nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Royal Canal Greenway

Fuseman

There are rumblings that the Greenway between Castleknock Train Station and Coolmine Train station is getting the go-ahead? Has anyone seen the actual plans?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

AlanG

Due to be launched this week I was told - will have a bridge half way along so going west you will go past castleknock station and then cross to the other side before it gets too narrow.

Former Former

https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/royal-canal-urban-greenway-public-engagement-0

Going all the way to the county boundary at Leixlip.

Section from 12th Lock to Coolmine will run along the railway side until it gets as far as Brompton, when a footbridge will take people across and the path will then run along the green at the bottom of Brompton and then behind the gardens at the back of Delwood.

Considering some people are now going to have a major public amenity running past their house, there will likely be some 'observations'.

Phil.x

Is it possible now to cycle fron clonsilla station to say ashtown along the canal

abc_xyz

Short answer yes - you can see the marks of bike tires there regularly. There is a section from the bridge before Coolmine train station to Castleknock train station that a lot of people would not be comfortable cycling though. I've done it on a mountain bike but don't think it would be sensible on a road bike. Apart from that section it's either tarmac or compacted gravel and is easy to cycle.

rolion

I cycle that route at least once a month.
i dont know how to say it but i will prefer to be left as it is,wild,green and hidden away from "civilisation" and "civilised" people.

It will happen like with St Catherine Park in Lucan ... advertised heavily and now is full of people and their dogs everywhere,like lets go out in that park to get the dog a natural green poo.Avoiding the grass and the greenpaths due to pee and poo.

mattser

rolion wrote: »

I cycle that route at least once a month.
i dont know how to say it but i will prefer to be left as it is,wild,green and hidden away from "civilisation" and "civilised" people.

It will happen like with St Catherine Park in Lucan ... advertised heavily and now is full of people and their dogs everywhere,like lets go out in that park to get the dog a natural green poo.Avoiding the grass and the greenpaths due to pee and poo.

Absolutely. Gave up running the canal bank ages ago due to ignorant dog owners with their mutts running loose and ****ting.
Beautiful amenity ruined by idiots.

chris85

rolion wrote: »

I cycle that route at least once a month.
i dont know how to say it but i will prefer to be left as it is,wild,green and hidden away from "civilisation" and "civilised" people.

It will happen like with St Catherine Park in Lucan ... advertised heavily and now is full of people and their dogs everywhere,like lets go out in that park to get the dog a natural green poo.Avoiding the grass and the greenpaths due to pee and poo.

I run along here in Spring/Summer but all for the change. I would imagine it will be just like the Canal walkaway from Castleknock to Ashtown which is great and even at night is lit so good to travel on. I dont see much issue there with dog poo to be honest.

I would love to jump on the bike with family and spin down to Castleknock or Ashtown for a trip. Its lovely by the canal near Ashtown.

donaghs

rolion wrote: »

I cycle that route at least once a month.
i dont know how to say it but i will prefer to be left as it is,wild,green and hidden away from "civilisation" and "civilised" people.

It will happen like with St Catherine Park in Lucan ... advertised heavily and now is full of people and their dogs everywhere,like lets go out in that park to get the dog a natural green poo.Avoiding the grass and the greenpaths due to pee and poo.

I have to agree that I like the natural state of it too. Ideally you could have both, but would of course add to the costs.
Similar debate occurred about the Barrow paths: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/grass-or-tarmac-the-towpath-debate-1.3105792

Former Former

It will be a lovely walk when it's done, but part of me wishes we could just have a little bit of wilderness left. That land has essentially been untouched for 50 years, it's teeming with birds, badgers, squirrels and foxes.

I ain't no zoologist but I'd imagine destroying their habitat won't have a happy ending for the little critters.

daymobrew

A few weeks ago I emailed someone in Waterways Ireland to ask them to remove the grass what was encroaching on the two path opposite 12th Lock Hotel. They did it and it looks brilliant. The path is almost twice as wide now.

Here's what it looked like earlier this month when they did a short part.

Bargain_Hound

daymobrew wrote: »

A few weeks ago I emailed someone in Waterways Ireland to ask them to remove the grass what was encroaching on the two path opposite 12th Lock Hotel. They did it and it looks brilliant. The path is almost twice as wide now.

Here's what it looked like earlier this month when they did a short part.

