Greenways [greenway map of Ireland in post 1]

hans aus dtschl

riddlinrussell wrote: »

There was a great twitter thread on this relating to the plans for the Midleton to Youghal greenway, I'll try to find it (may have been posted here already)

For the record, members of the green party campaigned against and made official submissions against the Midleton to Youghal greenway.
They proposed that this line should also be returned to rail.

And on the very same part of the network, the same people are doing nothing whatsoever about the new infrastructure required. Not a peep or a public submission about the fact that Water Rock isn't getting a station as part of the Phase A development. No interest WHATSOEVER in that potential station.

It looks like myopic "pro anything impossible, against everything possible" politics, to me.

riddlinrussell

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

For the record, members of the green party campaigned against and made official submissions against the Midleton to Youghal greenway.
They proposed that this line should also be returned to rail.

And on the very same part of the network, the same people are doing nothing whatsoever about the new infrastructure required. Not a peep or a public submission about the fact that Water Rock isn't getting a station as part of the Phase A development. No interest WHATSOEVER in that potential station.

It looks like myopic "pro anything impossible, against everything possible" politics, to me.

Found the thread, its quite detailed and fantastic, imagine something like this in every part of the country, linking places together safely.

Created an unroll of it for easier reading.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1291854463779639296.html

EDIT: Apologies I should also address your point!

I am disappointed in the efforts of the Greens in places like this, although I don't think they are unique in opposing this greenway it is very short sighted. I am based in Kildare and yes I would campaign strongly for improvements to the rail in Kildare, but a major part of that is that Kildare hosts two of the absolute key corridors for rail in the country, including the countries most vital line. If I was a green in Cork I'd be calling out for the existing network to be overhauled and planned stations added, and calling for this greenway to be done with a provision for rail reinstatement if studies suggest it is viable once the core operations are operating well.

I'd acknowledge that improvements to the line in Kildare,Laois, Offaly, Tipp and yes even 'god forbid' Dublin will have a huge impact on how well Cork intercities will operate.

None of these lines operate in a vacuum, if people think Dublin-Waterford/Cork/Limerick/Galway/Sligo is too slow and expensive how the hell are you going to sell them less integral routes.

Markcheese

Thanks riddilin , he's not all wrong ... But. Little steps maybe ? , I'd love to see wider rural road ways ,to allow safer cycling , and there are many roads that could take that , or even dedicated pedestrian / cycle paths on the other side of a hedge or wall ,
But if youre pushing for an extra 3 or 4 meters of pathway (most of it to be C.P.O.'D from farmers and houseowners) ,on pretty much every road in the country it'll be nah ,too big ,won't bother ...

Markcheese

And in answer to some of his midleton points ,
There was a vague plan to have a midleton -whitegate cycle path , last heard of in around 2007 / 2008...
There is a city to glountaine path proposed, sometime .. and a midleton to carrigtohil path ( not sure wether it's supposed to go along the existing rail or elsewhere )
Also the new greenway goes along side the distillery...
Admittedly there no way on or off the greenway ,there is a bridge and extra fencing had been put in to make sure you can't get on off the green way there ...

riddlinrussell

Markcheese wrote: »

Thanks riddilin , he's not all wrong ... But. Little steps maybe ? , I'd love to see wider rural road ways ,to allow safer cycling , and there are many roads that could take that , or even dedicated pedestrian / cycle paths on the other side of a hedge or wall ,
But if youre pushing for an extra 3 or 4 meters of pathway (most of it to be C.P.O.'D from farmers and houseowners) ,on pretty much every road in the country it'll be nah ,too big ,won't bother ...

Making rural roads wider without that extra space being dedicated to Ped/Cyclist use is just going to make them more dangerous for vulnerable users, wider roads == higher speeds.

Other side of a hedge would be ideal, but you are directly into encroaching on private land then so all the C.P.O issues immediately rear their heads...

