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; } } }

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

ilsilenzio

If you have strong views for or against please post your views on the Proposed Route at the Fingal Site, by email BY 22nd March (25th by Post).

daymobrew

I cycled along the southside of the canal this morning, from Castleknock station.
It's lovely and wide until a bit after the station. This is taken looking east towards Castleknock Road.

Then it gets narrow but there is some space between the towpath and the train line but shortly after that there is no such space - photo 1 and photo 2.

Looking at the northside, there are a lot of very dense trees behind the houses where the bridge could cross. Again, I am sure that many of these could be retained.

Effects

beauf wrote: »

They could do something like a MTB wooden track. It would 100 times better than it is now.

A wooden track would be set on fire in no time at all.

Grudaire

Effects wrote: »

A wooden track would be set on fire in no time at all.

By hooligans, or the locals?

Grudaire

Former Former wrote: »

Opening up access points at the cul de sacs would require taking part of gardens (I think). Not a big deal on its own I guess.

I have no idea of the complexity of building the bridge vs solving the issue at the station. Ideally Fingal would have explained their rationale but they chose not to.

Re: cantilevers. There is a perception out there, apparently shared by Fingal, that the North bank is level and graded, just slap down a few boards and it'll be grand. The reality is very different.

There's walls at the end of the cul de sacs I thought?

Sure I think they used to be open to access but got closed off due to antisocial behaviour - unless I misunderstood local concerns.

Birdie Num Num

Former Former wrote: »

Opening up access points at the cul de sacs would require taking part of gardens (I think). Not a big deal on its own I guess.

I have no idea of the complexity of building the bridge vs solving the issue at the station. Ideally Fingal would have explained their rationale but they chose not to.

Re: cantilevers. There is a perception out there, apparently shared by Fingal, that the North bank is level and graded, just slap down a few boards and it'll be grand. The reality is very different.

Is this true though? The only details regarding potential land acquisitions that I saw pertained to land after Kennan bridge, Porterstown road and after Clonsilla Station if heading west along the route. I know there are some gardens behind gardens at the back of Delwood green. Not sure if these are on public or private land however.

beauf

Effects wrote: »

A wooden track would be set on fire in no time at all.

Could be metal panels. Doesn't have to be wood.

magicbastarder

Grudaire wrote: »

There's walls at the end of the cul de sacs I thought?

Sure I think they used to be open to access but got closed off due to antisocial behaviour - unless I misunderstood local concerns.

in delwood, there used to be lanes between the cul-de-sacs, which were closed off; there was not any official access from the end of the cul de sac to the canal.

blanch152

Former Former wrote: »

Nobody is saying stop the project.

Everyone acknowledges the issue at the station.

What is missing is an explanation as to how Fingal decided that the pinch point at the station is so insurmountable that everything else had to be worked around it.

Building a bridge, taking people's gardens, opening up cul de sacs, bulldozing hundreds of trees... It could all be avoided by just figuring out a solution at the train station.

Instead of building a relatively cheap bridge, you want them to put in place even more expensive infrastructure at Coolmine Train Station.

No gardens are being taken.

Opening up cul-de-sacs is a part of the county development plan to improve pedestrian access and encourage walking instead of driving.

Hundreds of trees? Really?

If ever I saw a post that was scaremongering nimbyism, that one is. Strangely enough, if Fingal and Irish Rail had gone ahead with closing Coolmine level crossing, there might have been a greater ability to accommodate a southside solution. Unfortunately, that proposal was also defeated by NIMBYism.

Birdie Num Num

blanch152 wrote: »

Instead of building a relatively cheap bridge, you want them to put in place even more expensive infrastructure at Coolmine Train Station.

No gardens are being taken.

Opening up cul-de-sacs is a part of the county development plan to improve pedestrian access and encourage walking instead of driving.

Hundreds of trees? Really?

If ever I saw a post that was scaremongering nimbyism, that one is. Strangely enough, if Fingal and Irish Rail had gone ahead with closing Coolmine level crossing, there might have been a greater ability to accommodate a southside solution. Unfortunately, that proposal was also defeated by NIMBYism.

I remember getting access to the canal when I was younger through the ends of the Cul-de-sacs. I don't think there was any issue or hinderance in doing that.

However I do think that opening up the access does present a genuine issue for residents. Parking will become an issue to get convenient walking access to Castleknock train station. Double yellows may fix that but I'm not entirely convinced that opening up access at the end of all the cul-de-sacs is necessary.

beauf

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

...I'm not entirely convinced that opening up access at the end of all the cul-de-sacs is necessary.

Would seem over the top. Not needed either.

magicbastarder

i suspect that's a way of 'spreading the load' - if access is opened up from all available points, no one road will be able to say 'why are we the ones who are having access opened up?'

beauf

Its would only of benefit to those houses closest to it. if they don't want it, then there no reason to open up the access.

Former Former

blanch152 wrote: »

Instead of building a relatively cheap bridge, you want them to put in place even more expensive infrastructure at Coolmine Train Station.

I have absolutely no idea of the relative costs. I would have liked Fingal to provide that info, but they won't.

blanch152 wrote: »

No gardens are being taken.

