Royal Canal Greenway

beauf

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

I haven't watched your clip yet but I will do. ... That could be to do with the danger of coming off a bike and into the canal. ...

There is nothing to stop anyone falling into the canal anywhere the whole length of it. Much of it runs right at the edge of the canal. No verge.

This part is currently the most narrowest uneven rutted path along the whole route. If no one was concerned about it up to now it's a bit illogical and comical to be concerned about the dangers of a much improved flat surface.

Former Former

blanch152 wrote: »

Having looked at the plans in detail on the Fingal website for the section between Coolmine and Castleknock, I think they are a very good solution.

The wildness of the Southern side can be preserved, but a safe cycleway can also be put into place.

I really don't see what the privacy fuss is about.

There are no detailed plans. That's the problem. A yellow line daubed on Google maps isn't a detailed plan.

daymobrew

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

When out for a run one evening I met a drunk in the canal with a mountain bike at the very spot I am thinking of. Refused my help too but somehow managed to get himself out.

I met a guy, obviously very hungover, that had fallen into the canal on the wide part opposite 12th Lock Hotel. He'd have been screwed on a narrow path :-)

Birdie Num Num

beauf wrote: »

There is nothing to stop anyone falling into the canal anywhere the whole length of it. Much of it runs right at the edge of the canal. No verge.

This part is currently the most narrowest uneven rutted path along the whole route. If no one was concerned about it up to now it's a bit illogical and comical to be concerned about the dangers of a much improved flat surface.

I suspect the signs about ‘no cycling’, which I don’t remember myself, were possibly as a result of the height of the bank perhaps at the deep sinking. I’m speculating but if someone was to go into the canal at that point they don’t really have much options at getting out with the steep banks.

I think I saw that clip before. Not sure that structure is going to cut it In this instance.

...As regards the post re Nimbyism from the other poster. I think people have valid concerns and are just seeking a bit more clarity as I understand it. Which is fair enough.

daymobrew

beauf wrote: »

They shouldn't have never built right up so close to the Canal.

They do the same everywhere. Build right up to edge of other features, with no space left for any future provision.

With respect to the houses on Roselawn Road near Castleknock Road, I said to a nearby resident that those people should not have been allowed take the land between their gardens and the canal bank. He corrected me, saying that Waterways Ireland gave them a 99 year lease for a trivial amount of money, as a way of preserving the area from going wild.

Birdie Num Num

daymobrew wrote: »

With respect to the houses on Roselawn Road near Castleknock Road, I said to a nearby resident that those people should not have been allowed take the land between their gardens and the canal bank. He corrected me, saying that Waterways Ireland gave them a 99 year lease for a trivial amount of money, as a way of preserving the area from going wild.

I always wondered about that.

beauf

daymobrew wrote: »

With respect to the houses on Roselawn Road near Castleknock Road, I said to a nearby resident that those people should not have been allowed take the land between their gardens and the canal bank. He corrected me, saying that Waterways Ireland gave them a 99 year lease for a trivial amount of money, as a way of preserving the area from going wild.

Well done Waterways Ireland so ....

beauf

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

I suspect the signs about ‘no cycling’, which I don’t remember myself, were possibly as a result of the height of the bank perhaps at the deep sinking. I’m speculating but if someone was to go into the canal at that point they don’t really have much options at getting out with the steep banks. .....

Dismount signs are common where there's a shared path and limited space. Otherwise a falling sign and drowning sign would be more appropriate.

I can remember as I kid one of my friends falling in and not hitting the water, the reed bank is so thick it held him up.

The condition of the canal banks here has been neglected for years. Why they haven't cut it back and widened the path even as a dirt trail baffles me. It's a popular route.

Grudaire

I heard that one benefit is meant to be improved "permeability" which seems to be a theory in street design. I'm not saying it's right, but it's not something that they're making up just for this project! https://www.housing.gov.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,32673,en.pdf

I know of one place, also in Dublin 15, where locals take a shortcut through development land. They're now developing the land and proposing a walkway through the same point which the residents association is dead against. Its short sighted to ignore desire lines like that particularly if concerns could be dealt with using cctv & policing. (not saying its relevant here though, just that I can see parallels!)

daymobrew wrote: »

With respect to the houses on Roselawn Road near Castleknock Road, I said to a nearby resident that those people should not have been allowed take the land between their gardens and the canal bank. He corrected me, saying that Waterways Ireland gave them a 99 year lease for a trivial amount of money, as a way of preserving the area from going wild.