Rural solutions should make use of any possible old bridleways/long gone rail routes/farm tracks where they can, and where they cant a rural road should be carefully designated as a shared route, this designation meaning that traffic calming measures are installed along the route where possible, chicanes, psychological narrowing of the route etc to get drivers moving as slowly as possible along them and ideally avoid using that specific route when possible.

Ideas for rural sites can be lifted from the Netherlands and Germany
Article on rat-running with example of filtered permeability even in the countryside
Inter-town route along a mid-sized country road
Good Article on creating psychological narrowing and slowing car traffic

daniel_t1409

Are all of the existing greenways tarmac? Or are some of them concrete or quarry dust? If it's tarmac it doesn't make it that different to a road, only without cars. Personally, I prefer concrete or quarry dust over tarmac.

Also, do people use greenways for commuting or are they just for leisure?

riddlinrussell

daniel_t1409 wrote: »

Are all of the existing greenways tarmac? Or are some of them concrete or quarry dust? If it's tarmac it doesn't make it that different to a road, only without cars. Personally, I prefer concrete or quarry dust over tarmac.

Also, do people use greenways for commuting or are they just for leisure?

I don't think *any* of the long distance greenways are exclusively tarmac, most have varying surfaces along their length.

I would say at present only some of the city greenways are used for commuting, One problem with commuting on current greenways is that two major routes into Dublin, the canals, are not currently complete between main commuter towns and the city (Otherwise I would use one all the time for commuting).

The 'goal' at present appears to be primarily focused on leisure cycling. I think in the main that will always be a core component of especially greenway use, but there is some level of commuting that could be achieved on any route that links towns to cities. With greenways I think connecting people/towns etc should be seen as at least as important as touristic purposes, while focus on commuting should be more aimed at cycleways in cities and towns, by enabling connections greenways would by default provide some commuter value.

loyatemu

daniel_t1409 wrote: »

Are all of the existing greenways tarmac? Or are some of them concrete or quarry dust? If it's tarmac it doesn't make it that different to a road, only without cars. Personally, I prefer concrete or quarry dust over tarmac.

Also, do people use greenways for commuting or are they just for leisure?

they're mostly tarmac, some are grit or compacted dirt. Tarmac's more user-friendly for wheelchairs, buggies etc. Concrete wouldn't work well for cycling, you'd have joins every few metres.

Sam Russell

daniel_t1409 wrote: »

Are all of the existing greenways tarmac? Or are some of them concrete or quarry dust? If it's tarmac it doesn't make it that different to a road, only without cars. Personally, I prefer concrete or quarry dust over tarmac.

Also, do people use greenways for commuting or are they just for leisure?

Greenways are for public use - walking, running, cycling - what ever. Leisure or commuting makes no difference. Just as roads are for walking, running, cycling, motoring, buses, vans, trucks, etc.

Walkways are meant to exclude cars, vans, buses, etc.

Do you have a problem with this?

daniel_t1409

Sam Russell wrote: »

Do you have a problem with this?

No. In fact I like greenways and wish there was one near me, just not when they're built on intact rail lines.

Sam Russell

daniel_t1409 wrote: »

No. In fact I like greenways and wish there was one near me, just not when they're built on intact rail lines.

Railways that are closed for over a decade are hardly intact, and ones closed for over a quarter of a century are derelict and require complete rebuilding. Only the land remains - not even the ballast can be used.

If they are used for a greenway, at least the land remains in public ownership, and it requires little extra to return to railway use, even if it requires a greenway to be included in the reinstatement.

A decade or so ago, who would have predicted the driverless bus, or the driverless car? What is your prediction for a decade into the future? (Remember, the Metrolink may or may not be finished, the dual tracking of some of the major intercity lines may or may not be finished).

Will trains be front and centre, or will driverless buses on the existing motorways play a major part in PT? But be certain of one thing - greenways that are now built, and currently being built, will be in use, and heavily used.

