cycle the grand/royal canal

gzoladz

01Surveyor wrote: »

Im not sure what logistical problems are arising for you but in case it helps, there is a bus service from Ferbane and Cloghan to Athlone and from there you get to just about anywhere. Cloghan and Ferbane are a short distance from Shannon Harbour.
I've heard good reports about the Barrow line but have never travelled it.

Just 2 things left to resolve: one is how to go back to Dublin from Shannon Harbour. I have a few options like the bus to Athlone, or get someone to pick me up or stay one night in Shannon Harbour and cycle to the closest train station pn the next day. But still havent made up my mind.

The other one is where to stay half way. Ideally I'd like to sleep in Daingean but there seem to be no B&Bs there. Tullamore would be a bit of a stretch. A work around would be to start from lets say Adamstown or Hazelhatch instead of Dublin and sleep indeed in Tullamore.

The alternative would be to do Dublin Athy.

There are options, I am trying to pick my best. I have time, and welcome any recommendation.

Forgot, thanks for the data on the buses and the Barrow line, I will research those too.

slap/dash

Mercian Pro wrote: »

VS



It's not just about cyclists getting from A to B, it's about the quality of the experience for all users too.

Agree 257886899989999%

galwaycyclist

Mercian Pro wrote: »

VS



It's not just about cyclists getting from A to B, it's about the quality of the experience for all users too.

Exactly and the tarmac treatment in the second picture clearly provides an enhanced social experience as well as smoother and less stressful travel for all users. Clearly in the second picture it is easier for companions, such as a parent and child or two friends to cycle side-by-side and chat and enjoy each others company. The tarmac also makes it easier and less stressful for cyclists to pass walkers and each other.

Grass surfaces that get any kind of sustained use by bike or foot in wet weather often turn to mud.

monument

Somehow missed this...

01Surveyor wrote: »

Sorry to be negative but I can only reply by saying 'not the way it has been designed'. The extent of hard surfaces and other infrastructural intervention has taken little or no account of the need to protect, or even reinstate the canalside environment which could have been developed as a pleasant foil to the fairly grim urban surroundings. I think it is a case of well intentioned over-design.

I dont find the gates on the Inchicore-Lucan Green way to be a big problem. It would be nicer if they werent there but Im not sure their removal would result in a net benefit for the canal environment and its users. The gates are not attractive and are a nuisance but its probably a small price to pay if they protect the amenity from abuse.

Re surface: What type of surface would you have put on the Inchicore-Lucan section? Why are you being so vague?

And what width do you think is ok in urban areas for two-way cycling and walking?

As for "little or no account of the need to protect, or even reinstate the canalside environment" -- You're talking nonsense, the Inchicore-Lucan greenway included 1,000 trees, 44,000 shrubs, 16 bat boxes, 12 otter holts, and five jetties.

I would say that you're being contradictory in saying that there's over-design and too much infrastructural intervention while supporting the gates, but your support for gates is fully consistent with your views on surfacing and your lack of caring about access for wheelchairs, buggies, and everyday cycling.

smacl wrote: »

So do I. Primarily experienced road cyclists who find it slow, unsuited to high end road bikes on 23mm tyres, and prone to get the good bike dirty. Its a pretty good surface for inexperienced cyclists, as my 8 year old daughter would testify.

Just to be clear here: I'm not at all taking about road cyclists. I'm thinking mainly about people who never have been on road bikes for more than a try and it's something they dislike.

smacl wrote: »

Again, you have to consider whether it is primarily a leisure amenity or a piece of transport infrastructure. I would say the former. If I wanted to get from Westport to Achill on a bike with the minimum time and effort, I'd take the road.

What about the children and commuters living along the route? What about all types of users who are less stable?

Is it a case of "Feck them, send them on the road"!? Or what?

smacl wrote: »

I think the Greenway surface is actually fine for any touring bike, though the very many cattle grids and gates would be a major source of complaint and detract from the facility greatly. This also makes a bit of a nightmare to navigate towing a trailer or tail-gator, which rather defeats one objective of it being family friendly.

