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

Hurrache

magicbastarder wrote: »

funnily enough, castleknock village is being discussed in the 'cycling near misses/close passes' thread on the cycling forum.

Yeah, I saw that after I posted and grinned. That video is one of the reasons I avoid the village. I swing down Auburn Avenue, across the pedestrian bridge over the M50 and either onto the canal from there, or through Blanchardstown Village, destination depending.

schemingbohemia

abc_abc wrote: »

2m or even 3m is totally sufficient around Deep Sinking in my opinion. A busy section in Ashtown where the apartment blocks are is 3m wide. The widest section between Astown and M50 is 3.5m (I used measuring tape, too). 4m in width on the north bank is an overkill.

On what engineering basis are you calculating this? So a child wobbling on a bike on a 2m wide stretch could actually cause someone to perhaps fall into the canal.
How wide is a person in a wheelchair? Multiply that by 2 and have a little space between them and you'll need a lot more than 2m.

What is the dynamic width of two cyclists passing each other?

This will be a very popular route for commuters, they will need 4m width as it will be a shared use path, so cyclists, wheelchair users, pedestrians, people with buggies. They don't just make this stuff up for the craic, the Cycle Manual and the TII Greenway guidelines state what is the best approach for users, based on science and facts - not feelings.

They've looked at the South side option for the past 7 years (Atkins report is 2012) why do you think they've now decided the northern side (for a very small section) is better? Do you think they're deliberately trying to annoy residents?

daymobrew

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Are you sure it wasn’t one of those South American rats?

I emailed the photo into Waterways Ireland and they immediately confirmed that it was an otter.
My eldest, who was cycling ahead of his brother and I, saw it first. It was on the bank in the lock outside 12th Lock hotel (25 Jan) before it slide into the water.
I came back after drop off and watched is swim around the area in front of the hotel. It came quite close to the edge for a short while before disappearing. It was cool to see.

daymobrew

296 submissions as of 12:37. It was 275 when I wrote mine a few hours ago.
I see that the closing date has been extended from today (22nd) to Wednesday 27 March at 4:30pm!!

The irony is that the Draft Climate Change Action Plan only has 3 submissions and it closes on Monday 25 March at 5:30pm.

Former Former

schemingbohemia wrote: »

They've looked at the South side option for the past 7 years (Atkins report is 2012) why do you think they've now decided the northern side (for a very small section) is better? Do you think they're deliberately trying to annoy residents?

I think we'd all like an answer to this, to be honest.

Like, we're all just foundering around in the dark because Fingal have deliberately withheld absolutely every piece of supporting information. Or they didn't generate any. Either way, they have been utterly incompetent from start to finish.

If they came out and said, it has to be north side because XYZ, at least then we'd be able to react to that. I don't think they have actually even said that the train station is the problem on the south side. Instead, they've just lobbed this hand grenade out there and seem to be surprised that it exploded.

At best, it's really lazy. At worst, it is highly suspicious.

mattser

Former Former wrote: »

I think we'd all like an answer to this, to be honest.

Like, we're all just foundering around in the dark because Fingal have deliberately withheld absolutely every piece of supporting information. Or they didn't generate any. Either way, they have been utterly incompetent from start to finish.

If they came out and said, it has to be north side because XYZ, at least then we'd be able to react to that. I don't think they have actually even said that the train station is the problem on the south side. Instead, they've just lobbed this hand grenade out there and seem to be surprised that it exploded.

At best, it's really lazy. At worst, it is highly suspicious.

Excellent post. Deliberate or not they have gone out of their way to annoy people.
The open day in the Civic office was abysmal.

Birdie Num Num

Former Former wrote: »

I think we'd all like an answer to this, to be honest.

Like, we're all just foundering around in the dark because Fingal have deliberately withheld absolutely every piece of supporting information. Or they didn't generate any. Either way, they have been utterly incompetent from start to finish.

If they came out and said, it has to be north side because XYZ, at least then we'd be able to react to that. I don't think they have actually even said that the train station is the problem on the south side. Instead, they've just lobbed this hand grenade out there and seem to be surprised that it exploded.

At best, it's really lazy. At worst, it is highly suspicious.

I've never heard that the train station is a problem except on this thread. I would imagine that the entire train line is an issue where the towpath narrows between the embankment and the canal which begins some way before the train station when heading west.

abc_abc

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

I've never heard that the train station is a problem except on this thread. I would imagine that the entire train line is an issue where the towpath narrows between the embankment and the canal which begins some way before the train station when heading west.

Irish Rail confirmed they don't have problem with a path by the train line on this section.

schemingbohemia

Former Former wrote: »

I think we'd all like an answer to this, to be honest.

Like, we're all just foundering around in the dark because Fingal have deliberately withheld absolutely every piece of supporting information. Or they didn't generate any. Either way, they have been utterly incompetent from start to finish.

