Royal Canal Greenway

Remind me wrote: »

I see no reason why the northside of the canal can not be explored in more detail

in what sense? you *are* on the north side in delwood.
re the southside - it'd have to be built as a superstructure hung off the side. which would be a factor of a ten difference in the cost, i'd hazard a bet on.

magicbastarder wrote: »

in what sense? you *are* on the north side in delwood.
re the southside - it'd have to be built as a superstructure hung off the side. which would be a factor of a ten difference in the cost, i'd hazard a bet on.

Apologies - Northside/southside mixed up in my post.

Superstructure? Bit extreme. How much Difference would there be in the cost of a ‘superstructure’ compared to the cost of the bridge being built from north to south?

Remind me wrote: »

Superstructure? Bit extreme.

how else would they fit a wide enough path onto the southside?

Narrow it

Effects

Remind me wrote: »

Narrow it

Sections of the canal are barely wide enoug,h when used as a shared space, as it is.

Remind me wrote: »

Narrow it

you *have* been on the southside of the canal there?

Effects wrote: »

Sections of the canal are barely wide enoug,h when used as a shared space, as it is.

Near coolmine station yes but if it’s cleared back I would have thought the rest would be wide enough?

magicbastarder wrote: »

you *have* been on the southside of the canal there?

A few times a week with the dog (I pick up it’s s**t before others ask!!). If the southside is not an option that’s fine and I would not like to see it scrapped but the proposals for the Northside need to change.

this was posted by daymobrew earlier in the thread - you would expect two people with buggies to be able to pass each other on a greenway with loads of room to spare. not much spare here:

magicbastarder wrote: »

this was posted by daymobrew earlier in the thread - you would expect two people with buggies to be able to pass each other on a greenway with loads of room to spare. not much spare here:

I Don’t disagree.

How much of the bank can be levelled or that path built up to utilise what space is there when the trees are cut back?

As I said I am not against it at all but I do not see the need to open up cul de sacs or build the bridge which is apparently quite expensive.

re opening up the cul-de-sacs, there have been several concerns mentioned.
one is crime, and mention of open ended roads allowing for quick escape after burglarly. if this is the case, you would expect some difference in crime levels between brompton (whose cul de sacs terminate onto an open public space) and delwood (whose cul de sacs don't). i've not seen any claim or proof of this.
another is the park and ride effect for coolmine - i think the maximum possible difference in the walk involved is about 300m, a couple of minutes worth of walking. i believe there's already some of this happening around delwood green, and i suspect people would continue to do that rather than park in the cul de sacs (though i'm guessing that people are using the green are parking up against the green rather than directly outside the houses, if that choice is available to them, this may not be the case).
just in terms of general extra traffic for people getting to the greenway, i'm not sure if the expectation is that people will be driving from all around to park on the cul de sacs to use the greenway, but i can't see this being a huge factor. you might see more foot traffic from the general area to access it, but that is not really that much of a worry, surely?

Remind me wrote: »

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.

on this topic, i'm obviously not going to contradict you on it, but will just mention my experience of local opposition to a 'public interest' development.
i live on a road which will be affected by the metrolink (though not on a stretch where gardens will be CPOed).
there's a local residents association which was quickly (re)formed to lodge a bundle of objections, who are now sending in letters and objections claiming to represent the local residents.
however, from talking to several neighbours of mine, there is also a lot of support for it. but they're keeping their heads down and not saying out loud that this is their stance, they're afraid of appearing un-neighbourly and undermining the people who are leading the charge. they're just nodding and smiling when talking to people they know are anti the plans.

also, in many ways, it's easier to be anti on specifics than pro in general. people who espouse an 'i think it's a good idea and more than worth the drawbacks' will find it harder to bullet point their reasons for support than people who are drawing on specific objections.

blanch152

Former Former wrote: »

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.

It's those criminal laneways again.

Arguably, the canal is a public amenity and there should be access on both sides along its complete length.

I still see nothing in the objections other than scaremongering about criminality and NIMBYism about 20-foot walls being needed to protect privacy.

This proposal would open up that stretch of canal to a lot of people who are currently afraid to use it because it is poorly laid out. A whole lot of benefit to a huge number of people that outweighs any small risk to a very small number of people.

Remind me wrote: »

...How much of the bank can be levelled or that path built up to utilise what space is there when the trees are cut back?...

This is what I was wondering. I get no information on that in the proposal or from peoples comments. I expect you could take a measure from the fence of the railway.

Former Former

blanch152 wrote: »

It's those criminal laneways again.

Arguably, the canal is a public amenity and there should be access on both sides along its complete length.

