Greystones/Wicklow Greenway - a disaster in the making!

Del.Monte

Anybody else know about this nonsense? Not a peep from any of the conservation organisations that I can see. Of course, the knaves in Wicklow County Council support it - their chance to get 'their' share of whatever largesse the government is dishing out.

The guy behind the project https://eastcoastgreenway.ie is collecting signatures at a rate of knots from thousands of people - most of whom have probably never been further than the south beach in Greystones. They project 500,000 people a year will use the greenway but fail to say how on earth it can actually be created given the presence of the sea, railway line and salt marsh. The man behind the project even wants it to be wheelchair accessible! To hell with the environment, wildlife etc. in this most sensitive and still relatively unspoilt part of East Wicklow.

Watch this great video - which was inexplicably cut halfway through - much as the project should be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddCro596QXI

Birdnuts

The Greenways on the canals are not much better - you would swear they are designed to land planes such is their width and scale!!

magicbastarder

i wonder where that mock-up was taken; there seems to be much more space between the beach and the railway line than is available for most of that stretch?

Del.Monte

That would be at the Wicklow end and as you say it the widest part. Apart from other matters, why do these things always have to be sanitised - benches, neat gravel/tarmac, signage etc. Destroy the very wilderness people are being encouraged to visit.

magicbastarder

not that i necessarily like the idea of it, but how do you construct something and not make it neat? it'd be designed to be a public amenity. you can't not have a level surface if you want bikes there, so to criticise a cycleway precisely because it provides a surface suitable for cycling is a little odd.

Del.Monte

magicbastarder wrote: »

not that i necessarily like the idea of it, but how do you construct something and not make it neat? it'd be designed to be a public amenity. you can't not have a level surface if you want bikes there, so to criticise a cycleway precisely because it provides a surface suitable for cycling is a little odd.

Perhaps so, but do we really want the countryside tidied up to resemble a public park? The coast between Greystones (Kilcoole) and Wicklow (well south of Newcastle) is an important habitat for breeding seabirds such as the endangered Little Tern as well as Ringed Plovers and Oystercatchers. On the inland side, the salt marshes are important for a large variety of wildfowl in summer and winter. The marshes are already being encroached on by a growing private airstrip and the spread of industrial units at the Wicklow end.

The point being made by the Greenway group about coastal erosion is something of a red herring as it is only at both ends of the proposed route where this is a problem - and caused by Irish Rail's coastal protection overkill at Greystones and Wicklow County Council's rockwalling at Wicklow.

magicbastarder

it's a bit of a circle to be squared; the greenway is a good idea, and the wildlife there is a 'good idea' (for want of a better phrase), but i can't see how we can have one without impacting the other. i suspect we'll see some lines uttered, akin to bertie ahern's about snails stopping a motorway, before this fully plays out.

Del.Monte

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's a bit of a circle to be squared; the greenway is a good idea, and the wildlife there is a 'good idea' (for want of a better phrase), but i can't see how we can have one without impacting the other. i suspect we'll see some lines uttered, akin to bertie ahern's about snails stopping a motorway, before this fully plays out.

I don't see it as a circle that can be squared. Either the area is protected as an area of environmental importance or it's destroyed in the interests of mammon.

The construction of the proposed greenway is wholly impractical due to the physical constraints of the narrow strip of land and the idea of trying to shoehorn 500,000 walkers, cyclists, buggies, wheelchairs and dogs onto and already damaged dune area at Kilcoole is truly mind boggling. I can only suppose that your view on the project is due to you not knowing the area?

magicbastarder

Del.Monte wrote: »

I can only suppose that your view on the project is due to you not knowing the area?

i'm not sure that you understand my view; perhaps you're reading too much into what little i have written. i know the area; not imtimately, but have been to the BWI site a couple of times and meandered along the beach occasionally.

Del.Monte

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm not sure that you understand my view; perhaps you're reading too much into what little i have written. i know the area; not imtimately, but have been to the BWI site a couple of times and meandered along the beach occasionally.

Sorry, I'm not trying to belittle your point of view but I do know the area intimately having spent years there birdwatching, doing surveys and it depresses me to see it getting steadily more overused and messed with by CIE and Wicklow Council and now this abomination.

Thud

Is there not a path (loose gravel) most of the way already?
Resurfacing that and adding some birdwatch info panels along that might make more people appreciate the wildlife more.