If they came out and said, it has to be north side because XYZ, at least then we'd be able to react to that. I don't think they have actually even said that the train station is the problem on the south side. Instead, they've just lobbed this hand grenade out there and seem to be surprised that it exploded.

At best, it's really lazy. At worst, it is highly suspicious.

I'm going to take a massive guess that it's either cost or environmental. If it's cost it must be very significant, like multiples of going north side. Can't see it being environmental really.

abc_abc

schemingbohemia wrote: »

I'm going to take a massive guess that it's either cost or environmental. If it's cost it must be very significant, like multiples of going north side. Can't see it being environmental really.

A massive guess from general public is not good enough. Fingal should have made this very, very clear.

Grudaire

daymobrew wrote: »

The irony is that the Draft Climate Change Action Plan only has 3 submissions and it closes on Monday 25 March at 5:30pm.

Ah but that's only an existential issue

abc_abc

schemingbohemia wrote: »

On what engineering basis are you calculating this?

I'm not an engineer. I base this off my observations during 2 years of daily cycling up and down the canal from Castleknock to Drumcondra to get to work.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

They don't just make this stuff up for the craic, the Cycle Manual and the TII Greenway guidelines state what is the best approach for users, based on science and facts - not feelings.

Are they new recommendations?

schemingbohemia

abc_abc wrote: »

I'm not an engineer. I base this off my observations during 2 years of daily cycling up and down the canal from Castleknock to Drumcondra to get to work.

Are they new recommendations?

No, they're not. The Cycle Manual and the first TII guidelines are about 4 to 5 years old. The latter has 3m width minimum but that's for low volume routes, this won't be low volume as it will have a load of commuters on it.

magicbastarder

schemingbohemia wrote: »

What is the dynamic width of two cyclists passing each other?

to take a fairly standard hybrid bike, a giant escape - the handlebars on the medium size bike are 64cm. allowing for two passing in opposite directions with 50cm of space between them, you'd not be left with much change at all from 2m.
and 50cm ain't much if they've a closing speed of 50km/h.

schemingbohemia

abc_abc wrote: »

A massive guess from general public is not good enough. Fingal should have made this very, very clear.

Would it change your mind?
If it was a case of it won't get built unless it's on the North side due to the cost of the South side option would you then be in favour of an amenity that could be used by all of D15?
Would you be happy to have your Local Property Tax increased to pay for the South Side option? Should everyone in Fingal pay that additional cost?

schemingbohemia

magicbastarder wrote: »

to take a fairly standard hybrid bike, a giant escape - the handlebars on the medium size bike are 64cm. allowing for two passing in opposite directions with 50cm of space between them, you'd not be left with much change at all from 2m.
and 50cm ain't much if they've a closing speed of 50km/h.

Plus add in shared use! It's actually wider than 2m - 2.2m.

For information purposes for those not familiar the TII guidelines are here
http://www.tiipublications.ie/library/DN-GEO-03047-02.pdf

Can't seem to copy the image from that but it's on page 8.

abc_abc

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Would it change your mind?
If it was a case of it won't get built unless it's on the North side due to the cost of the South side option would you then be in favour of an amenity that could be used by all of D15?

Perhaps. I only regret that no such comparison was provided. I do expect them to do so in the next stages of the process.

Birdie Num Num

abc_abc wrote: »

Irish Rail confirmed they don't have problem with a path by the train line on this section.

And why would they? There is a path there already. But does that apply to developing existing or creating a new path? If there was another structure or widening of the towpath I guess Waterways Ireland or Irish Rail or both might have a problem. I don't know for sure.

This is why I also can't see a cantilever type structure working. I suspect if you put such a structure in place that obstructs or replaces the tow path, a tow path will have to be constructed on the opposite side of the canal. Again I don't know for sure. But I would guess that terre firma needs to be in place on at least one side of the canal for any vessels in the water.

ilsilenzio

Mercian Pro. "A few thoughts having walked......."
Beauf. "Which one....."

I would prefer not to highlight any one particular aspect, (and I include the Bromptons as cul de sacs, as they are open to pedestrians only at the "far" end, and then not open to non Brompton access), This morning I also strolled the area from the start of the open Brompton Green area, up to the "new" pedestrian bridge at Coolmine. I did not see many walls and fences, but rather mainly kempt and unkempt hedges and bushes/ trees of varying density and height. While I did not use a tape I still contend that some are bordering 15 feet or more, so you would require a ladder, say 20ft, to compensate for its slope. I would agree that some of the space on the canal side might be closely on the same level as the dwelling but surely this is to expected. They are not quite built at a cliff edge. The type of terrain or slope, say 20/30 feet further in, could in no way be observed or guessed at from peering over or through the obstacle, even if the ladder was readily available. It is not being suggested that the walkway be built up against the gable windows, on the CUD's or back doors of the Park houses, or is it ?. Maybe the planners have, also, only conducted a similar cursory walkabout, with the help of drones, Google Earth and desk based war-gaming. They have not proven otherwise and most certainly have not communicated to those most impacted. They have ducked, dived, obfuscated and ignored all and sundry in this Non Statutory process. They have, by their behaviour, driven some very reasonable, sane dare I say it, mature people to, quite possibly wrongly, believe there is a sinister agenda.