I still see nothing in the objections other than scaremongering about criminality and NIMBYism about 20-foot walls being needed to protect privacy.

This proposal would open up that stretch of canal to a lot of people who are currently afraid to use it because it is poorly laid out. A whole lot of benefit to a huge number of people that outweighs any small risk to a very small number of people.

I'm not scaremongering, I'm explaining the facts to someone who didn't know the area. There isn't one non-factual word in that whole post.

You're really, really angry about this. Maybe chill out a bit. You'll give yourself an ulcer.

mattser

Former Former wrote: »

I'm not scaremongering, I'm explaining the facts to someone who didn't know the area. There isn't one non-factual word in that whole post.

You're really, really angry about this. Maybe chill out a bit. You'll give yourself an ulcer.

He/She is on a wind-up. Nimby... Nimby... Nimby... criminal laneways...,just childish stuff. Pop on ignore.

magicbastarder wrote: »

...you would expect some difference in crime levels between brompton (whose cul de sacs terminate onto an open public space) and delwood (whose cul de sacs don't). i've not seen any claim or proof of this....

How would anyone know. There's been all sorts of problems reported in the media with the recording of crime statistics.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda-figures-on-crime-trends-tend-to-be-very-problematic-1.3353620

Besides some (not you) people on this thread claim other areas are the same when they clearly aren't and they have zero knowledge of any of the areas they are talking about. Or indeed this section of canal path, or any of the existing Greenway. On the other side you have people exaggerating the issues, ignoring or dismissing know issues.

When both sides are misrepresenting the issues, and official information is lackluster at best, if not obtuse. What hope is there.

Mercian Pro

beauf wrote: »

This is what I was wondering. I get no information on that in the proposal or from peoples comments. I expect you could take a measure from the fence of the railway.

You could save yourself the trouble and read the Atkins Report from 2012. It looked at this in great detail and came up with a costed design for a part cantilevered, part propped Greenway along the full length of the Deep Sinking. It may have started out as a relatively simple structure but by the time Waterways Ireland and the Dublin Fire Brigade stated their requirements that it be capable of taking a 4x4 vehicle, it had become a complex and very expensive piece of engineering. Incidentally, the scheme also included a bridge between Brompton and the Greenway on the assumption that local residents might actually want to use the Greenway.

On the issue of the cul-de-sacs, the current scheme shows three "possible new access points" from Delwood and two from the parkland at Brompton. The Delwood ones can easily be omitted and the only losers will be the local residents who want to use the Greenway. Or they can be initially omitted and reviewed after a few years of use similar to what is being done at Seville Place in Dublin. I'm surprised at the two in Brompton as a much simpler design would be to run the route along the edge of the parkland with full open access. Some posters here seem to equate access to the Greenway with access to the canal and wooded area. I very much doubt that this is the intention for safety reasons if nothing else.

Finally, the concern about outsiders parking in the cul-de-sacs to access the train is puzzling. At least 90% of the houses in the area have off-street parking for two cars. Maybe I'm missing something but how many cars do residents generally have?

Near to where I live in Glasnevin, a developer has just applied for planning permission for an apartment development that is nine storeys tall. This is in an area of two-storey Edwardian houses. Now that's something to get worked up about.

Thanks for the reference to the Atkins report.

http://www.fingalcoco.ie/media/2.4.3.A.18.1%20Royal%20Canal%20Greenway%20Feasiblity%20Report%202012%20Document_r.pdf

I could be wrong but access for the emergency vehicles seems to be only as far as Castleknock Station. I only scanned it.
Also suggests the south side is 1.5m wide at its narrowest and 3.5m is the desired width.

I think 1.5 is workable for a short distance. But I don't have a problem with it on the north bank, fenced off from the locals. Thats not deal breaker for me. I don't care about their access. Thats something that could be sorted later. Likewise put privacy screen on the northside of the bridge.

Mercian Pro wrote: »

You could save yourself the trouble and read the Atkins Report from 2012. It looked at this in great detail and came up with a costed design for a part cantilevered, part propped Greenway along the full length of the Deep Sinking. It may have started out as a relatively simple structure but by the time Waterways Ireland and the Dublin Fire Brigade stated their requirements that it be capable of taking a 4x4 vehicle, it had become a complex and very expensive piece of engineering. Incidentally, the scheme also included a bridge between Brompton and the Greenway on the assumption that local residents might actually want to use the Greenway.

