cycle the grand/royal canal

smacl

monument wrote: »

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.

Nope. Chip and tar wears to expose a certain amount of tar over a relatively short time. No visible tar on a well worn existing surface suggests there is no tar there.

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.

For the quality of surface in your previously posted picture that isn't going to disintegrate in a year or two, you'd need to scrape the current top surface, make sure there was an adequate sub-base and possibly membrane layer, and user a paver and roller to create the final surface. All this requires movement of a large amount of material and use of heavy equipment. This isn't exactly two lads with a wheelbarrow full of hot bitchumen territory. Laying extensive paved surfaces is noisy, disruptive, and very expensive.

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.

Any studies to back that up, because it has certainly not been my experience. Any of the long distance jaunts I do, I pick routes specifically avoiding N and R roads for just this reason, and the amount of traffic I come across on L-roads is very small, and practically negligible at weekends. At a guess, they only get used by local people as the local people are the only ones who know where they go. Them and audax riders of course, who don't really constitute a major hazard.

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

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.

If you announce a cross country cycling route then the idea is in the name.

The issue of the delays caused by negotiations with local landowners is why the canal route should be prioritised first. There is only one landowner and it is effectively the state.

I accept that financial constraints can mean certain compromises are necessary on a temporary basis but that is a long way from a claim that tarmac is unsuitable for rural locations - which is how we started this exchange. I view that kind of comment as unsupportable horse manure.

With regard to budgets it is time for the insular navel gazing to stop.

I used words like "strategic", "european" and "international" for a reason. A scheme like this if concieved and pitched correctly should be eligible for some form of strategic funding from Europe.

What part of the term Galway-Moscow was unclear?

monument

I was just thinking: If any thing poorer grade surfaces degrade and distract from nature because you have to watch the ground more than usual.

smacl wrote: »

Nope. Chip and tar wears to expose a certain amount of tar over a relatively short time. No visible tar on a well worn existing surface suggests there is no tar there.

Generally speaking on low use roads or access roads it does no such thing.

I'm on some partly grassed over chip and tar back roads daily, they look like your example photo.

smacl wrote: »

For the quality of surface in your previously posted picture that isn't going to disintegrate in a year or two, you'd need to scrape the current top surface, make sure there was an adequate sub-base and possibly membrane layer, and user a paver and roller to create the final surface. All this requires movement of a large amount of material and use of heavy equipment. This isn't exactly two lads with a wheelbarrow full of hot bitchumen territory. Laying extensive paved surfaces is noisy, disruptive, and very expensive.

That's your now standard OTTness.

The noise and disruption would be temporary and minimum.

It's not "very expensive" at all, half the driveways in the country are paved in such a way -- including longer ones in the country.

smacl wrote: »

Any studies to back that up, because it has certainly not been my experience. Any of the long distance jaunts I do, I pick routes specifically avoiding N and R roads for just this reason, and the amount of traffic I come across on L-roads is very small, and practically negligible at weekends. At a guess, they only get used by local people as the local people are the only ones who know where they go. Them and audax riders of course, who don't really constitute a major hazard.

Great for you. But parents with small children and non-enthusiasts who are walking or cycling or running or whatever you're having your self, are likely to have a different perception of "practically negligible" amounts of traffic.

I'm not the only one who has posted that local roads in Ireland are pron to speeding and heavy traffic (relative to their size).

And you can be lucky and go down L roads a meet nothing one day and then meet a speeding oil truck the next day -- you and I may tolerate the odd large truck speeding or not, but 99% of the population won't be as forgiving.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I accept that financial constraints can mean certain compromises are necessary on a temporary basis but that is a long way from a claim that tarmac is unsuitable for rural locations -

That's an excellent point.

And it's part of the plan in a lot of cases to go back and upgrade a section, a road crossing, put in a bridge, widen a bridge etc, after the original route is in.

monument

Was cycling the Great Westren Greenway today and I have to say there's more tarred surfaces than I had remembered (from low quality to high).