Very interesting if that's true. I have always assumed that they did a land grab

Birdie Num Num

beauf wrote: »

Dismount signs are common where there's a shared path and limited space. Otherwise a falling sign and drowning sign would be more appropriate.

I can remember as I kid one of my friends falling in and not hitting the water, the reed bank is so thick it held him up.

The condition of the canal banks here has been neglected for years. Why they haven't cut it back and widened the path even as a dirt trail baffles me. It's a popular route.

I’m not sure how it can be widened. I’ve no problem with maintaining it and should the North bank get the go ahead there should be some maintenance to the South tow path too. It’s actually a worse surface up further opposite Sheepmore lane. A lot of exposed bedrock that makes it very uneven.

ilsilenzio

Even if Northside route prevails and is completed Southside path will continue to exist and have to be maintained. Reports are it is a right of way and also legally a tow path must exist to tow barges.

donaghs

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

I’m not sure how it can be widened. I’ve no problem with maintaining it and should the North bank get the go ahead there should be some maintenance to the South tow path too. It’s actually a worse surface up further opposite Sheepmore lane. A lot of exposed bedrock that makes it very uneven.

I've jogged from Ashtown to Maynoith, training for a marathon. And the wild narrow "trail" parts are definitely the most enjoyable. When you hit stretches of tarmac, you definitely feel like you are back in suburbia, with all the attendant litter and dog sh1t.

I can see that a fully paved route will serve a greater good. But if the "wild" stretches are "improved", something great will be lost too.

daymobrew

This morning I tried to cycle from Roselawn Road/Brompton corner to Coolmine.
Firstly, there are very very tall trees behind the Roselawn Road houses that back onto the canal. These should be more that sufficient to maintain privacy if a bridge is installed.

The stretch at the end of Brompton roads is lovely and open with the green on the canal side and the path closer to the roads. It was very pleasant and quiet.
I wasn't able to beyond Brompton Court.

From Coolmine station it is severely overgrown. I wasn't able to climb up to the suggested route (I had inflexible cycling shoes on so it would not have been safe).

abc_abc

daymobrew wrote: »

Firstly, there are very very tall trees behind the Roselawn Road houses that back onto the canal. These should be more that sufficient to maintain privacy if a bridge is installed.

The mature trees that are clearly visible from Roselawn/Brompton are only at the back of the first two/three houses on the bend on Roselawn Road that did not buy/license the land and extend. At this point the route is planned to run diagonally on the north side a couple of metres behind these back gardens. The trees would need to be cut down to make a space for the tarmac. The bridge would start shortly after that at the level of the next few houses that cleared out trees at the back and extended onto the canal.

Grudaire

daymobrew wrote: »

This morning I tried to cycle from Roselawn Road/Brompton corner to Coolmine.
Firstly, there are very very tall trees behind the Roselawn Road houses that back onto the canal. These should be more that sufficient to maintain privacy if a bridge is installed.

The path will be on the house side of the trees (away from the canal) https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/royal-canal-urban-greenway-public-engagement

That said I am still not sure where exactly the path overlooks houses, particularly if the bridge is only over the canal.

beauf

The pedestrian bridge at Coolmine over the tracks has the sides closed in.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3775322,-6.3922839,3a,75y,75.3h,69.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svAHKW7Kd544MCunUCJVQOw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

beauf

They seem happy to build multi story apartments over looking people gardens all over D15.

The privacy ship has sailed when it comes to planning.

daymobrew

Grudaire wrote: »

That said I am still not sure where exactly the path overlooks houses, particularly if the bridge is only over the canal.

One resident said that the bridge would have to be high enough because the north bank is higher than the south bank. He felt that a ramp would be needed to bring the southern starting point up to a level where the bridge would clear boats. This presumably would mean that the portion over the canal would be high enough for people to see into the gardens on the northern side.

Here's a photo of the trees.

abc_abc wrote: »

The mature trees that are clearly visible from Roselawn/Brompton are only at the back of the first two/three houses on the bend on Roselawn Road that did not buy/license the land and extend. At this point the route is planned to run diagonally on the north side a couple of metres behind their back gardens. The trees would need to be cut down to make a space for the tarmac. The bridge would start shortly after that at the level of the next few houses that cleared out trees at the back and extended onto the canal.

The solution could be to move the bridge west a tiny bit. I will cycle by that section tomorrow morning.

As this consultation is primarily for route selection, precise details are lacking.

