Fr_Dougal wrote: » Are you sure it wasn’t one of those South American rats?
daymobrew wrote: » I saw an otter at 12th Lock on 25 January (I have a bad photo of its head sticking out of the water).
beauf wrote: » It not just the distance. Lots of kissing gates and crossing roads, just makes it slower. The gates are a real pain with panniers, or any longish bike.
beauf wrote: » A 2m path would be a huge improvement.
Birdie Num Num wrote: » Otters have definitely been spotted recently on the canal but closer to the city.
thomasj wrote: » Not good news. I wonder where they came from?
Grudaire wrote: » Based on the open day that I attended I would caveat that the majority of speakers/affected locals were against. The majority didn't actually speak, and it will be a calculated political decision to sink the project entirely as there is support among the wider public for the greenway (albeit ambivalence about some of the details) I see the canal has now got an invasive species as well :-/https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/invasive-rodent-spotted-along-dublin-s-royal-canal-1.3834367
ilsilenzio wrote: » No, the politicians did not stir it, or did you witness otherwise at the open day or any of the 5 public meetings-- the anger of the majority was quite sufficient.
ilsilenzio wrote: » ...I know with certainty that you would need a 20ft ladder to see to the other side on at least one of the cup de sacs. ....
muckwarrior wrote: » ....I did hear one of the engineers at the consultation tell someone that Waterways Ireland stipulated that the tow path must remain functional, so not sure if the required railing that a boardwalk would need is the issue, but there are trees between the tow path and water in many places so technically the tow path isn't functional anyway....
..As well as being a waste of money, the cutting was also a serious hazard to navigation. It is very narrow in places, so boats had trouble passing each other, and, with the towpath up much higher than the canal, many horses were dragged into the canal and drowned. Worse still, in November 1845 there was a serious accident in the cutting. A passenger boat hit a rock on the edge of the cutting at night, and capsized deep in the cutting, drowning 16 people. ...
Seanie_H wrote: » In my experience, I get that back through the absence of traffic lights on the canal. The gates are a pain but accumulative result is prob 1.5 mins max? Also the North Quays are fairly hazardous, particularly after 8.15am. The layout is not fit the volume of cyclists vs. traffic and the traffic lights are a major hindrance. Canal all the way for me.
beauf wrote: » Most people won't know about anglers because they've never used the path. I've met the odd angler on this section I was under the impression perhaps wrongly that it was more popular for fishing further out, past coolmine. You pass the odd one on here and their on the way into the city center. But not that many.
abc_abc wrote: » Irish Rail confirmed they never had and still don't have issues with the path on the south side. Fingal plan it as 4m wide urban greenway and this obviously won't fit in. For comparison, busy section in Ashtown is 3m wide.
magicbastarder wrote: » coolmine to o'connell bridge, according to google maps - 10.3km going through the phoenix park. 11.4km going along the canal and coming off at cross guns bridge (and that's avoiding the deep sinking which probably add a couple of hundred metres). i know which option i'd take.
Birdie Num Num wrote: » Has anyone mentioned anglers yet?
blanch152 wrote: » Excellent summary of the situation.
Mercian Pro wrote: » A few thoughts having walked the Deep Sinking and all the Delwood cul-de-sacs and Park this morning. The Royal Canal Greenway when completed will be a super facility for leisure and commuter use and for walkers, joggers, cyclists and hopefully, wheelchair users. Trying to shoehorn it onto the south bank of the Deep Sinking was always going to involve major compromises and could never meet the standards set out in the National Cycling Manual. The imaginative solution of crossing over to the north bank just after the Roselawn Estate is brilliant and should allow a high quality shared use Greenway of a similar standard to the Ashtown/M50 section. I'm not familiar with the history of previous anti-social behaviour in the area but I was very impressed by the absence of any signs of a current problem. The lane linking Brompton Court and Brompton Grove is not overlooked but, other than a single piece of graffiti on an ESB box, is spotless. From looking over the fences and walls at the ends of the cul-de-sacs, the ground level generally appears to be the same as the roads and gardens nearby. There seems to be extensive encroachment onto the former CIE lands by extended side gardens. Behind Delwood Park, the large majority of the original gardens have more than doubled in size again by encroaching on the former public lands. Unfortunately, the area taken is probably the most suited for the Greenway being relatively level. If the Greenway has to be built behind the extended gardens, it will have to be cut into the sloping bank and should be well below the garden levels. The houses in Delwood Park also look out on one of the largest green spaces I have ever seen in a housing estate. What is most disappointing about this consultation process is, not the fears of the residents, but the fact that these have been encouraged and amplified by most local politicians. These "public servants" are, or should be, aware of the bigger picture and with a bit of research should see that many of the local fears are unfounded. While Councillors are obviously focused on the upcoming local elections, there is really no excuse for some of the TDs.
blanch152 wrote: » Sure, wait until Ruth Coppinger is telling the residents there will be no cycleway and then telling cyclists groups she completely supports them. That is the way of councillors.
abcabc123123 wrote: » 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.
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.
daymobrew wrote: » What is to stop them going with another option?
cgcsb wrote: » Public consultation is over rated and we've gone to far with it in this country.
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.
