Greenways [greenway map of Ireland in post 1]

pigtown wrote: »

https://lda.ie/state-asset-database/

For those who enjoy imagining new routes the LDA have a handy database of all state owned lands in the country

Unfortunately it doesn't show all state owned lands. The OPW control 400 acre park at Doneraile isn't shown, they also own a substantial area of farm land there, one the biggest continuous single landholdings in the country. It does however show OPWs other very large landholding, Oldbridge Estate outside of Drogheda.

Interestingly, it looks like Limerick previously bought land to extend dualing on the existing N20 another 1.5km south of existing dualed Croom bypass.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Unfortunately it doesn't show all state owned lands. The OPW control 400 acre park at Doneraile isn't shown, they also own a substantial area of farm land there, one the biggest continuous single landholdings in the country. It does however show OPWs other very large landholding, Oldbridge Estate outside of Drogheda.

Interestingly, it looks like Limerick previously bought land to extend dualing on the existing N20 another 1.5km south of existing dualed Croom bypass.

"Amgen" site in Carrigtohill missing too.

MJohnston

gjim wrote: »

Possibly a flawed idea so criticise away but...

As the motorway network has progressed there are a lot of declassified N routes which seem over specced in terms of width these days - surely the huge hard shoulders on a lot of ex-N roads are vastly under-utilised?

Why not narrow the roads by taking away the width of a single hard shoulder and separating from the traffic section by concrete median barrier to provide a safe separated cycle/walk way along these routes? Or if you wanted to be fancy closer to towns and villages, concrete planter boxes or something like that?

Obviously depending on your definition of "greenway", such routes might or might not qualify in terms of scenery but for commuters and communities, they would provide practical and useful safe routes as these road connect population centres.

Of course you would provide connections to scenic/touristic greenways where practical.

A big advantage is that the roads are already fully in public ownership so there would be little or no issues with fighting land-owners or cost for CPOs etc. Besides the median barriers, you'd need to reposition the other road markings so surely it could be done reasonably cheaply.

Tourism benefits are one thing but rural and small town life in Ireland can be very disconnected/dislocated as these roads are just too dangerous to walk or cycle on particularly when visibility is poor in the evening or when it's overcast or raining.

For a large section of the population - outside of the big cities - nearly all mobility has switched to being dependent on cars in the last few decades. It would be great to see this development reversed a bit; maybe cycling to the pub on a black nelly would make a come-back or letting kids safely walk to the nearest town/village to buy sweets or whatever would be a thing again.

Made the same suggestion a few pages back

gjim wrote: »

Possibly a flawed idea so criticise away but...

As the motorway network has progressed there are a lot of declassified N routes which seem over specced in terms of width these days - surely the huge hard shoulders on a lot of ex-N roads are vastly under-utilised?

Why not narrow the roads by taking away the width of a single hard shoulder and separating from the traffic section by concrete median barrier to provide a safe separated cycle/walk way along these routes? Or if you wanted to be fancy closer to towns and villages, concrete planter boxes or something like that?

Obviously depending on your definition of "greenway", such routes might or might not qualify in terms of scenery but for commuters and communities, they would provide practical and useful safe routes as these road connect population centres.

Of course you would provide connections to scenic/touristic greenways where practical.

A big advantage is that the roads are already fully in public ownership so there would be little or no issues with fighting land-owners or cost for CPOs etc. Besides the median barriers, you'd need to reposition the other road markings so surely it could be done reasonably cheaply.

Tourism benefits are one thing but rural and small town life in Ireland can be very disconnected/dislocated as these roads are just too dangerous to walk or cycle on particularly when visibility is poor in the evening or when it's overcast or raining.

For a large section of the population - outside of the big cities - nearly all mobility has switched to being dependent on cars in the last few decades. It would be great to see this development reversed a bit; maybe cycling to the pub on a black nelly would make a come-back or letting kids safely walk to the nearest town/village to buy sweets or whatever would be a thing again.

Yes, I have long thought this also.
It seems like the easiest win ever for a Council:
Get extra km's of cycle infrastructure built - tick box, draw down funds
Repair surface - tick box, draw down funds
Re-line road - tick box, draw down funds

gjim wrote: »

Possibly a flawed idea so criticise away but...