Former Former

cross-section.JPG

This is the cross-section of the canal near the proposed bridge; it looks like the north and south banks are relatively level and not that much higher than the water.

Except the bridge has to be high enough to allow boats pass below. So it will have to rise at least 4 or 5 metres over the water and will absolutely be at eye level into people's upstairs bedrooms on the Roselawn Road. From the map, I would say at least 10 houses would be directly affected.

Would anyone here be OK with that? Is it NIMBYism to object to that?

muckwarrior

Former Former wrote: »

cross-section.JPG

at least 4 or 5 metres over the water

Most of the existing bridges on the canal are nowhere near 5 metres over the water.

beauf

They could just angle it and make it longer so its away from the closest house. Make the side over looking the houses solid so you can't look in that direction.

They could narrow the canal where the bridge is going, to the same width as the current bridges. The pillars for the new bridges don't have to be on the bank. They could be in the canal.

Former Former

muckwarrior wrote: »

Most of the existing bridges on the canal are nowhere near 5 metres over the water.

OK, but even if you say the bridge is only three metres high, and you have a 1.7 metre tall person standing on it, that's going to be high enough to see over any wall and into a bedroom.

Not to mention the cost of it.

And for what??

beauf

Former Former wrote: »

OK, but even if you say the bridge is only three metres high, and you have a 1.7 metre tall person standing on it, that's going to be high enough to see over any wall and into a bedroom.

Not to mention the cost of it.

And for what??

I assume your asking a general for what, and not something more specific.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/travel/ireland/the-story-behind-ireland-s-greenway-success-1.3352239

https://royalcanalgreenway.ie/

Former Former

beauf wrote: »

I assume your asking a general for what, and not something more specific.

Just seems a whole lot easier to continue up the south side. Building a bridge just seems like the most complicated solution, an absolute sledgehammer to crack a nut.

blanch152

Former Former wrote: »

OK, but even if you say the bridge is only three metres high, and you have a 1.7 metre tall person standing on it, that's going to be high enough to see over any wall and into a bedroom.

Not to mention the cost of it.

And for what??

That is ridiculous. There are hundreds and thousands of houses in Dublin 15 alone where a person can see into the bedroom of another house. Every house that backs onto another one in a normal housing estate is an example.

I have a number of neighbours to the back of me with attic extensions, they must be able to look downwards into the bedrooms at the back of my house.

I also cannot see how 10 houses will be affected.

beauf

Former Former wrote: »

...sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I agree with you there.

I am sceptical of taking things at face value like its too difficult when planning is involved.

Bargain_Hound

Former Former wrote: »

cross-section.JPG

This is the cross-section of the canal near the proposed bridge; it looks like the north and south banks are relatively level and not that much higher than the water.

Except the bridge has to be high enough to allow boats pass below. So it will have to rise at least 4 or 5 metres over the water and will absolutely be at eye level into people's upstairs bedrooms on the Roselawn Road. From the map, I would say at least 10 houses would be directly affected.

Would anyone here be OK with that? Is it NIMBYism to object to that?

I am pretty sure that the land behind the fence running up along the green towards Brompton Court (And possible further beyond behind the Delwood cul-de-sacs) is a raised bank. I'm not entirely convinced the elevations are accurate on them drawings, thus installing a bridge as indicated not only needs to clear the canal for barges, but either a) cut through the bank on the north side so the new greenway can run level with the green or b) elevate the bridge over the said bank.

beauf

It doesn't look like a raise bank when you are standing there in person or in photos. Maybe if its cleared (its heavily overgrown) then you would know.

Bargain_Hound

I grew up there and spent many years playing on that green before the fences were installed. I do recall there always being a climb to get up to where the trees were beyond where the fence is installed now. Someone may correct me if I am wrong, though.

abc_abc

blanch152 wrote: »

That is ridiculous. There are hundreds and thousands of houses in Dublin 15 alone where a person can see into the bedroom of another house. Every house that backs onto another one in a normal housing estate is an example.

This is true. However, it is different to when you're buying a house knowing upfront what's there and what isn't. The majority of residents have lived there for 20-30 years with ensured privacy. Others bought houses recently and paid a high premium for seclusion and tranquility of the canal only to find out that there are plans which would likely change it. For example, Roselawn Road is a busy road with cars parked in front of houses for train station and residents already have no privacy there; the prospect of having none at the back too is a concern.

Obviously you may say that's not your problem if you're not affected directly.