Great views and atmosphere. But still, a lot is to be desired on surface quality overall and some of the gates and bollard spacing is too restrictive for use with a (rented) trailer.

There's also fairly safety critical issues at some junctions and on a very steep hill on the way into Mulranny -- which is just after a bend with no warning I seen other than a useless dismount sign (dismount signs are overused around Ireland and the UK, including at works along the greenway, and these are road signs which show gradients which should be used).

CramCycle

smacl wrote: »

Them and audax riders of course, who don't really constitute a major hazard.

You clearly don't know many audax riders, most are at a minimum a hazard to themselves :pac:

Mercian Pro

As both a long distance cyclist and a regular walker, I find a lot of the views expressed to be somewhat myopic. The canals are a fantastic resource that should be developed for both activities and not exclusively for one alone. In reasonable weather, very few walkers prefer a Tarmac surface to grass or compacted earth. Walkers also do not feel comfortable sharing a path that facilitates and encourages high speed cycling. One of the reasons that the Western Greenway works for both groups is that it is uncomfortable to cycle at speeds greater than about 20kph.
The suggestion that one towpath might be used for cycling and the other for walking might work in certain areas such as the Barrow Line but I am not sure if much of the Royal and Grand originally had dual towpath. Maybe Waterways Ireland fight be able to clarify this.

galwaycyclist

Mercian Pro wrote: »

As both a long distance cyclist and a regular walker, I find a lot of the views expressed to be somewhat myopic. The canals are a fantastic resource that should be developed for both activities and not exclusively for one alone. In reasonable weather, very few walkers prefer a Tarmac surface to grass or compacted earth. Walkers also do not feel comfortable sharing a path that facilitates and encourages high speed cycling. One of the reasons that the Western Greenway works for both groups is that it is uncomfortable to cycle at speeds greater than about 20kph.
The suggestion that one towpath might be used for cycling and the other for walking might work in certain areas such as the Barrow Line but I am not sure if much of the Royal and Grand originally had dual towpath. Maybe Waterways Ireland fight be able to clarify this.

To clarify I find your position reasonable and one that I agree with (in principle). High speed cycling is not appropriate in this type of situation. I am not looking for that and I am certain nor are contributors like Monument.

I am seeking a treatment that best serves the needs of all the appropriate users of the route.

Implicit in that is that inappropriate users such as "sports" or "performance" cyclists should be directed elsewhere.

However I do not accept that the solution to the "problem" (in this situation) of "sports" cyclists is to adopt a design that is equivalent to requiring anyone on a bicycle to be preceded by a man carrying a red flag.

Muahahaha

Just out of interest what would people consider as too fast a cycling speed for a cycleway along the canal? I was researching a bit about touring cyclists recently and came across a few blogs of people who cycled canals in France and said they usually aimed to cover 18-20kph when touring with fully laden bikes. Would walkers tend to consider 18kph as too fast for cyclists to be going past them on a shared use track ?

bobcranfret

Having cycled on French canal paths, it depends on the circumstances. If the path is clear ahead 18-20 kph or more is not a problem, but if there are walkers or other cyclists around such a speed would be much too high. Particularly if there are children either cycling or walking.

01Surveyor

Interesting information here vscg.co.uk/good-practice/published/external-pedestrian-path-surfaces (add www.). The recommendation seems to be that 'Limestone aggregate provides an appropriate surface for walkers and cyclists.'
It also supports the opinion expressed in this thread that an engineered surface is required in more heavily used urban settings.

The gates issue is still a conundrum........how are people with mobility problems accommodated? I frequently take my elderly mother for walks on the canal and she struggles to deal with kissing gates, I dont know if they are intended to facilitate wheelchair access but it wouldnt be easy?