As the motorway network has progressed there are a lot of declassified N routes which seem over specced in terms of width these days - surely the huge hard shoulders on a lot of ex-N roads are vastly under-utilised?

Why not narrow the roads by taking away the width of a single hard shoulder and separating from the traffic section by concrete median barrier to provide a safe separated cycle/walk way along these routes? Or if you wanted to be fancy closer to towns and villages, concrete planter boxes or something like that?

Obviously depending on your definition of "greenway", such routes might or might not qualify in terms of scenery but for commuters and communities, they would provide practical and useful safe routes as these road connect population centres.

Of course you would provide connections to scenic/touristic greenways where practical.

A big advantage is that the roads are already fully in public ownership so there would be little or no issues with fighting land-owners or cost for CPOs etc. Besides the median barriers, you'd need to reposition the other road markings so surely it could be done reasonably cheaply.

Tourism benefits are one thing but rural and small town life in Ireland can be very disconnected/dislocated as these roads are just too dangerous to walk or cycle on particularly when visibility is poor in the evening or when it's overcast or raining.

For a large section of the population - outside of the big cities - nearly all mobility has switched to being dependent on cars in the last few decades. It would be great to see this development reversed a bit; maybe cycling to the pub on a black nelly would make a come-back or letting kids safely walk to the nearest town/village to buy sweets or whatever would be a thing again.

Yes, it has been discussed here before. Most of those now bypassed former N roads should be reduced to two 3.5m lanes and shifted to one side, the remaining road space should become a bi-directional cycle lane plus a footpath if space allows.

I don't see a concrete barrier as necessary, practical or even desirable. A grass verge would be good but kerb would suffice imo where space is limited. There would be limited enough traffic on such roads apart from on approach to towns but speedlimits there would be reduced. The amount on cyclists on the cycle lane would be small enough anyway and most would be cycling in the middle of the lane apart from the odd time they meet an oncoming cyclist.

gjim wrote: »

Possibly a flawed idea so criticise away but...

As the motorway network has progressed there are a lot of declassified N routes which seem over specced in terms of width these days - surely the huge hard shoulders on a lot of ex-N roads are vastly under-utilised?

Why not narrow the roads by taking away the width of a single hard shoulder and separating from the traffic section by concrete median barrier to provide a safe separated cycle/walk way along these routes? Or if you wanted to be fancy closer to towns and villages, concrete planter boxes or something like that?

Obviously depending on your definition of "greenway", such routes might or might not qualify in terms of scenery but for commuters and communities, they would provide practical and useful safe routes as these road connect population centres.

Of course you would provide connections to scenic/touristic greenways where practical.

A big advantage is that the roads are already fully in public ownership so there would be little or no issues with fighting land-owners or cost for CPOs etc. Besides the median barriers, you'd need to reposition the other road markings so surely it could be done reasonably cheaply.

Tourism benefits are one thing but rural and small town life in Ireland can be very disconnected/dislocated as these roads are just too dangerous to walk or cycle on particularly when visibility is poor in the evening or when it's overcast or raining.

For a large section of the population - outside of the big cities - nearly all mobility has switched to being dependent on cars in the last few decades. It would be great to see this development reversed a bit; maybe cycling to the pub on a black nelly would make a come-back or letting kids safely walk to the nearest town/village to buy sweets or whatever would be a thing again.

I would assume this would be easily done under section 38 rules? I think it all really comes down to political will as with anything.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Unfortunately it doesn't show all state owned lands. The OPW control 400 acre park at Doneraile isn't shown, they also own a substantial area of farm land there, one the biggest continuous single landholdings in the country. It does however show OPWs other very large landholding, Oldbridge Estate outside of Drogheda.

Interestingly, it looks like Limerick previously bought land to extend dualing on the existing N20 another 1.5km south of existing dualed Croom bypass.

Would be most useful if it pulled that OPW land in and the land of the semi-states BNM, Irish Waterways, CIE

loyatemu

I think I mentioned when this was proposed a few pages back (under the name "Greyways"): Wexford CC reduced the limit on the former N11 to 80 and local councillors immediately lobbied to have it increased back to 100. Never mind the safety or environmental benefits of the lower limit along roads which have driveways opening directly onto them, pedestrians, cyclists etc using them - we can't have people taking 5 minutes longer to get to the shops. These same councillors will no doubt fight tooth and nail against any proposal to narrow these now quiet local roads.