Del.Monte

The driverless bus/truck/car are SF fantasy as are hordes of tourists making their way by bicycle to the West & South West from Rosslare Harbour.

Sam Russell

Del.Monte wrote: »

The driverless bus/truck/car are SF fantasy as are hordes of tourists making their way by bicycle to the West & South West from Rosslare Harbour.

Maybe, but driverless trains are in service in many places. Driverless trucks, cars are in test at the moment. The greenway from Waterford to Dungarvin is doing nicely at the moment. A greenway costs about 1% of a train line.

jackofalltrades

Del.Monte wrote: »

The driverless bus/truck/car are SF fantasy...

All three are already in advanced testing. And there's driverless cars operating on public roads.

...as are hordes of tourists making their way by bicycle to the West & South West from Rosslare Harbour.

Even with the non-existent cycling infrastrucutre and dangerous roads in south Wexford you still see tourists coming off the ferries.
Cycling is incredibly popular with tourists and is growing annually.
If there was a route from Rosslare to Dungarvan on greenwyas and on from there you'd easily draw in tourists from France and the UK arriving by bike.

daniel_t1409

Made a map showing how much of the New Ross-Macmine and Palace East-Bagenalstown lines are still presumably owned by CIE (appears unregistered on landdirect.ie) shown by the blue line. Looking at New Ross-Macmine the majority still seems to be in CIE ownership apart from where the N30 was built on the alignment and a gap near the middle. Palace East to Bagenalstown is also still owned by CIE but there are quite a few gaps where it's been sold on.

Edit - Correct me if I'm wrong on CIE still owning it, if it is unregistered.

riddlinrussell

Del.Monte wrote: »

The driverless bus/truck/car are SF fantasy as are hordes of tourists making their way by bicycle to the West & South West from Rosslare Harbour.

Spent far too long trying to work out how Sinn Fein were at the forefront of pushing for driverless vehicles....

Hordes of people making their way from Wexford to the West by bike may not be the most likely outcome (you will most certainly get people who will plan such a thing if the infra was there!) but much more likely would be people arriving in Rosslaire and making a trip of it as far as Dungarvan/Cork if those routes exist for them to use.

@daniel_t1409, thanks for that map, I thought all the land excepting maybe bridges/tunnels would have fallen out of CIE ownership, so that map gives me a lot of hope for getting greenways along those routes!

loyatemu

daniel_t1409 wrote: »

Made a map showing how much of the New Ross-Macmine and Palace East-Bagenalstown lines are still presumably owned by CIE (appears unregistered on landdirect.ie) shown by the blue line. Looking at New Ross-Macmine the majority still seems to be in CIE ownership apart from where the N30 was built on the alignment and a gap near the middle. Palace East to Bagenalstown is also still owned by CIE but there are quite a few gaps where it's been sold on.

Edit - Correct me if I'm wrong on CIE still owning it, if it is unregistered.

my understanding was that any of the lines that closed in 1963 or earlier were sold. Even if they weren't, adverse possession would presumably apply for most of them.

Del.Monte

loyatemu wrote: »

my understanding was that any of the lines that closed in 1963 or earlier were sold. Even if they weren't, adverse possession would presumably apply for most of them.

Your understanding would be wrong - at least it was when I had dealings with the CIE Property Department in the mid-1990s. In areas where the land was poor or involving engineering structures, viaducts etc. disposal of land was hard to achieve. Clifden station in Galway - a station on a line never used by CIE - was still on their books in the 1990s.

serfboard

loyatemu wrote: »

Even if they weren't [sold], adverse possession would presumably apply for most of them.

And developments on the Fenit Greenway depressingly show that adverse possession is not being challenged ...

riddlinrussell

serfboard wrote: »

And developments on the Fenit Greenway depressingly show that adverse possession is not being challenged ...