Mercian pro has written very reasonable and impressive piece, apparently as a resident from without the area, not that I would in any way deny him his absolute right to comment or advocate because of this. However his interest appears to be influenced to a great degree by the fact that he appears to be a keen cyclist. If I were a keen cyclist I would no doubt also have similar views were it not for a fact that I have resided in one of the cul de sacs for about 40 years. I would suggest that I would be expected to have a slightly different view, opinion and most importantly, expect more influence in something which very directly, adversely affects me, my family and local residents. I am fully supportive of improving the existing route, on the Southside-- all greenways have pinch points and anomalies. Exercise your right to comment for or against, with fullest knowledge of all the facts, on the FCC website by 27th March, extended deadline.

I know it is a bit contrived / off the wall but bear with me, a bit tongue in cheek :

I propose building a new Greenway from Cahersiveen , in Kerry to the western tip of Valentia Island. I commission a study of the options. The experts produce two plans A) build alongside existing roads, to minimise disruption to populace out to Portmagee and traverse to the Island via the existing fine bridge on the R565, and then construct a new surfaceway to Bruff. or

using same rationale proceed to Renard Point, build a Bridge to Knightstown and continue as in option A.

I decide to go for Option B as it is a more scenic route, shorter, a bit greener, and most importantly there is a bad bend on the approach to the existing bridge making option A impossibly expensive and not technically feasible . It is in no ones interest to give costings of either option, it is none of their business, and most importantly those people at Renard will object to a dirty great big bridge in front of their houses. NIMBYS.!!! Feasability-- I told the experts to forget about engineering challenges and costs and, in any case the terrain is probably only gorse , and mountain goats are easy to contend with (oh shoot is there a quarry somewhere out there). No they dont know how deep the channel is, or if the bottom is silty or rocky, we will know after we start building. Height , sure only canoes go in and out of there. We dont know the exact costs of tackling the bend before the bridge, too soon for that. The new bridge is the preferred route, and anyway only €100k has been spent so far and this will be buried in the final considerable cost. Oh and I will introduce a good local contractor. They have done a lot of Council Work, know how councils operate, and welcome this wonderful new initiative for tourism. The lycra clad cyclists will love it and sure Europe loves the environment. Just hope we dont have to get planning, or have those pesky Greens looking for an Enviromental Impact yoke-- it could scupper the plan at the last minute. The Contractors - the local Ray Healeys, and the best news is one will start the bridge on Valentia, the other on the Mainland and if they dont meet in the middle we will have two bridges for our massive EC money. ! The important thing is to keep the details quiet, use the mushroom approach, we are the experts. Tel nobody nothing. The only ones likely to object are those culchies around Renard--- so tell them nothing till it is too late. (Yes,I am a proud culchie)

The foregoing daft idea is as well researched and surveyed as the Royal Canal (Urban) Greenway.

magicbastarder

ilsilenzio wrote: »

However his interest appears to be influenced to a great degree by the fact that he appears to be a keen cyclist. If I were a keen cyclist I would no doubt also have similar views were it not for a fact that I have resided in one of the cul de sacs for about 40 years. I would suggest that I would be expected to have a slightly different view, opinion and most importantly, expect more influence in something which very directly, adversely affects me, my family and local residents.

funny enough, this - tied in somewhat with the concerns about parking and people using the cul de sacs for park and ride to the train stations - is one of the reasons i would argue *for* siting the greenway on the northside.

i do not live in delwood, but likewise am a keen cyclist. however, i learned to cycle on the cul de sacs of delwood. (misty eyed nostalgia warning!) i can still vividly remember pulling that wheelie on my raleigh strika on that same cul de sac, and the front wheel falling off; that was the longest wheelie i ever pulled - it certainly felt like it. we used to race up and down the road on home-made go carts pulled by other kids on their bikes (etc., etc., you get the picture)
now, i know a lot of it has to do with demographics, but kids don't play on the cul de sacs like that anymore - when my folks originally moved there it was basically still a new build estate with the corresponding demographics you'd expect. but one of the other big changes corresponding with changes in demographics is that the cul de sacs are now essentially car parks.
for example, we used to play kerbs, but now the chances of finding a decent spot where both sides of the road are clear are massively reduced. any kid growing up on the same road i did, now, will have a very different experience of growing up there.

anyway, long story short - some of the utility lost due to the ever increasing number of cars parked on the roads outside the houses there, could be regained by creating access to the greenway. people in delwood could bring their kids out for a cycle without having to travel up to a kilometre to get to the nearest access point, should it be placed on the southside.

it just strikes me that there's a certain sense - to cariacaturise some of the objections - of cutting off your nose to spite your face in the 'we think the greenway is a good idea, as long as we can't easily get it it' approach.