I have found that on an end-to-end trip on the canals that I can average up to 16kph including stops. A fitter cyclist would be faster. However that average would involve speeds of up to 40kph on well surfaced 'roadways' like the the Inchicore-Lucan section, and speeds of 30kph are regularly achievable on decent surfaces and this is on an MTB. On a deserted pathway that kind of speed might be acceptable but not when there are other cyclists and pedestrians about. Reliance on cyclists to observe appropriate (unstated) speed limits is unlikely to be anymore productive than was reliance on motorists to do likewise with legal limits prior to the introduction of the points system and proper enforcement. A surface which facilitates high speed doesnt seem ideal.

galwaycyclist

bobcranfret wrote: »

Having cycled on French canal paths, it depends on the circumstances. If the path is clear ahead 18-20 kph or more is not a problem, but if there are walkers or other cyclists around such a speed would be much too high. Particularly if there are children either cycling or walking.

Agreed on this and it is probably a topic for another thread. The reason we are even raising this issue is the perverse situation that Irish traffic law does not recognise any duty of care by adults towards children or the "more vulnerable" generally.

In other countries it is accepted that you change your behaviour around children. As we can see from things like the refusal to bring in 30km/h limits on residential streets the Irish state and many drivers do not accept such a principle.

Clearly there are going to be problems if Irish cyclists choose to behave on routes like this in the same way that some of them behave when driving their cars.

But that is a much wider issue outside the specifics of the canal route.

beauf

Someone on a mtb can do high speed on bad surface.

Need to be almost impassable to stop them.

Considering the under use of the canals it hardly seems a primary issue.

01Surveyor

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Agreed on this and it is probably a topic for another thread. The reason we are even raising this issue is the perverse situation that Irish traffic law does not recognise any duty of care by adults towards children or the "more vulnerable" generally.

In other countries it is accepted that you change your behaviour around children. As we can see from things like the refusal to bring in 30km/h limits on residential streets the Irish state and many drivers do not accept such a principle.

Clearly there are going to be problems if Irish cyclists choose to behave on routes like this in the same way that some of them behave when driving their cars.

But that is a much wider issue outside the specifics of the canal route.

Agree 100%

beauf wrote: »

Someone on a mtb can do high speed on bad surface.

Need to be almost impassable to stop them.

Considering the under use of the canals it hardly seems a primary issue.

Thats true. I suspect that serious off-roadies wont be bothered with the canals and at least they would have decent bike handling skills. Its the casual speeders (boy racer equivalents) that I'd be concerned about. As long as there is no effective policing of the canal tow paths a degree of anti social/iresponsible behaviour is probably unavoidable. Its a question of striking a balance by doing as much as possible to discourage it while at the same time facilitating the broadest use of the canals. A long smooth straight speedway is likely to prove an attraction for misuse in my opinion.

Has anyone ever seen a Garda on the canal? As use of the canals increases you'd hope the bike Gardai might be encouraged to do the odd patrol particularly in problem areas.

bambergbike

Maybe people won't be able to accelerate to their top speed if surfaces are poor, but they also won't have anything like the same level of control over their bikes and may be reluctant to brake for fearing of skidding, or simply because it takes longer to build up momentum again after a stop. So the merits of poor surfaces as a speed reduction measure seem a bit limited to me. I have been in situations where I had to pass closer to pedestrians than I would have wished because there was a giant crater on the other side of the canal path I was using at the time - if the path had been surfaced properly, the giant crater wouldn't have developed and I would have passed the pedestrians with a 1 metre gap at 15 km/h rather than with a 25 cm gap at 7 km/h.

With fully loaded panniers, I travel at an average of 18-20 km/h - but that includes stops, and at any given point along my journey, I can easily be doing half that speed or twice that speed (even on canal/river routes, opportunities for acceleration can exist at bridges etc.) I would generally slow down (and indeed often have to come to a complete stop) before passing pedestrians or slower cyclists, especially if there are children, elderly people or dogs involved - it's fair enough to expect people to exercise a bit of consideration towards pedestrians they can see.

It's less likely that people will exercise consideration towards fellow users that only become visible right as they come upon them, so good sightlines will be important.