Where the compacted gravel would become an issue is on hillier ground, but given both the greenway and canals are flat this doesn't really come into play.

On the Great Western Greenway? I can only recall one or two issues with the gates, the surface is far more problematic overall.

I also found the Great Western Greenway surprisingly hilly, mainly at the many points it diverts from the old railway alignment.

monument

Do people think that the grassed route would be attractive to most families? Or people with mobility issues?

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Exactly and the tarmac treatment in the second picture clearly provides an enhanced social experience as well as smoother and less stressful travel for all users. Clearly in the second picture it is easier for companions, such as a parent and child or two friends to cycle side-by-side and chat and enjoy each others company. The tarmac also makes it easier and less stressful for cyclists to pass walkers and each other.

Grass surfaces that get any kind of sustained use by bike or foot in wet weather often turn to mud.

One thing I'd note on your tarmac track on the canal is that it is too wide, providing a riding surface very close to the waters edge. If this is done with the notion of providing extra capacity, it is a dangerous design decision. If you compare it with the grass surface, you'd cycle in the single track close to the trees. If you're designing a family friendly cycling amenity, it needs to be safe first and foremost. Regardless of surface finish, a design intended for use by novice cyclists that encourages passing close to the waters edge seems to offer all the dangers of a busy road.

beauf

What do you want a railing?????

On a grass bank you don't know where the point of no return is. On the deep cutting you're inches from it in a couple of spots.

I think you are over reacting to the tarmac. Which is suitable for this location but obviously not desirable in a rural location.

beauf

It's like that bridge that passes over the M50 which was flagged as a point of conflict between cyclists and walkers. Most normal people are going to have some common sense about passing each other.

monument

smacl wrote: »

One thing I'd note on your tarmac track on the canal is that it is too wide, providing a riding surface very close to the waters edge. If this is done with the notion of providing extra capacity, it is a dangerous design decision. If you compare it with the grass surface, you'd cycle in the single track close to the trees. If you're designing a family friendly cycling amenity, it needs to be safe first and foremost. Regardless of surface finish, a design intended for use by novice cyclists that encourages passing close to the waters edge seems to offer all the dangers of a busy road.

I've cycled that and I have to say that that's pure hyperbole.

It's likely only just about 3 meters -- that's tiny for an area between a city and a large suburb on a national cycle route shared path with walkers, pram pushers, wheel chair users, joggers and maintenance and emergency access. Making it smaller would be the danger -- only a tiny percentage of people around here would opt for any alternative grassed area which is sure to turn to mud with a bit of rain and that means you would want to pack people into a even smaller space.

The truth is that your concern for making it a family friendly cycling amenity just does not ring true given your support of gates and keeping dirt tracks, both of which hinder or stop families cycling from using the canals.

smacl

beauf wrote: »

What do you want a railing?????

On a grass bank you don't know where the point of no return is. On the deep cutting you're inches from it in a couple of spots.

I think you are over reacting to the tarmac. Which is suitable for this location but obviously not desirable in a rural location.

I don't know if you've cycled the canals, but on the grass sections you're well away from the water. It may be over reacting, but even if tarmac was used in this location, I think a narrower design with wider grass margin on the water side would make sense for most users. Worth remembering that if we're talking about a facility to be used by commuters, it is not going to be all balmy sunny days. It will be a route that is also used on a regular basis in the dark, high winds, and wet. Offering a paved space adjacent to the waters edge in which to overtake in these conditions seems like a poor design choice.

From my last couple of trips up the Grand canal, the main groups currently using it are anglers, walkers, and kayakers, with most of the cyclists being nearer to the city. I don't think paving the full width with tarmac as per the photo is a reasonable mixed use solution, particularly for the likes of anglers who would essentially become a static obstacle occupying a space that clearly isn't designed for them.

smacl

monument wrote: »

The truth is that your concern for making it a family friendly cycling amenity just does not ring true given your support of gates and keeping dirt tracks, both of which hinder or stop families cycling from using the canals.