I knew something looked different when I jogged that path last night

muckwarrior

The walkers paths in the Phoenix park could do with the same. More than half the width is covered by grass in some parts.

sflynn6

There was a meeting last night in St. Bridgets Hall about the proposed greenway and the route. As mentioned here the preferred route is along the north bank of the canal with a crossing at Brompton.
From what I heard last night , the residents will do what they can to make sure this does not go ahead.
It would be a tragedy if these few residents get their way and scupper the whole plan.
Dublin 15 needs this amenity. Maybe setting up a petition would help to let politicians know what people think.

dickwod1

I was on the train coming towards Dublin passing Moyvalley and the work on the path beside the canal there is at a fairly advanced stage, It will be nice when it all links up

ilsilenzio

Unclear if sflynn6 was actually at meeting or heard a report thereon. This was the fourth local meeting-- organised over last 10 days or so by FG/ Lab, FF and by Greens last night.

Rather than a "few residents" threatening "to scupper the whole plan" it should be pointed out that all the local reps were gobsmacked at level of turnout.To summarise the reaction it would be fair to say that 95% of the total diverse attendees, until convinced otherwise (which may prove difficult), would prefer to see the Greenway proceed along the present path (South side, between canal and train tracks), albeit with some little narrowing of the planned width etc. There would be a challenge at the Coolmine end, but nothing like the unknown on the planned route. They do not want to stop the whole process.

It would appear that a "preferred" route has been chosen by "somebody"/ someone, prior to a full or adequate or any prior public consultation process, based on amateurish plans ( seemingly poorly prepared, apparently/probably using drone footage) with a suspicious reluctance to share any detailed plans/reports/ proper studies/ costings etc. The planners appear to have been surprised at the real extent of difficulties both ecologically and engineering wise. Reports have it that one engineer, after publication, was surprised at the gradient on the Northside side. Ten other plans were reportedly discarded and again no details exist as to why, or by whom. A very detailed study was carried out in or about 2012/2013, by Atkins, which outlined four options with an upgrade of the existing towpath being recommended. It appears to have been totally ignored-- on planner did not know of its existence. At an open meeting at the FCC offices no one there could or would give direct answers to a multitude of questions on the outlined plans, no name badges were worn and there was a distinct lack of notetaking--what few phone numbers taken were not used.

All the foregoing is in addition to the expected very widespread local objections to loss of privacy in quiet residential areas, previous justified anti social prevention measures being reversed, uncontrolled estate parking, decimating of an existing open green area and probable CPO's of private gardens etc. While no snails have been found the present North Bank is teeming with wildlife which will be destroyed, along with the flora.

This is an admirable extension of the Canal amenity walkway/ greenway/ cycleway, but on the wrong side of the Canal, in a patently "back of an envelope" planning manner and where costs could certainly not have been properly worked out--- the whole thing smacks of a fait accompli and sod the begrudgers. The bureaucrats apparently know better.

Rather than calling for petitions etc might it not be preferable to view the plans, arrange meetings with local councillors etc and make submissions thereon by 22nd March as per FCC advices.

rolion

@ilsilenzio

Thank You !!!!!!!!!!!!

donaghs

sflynn6 wrote: »

There was a meeting last night in St. Bridgets Hall about the proposed greenway and the route. As mentioned here the preferred route is along the north bank of the canal with a crossing at Brompton.
From what I heard last night , the residents will do what they can to make sure this does not go ahead.
It would be a tragedy if these few residents get their way and scupper the whole plan.
Dublin 15 needs this amenity. Maybe setting up a petition would help to let politicians know what people think.

How badly is it needed? There's a natural path there currently which is really good for walking. Also fine for mountain biking.

I appreciate that tarmac would suit a greater number of cyclists, skateboarders, kids cycling etc. and joining up all the tarmac "greenways". But at the cost of destroying the natural environment I'm not totally convinced of the need for it.

Bargain_Hound

The history of the canal during its construction mentions difficulties around Clonsilla & Castleknock. It was an expensive and time consuming section to construct a canal through. I wonder does this have anything to do with the decision to try avoid widening this narrow section.

muckwarrior

The narrow section can't be widened, at least not without moving the railway tracks which are right beside it.

I was at the consultation in the Blanch offices the other week. They're well aware of the environmental impact of clearing trees and that's part of the reason why the path is planned to run alongside the gardens away from the canal instead of by the water. This means that a minimal amount of trees would need to be cleared, and the vast majority of that wild land would be left intact.

Former Former

donaghs wrote: »

How badly is it needed? There's a natural path there currently which is really good for walking. Also fine for mountain biking.

I appreciate that tarmac would suit a greater number of cyclists, skateboarders, kids cycling etc. and joining up all the tarmac "greenways". But at the cost of destroying the natural environment I'm not totally convinced of the need for it.

The main purpose is to be a cycle path for commuters rather than a leisure amenity.

The original plan was to construct a sort of raised platform on the Laurel Lodge side. Not easy, but a whole lot easier than building a bridge across the canal.

sflynn6

ilsilenzio wrote: »

Unclear if sflynn6 was actually at meeting or heard a report thereon. This was the fourth local meeting-- organised over last 10 days or so by FG/ Lab, FF and by Greens last night.