I tend to use flat greenway routes following rivers and canals mainly in cold or wet weather, when they are less busy and when my usual routes are less attractive (increased danger and wind chill on the downhill legs). So greenway routes need to be usable in the winter - and poor surfaces will likely lead to routes that have waterlogged or muddy sections and are generally unsuited for winter use.

We need to stop distinguishing between "sporty" cyclists who normally travel at 25 km/h+ and "ordinary" cyclists who are slower. People in their eighties can and do ride at 25 km/h on electric bikes. Families with small children in trailers can easily ride at 25 km/h without being especially sporty if one adult has an electric bike. 25 km/h was chosen as the top speed for ordinary e-bikes (the type that are allowed on cycle infrastructure) because the consensus was that that was a very ordinary speed for cycling and a speed at which those riders would easily be able to mix with non-motorized riders.

I vote for good surfaces, good sightlines, and infrastructure which caters for the granny on an electric bike (design speed of 25km/h+ and surfaces/designs that don't demand advanced mountain biker skills) as well as it caters for the granny in a wheelchair (no kissing gates!).

There is no magic surface that promotes peace and harmony between path users. Choices on surfaces should be made on the basis of:

1. Comfort for all users (especially wheeled users - bikes, wheelchairs etc.) in all weathers
2. Environmental impact (of the building work, of looking after it later, of the final surface)
3. Cost (to build and to maintain - asphalt is more expensive to build, but cheaper to maintain)

A lot of work has been done on developing high-tech materials in recent years and options exist which are comfortable, environmentally-friendly and practical. They include some fantastic new materials that don't bunch up into those ridges that are so horribly painful to cycle over after tree roots have had a while to get underneath them and wreak havoc!

beauf

I think you are worrying about a tiny potential issue.

In the park you get the odd nutter dangerous cyclist. But considering the numbers it's very few.

01Surveyor

Compare and contrast.
This first video is of the Inchicore-Lucan 'Greenway' (sic)
youtube.com/watch?v=HsegB23YFSQ (add www.)
This one is of the Deep Sinking and onwards.
youtube.com/watch?v=7tj4z4SdCkk (add www.)
I dont believe that the first video represents the type of unique environment that will attract users and tourists.
I do believe that the second is a more attractive environment but agree that it needs work to make it more user friendly.
I reckon what's needed is somehwere between the two, e.g. the stretch immediately after Maynooth heading East which is lovely.

An earlier poster extolled the 'development' of the Inchicore - Lucan stretch on the grounds that Bat boxes, otter Holts and plants had been provided as part of the development. Whil this is factually correct it is not the full story. Under the EU Habitats Directive requirements the developers (a commercial utilities company) were obliged to replace the habitats disturbed during construction and some (not all) of the vegetation and planting removed. The jetties are welcome as they are required to make the locks usable as you must be able to moor in order to open or close a lock before entering or after leaving it. I have always maintained that the development of the Inchicore-Lucan stretch was well intentioned I just feel it could have been done better with a bit more thought.

The development of the canals, so that they can be enjoyed safely by the widest range of users, while at the same time protecting the unique environment, is a complicated design problem requiring more careful consideration than is evident between Inchicore and Lucan. If we allow the nanny staters free reign we'll have pristine tarmac all the way from the Liffey to the Shannon with a stainless steel handrail to prevent us from plunging into the water.....................we already have plenty of tarmac paths......they're called roads.

bambergbike

On the nanny state problem: I'm just in the door from a jog on a well-lit, well-maintained, wide canal towpath. If I'd wanted an adventure in the dark and the rain, I could have laced up trail shoes with big studs, charged up a powerful head torch, and gone for a jog around the woods instead. There were people down on the canal path - dog-walkers, joggers, people out for a stroll, people heading into town or cycling back home to somewhere in the outer suburbs. I doubt there was anybody much in the woods - I've never encountered a single person in the woods after dark, just heard the odd beast crashing around.

Conclusion: lots of people like nice, safe nanny-state solutions.