Not sure where you got the notion of my supporting gates, perhaps you show me where I said this. I clearly pointed them out as a cause for complaint on the Greenway, and consider them a pain in the arse on the canals. Nor for that matter have I supported keeping dirt tracks that become impassable in the wet, where my preferred solution would be a narrow crushed gravel approach as per the greenway. My contention was that the gates rather than the surface are what hinders leisure users such as families, and slippy mud puts off those without MTBs.

I'd appreciate if you didn't misrepresent what I'm saying in order to prop up your own position.

As for prams and wheel chairs, their range is such that they're unlikely to be more than a few kilometres from the road in any case. I'd also suggest that covering the countryside in tarmac to make it wheelchair accessible is hardly judicious use of public funds.

beauf

You're arguing for nothing. That tarmac is on a urban section likely to have heavy traffic.

And soft surfaces are not suitable for urban commuters.

I don't think any one is arguing for tarmac in rural areas. So what is your point?

smacl

beauf wrote: »

You're arguing for nothing. That tarmac is on a urban section likely to have heavy traffic.

And soft surfaces are not suitable for urban commuters.

I don't think any one is arguing for tarmac in rural areas. So what is your point?

I could be wrong, but the impression I got was that both monument and galwaycyclist were advocating tarmac for the entire length of the canal. I'm all for tarmac in urban areas, as I've already said, but think it is unnecessary, ugly and a major waste of money in rural areas.

beauf

Ignore posters who use straw man arguments. They set up a truism about a generalisation. Then when you make a point about something specific they make imply it's about something else in the generalisation. Best to ignore. And I'm not saying both those posters are doing that. It's a general comment.

beauf

Who in the right mind is going to run tarmac through the middle of nowhere. When the point is to get away from the urban jungle. The is a case to be made that the canal in urban areas is both a park land and a potential excellent commuting network.

CramCycle

I just didn't think it was that ugly and as a tourism route, the tarmac allows tourists to look around and enjoy the route. If its an uneven, untended surface, that will most likely grow over during the winter, then you are less likely to see tourists using it IMO.

You are right in that the grass route does look nicer overall, but it is far from functional. Surely there is a nice middle ground.

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

One thing I'd note on your tarmac track on the canal is that it is too wide, providing a riding surface very close to the waters edge. If this is done with the notion of providing extra capacity, it is a dangerous design decision. If you compare it with the grass surface, you'd cycle in the single track close to the trees. If you're designing a family friendly cycling amenity, it needs to be safe first and foremost. Regardless of surface finish, a design intended for use by novice cyclists that encourages passing close to the waters edge seems to offer all the dangers of a busy road.

I disagree on width I would expect a minimum paved widh of 3m for the entire route.

We are not talking about using a few barrows of gravel to formalise some track worn in a green area between two housing estates.

We are talking about a significant cross-country route of national and probably international importance using a piece of abandoned transport infrastructure.

Yes in places railings or some form of demarcation may be needed. Where width and terrain allow the track could be set back from the canal edge with a grassed area between the track and canal. (I suspect that in the picture you are referring to there is space for just that).

The fact that this thread exists at all on a board like this is an embarrassment. You have people put in the position of coming on here to ask if they can cycle the grand canal like its some kind expedition to the amazon. They have to do this because the existing standard of the route is poor to non-existent in places. Its frankly ridiculous.

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

You have people put in the position of coming on here to ask if they can cycle the grand canal like its some kind expedition to the amazon.

Perhaps for many people that's part of the attraction, Wild Ireland and all that. Again this differentiates a tourist attraction from a piece of transport infrastructure. From the touring cyclists I've chatted to, I've yet meet anyone who's come here for the quality of the roads. Quite the opposite in fact, where what they're after is more often than not rugged unspoilt countryside.