A few cyclists and walkers (plenty litter bins a must) can hardly be worse that diesel trains and airplanes for the wildlife?

Admittedly the pic above doesn't look ideal but I assume there would only be space for a single (dual direction) path for a good stretch of it.

magicbastarder

it seems they're planning for a path each for cyclists and walkers, based on the image above.
based on the experience of providing the same in the phoenix park, that would be better in theory than in practice.

information boards were one thing i thought were missing from the waterford greenway, such as guides on what to watch out for or listen for, or even some info on the surrounding countryside - even from a tourism point of view; you pass close enough to the comeraghs (and mahon falls) and the utility of signs drawing your attention to these would easily outweigh any costs.

Working class heroes

It's a fantastic idea. The sooner the better.

Del.Monte

Working class heroes wrote: »

It's a fantastic idea. The sooner the better.

You've obviously given this a lot of thought and know the area well?

Working class heroes

Del.Monte wrote: »

You've obviously given this a lot of thought and know the area well?

Yes. I know the area extremely well.
You posted earlier downplaying the effects of coastal erosion along there.
Well let me tell you, something needs to be done and i think this is a great idea. It would gaurd against further erosion as well as providing a very useful and beneficial amenity.
Obviously nature etc would have to be protected but I’m sure a compromise could be reached.

Del.Monte

Working class heroes wrote: »

Yes. I know the area extremely well.
You posted earlier downplaying the effects of coastal erosion along there.
Well let me tell you, something needs to be done and i think this is a great idea. It would gaurd against further erosion as well as providing a very useful and beneficial amenity.
Obviously nature etc would have to be protected but I’m sure a compromise could be reached.

If, as you claim, you know the area well you would know that this would not be possible. The moronic campaign behind this scheme are hell-bent are bringing 500,000 people a year along this trail - their words not mine. There is no serious erosion save at the two ends of the proposed greenway i.e that already being interfered with by CIE and Wicklow County Council.

@Srameen perhaps you could contribute to the thread instead of thanking every post that disagrees with my point of view? :rolleyes:

Pretzill

This sort of gentrification for the sake of modernity really f*cking annoys me. What about the wildlife or wildlife tourism? What about first and foremost protecting our natural biodiversity and it's resources.

What adds to my fury on the blinkered attempts to make neat, picturesque walkways is that some of the people behind this trendy sh*t are faux veganites who on one hand think they make a stand for nature by swerving a burger once a week in favour of a carrot curry.

Working class heroes

Del.Monte wrote: »

If, as you claim, you know the area well you would know that this would not be possible. The moronic campaign behind this scheme are hell-bent are bringing 500,000 people a year along this trail - their words not mine. There is no serious erosion save at the two ends of the proposed greenway i.e that already being interfered with by CIE and Wicklow County Council.

@Srameen perhaps you could contribute to the thread instead of thanking every post that disagrees with my point of view? :rolleyes:

Are you calling me a liar?
Trust me I’ve forgoten more about that area than you’ll ever know.
It is possible. Your use of the word moronic is ironic, I have to say.
I really hope it is built and the more it attracts to the area the better for everyone. Anyone who can’t see this can only be described as short sighted.

If you think that coastal erosion is not a problem there, well you can’t be taken seriously tbh.

Zoo4m8

This suggested enterprise as outlined beggars belief, the information provided is woolly and so lacking in hard facts that it has all the appearance of being concocted on the back of a beer mat.
No information as to how this would be done never mind a stab at costs..just one of a dozen issues that instantly come to mind, for instance how would the Breaches Bridge be dealt with? On the landward side the Breaches mudflats, a perfect wildlife refuge and the other the beach and the sea with a tidal river running under the bridge..
If there was the land between the railway and the sea it would be something to aspire to, but the cost to reinstate and provide the amenities suggested and protect from the sea would be imho astronomical..

Working class heroes

Pretzill wrote: »

This sort of gentrification for the sake of modernity really f*cking annoys me. What about the wildlife or wildlife tourism? What about first and foremost protecting our natural biodiversity and it's resources.

What adds to my fury on the blinkered attempts to make neat, picturesque walkways is that some of the people behind this trendy sh*t are faux veganites who on one hand think they make a stand for nature by swerving a burger once a week in favour of a carrot curry.

Jaysus take a deep breath there man. Have a penguin sambo.

Working class heroes

Can people here not see how this venture could serve to promote, and make people aware of what’s around them. Or are you all trying to keep it for yourselves?
Very short sighted I have to say. Work with the project not against it and in the long run you might benefit from it.