And if there demand for nanny state solutions, the canals are a very good place to go about providing for it. They are quintessentially a man-made landscape, infused through and through with human culture, and while they shouldn't have their souls taken out, they can certainly move with the times.

Every individual section is going to be a complex compromise between the needs of different people, vehicles, voles, bats, budgetary constraints and so on. You won't achieve perfection everywhere, or maybe even anywhere (although you can certainly get very close if you spend enough money.) But it would still be nice to have a satisfactory definition of perfection (or several definitions, for various different cases).

beauf

01Surveyor wrote: »

...
This one is of the Deep Sinking and onwards....

Not the point of your video, but those not familar with the deep sinking, that first 30 sec bit thats about a foot wide is like that for about 10mins between Castleknock and Coolmine stations.

smacl

bambergbike wrote: »

Conclusion: lots of people like nice, safe nanny-state solutions.

Lot of people like McDonalds, but I wouldn't advocate changing other restaurants and eateries into the golden arches. IMHO tarmacing the entirety of both canals would be doing just that, at enormous cost to the taxpayer, in what many would consider little more than an act of wanton vandalism.

I think any solution has to look at the consolidated needs of all current and potential users, and from a tourism perspective a balance of costs against potential benefits. What might suit joggers and dog walkers in an urban or suburban setting where you have high population density is does not make a valid argument for the treatment of low population density areas,

bambergbike

I'm not specifically recommending this particular company or this particular product, just the general idea:

http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/en/brand/ELASTOPAVE

The choice isn't between asphalt and something which is uncomfortable for some people to ride bikes on or use wheelchairs on or push buggies on. There are plenty of good options out there (and I hope somebody in Waterways Ireland has a little test patch somewhere where they are experimenting with 10 different variants on this theme and seeing how different mixtures cope with Irish weather, maintenance vehicles being driven over them etc.)

monument

01Surveyor wrote: »

....I have always maintained that the development of the Inchicore-Lucan stretch was well intentioned I just feel it could have been done better with a bit more thought.

And you we're already been asked what you would have done differently and you have yet to respond expect for the more vagueness.

How exactly would you have designed Inchicore-Lucan section?

01Surveyor wrote: »

If we allow the nanny staters free reign we'll have pristine tarmac all the way from the Liffey to the Shannon with a stainless steel handrail to prevent us from plunging into the water.....................

There's some people of the view down the country that some Dublin / east coast dwellers want to preserve the countryside as their own playground when they come to visit and want to limit development as much as possible.

I don't agree with these people or the reasons for their view (and often I don't agree with what they want allowed built or what has been built in the countryside), but it's over-the-top points like this that gives me insight into why the country people think people from towns and cities are trying to preserve for themselves.

01Surveyor wrote: »

....we already have plenty of tarmac paths......they're called roads.

We've gone over this?

But yet you've gone back to comparing motor traffic routes are comparable to traffic-free routes again?!

smacl

monument wrote: »

There's some people of the view down the country that some Dublin / east coast dwellers want to preserve the countryside as their own playground when they come to visit and want to limit development as much as possible.

Though if we're talking about canal pathways, these are publicly owned amenities, not locally owned bits of countryside as per the Mayo greenway. As such their treatment should be in the best interests of the population at large rather than focussed entirely on local needs.

In terms of tarmac, so far it has already been pointed out that it would be inappropriate for sports cyclists, it would be of little interest to walkers, no interest to mountain bikers, and detrimental to anglers. This rather begs the question, which demographic are you catering for in tarmacing more remote rural areas of the canal? Touring cyclists might certainly use it, but they are already well catered for in terms of rural L and R roads. IMHO, where tarmac cycleways would really come into their own is as a mechanism to safely and pleasantly enter, exit and traverse urban and suburban areas where traffic is an issue. Once you clear the big cities and avoid the main roads, cycling around rural Ireland is already a safe and very pleasant experience.

monument

smacl wrote: »

Though if we're talking about canal pathways, these are publicly owned amenities, not locally owned bits of countryside as per the Mayo greenway. As such their treatment should be in the best interests of the population at large rather than focussed entirely on local needs.