Opening access points at the bottom of Delwood cul-de-sacs will require taking at least part of some gardens.

blanch152 wrote: »

Opening up cul-de-sacs is a part of the county development plan to improve pedestrian access and encourage walking instead of driving.

Fair enough. Still not great for the people living there.

blanch152 wrote: »

Hundreds of trees? Really?

A four-metre wide path will need a bit of clearance on either side of it, and if it runs for maybe half a mile, yeah, there will be a lot of trees cut down. We don't know the actual numbers since Fingal won't release their environmental impact assessment.

blanch152 wrote: »

If ever I saw a post that was scaremongering nimbyism, that one is. Strangely enough, if Fingal and Irish Rail had gone ahead with closing Coolmine level crossing, there might have been a greater ability to accommodate a southside solution. Unfortunately, that proposal was also defeated by NIMBYism.

I live in Coolmine. It's not anywhere near my backyard.

Former Former

Fingal have played this absolutely brilliantly.

By only providing only a single, very sparsely detailed option, you can only be for it or against it. You can't put your objections into any context because there is no detail provided. You can't say it's a waste of public money because there are no costings. You can't say it's an environmental disgrace because there's no environmental impact statement.

So what is happening now is that any objection is just being dismissed as opposition to the greenway as a whole. The cycling lobby has been mobilized to fight the NIMBYism of the residents, because there's no room for a middle ground.

Any submissions Fingal do receive will be dismissed just as quickly. They have no interest in a real consultation because there is nothing to consult.

For those posters having a pop at me, I would love to see the greenway happen and whichever side it is built on I will hope to get great use out of it. I just think there are better options and I think Fingal have absolutely stitched the whole thing up.

There is absolutely no transparency and I am very, very suspicious of that. It is urban planning straight out of the 1990s.

daymobrew

Former Former wrote: »

By only providing only a single, very sparsely detailed option, you can only be for it or against it. You can't put your objections into any context because there is no detail provided. You can't say it's a waste of public money because there are no costings. You can't say it's an environmental disgrace because there's no environmental impact statement.

This public consultation is not a Part 8 one (that happens right before construction), it is a very early are-we-on-the-right-track type of one. It would be wasteful to do too much detail/costing/EIA work on it in case it is totally dropped (though I agree that a bit more should have been done).

Former Former

daymobrew wrote: »

This public consultation is not a Part 8 one (that happens right before construction), it is a very early are-we-on-the-right-track type of one. It would be wasteful to do too much detail/costing/EIA work on it in case it is totally dropped (though I agree that a bit more should have been done).

But the horse has bolted.

By only releasing one route for public consultation, they can only proceed with that option or minor variations thereof.

All work from here on out will be about costing/designing/protecting this proposal.

If they decide that some part of this plan is very expensive/not practical/ploughing through a bat colony, then they have to go back to square one with a brand new consultation. They won't do that.

Grudaire

Former Former wrote: »

Opening access points at the bottom of Delwood cul-de-sacs will require taking at least part of some gardens.

Repeating this doesn't make it true. Unless I am missing something there's no gardens needed to open up the cul de sacs looking on Google satellite view.

Whether they need or should be opened is another question, but embellishing the truth makes it harder to trust your arguments..

Former Former

Grudaire wrote: »

Repeating this doesn't make it true. Unless I am missing something there's no gardens needed to open up the cul de sacs looking on Google satellite view.

Whether they need or should be opened is another question, but embellishing the truth makes it harder to trust your arguments..

I'm not sure what to say to this. It is true.

Go down the Delwood cul-de-sacs and see it for yourself is the politest way I can put it. There is even a house built in one of the gardens.

Now, an 'access point' might mean a gap narrow enough for people to walk/cycle through, in which case it's obviously not much land. If you say it has to be wide enough for maintenance trucks or emergency vehicles, that's a bigger ask.

abc_abc

Grudaire wrote: »

Repeating this doesn't make it true. Unless I am missing something there's no gardens needed to open up the cul de sacs looking on Google satellite view.

Some residents at the end of Delwood cul-de-sacs purchased extra land in the past and they would need to go through CPO's. Scarce lines on Google maps do not reflect that, and no technical drawings have been provided to the public.

Sandra Kavanagh and Cllr Ruth Coppinger are holding a public meeting this evening at 7:30pm at 106 Roselawn Road. I encourage people to attend this meeting and get a more informed view on this preferred route.

magicbastarder

abc_abc wrote: »

Some residents at the end of Delwood cul-de-sacs purchased extra land in the past and they would need to go through CPO's.

did they purchase them, lease them, or just occupy them?

abc_abc

magicbastarder wrote: »

did they purchase them, lease them, or just occupy them?

PURCHASED them.

ilsilenzio

blanch152

"a really cheap bridge" --- no costings for any aspect are being released, for some reason. Designers and engineers did not seem to know that it MAY have to be high enough to allow swans fly under it. !! I dont know either but they should, after all I twas told in a non answer to simple question at the open day......"they are the experts at this". And he had a straight face and no badge, no notebook and no obvious manner of taking notes. Some consultation.