Del.Monte

Working class heroes wrote: »

Can people here not see how this venture could serve to promote, and make people aware of what’s around them. Or are you all trying to keep it for yourselves?
Very short sighted I have to say. Work with the project not against it and in the long run you might benefit from it.

Okay, explain how this proposal is in any way going to do anything positive for the area? Why does every last piece of wilderness have to have either a greenway or an interpretive centre shoved into it?

@ Srameen You usually come across as a knowledgeable naturalist and I'm intrigued as to why you would support this scheme.

magicbastarder

Pretzill wrote: »

This sort of gentrification for the sake of modernity really f*cking annoys me. What about the wildlife or wildlife tourism? What about first and foremost protecting our natural biodiversity and it's resources.

What adds to my fury on the blinkered attempts to make neat, picturesque walkways is that some of the people behind this trendy sh*t are faux veganites who on one hand think they make a stand for nature by swerving a burger once a week in favour of a carrot curry.

uh.. yeah.

anyway... from a cycling/amenity point of view, and i know i'm probably not exactly the target market, but a cycleway all along the coast from greystones to wicklow strikes me as monotonous and exposed. one of the attractions of the waterford greenway (the only greenway i've actually been on, to be fair) is that it's varied. it's got stretches along the sea, viaducts, countryside, a railway tunnel for a bit of drama.
maybe they could build a greenway in wicklow a bit further inland on stretches where being beside the sea would be an environmental or engineering challenge; go through/alongside kilcoole for example; you could potentially avoid bringing people close to the nesting sites, while giving them something else to look at other than a shingle beach on one side and a railway track on the other.

OpenYourEyes

Mod Note: Less of the personal attacks! And if people want to post they will.

Del.Monte

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

<b>Mod Note:</b> Less of the personal attacks! And if people want to post they will.

I wish they would (naturalists anyway) - Birdwatch claim 15,000 members but there must be precious few of them on Boards. It's like pulling teeth trying to get any serious discussion going on the forum.

Pretzill

Del.Monte wrote: »

I wish they would (naturalists anyway) - Birdwatch claim 15,000 members but there must be precious few of them on Boards. It's like pulling teeth trying to get any serious discussion going on the forum.

Not without being castigated for an opinion that supports nature. Strange really on a nature forum. I always wondered why it's so slow moving in discussions here - if it wasn't for the odd troll or the self professed experts there would be some short threads! Penguin sandwiches indeed! There are better platforms for supporting nature than here.

Working class heroes

Del.Monte wrote: »

Okay, explain how this proposal is in any way going to do anything positive for the area? Why does every last piece of wilderness have to have either a greenway or an interpretive centre shoved into it?

@ Srameen You usually come across as a knowledgeable naturalist and I'm intrigued as to why you would support this scheme.

Jesus if I have to explain that to you.......

Working class heroes

Pretzill wrote: »

Not without being castigated for an opinion that supports nature. Strange really on a nature forum. I always wondered why it's so slow moving in discussions here - if it wasn't for the odd troll or the self professed experts there would be some short threads! Penguin sandwiches indeed! There are better platforms for supporting nature than here.

Is that aimed at me?
Are you calling me a troll?
Maybe it’s a slow moving forum because of the tunnel vision.

Pretzill

Working class heroes wrote: »

Is that aimed at me?
Are you calling me a troll?
Maybe it’s a slow moving forum because of the tunnel vision.

No and no.

OpenYourEyes

There's a lot of Greenways at various levels of discussion and planning, and like so many things the benefits are obvious but it all comes down to location and execution. The recent proposed (and refused) Greenway around Wexford Harbour would have been a disaster from an ecological point of view.

The idea of making it easier and more friendly to walk, run and cycle down the lovely bit of coast that is Wicklow is a good one in theory, but unfortunately the reason it's *currently* so lovely is because of the sensitive habitats and breeding species that are there. It remains to be seen (though I'd be skeptical/pessimistic) if a greenway of the scale imagined could be put there in some sort of sustainable way.

What stage of planning etc is it at?

Edit: just looked at the website in the OP. Good to see that NPWS are on the task force - hopefully that means environmental concerns will be dealt with early on.

Thud

Del.Monte wrote: »

Okay, explain how this proposal is in any way going to do anything positive for the area? Why does every last piece of wilderness have to have either a greenway or an interpretive centre shoved into it?