In terms of tarmac, so far it has already been pointed out that it would be inappropriate for sports cyclists, it would be of little interest to walkers, no interest to mountain bikers, and detrimental to anglers. This rather begs the question, which demographic are you catering for in tarmacing more remote rural areas of the canal? Touring cyclists might certainly use it, but they are already well catered for in terms of rural L and R roads. IMHO, where tarmac cycleways would really come into their own is as a mechanism to safely and pleasantly enter, exit and traverse urban and suburban areas where traffic is an issue. Once you clear the big cities and avoid the main roads, cycling around rural Ireland is already a safe and very pleasant experience.

Motor traffic is very much so an issue for people who want to cycle and walk in rural areas and rural roads have a disproportionate amount of cycling deaths given the lower level of cycling use.

It's all good and fine saying "As such their treatment should be in the best interests of the population at large rather than focussed entirely on local needs" but the problem for you is that State bodies should be taken into account of families, commuters, tourists, prams, wheelchairs and all sorts of bicycles, not just "mountain bikers" or a few walkers who like walking on grass.

And sure some hardened touring cyclist are ok with lots of traffic around them -- but that's a small bit of the market from day trippers, to less hardened touring cycling. The popularity of off-road routes in Europe and across the world is something you're trying -- and failing -- to dismiss.

BTW I was on the GW Greenway the weekend before the one just gone and the one and only time where we spotted cycling speeding by walkers, they had fatter-than racing tires and it was on nearly the worst of surfaces.

Also: All your BS about cost is just that -- the benefits are far greater than taring a single local, which is done all the time. You're blind to the value, so you can only see the cost.

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

Once you clear the big cities and avoid the main roads, cycling around rural Ireland is already a safe and very pleasant experience.

There you go and this is your problem. To provide a comparatively traffic free environment we would have to bus people (and their bikes) -eg family groups, older people, non-"conviction" cyclists out of the towns to the locations that you deem "safe and very pleasant". The canal routes offer that opportunity without any one getting on a bus.

They just get on their bikes and go.

By the way this argument

at enormous cost to the taxpayer

Is spurious. The costs of providing a paved route along the canals are tiny compared to some roads projects that are considered routine. The return on investment of proper greenway routes significantly outweighs that for other types of road.

smacl

With respect to touring cyclists, they've picked the wrong mode of transport if they feel at risk by the amount of traffic they're liable to encounter on small rural Irish roads. More significantly perhaps, until such a time as there is a network of cycle lanes connecting other pieces of transport infrastructure, they're going to have to navigate the roads regardless. The same applies equally well to the pram pushers and wheelchairs; unless they happen to live right beside the canal, they would have to negotiate the open roads to get to the canal, presumably by car in these two cases. As such, it doesn't seem to present a whole lot of value as a piece of transport infrastructure.

I could certainly see the value for commuters from satellite suburbs within about 20k of major employment areas, but this still doesn't make much logical sense for more rural areas. If you also talk about imposing something like a 20kph speed limit on these cycleways, you'll discourage anyone with longer commutes, as the roads would be more effective.

As for the risks involved in cycling rural roads, I think you're failing to distinguish between major arterial routes passing through rural areas such as N roads, and the far quieter R and L roads that surround them. Given that 5 out of 190 road deaths last year were cyclists, I would hazard a guess that modally it is one of the safer forms of transport. You seem to be discouraging people from cycling these roads on the grounds that it is dangerous to do so, which I'd rather doubt is your intent.

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There you go and this is your problem. To provide a comparatively traffic free environment we would have to bus people (and their bikes) -eg family groups, older people, non-"conviction" cyclists out of the towns to the locations that you deem "safe and very pleasant". The canal routes offer that opportunity without any one getting on a bus.

They just get on their bikes and go.

Which is why I've repeatedly pointed out that I'm in favour of wide tarmac cycleways in the canals in urban areas, e.g.

