Fighting Tao wrote: » Is this one stretch really so different to other areas that have benefited from greenways?
Fighting Tao wrote: » 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.
Fighting Tao wrote: » ...Is this one stretch really so different to other areas that have benefited from greenways? ...
ilsilenzio wrote: » ...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. ...
beauf wrote: » Every stretch is different. Have you ever used one?
Fighting Tao wrote: » Yes I have and that’s why I can’t figure out what the uproar is here. As you said “every stretch is different”, which is why I am trying to figure out why there wasn’t such uproar over other stretches. Maybe there was but I don’t recall it. As for laneways...I used to live backing onto one. The greenway will increase people traffic. The more people traffic in an area, generally the less antisocial behaviour because there is a much higher chance of being caught. Although too much people trafficnalso creates situations where it’s easier to get away with antisocial behaviour like the city centre but I’m quite sure that this stretch of greenway and it’s access points will be city centre like.
Bargain_Hound wrote: » There is no anti social behaviour currently though. Is it really that unfair of residents to be concerned about the unclear plans neighbouring their properties?
Fighting Tao wrote: » Yes I have and that’s why I can’t figure out what the uproar is here. As you said “every stretch is different”, which is why I am trying to figure out why there wasn’t such uproar over other stretches. Maybe there was but I don’t recall it. ....
beauf wrote: » List a few other areas that have laneways/back gardens that back onto the canal and now the greenway.
Fighting Tao wrote: » There are laws for antisocial behaviour.
Former Former wrote: » In fairness, this isn't relevant. Whether it's teenagers drinking, toerags riding scrambler bikes, drug-dealing or illegal dumping, the gardai don't have anywhere near the resources to be responding to it. The proposed greenway is close enough to residential areas to be accessible to bored teenagers or more unsavoury people, but secluded enough that no-one will be able to see what they're doing. It's tailor-made for anti-social behaviour. Now, that is a factor regardless of which side it's sited on, but at least on the south side the train line provides a buffer between the path and any houses.
beauf wrote: » Its consider an amenity for all types of users not just cyclists. You should try walking stretch the from 12th lock to ashtown on sat or sun afternoon.
Fighting Tao wrote: » Other areas are also exposed too. Maybe the whole length of the canal should be blocked off to ensure that nothing untoward happens there ever again.
Former Former wrote: » Constructive response. The point is that there are ways to mitigate it. The cycling die-hards have obviously decided that any criticism of the planned route is just an opposition to the greenway itself. That's the fundamental misunderstanding here and it's why you are all getting so angry. In fairness to you, it's exactly what Fingal and the NTA wanted to happen and they've played it beautifully. It is possible to be in favour of the greenway but have concerns about these exact proposals.
beauf wrote: » #1 Its not Nimbyism to keep the lanes and cul de sac closes. They cause anti social activity and crime. #2 The cycle lane doesn't need the laneways and ul de sac opened.
blanch152 wrote: » One of the arguments against closing Coolmine Rail Crossing was that closing routes causes anti-social activity and crime. Now we are hearing that opening routes causes anti-social activity and crime. That leaves me baffled, and back to the conclusion that NIMBYism always finds an excuse.
Former Former wrote: » In fairness, this isn't relevant. Whether it's teenagers drinking, toerags riding scrambler bikes, drug-dealing or illegal dumping, the gardai don't have anywhere near the resources to be responding to it. A law without any enforcement isn't worth the paper it's written on. The proposed greenway is close enough to residential areas to be accessible to bored teenagers or more unsavoury people, but secluded enough that no-one will be able to see what they're doing. It's tailor-made for anti-social behaviour. Increased foot traffic during the day will help, but at night, not so much. Now, that is a factor regardless of which side it's sited on, but at least on the south side the train line provides a buffer between the path and any houses.
beauf wrote: » Maybe link to what you are talking about. They've been lots of noise about closing that, and it wasn't handled well either. There was some suggestion that it was used as a PR stunt for local politicians. The reason for closing crossings is to speed up the train. Where its closed, they intended to create a new bridge. So it wasn't going to be "closed" as you imply. There would still be the canal path. You seem to use NIMBYism as counter for every argument. Its getting old.
Fighting Tao wrote: » T...If previous posts are to believed, as per regulations the other side wouldn’t be wide enough. is that not a clear reason for the selection?
blanch152 wrote: » I was at meetings and heard the comments so I can't obviously link to them. That process completely put me off local consultation in the area.
Fighting Tao wrote: » The new stretch on Sheerif St have. Also, the whole way up through north strand and beyond right up to Phibsborough (I think as there are areas I’m not familiar with). It’s been a while since I’ve been on it further. As for your previous post, you ignore that more people traffic generally means less antisocial behaviour. I’m sure those like yourself who remember the lanes being open also remember them having very few pass through. Unlike how they would be leading to the greenway.
Fighting Tao wrote: » ...As for your previous post, you ignore that more people traffic generally means less antisocial behaviour. I’m sure those like yourself who remember the lanes being open also remember them having very few pass through. Unlike how they would be leading to the greenway.
beauf wrote: » Your talking about a section that isn't built yet. How can you know what issues there will be? Also its a raised path. Is there access from the cul de sacs on Sheriff street to this new path/bridge? Plans seem to show the walls will be retained or it will 6ft up in the air?https://irishcycle.com/2019/02/04/work-starts-on-royal-canal-greenway-beside-dublin-docklands/ What cul de sacs with access to the current path in north strand and up to Phibsborough??? There are none?
beauf wrote: » No they were busy. Main routes to shops. Busier than the green-way traffic will be. I also remember the blanch cops wouldn't go down them at night. One used to have a timed gate on it. Only opened during the day. I'm not convinced you know any of the areas you are talking about.
blanch152 wrote: » ....our first duty should be to protect other users of the greenway. Having a closed greenway on the southside of the river with the railway line blocking escape,...
Fighting Tao wrote: » It is currently being built and was blocked off as there was genuine antisocial behaviour along the canal ...
beauf wrote: » It took the foot traffic that there is Boombridge with the new Luas terminus, to make a significant difference to that area. Ye are dragging this well off topic. Just build a wall/fence to keep the locals out. Access at either end at the train stations. End of issue.