On the issue of the cul-de-sacs, the current scheme shows three "possible new access points" from Delwood and two from the parkland at Brompton. The Delwood ones can easily be omitted and the only losers will be the local residents who want to use the Greenway. Or they can be initially omitted and reviewed after a few years of use similar to what is being done at Seville Place in Dublin. I'm surprised at the two in Brompton as a much simpler design would be to run the route along the edge of the parkland with full open access. Some posters here seem to equate access to the Greenway with access to the canal and wooded area. I very much doubt that this is the intention for safety reasons if nothing else.

Finally, the concern about outsiders parking in the cul-de-sacs to access the train is puzzling. At least 90% of the houses in the area have off-street parking for two cars. Maybe I'm missing something but how many cars do residents generally have?

Near to where I live in Glasnevin, a developer has just applied for planning permission for an apartment development that is nine storeys tall. This is in an area of two-storey Edwardian houses. Now that's something to get worked up about.

Local resident won’t miss out on the greenway if cul de sacs remain closed because we could just walk the 5 minutes to the current access point at coolmine or just under 10 to Castleknock. I would assume most people will be doing a ‘loop’ anyway when out for a walk/run just in a shorter scale than going through laurel lodge.

The parking issues have been a long term problem in the area. Roselawn Road is very bad and certainly some residents park on the road to stop train passengers parking there, some use wheelie bins.

The top of Delwood Road gets a few cars but space is more limited due to the road layout. Delwood green gets quite a few cars as does top of glenville drive so if there is access points from the top of cul de sacs you would expect an increase in parking for the train.

Currently on the Delwood walk there is 5 cars parked on the road, at 21.30, so a lot less than 90%. Not sure on exact numbers but a lot of driveways have space for more than 1 car.

Mercian Pro wrote: »

...

Finally, the concern about outsiders parking in the cul-de-sacs to access the train is puzzling. At least 90% of the houses in the area have off-street parking for two cars. Maybe I'm missing something but how many cars do residents generally have?

Near to where I live in Glasnevin, a developer has just applied for planning permission for an apartment development that is nine storeys tall. This is in an area of two-storey Edwardian houses. Now that's something to get worked up about.

They are doing that apartments beside houses thing all over. Planning is basically allowing anything, unless there's huge local and politician opposition.

Its not parking thats an issue. Its bad parking. Its not just during the working day. Some big matches or events cause everyone to get the train and block everywhere. Narrowing some roads to single lane.

Fighting Tao

beauf wrote: »

They are doing that apartments beside houses thing all over. Planning is basically allowing anything, unless there's huge local and politician opposition.

Its not parking thats an issue. Its bad parking. Its not just during the working day. Some big matches or events cause everyone to get the train and block everywhere. Narrowing some roads to single lane.

Bad parking is an enforcement issue that every area suffers from.

this is the thing. if you live near facilities, people will come and park there. i used to live in phibsboro, and at times parking was mental. near the city, walking distance from croke park, dalymount on the doorstep, etc.
you live near a university, expect people to park nearby. if you live near a train station, ditto. it's a terrible shame - and an awful indictment of the irish love affair with cars - that people are citing 'antisocial' parking as one reason to want to refuse access to a public amenity.
especially when the public amenity will, if anything, hopefully help reduce that dependency on cars.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

....
Bad parking is an enforcement issue that every area suffers from.

Yeah I'm sure some remote farmhouse has exactly the same issues as living next door to Croke Park.

Fighting Tao

beauf wrote: »

Yeah I'm sure some remote farmhouse has exactly the same issues as living next door to Croke Park.

No need to be smart about it. I know exactly what it’s like because I live near a venue that is used a lot heavier than a Croke Park. Not as many people but a lot all the same.

It is still an enforcement issue because people are often asses about where they park.

magicbastarder wrote: »

... - that people are citing 'antisocial' parking as one reason to want to refuse access to a public amenity....

Can you access the current path. Do you do it though Laurel Lodge. Will the current access at either end be closed? No well then access is not being refused.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

beauf wrote: »

Yeah I'm sure some remote farmhouse has exactly the same issues as living next door to Croke Park.

No need to be smart about it. I know exactly what it’s like because I live near a venue that is used a lot heavier than a Croke Park. Not as many people but a lot all the same.

It is still an enforcement issue because people are often asses about where they park.

It's just a statement of fact.

You can use enforcement or simply make it less desirable to park there. Like close of the roads before an event, or make the parking paid parking.

I think people are over estimating the use of the Greenway. I've never seen a huge amount of people on the current route from Castleknock Station to Cross guns bridge. Suits me when cycling.

We talk about here like its the pope's visit.

that point could be taken by either side though - including by people who say the access should be as permeable as possible, that it's not really going to create a flood.