BrianD3

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Unfortunately it doesn't show all state owned lands. The OPW control 400 acre park at Doneraile isn't shown, they also own a substantial area of farm land there, one the biggest continuous single landholdings in the country. It does however show OPWs other very large landholding, Oldbridge Estate outside of Drogheda.

Yes it is definitely a work in progress. It also doesn't show active railways (slivers of unregistered land in PRAI) as being in state ownership yet some other CIE land (probably registered?) is shown.

As the active and disused railways are defined slivers of land, I assume that the land would have been owned by the railway company and then CIE. As opposed to being owned by the adjacent landowners with an easement over the land as with many public roads. I'm far from being well up on this though.

BrianD3 wrote: »

Yes it is definitely a work in progress. It also doesn't show active railways (slivers of unregistered land in PRAI) as being in state ownership yet some other CIE land (probably registered?) is shown.

As the active and disused railways are defined slivers of land, I assume that the land would have been owned by the railway company and then CIE. As opposed to being owned by the adjacent landowners with an easement over the land as with many public roads. I'm far from being well up on this though.

I don't know much about property rights but I was looking at the old Charleville - Patrickwell line on landdirect.ie and I see the trackbed is registered as freehold either side of the L1547. I don't know if that means the rest of it is still owned by CIE or not but there are a couple of buildings on it.

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Would be most useful if it pulled that OPW land in and the land of the semi-states BNM, Irish Waterways, CIE

Indeed. There are some IW lands identified on it but I assume not all. Including Coillte lands would be fantastic as well.

For a Cork - Limerick cycle route, someone should do a desktop study of all state lands, similar to what is being done for the Athlone Galway Greenway. I'm sure a good chunk of the route could be pulled together between using wide parts of the existing N20, potentially parts of the old rail line and other state lands and rights of way. There seems to be a path along the river either side of Croom which could be upgraded.

There are probably lots of lanes and forest roads, be they public or private with rights of way, like this;

https://www.google.ch/maps/@52.1849001,-8.5859661,567a,35y,3.9h,3.44t/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en-GB

gjim

Thanks all - I'll have a look back earlier in the thread for the greyway discussion.

Just to respond to one point:

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I don't see a concrete barrier as necessary, practical or even desirable. A grass verge would be good but kerb would suffice imo where space is limited.

I dunno - I was thinking in terms of utility for families with young children or independent teenagers or people walking with pets/dogs.

Without some sort of barrier, for example I'm not sure how enthusiastic parents would be about having their primary school age children or young teenagers use it unaccompanied - it would be as much to "protect" traffic from children as the other way around. I recently noticed that the footpath I had used to walk from the housing estate to primary school has had such barriers installed presumably to allow kids to safely walk to school.

Even as an adult, it's not comfortable to be walking or cycling where cars or particularly heavy vehicles like trucks are passing within a meter or two going at 80km/hour with only a kerb as a separator even if the number of vehicles is low.

gjim wrote: »

Thanks all - I'll have a look back earlier in the thread for the greyway discussion.

Just to respond to one point:

I dunno - I was thinking in terms of utility for families with young children or independent teenagers or people walking with pets/dogs.

Without some sort of barrier, for example I'm not sure how enthusiastic parents would be about having their primary school age children or young teenagers use it unaccompanied - it would be as much to "protect" traffic from children as the other way around. I recently noticed that the footpath I had used to walk from the housing estate to primary school has had such barriers installed presumably to allow kids to safely walk to school.

Even as an adult, it's not comfortable to be walking or cycling where cars or particularly heavy vehicles like trucks are passing within a meter or two going at 80km/hour with only a kerb as a separator even if the number of vehicles is low.

I think Pete_Cavan is largely aligned with you, he's just saying that a large constant concrete "median" type barrier isn't ideal.
They have disadvantages in terms of making people feel "locked in" to the route. If there are local floods, debris, etc, it's not easy to escape the new active transport infra. You'd need it to be intermittent, almost like the dashed white line on the road.
Planters would be great, but could be expensive.
A half-sunken kerb like you get for footpaths everywhere would be simple and effective, likely also with wands.

Two other minor things neither of you have discussed are:
The need to routinely clean the route from debris "wash" off the road. Easy to do if they're wide enough.
The need to barrier "entry" to the active transport route. Easy to do with a planter.

