Greenways [greenway map of Ireland in post 1]

serfboard

whisky_galore wrote: »

In the meantime you're going to have to pay off squatters

Do you really think that is a good use of the public's money?

A test case should be taken in relation to one of these sites - this isn't the first time this has happened. Otherwise it's a squatter's charter.

Unless (in a hypothetical situation) said squatter happens to be well-connected, in which case the (alleged) cost of litigation is simply an excuse ...

serfboard

whisky_galore wrote: »

Greenway actually costing money shocker.

Yeah, considering that a lot of people are saying that Greenways are free to build, with contractors etc. donating their time and materials in the public interest ...

hans aus dtschl

serfboard wrote: »

Yeah, considering that a lot of people are saying that Greenways are free to build, with contractors etc. donating their time and materials in the public interest ...

I'm not entirely sure of the point you're making here btw.
I'm obviously having a slow day, but if you'd be so kind as to explain it in baby language, I'd greatly appreciate it!

serfboard

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure of the point you're making here btw.
I'm obviously having a slow day, but if you'd be so kind as to explain it in baby language, I'd greatly appreciate it!

OK. Nobody doubted that Greenways cost money so it's not a "shocker" when they do.

The disappointed thing for Greenway advocates (and railway fans - this concerns you too) is that IE/KCC didn't kick the (alleged) squatter off their land.

For the WRC advocates, for example, does this mean that, if ever the WRC was (re)built, that the railway line would be diverted because someone was squatting on it (which they most certainly are)? Just think how ridiculous that sounds and apply the same logic to a Greenway on a former train line.

riddlinrussell

serfboard wrote: »

OK. Nobody doubted that Greenways cost money so it's not a "shocker" when they do.

The disappointed thing for Greenway advocates (and railway fans - this concerns you too) is that IE/KCC didn't kick the (alleged) squatter off their land.

For the WRC advocates, for example, does this mean that, if ever the WRC was (re)built, that the railway line would be diverted because someone was squatting on it (which they most certainly are)? Just think how ridiculous that sounds and apply the same logic to a Greenway on a former train line.

It seems particularly schizophrenic of KCC seeing as they are tiptoeing around a squatter on this route while simultaneously pushing for CPO on the Glenbeigh line

hans aus dtschl

Yep I think we're all in full agreement: the approach makes no sense.

I even have gone one step further in public submissions on rail-converted-greenways.
I have protested that designs proposed have seen road traffic gaining priority at what were previously level crossings.
As far as I'm concerned the disused railway (now converted to a greenway in some cases) should have explicit priority at level crossings.

Giving road traffic priority at the crossings sets a bad precedent IMO. There's no justification for it, whether you're talking about hierarchy of needs, past use, or whatever other angle you want to take.

So yeah, needless to say I'm strongly against the CPO-to-facilitate-squatters

whisky_galore

riddlinrussell wrote: »

It seems particularly schizophrenic of KCC seeing as they are tiptoeing around a squatter on this route while simultaneously pushing for CPO on the Glenbeigh line

That appears dead in the water now thanks to gung ho CPOs that got landowners backs up, if only there were a middle way.

whisky_galore

whisky_galore wrote: »

That appears dead in the water now thanks to gung ho CPOs that got landowners backs up, if only there were a middle way.

It's not and there was

Permissive access a la Westport was tried and achieved with over 90% of landowners but there were 3 hold outs so the only solution was to CPO the whole route for obvious reasons. They spent YEARS trying to get it done without CPO to no avail.

It's all or nothing for both options,CPO / permissive access.

Grassey

https://www.westmeathindependent.ie/2020/10/13/new-bridge-over-shannon-due-to-be-in-place-by-2023/

Construction of the bridge structure crossing the river from beside the Radisson Blu Hotel over to the Luan Gallery is expected to begin in August of 2022, with the necessary abutments (the structure which connects to the ground and supports the bridge span) and ramps on the eastern and western side, along with the central pier, built prior to that.

Tenders are expected to go out for the Athlone Marina to Athlone Castle section of the cycleway project in April of 2021 prior to the planned start of construction in June of that year,

mr spuckler

Hopes are high that the centre point of Athlone's newest bridge over the Shannon going from Leinster to Connaught will become an “Instagram location” for visitors in a similar way to crossing the Equator line or the border between America and Canada when it's in place in June of 2023.

:pac:

Grassey

funding-secured-in-budget-for-extension-of-grand-canal-greenway/

Among the latest projects to secure funding is the extension and completion of the Grand Canal Greenway from Daingean, Co. Offaly, to the county boundary at Edenberry.

... this will be a “fantastic addition to the greenway from Daingean to Lough Boora Discovery Park, which is almost in place”,...

“I hope there will be swift progress and that we can follow up in 2022 with the completion of the Grand Canal Greenway to Shannon Harbour, resulting in a national scale 71km greenway right through the county
...
Works on the stretch from Ballycommon to Daingean are commencing this month and the council hopes for works to start towards Edenberry in the spring.

