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

Former Former

I honestly think that having access to the Greenway at the bottom of cul-de-sacs is so absolutely stupid that the Council just dropped it in there so they'd be able to say "hey, we listened to your concerns and we acted, the access points are gone", and it looks like a genuine consultation.

Then they can push ahead with the pieces they really want and say, well, ye can't have it all your own way lads...

Birdie Num Num

I have it sorted. A pair of blinkers should quell any fears of looking into gardens and a few more wires and we should be able to include any walkers and runners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7lLxtCK2aA

blanch152

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.

Neither Broombridge nor the North Strand are in Fingal.

https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/draft-fingal-development-plan-2017-%E2%80%93-2023-stage-2/chapter/chapter-12-development

"Green corridors are linear open spaces along paths, water courses, planting or other natural features that provide opportunities for walking and cycling, informal recreation, and biodiversity and wildlife migration. They will not generally be included as part of the quantitative calculation for open space provision, except with the agreement of the Planning Authority. Green corridors should be incorporated into all new large developments, as part of Green Infrastructure provision, linking large areas of open space and linking with areas outside the development site."

Walled-off greenways are against the County Development Plan. Dotted through the plan are other proposals (see below for an example) that encourage open access.

"Open Plan Estates
It is important to maintain the openness of residential development, particularly schemes where openness is a defining feature of the development. This can be achieved through the removal of the exempted development rights with regard to the provision of boundary walls, railing or other features to the front of houses.

1
Gated Communities
Gated communities are communities or developments in which access to the public is not readily available due to the erection of different types of physical barriers. Gated communities serve to exclude and divide communities and do not support the development of a permeable, connected and linked urban area.

1
Objective DMS32

Prohibit proposals that would create a gated community for any new residential developments."

beauf

blanch152 wrote: »

Neither ...

Literally none of that is relevant to the subject at hand.

You are dragging entirely unrelated issues that no one has proposed into the thread and then arguing against them.
Also you are using terms interchangeably when they are not interchangeable, simply so you can argue against them.

Why not stick to the issues at hand, rather than inventing ones that don't exist here.

beauf

Former Former wrote: »

I honestly think that having access to the Greenway at the bottom of cul-de-sacs is so absolutely stupid that the Council just dropped it in there so they'd be able to say "hey, we listened to your concerns and we acted, the access points are gone", and it looks like a genuine consultation.

Then they can push ahead with the pieces they really want and say, well, ye can't have it all your own way lads...

Seem like deflection and miss direction.
Something that other proposed developments have been accused of before.

magicbastarder

Former Former wrote: »

I honestly think that having access to the Greenway at the bottom of cul-de-sacs is so absolutely stupid

well, they've access to delwood road at the other end of the cul de sacs - allowing not just pedestrians and cyclists, but even motorists too - yet everyone is more than satisfied with that. weird, huh?

Mercian Pro

ilsilenzio wrote: »

Mercian Pro. "A few thoughts having walked......."

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.

Thank you for your kind words. Yes, I confess to being a keen cyclist and to living further along the Canal in Glasnevin. I also admit to being a member of the Royal Canal Amenity Group and to regularly walking my dog on various sections of the canal towpath. This morning we had a most enjoyable stroll from Cross Guns Bridge to Ashtown and back that included lots of "lovely morning" exchanges, a chat with a lovely couple who travel from Dunboyne regularly to walk the canal, a couple of (canine) swims and a rare sighting of an otter (definately not a coypu!) The Royal is my quickist link to the joys of the countryside and I would love to see more people enjoy it on the water and on the slowly developing Greenway.

I find it ironic that an early case of IMBYism by the Duke of Leinster has led us to the contentious situation we are now in. By insisting that the Canal serve his Carton Estate, he forced the alteration of the route through what became the Deep Sinking. Not only did this bankrupt the first Royal Canal Company, it also resulted in the deaths of numerous tow horses and 16 passengers on the Longford in 1845. Had the original planned route not been changed, there would have been a wide and level towpath beside it, easily upgraded to Greenway standards.

Getting back to your comments above, I am interested in your view that you should have more influence on the planning process as one potentially affected by the Greenway than I should as a future user. In practice, from reading the comments of your local Councillors, would-be Councillors and TDs, you have immense influence. Why would they listen to me as my vote is not only in a different area but in a different Council? My own Councillors, while interested in the Dublin sections of the Greenway, have no interest in matters further upstream in Fingal.