Given the roads in question have a motorway shadowing them, volumes of traffic, and HGVs in particular, are low. People walk and cycle along such roads all over this country and in many other countries too without issues. A grass verge is deemed sufficient in Switzerland, Holland, etc, countries whose cycle infrastructure we want to replicate. Why do we need to barricade people in? A grass verge with low level shrubs would soften the area and provide for drainage. A concrete barrier would stop a car but would create an awful unnatural environment, wands or the like wont stop a car and just get damaged and look crap. The whole point of this would be cheap, easy wins, putting in barriers just creates more complications and costs which will see nothing happen. If it is a greyway rather than greenway, there is a different level of expectation.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Given the roads in question have a motorway shadowing them, volumes of traffic, and HGVs in particular, are low. People walk and cycle along such roads all over this country and in many other countries too without issues. A grass verge is deemed sufficient in Switzerland, Holland, etc, countries whose cycle infrastructure we want to replicate. Why do we need to barricade people in? A grass verge with low level shrubs would soften the area and provide for drainage. A concrete barrier would stop a car but would create an awful unnatural environment, wands or the like wont stop a car and just get damaged and look crap. The whole point of this would be cheap, easy wins, putting in barriers just creates more complications and costs which will see nothing happen. If it is a greyway rather than greenway, there is a different level of expectation.

I'd be in favour of this, grass verges, shrubs or trees where possible, narrow the road to discourage speeding.

Zebra3

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I'd be in favour of this, grass verges, shrubs or trees where possible, narrow the road to discourage speeding.

That sounds better than some form of barrier, but something would be needed as motorists will park anywhere.

I'll be honest and say a simple paint effort would be a huge start, as far as I'm concerned.
My effort:
Remove all existing lines. Get one of those blacktop-removal machines to run a line down the road, fill the shallow trench with soil and wildflower seeds, repaint the remaining road and the job's done. Any issues?

Zebra3

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I'll be honest and say a simple paint effort would be a huge start, as far as I'm concerned.
My effort:
Remove all existing lines. Get one of those blacktop-removal machines to run a line down the road, fill the shallow trench with soil and wildflower seeds, repaint the remaining road and the job's done. Any issues?

You think motorists pay any heed to cycle lanes "protected" by a bit of paint?

Zebra3 wrote: »

You think motorists pay any heed to cycle lanes "protected" by a bit of paint?

God no.
I won't get into detail, but be assured I am under no illusions about exactly what is required. When I say "a simple paint effort would be a huge start" I'm saying I consider that to be an absolute bare minimum token gesture towards active transport. Which my local authorities aren't even capable of.

You can discuss proper design all you want, the dinosaurs near me are stuck on PFO routes for all active transport users.
They're reducing footpaths to increase the road lanes. They put anti-cycling measures on a newly-completed cycleway. So yeah, crappy death paint would be a start, out my way.

Policy should be to reduce these downgrade former National Primaries to Type 2 SC. That would be 2 x 3.5m lanes plus 0.5m hard strip either side, giving 8m wide pavement. On one side should be 0.5 - 1m grass verge and then 2.5m shared path or separate footpath and bi-directional cycling lane if more space exists. There are good stretches of former N road with 11m or more in width where this could be done.

Zebra3

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Policy should be to reduce these downgrade former National Primaries to Type 2 SC. That would be 2 x 3.5m lanes plus 0.5m hard strip either side, giving 8m wide pavement. On one side should be 0.5 - 1m grass verge and then 2.5m shared path or separate footpath and bi-directional cycling lane if more space exists. There are good stretches of former N road with 11m or more in width where this could be done.

Does any political party have this as policy?

Zebra3 wrote: »

Does any political party have this as policy?

Seeing as the roads are now R roads, it would be an issue for individual CoCos.

loyatemu

Zebra3 wrote: »

You think motorists pay any heed to cycle lanes "protected" by a bit of paint?

the main benefit of painted lines is at junctions and in heavy traffic. The majority of motorists stay to the right of the line, which means you can get up to the front of the traffic or junction. Without a marked cycle lane, you have 50% of the cars in by the kerb, and the other 50% over to the right.

For the same reason the idea of narrowing roads is a double edged sword - it does slow traffic down and reduces the opportunities for close passes, but if the traffic is bumper to bumper, you're stuck and unable to go up the inside.