I've done this:

Thud wrote: »

Is there not a path (loose gravel) most of the way already?
Resurfacing that and adding some birdwatch info panels along that might make more people appreciate the wildlife more.

A few cyclists and walkers (plenty litter bins a must) can hardly be worse that diesel trains and airplanes for the wildlife?

Admittedly the pic above doesn't look ideal but I assume there would only be space for a single (dual direction) path for a good stretch of it.

I don't know the full length of it but I'd estimate 90% of it has some sort of path already.
The strava global heatmap shows that it's used a bit by runners/walkers and cyclists:
https://www.strava.com/heatmap#11.88/-6.11007/53.05279/hot/run

If they labelled this as "path upgrade" instead of "greenway" would you be as against it?
I honestly can't see space for dual path lanes apart from near Clonmannon but I would imagine the two lanes would merge into one with direction arrows as happens on most other greenways where space doesn't allow two lanes.

magicbastarder

one issue i do have with the path along there - certainly was the case the last time i was there - was the amazing amount of dog **** on the path. probably the worst case of mass 'not cleaning up after your dog' i've seen in years.

Del.Monte

magicbastarder wrote: »

one issue i do have with the path along there - certainly was the case the last time i was there - was the amazing amount of dog **** on the path. probably the worst case of mass 'not cleaning up after your dog' i've seen in years.

Oh, that won't be a problem as one poster here has said we would need lots of new bins for ordinary rubbish so why not lots of poo bins too? Plus the poor, weary walkers will need facilities too such as public toilets and perhaps a couple of cafes.

Thud

magicbastarder wrote: »

one issue i do have with the path along there - certainly was the case the last time i was there - was the amazing amount of dog **** on the path. probably the worst case of mass 'not cleaning up after your dog' i've seen in years.

You see that a lot in woods and more rustic environments, maybe dog owners convince themselves it's "natural" when a route isn't paved

Thud

Del.Monte wrote: »

Oh, that won't be a problem as one poster here has said we would need lots of new bins for ordinary rubbish so why not lots of poo bins too? Plus the poor, weary walkers will need facilities too such as public toilets and perhaps a couple of cafes.

oh, so you read my post but just won't reply directly to me :rolleyes:

keep those blinkers on

Wanderer78

Pay very close attention during the construction of this walk way, as it looks like other greenways around the country were constructed by potentially breaking some environmental laws.

Del.Monte

Thud wrote: »

I've done this:



I don't know the full length of it but I'd estimate 90% of it has some sort of path already.
The strava global heatmap shows that it's used a bit by runners/walkers and cyclists:
https://www.strava.com/heatmap#11.88/-6.11007/53.05279/hot/run

If they labelled this as "path upgrade" instead of "greenway" would you be as against it?
I honestly can't see space for dual path lanes apart from near Clonmannon but I would imagine the two lanes would merge into one with direction arrows as happens on most other greenways where space doesn't allow two lanes.

Is this the post you mean?

No - I wouldn't be in favour of doing anything with the existing path which is just worn away grass for the most part not gravel. Keeping the existing largely unspoilt environment would be my wish and restricting dogs to certain areas of the beach during the breeding season. Not all the birdlife knows to move inside the small safer zone behind the fence that Birdwatch erect each summer. The idea of trying to attract a lot more people into an environmentally sensitive area is nonsense. Will that do?

Del.Monte

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Pay very close attention during the construction of this walk way, as it looks like other greenways around the country were constructed by potentially breaking some environmental laws.

Assuming it goes ahead what would be gained by paying very close attention to the construction work?

Thud

Del.Monte wrote: »

The idea of trying to attract a lot more people into an environmentally sensitive area is nonsense.

This is the reason why the vast majority of the population in this country have little or no connection to nature in Ireland. Exposing the next generations to this sort of area may help going forward.

Macy0161

magicbastarder wrote: »

anyway... from a cycling/amenity point of view, and i know i'm probably not exactly the target market, but a cycleway all along the coast from greystones to wicklow strikes me as monotonous and exposed.

I doubt you are the target market tbh - while I couldn't see me on my own going for a spin on it, I could see us as a family doing it on the bikes - flat and level, with the wildlife of interest.

Del.Monte

Thud wrote: »

This is the reason why the vast majority of the population in this country have little or no connection to nature in Ireland. Exposing the next generations to this sort of area may help going forward.