As I'm sure you're aware by now, the Royal Canal Greenway when completed will be the longest Greenway in the country at 145km from the Liffey to the Shannon. It will form the major part of the Dublin to Galway Cycle route and, as such, will be the western end of the Moscow to Galway EuroVelo 2 Route. Of more importance from a sustainability perspective, it will facilitate cycle commuting to and from Maynooth, Leixlip and Dublin. Many of those who will make use of the Greenway in the future, walkers, strollers, cyclists, wheelchair users, commuters, tourists, et al, won't even be aware of the current consultation process. I think they should have a say too and I, and a few others, are trying to anticipate and present their views.

The Deep Sinking from Granard Bridge to Kennan Bridge is 2.4km. From Delwood Grove to Brompton Court is approx 500m and the south side of Delwood Park is about 200m long. For the great majority of the proposed route the northside option is far simpler to construct and will involve a lot less damage to the canal side environment. For the difficult section behind Delwood Park, technical solutions can and will be found. I look forward to cycling and walking the Greenway in 2020.

beauf

magicbastarder wrote: »

...
well, they've access to delwood road at the other end of the cul de sacs - allowing not just pedestrians and cyclists, but even motorists too - yet everyone is more than satisfied with that. weird, huh?

I think you maybe not be aware of the effect of two exits Vs one and through traffic.

blanch152

beauf wrote: »

Literally none of that is relevant to the subject at hand.

You are dragging entirely unrelated issues that no one has proposed into the thread and then arguing against them.
Also you are using terms interchangeably when they are not interchangeable, simply so you can argue against them.

Why not stick to the issues at hand, rather than inventing ones that don't exist here.

Not at all. The concept of open access is embedded in the county development plan, and that means the cul-de-sacs should be opened, greenway or not.

beauf

Mercian Pro wrote: »

......Getting back to your comments above, I am interested in your view that you should have more influence on the planning process as one potentially affected by the Greenway than I should as a future user. .......

Maybe because they've invested their life saving and maybe 20yrs or so in the area. Most users will have invested nothing.

That said there's been a lot of exaggerating on both sides of the discussion.

But the Greenway is an important piece of infrastructure. Some compromise is required.

beauf

blanch152 wrote: »

Not at all. The concept of open access is embedded in the county development plan, and that means the cul-de-sacs should be opened, greenway or not.

You mean re-opened. They were originally open and closed after years of problems. Why would they not have same problems if reopened. What has changed.

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”.

The planning around D15 is abysmal. Over developed, gridlock all over the place. Cycle lanes which don't connect, and none where you need them. People should be a little bit cynical of people with that track record. Especially when they aren't very forth coming with details of what is proposed.

buffalo

beauf wrote: »

The planning around D15 is abysmal. Over developed, gridlock all over the place. Cycle lanes which don't connect, and none where you need them.

I can see why they don't connect if there's that much opposition to opening up cul-de-sacs or building cycle tracks close to houses. Are you blaming the state or the local residents for the issues in D15?

blanch152

buffalo wrote: »

I can see why they don't connect if there's that much opposition to opening up cul-de-sacs or building cycle tracks close to houses. Are you blaming the state or the local residents for the issues in D15?

Exactly. Fingal have produced a number of very good proposals for opening up walking access and have consolidated them into the Development Plan as well. These are needed in order to promote healthy walking and as measures to address climate change.

The problem is that every change is fought tooth and nail by local NIMBYism, mostly provoked by scaremongering around anti-social behaviour. Look at the gated communities, look at the high walls on the Snugborough Road or the Ongar Road etc. etc. All are regressive, but insisted on by local pressure.

beauf

buffalo wrote: »

I can see why they don't connect if there's that much opposition to opening up cul-de-sacs or building cycle tracks close to houses. Are you blaming the state or the local residents for the issues in D15?

Cycle lanes on main roads not connecting has nothing to do with Cul De Sacs.

Opening cul de sac as to do with Permeability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_(spatial_and_transport_planning)

But when considering permeability you have to consider if the area is suitable it may cause an increase in crime in one are and not another. There's a range of factors and its nuanced.

People in favour of access here ignoring the known problems they can cause, because it won't effect them personally, but they want to take advantage of the access.