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

From the touring cyclists I've chatted to, I've yet meet anyone who's come here for the quality of the roads. Quite the opposite in fact, where what they're after is more often than not rugged unspoilt countryside.

They are hardly leaving the roads and hopping hedges and gates so they can cycle on the grass?

The roads they are on while cycling through the countryside are of vastly higher quality than much of the canal route. Are cyclists (and walkers) not entitled to the same level of service along a canal that is being touted as a cross country cycle route?

smacl

CramCycle wrote: »

You are right in that the grass route does look nicer overall, but it is far from functional. Surely there is a nice middle ground.

I think you need to look at it in terms of meeting the needs of a majority of users within the available budget. Any heavy construction close to the waters edge is also prone to damage the canal itself so carries additional cost/risk. Worth the tarmac and extra land take in urban areas where you have the traffic to justify the expense, not so in rural areas where a narrow crushed and rolled gravel path a few metres from the waters edge is cheap, safe and effective.

smacl

beauf wrote: »

Who in the right mind is going to run tarmac through the middle of nowhere. When the point is to get away from the urban jungle. The is a case to be made that the canal in urban areas is both a park land and a potential excellent commuting network.

@Galway cyclist and Monument, just to clarify, is this what you are proposing, i.e. to tarmac the full length of both canals? If not, what exactly are you proposing?

beauf

I'm guessing

http://destinationwestport.com/things-to-do-page/activities/cycling-ireland-trails/cycling-greenway-mayo-ireland/

nilhg

Lads canals have two sides and would originally have had towpaths both sides, where required it should be possible to put something commuter/road bike friendly on one side and much more "natural" on the other.

Lots of the barrow line has public road on one side and towpath on the other.


https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2654173,-6.8626613,3a,75y,62.7h,74.21t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s8ECPVcTyxm3vAFy-HDK-4A!2e0?hl=en

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.0636076,-7.0832601,3a,75y,186.27h,79.74t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1skvE2SJcsoQSTmSFRPXwUcg!2e0?hl=en

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.0925879,-7.0724084,3a,75y,231.27h,86.58t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfNLqbJzEW9gBg5Ktd86ogw!2e0?hl=en

The other thing to consider in all of this (I know it's a canals thread) is the possibility to use other state owned (Coillte, Bord Na Mona) tracks and roads to join up the canal routes, look at the satellite view of the map, it's almost possible to go from Monasterevin to the Royal across boglands and forestry, it'd be a bit of work but using some quiet public road, forestry tracks, old disused bog railways and some of the access roads the bog workers use it could be done at a reasonable cost.

monument

smacl wrote: »

Not sure where you got the notion of my supporting gates, perhaps you show me where I said this. I clearly pointed them out as a cause for complaint on the Greenway, and consider them a pain in the arse on the canals.

Sorry, mixed up your self and another poster there.

smacl wrote: »

Nor for that matter have I supported keeping dirt tracks that become impassable in the wet, where my preferred solution would be a narrow crushed gravel approach as per the greenway. My contention was that the gates rather than the surface are what hinders leisure users such as families, and slippy mud puts off those without MTBs.

Sorry but advocating keeping the Casleknock to Ashtown sectioned, as pictured, even partly unpaved is advocating for dirt tracks alongside what ever tiny narrow path you want.

smacl wrote: »

As for prams and wheel chairs, their range is such that they're unlikely to be more than a few kilometres from the road in any case. I'd also suggest that covering the countryside in tarmac to make it wheelchair accessible is hardly judicious use of public funds.

Can you make it any clearer you don't care about users of prams and wheelchairs? Getting all high and mighty about me being wrong about gates and then in the same breath going into more hyperbole ("covering the countryside in tarmac") and being dismissive of accessibly for all.