SmacL wrote:

tarmac cycleways would really come into their own is as a mechanism to safely and pleasantly enter, exit and traverse urban and suburban areas where traffic is an issue

galwaycyclist wrote:

By the way this argument

at enormous cost to the taxpayer

Is spurious. The costs of providing a paved route along the canals are tiny compared to some roads projects that are considered routine. The return on investment of proper greenway routes significantly outweighs that for other types of road.

If the design choices on the table are either compacted gravel or tarmac, those choices will be affected by budgetary consideration. Comparing the cost of upgrading a cycleway on the canal with the cost of a road job is in fact spurious, until such a time as they are competing for the same budget. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of cycling infrastructure receiving a far greater share of capital infrastructure budgets, but until this is the case I think there is greater merit in discussing what can be achieved in the short to medium term with available funds. I for one greatly appreciate the input of Waterways Ireland in this thread, at it they who are currently striving to improve the canal tow paths on what I would imagine are rather limited resources.

monument

smacl wrote: »

With respect to touring cyclists, they've picked the wrong mode of transport if they feel at risk by the amount of traffic they're liable to encounter on small rural Irish roads. More significantly perhaps, until such a time as there is a network of cycle lanes connecting other pieces of transport infrastructure, they're going to have to navigate the roads regardless. The same applies equally well to the pram pushers and wheelchairs; unless they happen to live right beside the canal, they would have to negotiate the open roads to get to the canal, presumably by car in these two cases. As such, it doesn't seem to present a whole lot of value as a piece of transport infrastructure.

Err... For example, the Dublin-Galway greenway when completed will be connected to notable large towns, a load of villages, and two cities.

It will connect to rural and urban cycle networks. Including a route into Mayo and, for example, in Mayo you'll have a network of Greenways going from the Galway boarder to Westport, the GW Greenway, Castlebar, Foxford, Ballina, Killala etc.

The urban and rural cycle networks are slowly being built even if the quality is mixed, and the canals are planned as a key part of the national network. You don't seem to have a clue about what you're on about.

And so what if some people with mobility or connective issues drive to the canal to use their pram of wheelchair? Good on them and it would be good on the state to provide them with a place to use. Only yesterday I seen somebody along a river fishing on a wheelchair... I can't see why wheelchair users should need to be strong, have strong help or have a 4x4 to enjoy the canals in the countryside... Maybe you have a good reason?

smacl wrote: »

I could certainly see the value for commuters from satellite suburbs within about 20k of major employment areas, but this still doesn't make much logical sense for more rural areas. If you also talk about imposing something like a 20kph speed limit on these cycleways, you'll discourage anyone with longer commutes, as the roads would be more effective.

What are you on about?!

Rural people should stick to their cars or enjoy the busy roads seems to be the end result of what you're saying.

And 20km/h is on the fast side of the adverage person who cycles.

smacl wrote: »

As for the risks involved in cycling rural roads, I think you're failing to distinguish between major arterial routes passing through rural areas such as N roads, and the far quieter R and L roads that surround them. Given that 5 out of 190 road deaths last year were cyclists, I would hazard a guess that modally it is one of the safer forms of transport. You seem to be discouraging people from cycling these roads on the grounds that it is dangerous to do so, which I'd rather doubt is your intent.

But in and around Dublin and Mayo, I don't know of any magical network of L roads which are not fairly well trafficked and often by trucks going to farms etc, and which the use of N roads is not needed.

smacl

monument wrote: »

Err... For example, the Dublin-Galway greenway when completed will be connected to notable large towns, a load of villages, and two cities.

It will connect to rural and urban cycle networks. Including a route into Mayo and, for example, in Mayo you'll have a network of Greenways going from the Galway boarder to Westport, the GW Greenway, Castlebar, Foxford, Ballina, Killala etc.

Great, I look forward to it, and hope to be still young enough to use it if and when it ever gets built. At the same time, I'm not holding my breath, and wouldn't object to a bit of gravel being put down on some of the short muddier sections of the existent canal tow paths until then.