The locals in this instance are not against a cycle route. They are against the proposed design. Which is a very different argument. The local authority is being obtuse with information and inciting opposition because of this approach.

TBH planning or the lack of has caused these issues. We keep building right up to every boundary and road edge, not allowing any space for future expansion.

beauf

blanch152 wrote: »

Exactly. Fingal have produced a number of very good proposals for opening up walking access and have consolidated them into the Development Plan as well. These are needed in order to promote healthy walking and as measures to address climate change.

The problem is that every change is fought tooth and nail by local NIMBYism, mostly provoked by scaremongering around anti-social behaviour. Look at the gated communities, look at the high walls on the Snugborough Road or the Ongar Road etc. etc. All are regressive, but insisted on by local pressure.

It interesting how crime and anti social issue are just ignored.

https://dublingazette.com/news/news-fingal/laneways-blanchardstown-29184/

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/study-looks-at-walkability-of-urban-estates-1.589287

A lot of laneways were originally opened. If they worked so well why were they closed.

blanch152

beauf wrote: »

It interesting how crime and anti social issue are just ignored.

https://dublingazette.com/news/news-fingal/laneways-blanchardstown-29184/

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/study-looks-at-walkability-of-urban-estates-1.589287

A lot of laneways were originally opened. If they worked so well why were they closed.

People are blaming laneways for the actions of individuals.

There is no evidence to suggest that laneways commit crimes.

Former Former

Opening the Delwood cul-de-sacs doesn't improve the greenway one iota. Access will already be open at each of the four Brompton cul-de-sacs and from the Roselawn Road. Unless we need an access point every 50 metres, there is no point and the CPOs for gardens will just drive up the cost with no additional benefit.

The cyclists have got so obsessed with NIMBYism that all perspective has been lost. They'd rather p*ss away a pile of money just to spite some residents. It's an interesting perspective, I have to say.

daymobrew

beauf wrote: »

It interesting how crime and anti social issue are just ignored.

https://dublingazette.com/news/news-fingal/laneways-blanchardstown-29184/

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/study-looks-at-walkability-of-urban-estates-1.589287

A lot of laneways were originally opened. If they worked so well why were they closed.

Gotta love the line:
In interviews with 583 local households, the study found that while residents wanted greater ease of movement between, for example, their home and their children’s school, most were opposed to measures facilitating improved permeability in their neighbourhood.

The local authority should learn from the failings of the past. Isolated laneways can provide an unmonitored location for anti social behaviour. Overlooked access routes counter this.

One thing that keeps being ignored is that the cul de sac access points were all labelled "potential".

With respect to the anti social behaviour that prompted the closing of the Delwood laneways, what was the nature of it?

magicbastarder

beauf wrote: »

It interesting how crime and anti social issue are just ignored.

https://dublingazette.com/news/news-fingal/laneways-blanchardstown-29184/

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/study-looks-at-walkability-of-urban-estates-1.589287

A lot of laneways were originally opened. If they worked so well why were they closed.

if the issues with crime in that area amount to murder and concealing guns, i suspect they've bigger worries than the laneways.
i.e. if organised crime is a problem, and the criminals are making use of the laneways, the problem is not the laneways.

beauf

Don't know about the Delwood ones. The other ones around the general Roselawn it was burglary from memory.

Research studying the
distribution of burglary in terraced housing with rear
laneways has shown that up to 85% of entries
occurred at the back of the house.

One road I lived on had a pedestrian exit of the cul de sac. Lots of burglaries and car thefts all dramatically decreased when it was closed. They used to have a waiting car on the other side.

beauf

magicbastarder wrote: »

...if organised crime is a problem, and the criminals are making use of the laneways, the problem is not the laneways.

Its easy to test. Does it improve with them closed.

Same with the greenway. Leave them closed to get the greenway in. Then open one as test to see if there are any issues later.

Don't see why it has to be all or nothing like a bull in china shop.

blanch152

Former Former wrote: »

Opening the Delwood cul-de-sacs doesn't improve the greenway one iota. Access will already be open at each of the four Brompton cul-de-sacs and from the Roselawn Road. Unless we need an access point every 50 metres, there is no point and the CPOs for gardens will just drive up the cost with no additional benefit.

The cyclists have got so obsessed with NIMBYism that all perspective has been lost. They'd rather p*ss away a pile of money just to spite some residents. It's an interesting perspective, I have to say.