Rather than a "few residents" threatening "to scupper the whole plan" it should be pointed out that all the local reps were gobsmacked at level of turnout.To summarise the reaction it would be fair to say that 95% of the total diverse attendees, until convinced otherwise (which may prove difficult), would prefer to see the Greenway proceed along the present path (South side, between canal and train tracks), albeit with some little narrowing of the planned width etc. There would be a challenge at the Coolmine end, but nothing like the unknown on the planned route. They do not want to stop the whole process.

It would appear that a "preferred" route has been chosen by "somebody"/ someone, prior to a full or adequate or any prior public consultation process, based on amateurish plans ( seemingly poorly prepared, apparently/probably using drone footage) with a suspicious reluctance to share any detailed plans/reports/ proper studies/ costings etc. The planners appear to have been surprised at the real extent of difficulties both ecologically and engineering wise. Reports have it that one engineer, after publication, was surprised at the gradient on the Northside side. Ten other plans were reportedly discarded and again no details exist as to why, or by whom. A very detailed study was carried out in or about 2012/2013, by Atkins, which outlined four options with an upgrade of the existing towpath being recommended. It appears to have been totally ignored-- on planner did not know of its existence. At an open meeting at the FCC offices no one there could or would give direct answers to a multitude of questions on the outlined plans, no name badges were worn and there was a distinct lack of notetaking--what few phone numbers taken were not used.

All the foregoing is in addition to the expected very widespread local objections to loss of privacy in quiet residential areas, previous justified anti social prevention measures being reversed, uncontrolled estate parking, decimating of an existing open green area and probable CPO's of private gardens etc. While no snails have been found the present North Bank is teeming with wildlife which will be destroyed, along with the flora.

This is an admirable extension of the Canal amenity walkway/ greenway/ cycleway, but on the wrong side of the Canal, in a patently "back of an envelope" planning manner and where costs could certainly not have been properly worked out--- the whole thing smacks of a fait accompli and sod the begrudgers. The bureaucrats apparently know better.

Rather than calling for petitions etc might it not be preferable to view the plans, arrange meetings with local councillors etc and make submissions thereon by 22nd March as per FCC advices.

Thank you for deep insight into the issues involved. You are obviously much more informed of the situation then me. I was only at one meeting and I was expecting everybody to be in favour. Sometimes people tend to object to change and only realise the benefits when the work is all done. So hopefully this will the case and we all benefit from it.
I am absolutely committed to the Greenway as a whole. I am not completely committed to the northern route along the Deep Sinking and hopefully it will be properly examined as to the various options that are available for this section, once the relevant information has been provided by Fingal county council as regards the reports that they are keeping from us.
Thank you again for your post which clarify the issues involved.

avalidusername

I'm confused as to the Deep Sinking area. From what I remember there's a huge drop from path to canal along one stretch, maybe 15-20 foot drop or so somewhere between Castleknock and Coolmine. I have a definite recollection of a news report within the last 5 years of a girl falling down that path, and being seriously injured, maybe worse, I choose not to google it. I'm guessing that's the Deep Sinking area?

Along that path of the walkers/cyclists/strollers route, the path does get a bit higgledy-piggledy for want of a better phrase with tree roots coming into your path, narrowed route, and a bit of sloping path. It was fine on my mountain bike, but I wouldn't try it on my bike with the skinny tyres, nor bring my elderly mother for a stroll along it, that kinda path.

Regarding CPO of parts of peoples gardens, I can see a future poopstorm in the courts. "Fingal CoCo demand my land for €X, while my property tax rate puts me in the €X+2 category."

daymobrew

avalidusername wrote: »

I'm confused as to the Deep Sinking area. From what I remember there's a huge drop from path to canal along one stretch, maybe 15-20 foot drop or so somewhere between Castleknock and Coolmine. I have a definite recollection of a news report within the last 5 years of a girl falling down that path, and being seriously injured, maybe worse, I choose not to google it. I'm guessing that's the Deep Sinking area?

Yes, Deep Sinking is either side of Coolmine level crossing.

The incident you are thinking of is likely that where the body of a murdered local girl was found on the tow path under Dr Troy Bridge.

Grudaire

ilsilenzio wrote: »

Unclear if sflynn6 was actually at meeting or heard a report thereon. This was the fourth local meeting-- organised over last 10 days or so by FG/ Lab, FF and by Greens last night.