Having read the article it seems particularly strange as the landowner using the route seems to have been happy to move? Unless I'm missing something, do the council think they would have to pay for the relocation?

blackwhite

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The freight thing is just the latest desperate attempt to make WRC sound viable. The report on reopening further sections of the WRC obviously hasn't found a case for it, now they are shifting to freight. Freight was part of the scope of the already prepared but not yet publicly published report but yet Ryan is now spending more money on another report looking at freight only. Rail freight can and does go to two existing rail-served ports and Port of Cork are looking to use the rail connection at Marino Point, we don't need to rebuild 100km of rail and upgrade Foynes to handle rail for any of this supposed freight demand. At this stage I think it is as much about blocking the greenway as it is about supporting rail.

The cost of sailing around the Southern tip of Ireland means that rail-freight from Foynes isn't particularly attractive compared to rail-freight from Dublin (or Cork or Rosslare if the infrastructure was improved) for anything going to Europe.

Are they really trying to claim that there's enough industries in the West of Ireland, that are exporting to the Americas in sufficient bulk, to require a rail-freight link to a western-seaboard port?

keane2097

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Having read the article it seems particularly strange as the landowner using the route seems to have been happy to move? Unless I'm missing something, do the council think they would have to pay for the relocation?

The quotes from the squatter (not landowner) suggest he was shaking down the council for the cost of moving alright.

riddlinrussell

keane2097 wrote: »

The quotes from the squatter (not landowner) suggest he was shaking down the council for the cost of moving alright.

Sorry I meant the 'nearby landowner' squatting on the route, rather than that he owned the land in question, probably wasn't clear.

Very weak from KCC on this, sets a very poor precedent for their authority.

whisky_galore

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Sorry I meant the 'nearby landowner' squatting on the route, rather than that he owned the land in question, probably wasn't clear.

Very weak from KCC on this, sets a very poor precedent for their authority.

Greenway actually costing money shocker.

riddlinrussell

whisky_galore wrote: »

Greenway actually costing money shocker.

Given the cost:benefit of greenways like this for the area when compared to far higher road building costs etc, its pretty crazy that they still want to cheap out on them.

This specific scenario however they don't/shouldn't even have to make any accommodation, the landowner is well within rights to tell the squatter to kindly GTFO. Any additional payment on top of that should be just enough to make the move quicker, like paying for the stuff to get moved off the route, not compensating someone for being a squatter.

Sam Russell

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Given the cost:benefit of greenways like this for the area when compared to far higher road building costs etc, its pretty crazy that they still want to cheap out on them.

This specific scenario however they don't/shouldn't even have to make any accommodation, the landowner is well within rights to tell the squatter to kindly GTFO. Any additional payment on top of that should be just enough to make the move quicker, like paying for the stuff to get moved off the route, not compensating someone for being a squatter.

I think there should be a constitutional amendment that would make adverse possession impossible wrt all state owned land - including land owned by semi-state companies like CIE, or the IDA.

riddlinrussell

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think there should be a constitutional amendment that would make adverse possession impossible wrt all state owned land - including land owned by semi-state companies like CIE, or the IDA.

Unfortunately not the sort of amendment that would exactly capture the imagination of the populace, and plenty would oppose...

Sam Russell

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Unfortunately not the sort of amendment that would exactly capture the imagination of the populace, and plenty would oppose...

Quite so, but the whole private property needs to be studied and the constitution amended. But not the issue to get people exercised enough to protest in the street.

whisky_galore

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Unfortunately not the sort of amendment that would exactly capture the imagination of the populace, and plenty would oppose...

It's not ever going to happen.
In the meantime you're going to have to pay off squatters as self-interest is the name of the game in this country.

riddlinrussell

whisky_galore wrote: »

It's not ever going to happen.
In the meantime you're going to have to pay off squatters as self-interest is the name of the game in this country.

That's not the case here, this land should not be under adverse possession yet, KCC are simply folding rather than challenge a squatter on their land.