Del.Monte

Should they not be referred to as "blackways" as there's little green about them in any sense.

flazio

Del.Monte wrote: »

Should they not be referred to as "blackways" as there's little green about them in any sense.

They run through rural countryside which is primarily green. Black is a horrible word to use in this context.

Grassey

A greenway is a trail or road along a strip of undeveloped land, often near an urban area, set aside for recreational use or environmental protection

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenway_(landscape)

Del.Monte

Grassey wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenway_(landscape)

In many cases the undeveloped strip of land is a quiet, unspoilt rural footpath.

MJohnston

Motorways aren’t made out of motors
Footpaths aren't made out of feet
Greenways aren’t literally green

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think we’ll cope

Del.Monte

MJohnston wrote: »

Motorways aren’t made out of motors
Footpaths aren't made out of feet
Greenways aren’t literally green

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think we’ll cope

Thanks for explaining that but I think most people would understand my point.

MJohnston

Del.Monte wrote: »

Thanks for explaining that but I think most people would understand my point.

And I think most people wouldn’t care what they’re called. But do go on.

Sam Russell

MJohnston wrote: »

Motorways aren’t made out of motors
Footpaths aren't made out of feet
Greenways aren’t literally green

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think we’ll cope

I think the greenways being built are actually as black as tarmac.

The edges might be green in places.

MJohnston

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think the greenways being built are actually as black as tarmac.

The edges might be green in places.

They go through green areas and more importantly the methods used to traverse them are fully ‘green’, which is why the name is what it is.

Del.Monte

They sure do go through green areas and in many cases wreck what was there previously.


https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/19693040/posts/2958679989

riddlinrussell

Del.Monte wrote: »

Should they not be referred to as "blackways" as there's little green about them in any sense.

Greenway is a commonly used term for these style of trails throughout at least the Western world, I immediately associate the term specifically with an accessible rural route that can be used by those with limited mobility, walkers and cyclists, while I associate 'trail' or 'way' with a rougher walking route not suitable to limited mobility or most bicycles

MJohnston

Del.Monte wrote: »

They sure do go through green areas and in many cases wreck what was there previously.


https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/19693040/posts/2958679989

Still looks beautiful to me — and now it’s supporting active mobility measures which will get more people out of cars. A lot of the wildlife in that green will be gone for good if we can’t reduce our dependence on cars.

riddlinrussell

Del.Monte wrote: »

They sure do go through green areas and in many cases wreck what was there previously.


https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/19693040/posts/2958679989

I am not making arguments in favour of 'blacktop' greenways, they have their place, and not everywhere is suitable for them, I would argue that the greenway is simply a well maintained, accessible route. That means making entrance barriers permeable to as many forms of cycle and wheelchair as possible, and making the surface of a good enough quality for all the above to travel on it, that might be a dirt track, gravel track or tarmac, the key factor being that it is maintained as a smooth surface, free of boggy sections or ruts. Its up to the government/councils in an area to determine the best way to balance maintenance costs with the environmental considerations of the area, but I think there should be restrictions and commensurate funding to deal with those restrictions.

Ah Del, if these were new rail lines there wouldn't be a peep out of you.

As for surface, in terms of accessibility, before you or anyone else states that gravel or dirt or quarry dust is good enough for wheelchair users, do me a favour, give each a go in a wheelchair. You won't be long changing your mind.

whisky_galore

MJohnston wrote: »

Still looks beautiful to me — and now it’s supporting active mobility measures which will get more people out of cars. A lot of the wildlife in that green will be gone for good if we can’t reduce our dependence on cars.

They still have to get to the Greenway somehow, if they don't live locally and that still involves a car.

MJohnston

whisky_galore wrote: »

They still have to get to the Greenway somehow, if they don't live locally and that still involves a car.

Not if there are a network of greenways!

tigerboon

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I am not making arguments in favour of 'blacktop' greenways, they have their place, and not everywhere is suitable for them, I would argue that the greenway is simply a well maintained, accessible route. That means making entrance barriers permeable to as many forms of cycle and wheelchair as possible, and making the surface of a good enough quality for all the above to travel on it, that might be a dirt track, gravel track or tarmac, the key factor being that it is maintained as a smooth surface, free of boggy sections or ruts. Its up to the government/councils in an area to determine the best way to balance maintenance costs with the environmental considerations of the area, but I think there should be restrictions and commensurate funding to deal with those restrictions.

Once down tarmac does this with very little maintenance whereas there's a high cost to keep the other products in a usable state over the life of the track. With the amount of rainfall here this is probably even more true.

whisky_galore

MJohnston wrote: »

Not if there are a network of greenways!

So you can cycle from Dublin to use one in Mayo? Good luck with that.

MJohnston

whisky_galore wrote: »

So you can cycle from Dublin to use one in Mayo? Good luck with that.

I’d love to be able to do that tbh

I’m not sure exactly what your point is though — even if that person drives to Mayo, they might previously have driven around the countryside for sightseeing, and now they’re cycling.

These greenways in general are far more important as commuting tools though, not as tourist attractions.