The photo above in question is around urban areas between Casleknock to Ashtown. Distances far greater than that are doable with prams and wheelchairs, and modern mobility devices would in many cases go longer than most people would walking.

But even across Ireland paving ever bit of ever towpath in the country would not even come close to "covering the countryside in tarmac".

smacl wrote: »

@Galway cyclist and Monument, just to clarify, is this what you are proposing, i.e. to tarmac the full length of both canals? If not, what exactly are you proposing?

I started on this issue by saying some areas should be left fully green -- but the parts which are part of the National Cycle Network should be paved with a bonded or other suitable flat surface.

Cycling isn't just a urban mode of transport and it isn't just for commuters in cities.

The same goes for prams and wheelchairs -- I've seen more than a few people in rural areas being left only with the option of small, busy local roads. This can be change and that should not be stopped just because some people think digging up stone, cruishing it and laying it along a canal is somehow more natural or something like that.

The kind of people who claim to care about the environment but won't support or will only half support moves like promoting transport cycling which will protect the world's environment.

smacl wrote: »

I could be wrong, but the impression I got was that both monument and galwaycyclist were advocating tarmac for the entire length of the canal. I'm all for tarmac in urban areas, as I've already said, but think it is unnecessary, ugly and a major waste of money in rural areas.

You claim that "it's waste of money in rural areas" but the tourism, transport, health and environmental benefits indicates otherwise.

In rural areas of course the paths can be kept to 3 meters or less and the towpaths and embankments are usually larger anyway, so the impact is less.

Also "tarmac" isn't the only hard surfacing and black surfaces like "tarmac" will fade in time. Pictures of newly laid surfacing will show a greater impact than a path will really have over its life time.

smacl

monument wrote: »

Can you make it any clearer you don't care about users of prams and wheelchairs? Getting all high and mighty about me being wrong about gates and then in the same breath going into more hyperbole ("covering the countryside in tarmac") and being dismissive of accessibly for all.

The photo above in question is around urban areas between Casleknock to Ashtown. Distances far greater than that are doable with prams and wheelchairs, and modern mobility devices would in many cases go longer than most people would walking.

And again, you misrepresent what I've said. I have repeatedly stated I'm all for tarmac in urban areas, which clearly includes Casleknock to Ashtown.

To be clear, are you advocating a ~3m wide tarmac cycling surface for the full length of both canals?

Edit:

This can be change and that should not be stopped just because some people think digging up stone, cruishing it and laying it along a canal is somehow more natural or something like that.

You do realise that tarmac isn't laid over loose topsoil? You still need formation and sub-base layers made of crushed stone.

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

@Galway cyclist and Monument, just to clarify, is this what you are proposing, i.e. to tarmac the full length of both canals? If not, what exactly are you proposing?

Thanks for asking but it should be clear from my previous responses. I realise you did not introduce the confusion about what I am saying.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

a cycleway should always be a properly made road.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If this is part of continuous cross-country route then by that fact it is a key piece of transport/tourism infrastructure.

That is to say it is of national strategic value regardless of what other types of users it may attract in the various places it passes through. The available width and mixed-use nature will still make it unsuitable for roadies on training runs (they should be on the roads anyway).

However that does not change the fact that it will be a strategic tourism route. So it should be suitable for someone on a high-end touring bike with narrow ish tyres and front and rear panniers.

If the Grand Canal becomes part of the Eurovelo - Galway to Moscow - route as some would argue (e.g. me) then it will be a piece of strategic infrastructure at European level. Along the lines of the Danube route etc.

It cannot be considered as if it was some multi-user trail in a local park - even if it ends up filling that role in some places.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I disagree on width I would expect a minimum paved widh of 3m for the entire route.

So to answer your question I consider that cross-country key cycling tourism routes, such as are proposed for the canals, should be paved and of adequate width for their entire lengths.

Anything else is disingenuous and false advertising in my view.