Former Former

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

This is why I also can't see a cantilever type structure working. I suspect if you put such a structure in place that obstructs or replaces the tow path, a tow path will have to be constructed on the opposite side of the canal. Again I don't know for sure. But I would guess that terre firma needs to be in place on at least one side of the canal for any vessels in the water.

??

The tow path was there to allow a horse to walk alongside the canal towing a barge, prior to the invention of the steam engine.

Now, I love a bit of retro chic but I think going back to horse-drawn transport might be a bit much.

Birdie Num Num

Former Former wrote: »

??

The tow path was there to allow a horse to walk alongside the canal towing a barge, prior to the invention of the steam engine.

Now, I love a bit of retro chic but I think going back to horse-drawn transport might be a bit much.

I’m not a boating expert but anytime I have been on a canal there was always a need to tie the boat up, pull it to a bank or quayside. Nothing much has changed in that respect since prior to the invention of the steam engine.

blanch152

Former Former wrote: »

??

The tow path was there to allow a horse to walk alongside the canal towing a barge, prior to the invention of the steam engine.

Now, I love a bit of retro chic but I think going back to horse-drawn transport might be a bit much.

It doesn't matter what you think tow paths were there for, they are legally required to maintain them.

ilsilenzio

magicbastarder

Opening up the estates would completely remove any ability for children to play on the roads- there would be even less space with all day parking by rail commuters, would encourage them to wander from relative safety to what could be a dangerous environment, with high drops into the canal, with danger from anti social behaviours. They couldnt clean up the boardwalks in the capital city for Gods sake !. Depending on the height you would have older kids divebombing into the dirty canal aka the Dublin Docks from the Greenway. They are beginning to refer to it as an Urban Greenway and commuter corridor and in this regard I would think that cyclists should want less access points. They would encourage casual mammies and toddlers, casual walkers and god forbid pensioners wandering along. Their progress would be slowed. Has any other Greenway so many access points in such a short stretch.
In summary I would guesstimate that, if given the means, 70% of the residents of the four estates would prefer the current two access points, irrespective of which side was chosen-- not that the Northside is acceptable. Surely 70% of the current residents have rights equal to, at least, of those who wish to have a shortcut into town. Consultation has not taken place-- limited, inadequate, conrtradictory, confusing, un costed and poorly presented data and information were put up as a plan, already sealed as the preferred route, and to hell with those affected. Cyclists outside the area are of course generally rooting for this plan and I have to admit I somewhat understand but.............

Former Former

blanch152 wrote: »

It doesn't matter what you think tow paths were there for, they are legally required to maintain them.

Jesus, it was only a bit of a joke.

But it's not what I "think" they were there for, it's exactly what they were there for. TOWpath, look closely, there's a very subtle clue in the name. Do you see it?

If the greenway goes on the north bank, they would have to maintain the southern towpath because it has been a public right of way for 200 years, not for any boating reasons.

magicbastarder

ilsilenzio wrote: »

They would encourage casual mammies and toddlers, casual walkers and god forbid pensioners wandering along.

good god, you're actually making it sound like a good idea!

avalidusername

ilsilenzio wrote: »

magicbastarder

They are beginning to refer to it as an Urban Greenway and commuter corridor and in this regard I would think that cyclists should want less access points. They would encourage casual mammies and toddlers, casual walkers and god forbid pensioners wandering along. Their progress would be slowed.

If you ask around, you'll probably find that most cyclists going along the canal route, aren't racing for a Tour de France Time Trial, they're casual cyclists enjoying the local scenery and route.

ilsilenzio

Lest it iwas unclear the words "they would encourage......" was meant to refer to the number of access points rather than the promoters. The more access points the more danger of accidents . Was somewhat tongue in cheek. NO, they , the promoters intend to create an Urban Commuter route......and take cylists off the roads....read their publications !! . They could of course build side slip ways on and off ..... before you respond.... only joking .

ilsilenzio

Giving up, bye. !!

Fighting Tao

I don’t think that there has been one valid argument against made. Everything smacks of Nimbyism. Is this one stretch really so different to other areas that have benefited from greenways? What do the residents want? Money? It usually softens coughs quite easily.

I’d happily buy a house with access to such an amienty down the lane behind me. I’d say there will be an increase in house prices there once it’s built.