Rather than a "few residents" threatening "to scupper the whole plan" it should be pointed out that all the local reps were gobsmacked at level of turnout.To summarise the reaction it would be fair to say that 95% of the total diverse attendees, until convinced otherwise (which may prove difficult), would prefer to see the Greenway proceed along the present path (South side, between canal and train tracks), albeit with some little narrowing of the planned width etc. There would be a challenge at the Coolmine end, but nothing like the unknown on the planned route. They do not want to stop the whole process.

To be fair I attended the meeting in Blanchardstown, and I think it would be fair to say a lot of the deep unhappy reaction did seem to come from locals. In fact I can remember someone being asked where they lived after speaking..

I would be interested in hearing whether all of the complaints and concerns were genuine. For example I don't believe many citing environmental concerns care when trees are felled or habitats destroyed elsewhere, however I do think there are legitimate concerns around antisocial behaviour. For example would the path really be overlooking gardens?

Generally people are in favour of the greenway so I do hope it goes ahead in some form, and I hope any genuine concerns can be dealt with without compromising the design.

beauf

I think they are missing the point that a cleared Greenway with a lot more traffic on it, will be safer than the current wooded area which seems to have regular anti social activity already.

I think there is enough room on the current bank though.

ilsilenzio

While not wishing to get into or continue a tit for tat challenge and rebuttal of points made, nor asserting certainty on all points, it should be noted that the attendance at the open day and the four councillor convened meetings appeared to be 95% local residents. This is what would be expected as they are the ones who feel themselves to be most directly affected. "Non residents" do not normally care for the more mundane, in their view, details. As an example a 40 meter ramp up to the proposed bridge will directly shadow approx four houses in line with upper floor windows! The residents of the wider Dublin 15 area would of course be in favour of the greenway-- they would enjoy the obvious benefits but not the negatives.

As regards anti social behaviour, the arguments made are to the effect that there is little more than normal of that at present as actions such as closing laneways and fencing off access from the canal banks in previous years succeeded satisfactorily. The present plans will contradict past justified remedial measures, and allow uncontrolled access too liberally into residential areas, many of which are cul de sacs.

In summary the proposal to extend is very widely welcomed but the most obvious route till PROVEN otherwise, is to continue on the Southside. It is "ready made" , can be improved/ remediated and inconveniences no one and the costs would probably be less-- current plan could develop into an NCH like debacle, albeit on a more minor scale. A wonderful project, in the wrong place, at possibly greater cost with little regard for locals / proper planning /implementation or the overall greater good. Vested interests were allowed to dominate.

The best way to proceed rather than "abuse" each other is to make comments before 22nd March, for or against !

beauf

ilsilenzio wrote: »

...
The best way to proceed rather than "abuse" each other...

Good job no one here has done that. Not so sure why you'd post this though.

What has the fencing and laneways got to do with it. Does the proposed northern route remove existing fencing and open up laneways?

If you use the current path you can see the debris of gatherings on both banks.

beauf

muckwarrior wrote: »

The narrow section can't be widened, at least not without moving the railway tracks which are right beside it. ...

I don't think its so narrow that you can't put a foot path on it. Cantilever a short stretch at the narrowest bit. No bridges required.

Jump to 1:55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKLTKe18HYs

That said I don't see why they can't run it down the other side and put a tall fence and new planting either. The bridges seem a bit overkill though.

Grudaire

ilsilenzio wrote: »

"Non residents" do not normally care for the more mundane, in their view, details. As an example a 40 meter ramp up to the proposed bridge will directly shadow approx four houses in line with upper floor windows!

Is this the new proposed bridge from the south to the North side of the canal? What is the proposed bridge height?

ilsilenzio wrote: »

Vested interests were allowed to dominate.

Interested in hearing more on this point.. I thought the council developed this plan?

ilsilenzio

Beauf--- Word "abuse" was used jocularly rather than in an accusing fashion, as in point/ counterpoint-- my comments were never intended to annoy, rather clarify. Yes the preferred route proposes to open up cul de sacs and remove fencing which were previously, long after estates construction, put in place to prevent anti social behaviour. Those actions in previous 10/ 15 years were successful. If they could justify the remedial action then, how justify reversal now at a whim.

Grudaire. Vested interests was used to refer to parties who are hell bent on following a course of action which they deem to be in our interests. There has been a distinct lack of transparency, (some would claim a conspiracy to obfuscate). Reports and detailed would appear to be supressed/ not appropriate for publication and there has been a distinct lack of preparation for, or understanding of the needs of all stakeholders. There appears to be a passing of the buck in taking ownership by many of the parties FCC/ Planners/ Consutants (paid contractors), Waterways/ Irish Rail etc .

I could go on and list the multitude of genuine concerns which were expressed by what one could not unreasonably describe as mature residents in the 4 or 5 estates which are most affected, but will conclude by submitting my 2.5p worth to the appropriate forum for 22nd March.