This is very funny, I know you didn't names names but I am getting hassle on the Commuting and Transport Forum because I am anti-cycle, and on here because I am pro-cycle.

Grudaire

daymobrew wrote: »

One thing that keeps being ignored is that the cul de sac access points were all labelled "potential".

People in the area are convinced that further access points are planned into Delwood in addition to those indicated on the map.

I had understood from conversations that the existing actual cul de sacs were proposed being opened, based on the map it is only proposing opening into the existing green that already give pedestrian access to a few cul de sacs...

Unless I'm missing something?

beauf

blanch152 wrote: »

This is very funny, I know you didn't names names but I am getting hassle on the Commuting and Transport Forum because I am anti-cycle, and on here because I am pro-cycle.

Its not about being pro or anti cycling. its about only seeing a narrow view of the issues. Also playing the NIMBYism card constantly.

One issue for example is people parking in estates instead of paying for parking at the train station. There are solutions. But its being ignored as NIMBYism here.

Fighting Tao

beauf wrote: »

Its not about being pro or anti cycling. its about only seeing a narrow view of the issues. Also playing the NIMBYism card constantly.

One issue for example is people parking in estates instead of paying for parking at the train station. There are solutions. But its being ignored as NIMBYism here.

Complaining about parking in an estate is not valid once the roads are handed over to the council. Residents don’t own the space outside their house unless it’s in their own driveway. Where I live is a private road and we have that issue but life is too short.

beauf

Generally it become rampant blocking drives and narrowing roads preventing access to Fire Brigade/Ambulance not to mention the increased traffic.
Lots of estates near trains stations and bus routes in D15 have had this problem. People park like morons and leave their car the for the full day or even weeks.
They can solve it be making applying to get resident parking only, or pay and display through the area, or yellow lines.

Of course if people (especially people not from the area and have almost no knowledge of the route or the area) are so dismissive of local issues expect the locals will read this, as will local politicians, and give no concessions. As they can see no one really cares about how it effects them.

magicbastarder

i understand it's already happening up on delwood green; but the way delwood is laid out, it won't make it *that* much easier for people to do so, it won't knock a significant distance off the walk any fly-parkers would face to get to the station.

Fighting Tao

If People are blocking drives then call the guards to get them towed. My father has had to do it at his house in the past when football matches were on in the stadium near him. I don’t know if it deters people in general but he can get in his gate once cleared.

As for blocking access for emergency services, that is probably another one for the cops combined with the council parking enforcement section. It’s worth contacting parking enforce repeatedly to ensure the issues are logged. It takes time to change parking behaviour but it can be done. These estates are not the first to have suffered and dealt with that issue and it shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat the greenway with.

Former Former

Grudaire wrote: »

People in the area are convinced that further access points are planned into Delwood in addition to those indicated on the map.

I had understood from conversations that the existing actual cul de sacs were proposed being opened, based on the map it is only proposing opening into the existing green that already give pedestrian access to a few cul de sacs...

Unless I'm missing something?

Yes and no.

The Brompton cul-de-sacs have always had open pedestrian access at the bottom, opening onto a green space. There is also a short laneway from the Roselawn Road onto this green.
There is no access to the canal because it's pretty securely fenced off, but a few years ago it wasn't fenced and the residents would tell you they had a hellish time (how true that is, I don't know).
The current proposal wouldn't actually change the streets, it would put two gates in the fence allowing access to the canal/greenway. I guess the green could act as a buffer between the greenway and houses.

On the other hand, the Delwood cul-de-sacs have never been open at the bottom. To create access to the greenway, they would need to take a chunk off the gardens at the bottom of the streets and the access point would be at the bottom of someone's driveway.

Remind me

As a Delwood resident and parent to young kids I submitted an objection (first for everything!). I completely disagree with the possible opening of cul de sacs which could in turn bring additional traffic to what have always been quiet and safe areas for kids to play. There is no need for additional access points.

I have lived in the area all my life and certainly would have been aware of the anti social behaviour along the canal when I was younger and would not like to see anything which could possibly bring a return to that.

I see no reason why the northside of the canal can not be explored in more detail or alternative plans for the southside be developed. IMO it is a plan thrown together by someone who has not taken into account the many factors that would lead to objection.

Local residents who I have spoken to are almost in complete agreement that if this proposal was on the northside there would be no objection. I certainly would not have objected.