Yeah, they are really going to connect with nature by letting their dogs run loose, cycling/jogging along with their headphones on etc. If they want to connect with nature there are plenty of ways and the first one is to get away from hordes of other people trying (?) to do the same.

By the time this scheme is rammed through nature will have been largely displaced and people will be able to connect with bilingual signage, picnic areas, public seating, overflowing rubbish bins and cyclists competing with them for the limited space.

Wanderer78

Del.Monte wrote: »

Assuming it goes ahead what would be gained by paying very close attention to the construction work?

lobbyists and lobbyists groups should be on top of this, immediately, making sure environmental rules and laws are adhered to at all times, and be aware of opposing lobbyists at all times, as they will try undermine this process at all times. ive been made aware of possible environmental infringements on other greenway projects around the country, investigations are ongoing, but i suspect their findings will be swept under the earths crust, completely bypassing the carpet.

Del.Monte

Wanderer78 wrote: »

lobbyists and lobbyists groups should be on top of this, immediately, making sure environmental rules and laws are adhered to at all times, and be aware of opposing lobbyists at all times, as they will try undermine this process at all times. ive been made aware of possible environmental infringements on other greenway projects around the country, investigations are ongoing, but i suspect their findings will be swept under the earths crust, completely bypassing the carpet.

Well, I have contacted Stephen Newton at Birdwatch Ireland but I don't hold out any great hope of action there given their inability to deal with my questions about CIE's plans at the Greystones end last year. Pass the parcel wasn't in it. An Taisce.....

Working class heroes

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Pay very close attention during the construction of this walk way, as it looks like other greenways around the country were constructed by potentially breaking some environmental laws.

Can you link a source for that please?

Working class heroes

Del.Monte wrote: »

Yeah, they are really going to connect with nature by letting their dogs run loose, cycling/jogging along with their headphones on etc. If they want to connect with nature there are plenty of ways and the first one is to get away from hordes of other people trying (?) to do the same.

By the time this scheme is rammed through nature will have been largely displaced and people will be able to connect with bilingual signage, picnic areas, public seating, overflowing rubbish bins and cyclists competing with them for the limited space.

Ah bliss.
I'll wave at you when I jogging by.

Working class heroes

Wanderer78 wrote: »

lobbyists and lobbyists groups should be on top of this, immediately, making sure environmental rules and laws are adhered to at all times, and be aware of opposing lobbyists at all times, as they will try undermine this process at all times. ive been made aware of possible environmental infringements on other greenway projects around the country, investigations are ongoing, but i suspect their findings will be swept under the earths crust, completely bypassing the carpet.

Second time you posted about these environmental infringements.
Again can you back up what you say?

Wanderer78

Working class heroes wrote: »

Second time you posted about these environmental infringements.
Again can you back up what you say?

no, but im not the only one that knows about this, so id imagine plenty of others do to, i have been shown rather interesting emails though regarding this matter

Wanderer78

Working class heroes wrote: »

Can you link a source for that please?

i havent gone looking on the internets regarding these possible infringements, but the email exchanges ive seen are enough for me to form an opinion. our greenways, arent exactly green, but as ive said earlier, i expect nothing to be done about it

Working class heroes

Wanderer78 wrote: »

no, but im not the only one that knows about this, so id imagine plenty of others do to, i have been shown rather interesting emails though regarding this matter

Right, so you can't back it up then.

I've seen an email stating that all birdwatchers don't actually like birds. But I don't really believe that.

Wanderer78

Working class heroes wrote: »

Right, so you can't back it up then.

I've seen an email stating that all birdwatchers don't actually like birds. But I don't really believe that.

do strangers conversing with other strangers on the internets, truly need to
provide information to support their arguments? i dont have the emails, i was just shown them, they have been circulated, particularly amongst environmental groups, i have spoken to others that have seen these emails, some saying, theyre not surprised at the possibility of infringements, because strangely enough, some elements of our society couldnt give a rats arse about our environment.

Working class heroes

Wanderer78 wrote: »

do strangers conversing with other strangers on the internets, truly need to
provide information to support their arguments? i dont have the emails, i was just shown them, they have been circulated, particularly amongst environmental groups, i have spoken to others that have seen these emails, some saying, theyre not surprised at the possibility of infringements, because strangely enough, some elements of our society couldnt give a rats arse about our environment.

You made a serious allegation and you can't back it up.
You should probably stop digging now.