I trust that any bridge they may impose would be of a "slightly" higher quality and spec than the excuse for a pedestrian bridge they contracted alongside the bridge at Coolmine. It is a rattling mess, even with a child floating across it, and how any contractor was allowed walk away from it in its present state is typical of the public service approach. But then it is public money and as they say-- spend it or lose it in next years budget.Though a bit off topic it is a joke as the pedestrians from the Kirkpatrick side do not use it and safety is still compromised. A pedestrian crossing should have been considered to encourage use of the bridge. Planning ???? The same planning process designed the pedestrian crossings very immediately off the roundabouts in the Ongar area, which defeat the whole rationale of roundabouts.

daymobrew

Former Former wrote: »

But the horse has bolted.

By only releasing one route for public consultation, they can only proceed with that option or minor variations thereof.

What is to stop them going with another option?

cgcsb

Former Former wrote: »

Fingal have played this absolutely brilliantly.

By only providing only a single, very sparsely detailed option, you can only be for it or against it. You can't put your objections into any context because there is no detail provided. You can't say it's a waste of public money because there are no costings. You can't say it's an environmental disgrace because there's no environmental impact statement.

So what is happening now is that any objection is just being dismissed as opposition to the greenway as a whole. The cycling lobby has been mobilized to fight the NIMBYism of the residents, because there's no room for a middle ground.

Any submissions Fingal do receive will be dismissed just as quickly. They have no interest in a real consultation because there is nothing to consult.

For those posters having a pop at me, I would love to see the greenway happen and whichever side it is built on I will hope to get great use out of it. I just think there are better options and I think Fingal have absolutely stitched the whole thing up.

There is absolutely no transparency and I am very, very suspicious of that. It is urban planning straight out of the 1990s.

Public consultation is over rated and we've gone to far with it in this country.

Birdie Num Num

ilsilenzio wrote: »

pedestrian bridge they contracted alongside the bridge at Coolmine. It is a rattling mess,....

That bridge really needs a power hosing and a scrub.

daymobrew

ilsilenzio wrote: »

blanch152

"a really cheap bridge" --- no costings for any aspect are being released, for some reason. Designers and engineers did not seem to know that it MAY have to be high enough to allow swans fly under it. !! I dont know either but they should, after all I twas told in a non answer to simple question at the open day......"they are the experts at this". And he had a straight face and no badge, no notebook and no obvious manner of taking notes. Some consultation.

There was no real need to take notes because the online facility is there to make more accurate and detailed comments.

The swans fly really low - it's quite interesting to watch. They need some serious distance to get any height. I'm sure they (the swans) will figure it out - they are experts :-)

abcabc123123

cgcsb wrote: »

Public consultation is over rated and we've gone to far with it in this country.

Is there anything to be said for another consultation?

The Fitzwilliam cycle way has had 21 consultations and still has councillors claiming the thing hasn't been properly considered, needs to be reworked, needs to focus on residents concerns, etc. People don't like change. Most councillors haven't got a breeze about good planning and are much happier chasing non existent perfect solutions or ludicrously expensive ones, so that they can avoid having to tell their constituents something they don't want to hear, and simultaneously claim to be pro-walking/pro-cycling/pro-environment despite their actions continually pointing to the opposite.

Maybe Fingal works different to DCC but experience of the liffey cycle way and others doesn't make me optimistic about anything being delivered here.

Former Former

daymobrew wrote: »

What is to stop them going with another option?

In theory, nothing, but it puts them right back at step one.

Then suddenly you're looking at writing off all the time and money put into this proposal, you're wondering if the money allocated to actually build the thing will still be there and you're looking at another year or more of delay.

Nobody in Fingal is going to be the one to suggest that, so it won't happen.

Edit: it's entirely possible I'm overthinking it, I'm aware of that.

blanch152

ilsilenzio wrote: »

blanch152

"a really cheap bridge" --- no costings for any aspect are being released, for some reason. Designers and engineers did not seem to know that it MAY have to be high enough to allow swans fly under it. !! I dont know either but they should, after all I twas told in a non answer to simple question at the open day......"they are the experts at this". And he had a straight face and no badge, no notebook and no obvious manner of taking notes. Some consultation.

I trust that any bridge they may impose would be of a "slightly" higher quality and spec than the excuse for a pedestrian bridge they contracted alongside the bridge at Coolmine. It is a rattling mess, even with a child floating across it, and how any contractor was allowed walk away from it in its present state is typical of the public service approach. But then it is public money and as they say-- spend it or lose it in next years budget.Though a bit off topic it is a joke as the pedestrians from the Kirkpatrick side do not use it and safety is still compromised. A pedestrian crossing should have been considered to encourage use of the bridge. Planning ???? The same planning process designed the pedestrian crossings very immediately off the roundabouts in the Ongar area, which defeat the whole rationale of roundabouts.

High enough for swans to fly under??? Are you having a laugh?

There is no issue with canal clearance (have a look at the bridges at Coolmine), the only issue is the starting point on the southside and the gradient necessary to reach the other side.

As for the pedestrian crossings just after the roundabout, it depends on whether you want to facilitate cars or pedestrians.