Part of the problem here is that people insist on seeing these routes in terms of current use - which is a few brave souls who check their facts on boards and then take their chance in the wilderness "Bear Grylls" style.

If we put in place a proper cycling tourism strategy we are talking about tens of thousands of users travelling these and similar routes up and down the country.

Inviting people out of the towns on tracks of one standard and then dumping them onto mud or gravel once they are out of sight in not on. It is an abuse of people who have spent good money to visit our country. In my view it shows an attitude of contempt for people who go to considerable expense to transport themselves and their bikes to Ireland.

monument

smacl wrote: »

And again, you misrepresent what I've said. I have repeatedly stated I'm all for tarmac in urban areas, which clearly includes Casleknock to Ashtown.

To be clear, are you advocating a ~3m wide tarmeac cycling surface for the full length of both canals?[/quote]

I'm not advocating tarmac over other similar surfacing. But, yes, a bonded, flat, hard surface. There is no environmental advantage to keeping it to compacted stone chips with no bonding -- as others have pointed out, there's likely an environmental disadvantage to having no bonding.

As GalwayCyclist has said, if it's a shared path, then 3 meters really should be considered the minimum in most places.

smacl wrote: »

You do realise that tarmac isn't laid over loose topsoil? You still need formation and sub-base layers made of crushed stone.

Yes.

I'm not the one who thinks that crushed stone looks more natural along a canal than a bonded surface.

smacl

Thanks for the reply, as it was very much my understanding of what you were saying but there seemed to be confusion elsewhere.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Inviting people out of the towns on tracks of one standard and then dumping them onto mud or gravel once they are out of sight in not on. It is an abuse of people who have spent good money to visit our country. In my view it shows an attitude of contempt for people who go to considerable expense to transport themselves and their bikes to Ireland.

I agree but think this comes down to advertising and expectation as much as product. If people are told they're getting paved paths, that is what they should get, but equally if that's not an option it is just a matter of reflecting it in the advertising.

I'm aware that schemes such as the Mayo Greenway were very touch and go, both in terms of budget and buy-in from the locals, which in many ways led it to become a compromise solution. At the same time, while possible not perfect, it is an excellent amenity. Personally, I'd rather see more amenities of similar scale, than fewer amenities on a smaller scale, because for a given budget those are the options. Putting off the creation of new cycleways similar to the Greenway because they don't meet the standards that the Dutch or Danes might manage could in effect be putting them off indefinitely. Getting budget for a small scheme in an urban area is considerably easier than getting budget for a larger scheme that largely crosses rural areas.

smacl

monument wrote: »

I'm not the one who thinks that crushed stone looks more natural along a canal than a bonded surface.

I do think it is considerably more attractive. Here's a shot taken on the Grand last month. Resurfacing this in tarmac IMHO would be a disruption to wildlife and the environment, and serious waste of money, to end up with something ugly where there is already a perfect functional cycleway in place. It is already a joy to cycle, and perfectly usable by any bike. I think if we're spending money on cyclo-tourism infrastructure, quality resurfacing of picturesque l-roads is a way better option, e.g. as has been done recently on the Ballaghbeama gap.

monument

smacl wrote: »

I do think it is considerably more attractive. Here's a shot taken on the Grand last month. Resurfacing this in tarmac IMHO would be a disruption to wildlife and the environment,

That looks a lot like tar and chip, not just compacted crushed stone. As I've said, there's different types of bonded surfaces, not just tarmac.

But please do explain how resurfacing it would be notably disruption to wildlife and the environment -- or can you? It just would not register on any scale.

smacl wrote: »

I think if we're spending money on cyclo-tourism infrastructure, quality resurfacing of picturesque l-roads is a way better option, e.g. as has been done recently on the Ballaghbeama gap.

Most L-roads across the country have cars and trucks in high volumes and/or at high speeds -- compleatly not comparable with a family-friendly greenway product.

And we're clearly not just talking about cycling and not just leisure cycling.