The urban and rural cycle networks are slowly being built even if the quality is mixed, and the canals are planned as a key part of the national network. You don't seem to have a clue about what you're on about.

Mixed quality, in that the gravel on the GW greenway is a better surface than most of the cycle tracks around Dublin?

Rural people should stick to their cars or enjoy the busy roads seems to be the end result of what you're saying.

And again you misrepresent what I've said to prop up your own tenuous position. If you note, I'm the one who's advocating cycling rural country roads, whereas your stance seems to place them as some kind of death trap, best avoided until with have a network of paved off road cycle tracks.

And 20km/h is on the fast side of the adverage person who cycles.

20kph might be a reasonable average speed in built up areas with lots of traffic lights, junctions, etc... It is a very low maximum speed by anyone's standards.

But in and around Dublin and Mayo, I don't know of any magical network of L roads which are not fairly well trafficked and often by trucks going to farms etc, and which the use of N roads is not needed.

Look at a map so, there's more kilometres of L and R road in this country than anything else. When you go to Mayo, most of what pass as N roads are actually smaller than Dublin R roads and carry significantly less traffic (e.g. the N59). I find Mayo a real pleasure to cycle, particularly around Loughs Carra, Mask, and NaFooey, with so much more to the county that the greenway.

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

Look at a map so, there's more kilometres of L and R road in this country than anything else. When you go to Mayo, most of what pass as N roads are actually smaller than Dublin R roads and carry significantly less traffic (e.g. the N59). I find Mayo a real pleasure to cycle, particularly around Loughs Carra, Mask, and NaFooey, with so much more to the county that the greenway.

OK are you arguing that the N59 - any section of the N59 - even Lenane Westport - provides an equivalent cycling experience to a paved route beside a canal?

Are you arguing that the N59 provides that environment in means accesible to family groups with small children in trailer? Accessible to groups of people who want a social, traffic-free, cycle with their friends?

If that is your argument then as Monument says you genuinely don't seem to have a clue what you are on about.

monument

smacl wrote: »

Great, I look forward to it, and hope to be still young enough to use it if and when it ever gets built. At the same time, I'm not holding my breath, and wouldn't object to a bit of gravel being put down on some of the short muddier sections of the existent canal tow paths until then.

Not holding my breath for what?

Large sections of the towpath have are soon to be upgraded -- all funded in the downturn. There's more political momentum behind it than any other project in the country.

I'd be surprised if Dublin-Athlone was not upgraded in the next few years and but clearly Athlone to Galway could take longer.

smacl wrote: »

Mixed quality, in that the gravel on the GW greenway is a better surface than most of the cycle tracks around Dublin?

No, but lots of the tarred surfaces on the GW greenway are better than a lot of what's in Dublin.

smacl wrote: »

And again you misrepresent what I've said to prop up your own tenuous position. If you note, I'm the one who's advocating cycling rural country roads, whereas your stance seems to place them as some kind of death trap, best avoided until with have a network of paved off road cycle tracks.

Most people won't cycle on roads such as the N59, which you think is nice and dandy.

You're confusing what's ok for you and what most people think is acceptable for them.

And you claimed the danger is in cities but that's not where most cycling deaths are anymore.

smacl wrote: »

20kph might be a reasonable average speed in built up areas with lots of traffic lights, junctions, etc... It is a very low maximum speed by anyone's standards.

20km/h is notably higher than the average speed in Dublin. Even outside of the canals.

smacl wrote: »

Look at a map so, there's more kilometres of L and R road in this country than anything else. When you go to Mayo, most of what pass as N roads are actually smaller than Dublin R roads and carry significantly less traffic (e.g. the N59). I find Mayo a real pleasure to cycle, particularly around Loughs Carra, Mask, and NaFooey, with so much more to the county that the greenway.

Great for you -- you're a road cyclist.

You're fine with unnaturally placed gravel to walk on and you're fine with cycling on roads most people would never cycle on.