonably fit.

It's not immediately clear to me who you're responding to here? I don't see who else referred to mini-roads?
And I hope you're not considering my posts as disingenuous: I'm referring to actual pre-existing roads that became a "shared space" in place of a "greenway" in place of a dedicated cycleway. I don't think it's in any way disingenuous to describe it as "blue signs on a road". The "greenway" literally directs vulnerable users onto (and across) the L2998 where there's not even a footpath, with only a blue sign for protection.
Speaking from experience, there's no room to even get into the ditch on this road, with high walls or embankments on both sides. The large LED display shows that many vehicles currently travel at above 60kmh.
It shouldn't be considered a shared space according to the National Cycle Manual, but they're getting around it by saying the National Cycle Manual doesn't apply because "it's not an urban area" (lol).

I also don't think that should be grounds for saying "dedicated infrastructure was built" - it absolutely wasn't.

loyatemu

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

It's not immediately clear to me who you're responding to here? I don't see who else referred to mini-roads?
And I hope you're not considering my posts as disingenuous: I'm referring to actual pre-existing roads that became a "shared space" in place of a "greenway" in place of a dedicated cycleway. I don't think it's in any way disingenuous to describe it as "blue signs on a road". The "greenway" literally directs vulnerable users onto (and across) the L2998 where there's not even a footpath, with only a blue sign for protection.

I also don't think that should be grounds for saying "dedicated infrastructure was built" - it absolutely wasn't.

sorry wasn't directed at you, should have quoted Del.Monte's post.

hans aus dtschl

loyatemu wrote: »

sorry wasn't directed at you, should have quoted Del.Monte's post.

Apologies, totally misinterpreted you!

riddlinrussell

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

It's not immediately clear to me who you're responding to here? I don't see who else referred to mini-roads?
And I hope you're not considering my posts as disingenuous: I'm referring to actual pre-existing roads that became a "shared space" in place of a "greenway" in place of a dedicated cycleway. I don't think it's in any way disingenuous to describe it as "blue signs on a road". The "greenway" literally directs vulnerable users onto (and across) the L2998 where there's not even a footpath, with only a blue sign for protection.
Speaking from experience, there's no room to even get into the ditch on this road, with high walls or embankments on both sides. The large LED display shows that many vehicles currently travel at above 60kmh.
It shouldn't be considered a shared space according to the National Cycle Manual, but they're getting around it by saying the National Cycle Manual doesn't apply because "it's not an urban area" (lol).

I also don't think that should be grounds for saying "dedicated infrastructure was built" - it absolutely wasn't.

I suppose it would be worth checking the Rural Cycleway design standard as linked by DaCor and getting on to them if it turns out they failed to follow it? They can either claim it as rural or urban but either way they will have to follow one or the other...

hans aus dtschl

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I suppose it would be worth checking the Rural Cycleway design standard as linked by DaCor and getting on to them if it turns out they failed to follow it? They can either claim it as rural or urban but either way they will have to follow one or the other...

They're following TII's rural cycleway design manual perfectly. As per section 1.3:

at some locations, it may not be possible to justify even the lowest levels of design parameters in economic or environmental terms, due to high costs, low demand projection, and/or environmental damage, etc. In such cases, sufficient advantages might justify either a Relaxation within the standards or, in more constrained locations, a Departure from the standards. The various parameters quoted in this Standard are not, therefore to be regarded as sacrosanct in all circumstances

I have a very low opinion of this standard.
https://www.tiipublications.ie/library/DN-GEO-03047-02.pdf

riddlinrussell

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

They're following TII's rural cycleway design manual perfectly. As per section 1.3:



I have a very low opinion of this standard.
https://www.tiipublications.ie/library/DN-GEO-03047-02.pdf

That is truly appalling! There should be no excuse for relaxing the standards, the 'lowest levels of design parameters' should be explicitly laid out in the document and that should be the absolute bare minimum you should have to provide.

High costs preventing a section being done 'for the moment', or environmental damage are the ONLY reasons why you might need to have a 'temporarily sub-standard section'. I don't accept 'low demand projection', that would be like saying that there should be M7 at Limerick and M7 at Dublin but the bit in the middle with lower AADT should be donkey track.

hans aus dtschl

Yep agreed. It's symptomatic of their archaic "do-minimum" attitude to sustainable transport, tbh.

And it's squandering public money in your name.

(in my name too, obviously)

For clarity, the document does go on to describe what the relaxations can allow in terms of below-below-minimum-widths and stoppages distances. But crucially there is no quality of service metric and their classification of "rural" appears to be <12,000 AADT, which is quite a lot. The whole thing is weighted heavily in favour of "not impeding motorists".

nilhg

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Not sure on your question, highly dependent on what is properly classified as 'Greenway' (Quite a lot of them still feature lightly used local roads)

I don't see why its 'a bit late' to 'rethink' greenways? So far I haven't seen a specific route built, or even in planning that I would classify under 'don't need to make this fully accessible'.

Specifically with the Barrow route I would advocate for it to be completed to Mhuine Bheag, or a high quality alternate route, and then the greenway continues down to link with the Rosslaire to Cork Greenway via the old railway.

Quackster wrote: »

Yep, the old Carlow to New Ross line should be used for the greenway south of Carlow and leave the Barrow Way as is. Build a link from St Mullins to connect to the new greenway so Barrow Way walkers can continue on to New Ross. This would fix the Barrow Way's greatest weakness - the lack of public transport at St Mullins for point-to-point walkers.

For Athy to Carlow, a greenway along the Barrow should remain on the table unless another viable option can be found.

Edit: South of Bagnelstown rather than south of Carlow.

The only problem with that is that a quick look at the OP's excellent greenway map shows that to a large extent the old railway line doesn't still exist to any meaningful extent, reinstating it as a greenway would be a very long term (an expensive) project compared to upgrading the Barrow towpath.