CatInABox wrote: The amount of good press that the Waterford greenway generated recently if phenomenal, the Irish Times had several large articles on the benefits that it has brought to the area, and the Irish Times has a massive grudge against infrastructure spending.
Wanderer78 wrote: » Nothing yet printed about the potentially illegal planning process, may never occur though.
schemingbohemia wrote: » That's a bit obtuse, care to expand?
schemingbohemia wrote: » Oh well that's helpful - you really shouldn't throw out rubbish like that if you're not going to back it up.
Wanderer78 wrote: » supporting this 'rubbish' may in fact affect ongoing investigations and also reveal identities of individuals involved, also including my own identity. thank you
schemingbohemia wrote: » Well then you shouldn't have said anything at all, rather than allude to something and not following up. I'm unsure what investigations could be going on at this stage that would actually make any difference since the Greenway is open 13 months at this stage.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » YOU are Nimby McNimbyface? [dramatic music]
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Can you at least give us a hint? Do you think this planning issue is such that they should have done more studies before opening? That they should not have been allowed to open at all? That they should have slipped you a few dollars so you wouldn't object?
Wanderer78 wrote: » its important to realise ive little or no interest in gaining financially in life, money doesnt motivate me at all, in fact i find it boring, i also find those that have those kind of interests also boring, and how dare you accuse me of such activities.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » OK, so dollars are not the motivation. Your hints seem to suggest an environmental problem, perhaps you think that issue of an Environmental Impact Statement was mishandled?
Wanderer78 wrote: » im afraid this is where i bow out
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Fair enough, nudge nudge, wink wink, you did NOT tell us that an environmental group is going the legal route to complain that the EIS was mishandled.
Wanderer78 wrote: » im not going into this any further folks, its important to realise the development of our greenways hasnt all been squeaky clean, this is reasonably well known in certain circles and organisations around the country, in particular environmental organisations. i have explained why i cannot disclose more information. thank you
riddlinrussell wrote: » I think it would definitely be foolhardy to go in all guns blazing on a Greenway, no matter how popular they are with the government. Talking up CPOs from the get-go is only going to rile up landowners, one would hope the lessons learned from the construction of the existing routes, plus the missteps of the stalled ones, and the processes used abroad, would all be taken into consideration to ensure as painless and expedient a process as possible. And obviously a major consideration of such an eco-friendly tourism and transit opportunity should be that it has robust environmental protections and minimises impact were possible without compromising the quality of the Greenway. I'd be mightily displeased if a vital habitat was destroyed just for the sake of saving a few quid bulling through on the greenway, especially given that in such a case, where possible, those habitats should be incorporated as a feature.
Corca Baiscinn wrote: » Agree with you in general but dont think we can learn a lot from how things are done abroad since our settlement patterns and land ownership systems are quite different to other countries. We have no automatic rights of way or right to roam as they have in many countries and our dispersed rural settlement pattern is also quite different. Afraid it's a case of finding an Irish solution to an Irish problem!
riddlinrussell wrote: » From an international perspective I was more thinking design wise than process wise for the most part, incorporating elements that prevent cars etc from accessing the route while ensuring all mobility devices and Bikes with Trailers etc can get on. I really wish they'd do more in terms of urban cycleways though... I see regular trips to the Netherlands to view their infrastructure from politicians... then they come back and paint a line on the road....
Deleted User wrote: » TII to take over the building of the Galway to Dublin greenwayhttp://www.westmeathexaminer.ie/news/roundup/articles/2018/04/25/4155166-tii-to-advance-the-greenway-project/
Shane Ross wrote: We also now have a template of accommodation works that have proved successful in Waterford at mitigating the impact of the greenway on farming. I am hopeful that this can serve as a template for this project also and should alleviate any concerns that farmers and other landowners may have.
serfboard wrote: » From that article: Good to hear. For people that bang on about rural communites being left behind, the farmers aren't slow to object to developments which would benefit their communities ...
TII are not capable of delivering this project. TII involvement was one of the main reasons project failed in east Galway in 2015. It is laughable that Minister Ross considers a body that builds motorways suitable to deliver cycling infrastructure, especially after their 2015 failure. TII have refused to engage in a meaningful manner with landowners, homeowners, cyclists, or rural communities deciding instead to forcefully acquire working farmland and private property using CPO. Minister Ross and TII are refusing to consider the alternatives. Dept. of Transport is attempting to introduce Right to Roam legislation into this country. Minister Ross and his Dept. are out of touch with rural Ireland. What is it they say about a person who repeats the same process over and over again but expects a different outcome each time?
Carawaystick wrote: » the Middlebank between the Newry Ship Canal and Carlingford lough proper is now open. from https://www.google.ie/maps/@54.124694,-6.3056705,2a,60y,333.15h,86.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9zx_mXtUQPaZ_F9NeriZIg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en up to Newry.
veryangryman wrote: » Personally i tihink the Athlone-Galway part of the route could be solved by following the Tuam Road (R362->R363). This obsession with following the old N6 is baffling.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » The Greenway will go south to Shannonbridge and then up the old canal to Ballinasloe, so that entire section will be nowhere near the N6.