Heartbreak Hank wrote: » I cycled from Enfield to Kilcock on the old N4 last year. That was a very unpleasant experience, mostly due to the number of HGVs traveling a few meters away. Not nice from a noise and draft point of view and it felt pretty unsafe also.. Even on the inside of the hard shoulder you still get a fairly significant wobble from a artic doing the limit. That was probably a worst case due to a large amount of toll dodging along that stretch but in cases like that, some sort of physical separation and probably screening would be necessary I feel.
gjim wrote: » Yeah the memory of cycling on busy roads as a kid was what prompted me to suggest that a physical barrier was necessary. As are more recent experiences when walking on roads with smallish children. I also generally believe that perfect is the enemy of good where in this case perfect (for me) would be hard separation from traffic lines combined with a hedge and/or trees. The reason I thought that concrete barriers should be considered is that I had in mind the sort of temporary barriers which require no real construction - they can just be dropped from the back of a truck onto the road surface - like the barriers Dublin CC use occasionally to temporarily block streets. An incremental approach would be fine and probably the only feasible option given these are now R roads and so changes would have to be financed by local authorities. For example you could start with re-arranging the lanes and just painting/marking the separation. My next step would be to install some sort of physical concrete barrier of the type described above assuming it would be cheaper and easier than actually digging up road surface. Yeah they'd be ugly but as Hank says above - using the existing hard shoulders of these roads is unpleasant. The trade-off in terms of safety and perception of safety would be worth it I think. As budgets allow, you could augment the concrete barriers by digging out the greyway surface closest to the traffic to allow some planting. Or if you're digging up road surface anyway, replace the barriers altogether (to be re-used on further schemes) with a decent sized kerb and/or fence along with some planting.
Topgear on Dave wrote: » Enfield to Kilcock can be done along on the canal now, its absolutely excellent.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » I dont think whats outside the yellow lines on the old N4 between Enfield and Kilcock are wide enough to be described as hard shoulders. They seem to vary from <1m to a couple of hundred mm wide. There would really be little comparison between cycling that road as is and how it could be if the driving lanes were narrowed and shifted to one side and a verge and cycle lane provided on the other. I do think thought that the "greyway" concept doesn't really suit a road like this, more for lower trafficked former N roads. Such routes shouldn't have concrete barricades, other countries dont do it so why should be destroy our countryside with them? I think this greyway should be a bit of a last resort on routes where a higher degree of segregation cant be achieved, particularly those linking to greenways but where a full greenway level of path cant be extended. It should be done strategically where certain conditions are met. Roads where I would suggest that this greyway would work given road width and traffic levels would be; R132 - particularly north of Drogheda and potentially south as far as Julianstown, could link to Fingal Coastal Greenway and start a potential link to Dundalk R135 between Ashbourne and Coolquay and potentially north of Ashbourne if the new road to Kilmoon Cross happens R147 the Dublin side of Navan which could form a cycle route to the Hill of Tara R446 Kilbeggan to Moate which would link with greenways, plus potentially west of Athlone too Aughrim Former N11 south of Gorey which could link to the blossoming greenway network in the south east R639 between Fermoy and Watergrasshill
Pete_Cavan wrote: » Former N11 south of Gorey which could link to the blossoming greenway network in the south eastl
daniel_t1409 wrote: » And then linking to waterford via a destroyed south wexford line. :rolleyes: Typical.
Heartbreak Hank wrote: » I cycled from Enfield to Kilcock on the old N4 last year.
veryangryman wrote: » That road is toll-dodge capital of Ireland due to the shortish distance and heftier (than others) toll
nilhg wrote: » It is excellent but not really suitable for anyone race training or fast commuting.
serfboard wrote: » You want cycling infrastructure between Enfield and Kilcock? It's there. I'm not against greyways per se, but if we're going to do them, let's start by putting them where no existing parallel cycling infrastructure exists.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » The south Wexford line currently becomes a bit more destroyed every day, converting to greenway puts it to active use, thereby ending the destruction.
daniel_t1409 wrote: » why not put a green-way on the old track bed to macmine junction instead? Would link up with the New Ross greenway. A greenway on the SW line would completely destroy it and prevent it from ever reopening again. When the track is there it still has a (small) chance of reopening, which southeastontrack.com are campaigning for.
riddlinrussell wrote: » I haven't got a preference for a route across to Wexford myself, if it can be done via Macmine first, then I say have at it, Southeast on track need to be campaigning hard to get that route made into a greenway, otherwise the fully CIE controlled route looks all the more tempting. What is the financial argument Southeast on track are working off of? I am in favour of subsidised public transport, as long as its being paid for through sensible taxation of the wealth generated by those links, but I wouldnt be in favour of railways just reopening because they can, the route would need to at least be 'minimally' unprofitable. I know IE have been accused of intentionally trying to get some of these routes mothballed with odd scheduling etc, I'd be inclined to agree. What schedule would SEoT envisage to maximise income from the line?
daniel_t1409 wrote: » why not put a green-way on the old track bed to macmine junction instead?
A greenway on the SW line would completely destroy it and prevent it from ever reopening again. When the track is there it still has a (small) chance of reopening, which southeastontrack.com are campaigning for.
jackofalltrades wrote: » Because that's not a serious option, the route through South Wexford is. It's very unlikely that the Rosslare to Waterford line will ever be used again for regular services. It's a greenway or let it be slowly taken over, that's the choice right now.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » There is no financial argument, it is based on "wouldn't it be grand to ride by train" nostalgia rather than any real world considerations. Apart from a tiny number of people living in the immediate area, who in their right mind wants to travel via Rosslare and Bridgetown to get to Waterford?
daniel_t1409 wrote: » Not sure what you mean by 'serious option'? I am well aware that it will never be used as a railway again, noone is listening to the SEOT campaign.:( I fail to understand why so many people are ok with a railway being turned into a greenway aimed at tourists while the roads become increasingly cogged with cars and lorries and climate change is getting worse too. The only concluson I can come up with is that many people here just don't like railways or trains when they are an efficient mode of transport. It would be better if it was not turned into a greenway as it would allow for potential reopening of the line. Once the greenway is built, t will stay there forever. The macmine junction route is probably the best one for a greenway as waterford/new Ross is already being built and it's more interconnected. rant over :P
daniel_t1409 wrote: » How many people live in wexford and work in waterford, for example? 0?:rolleyes: How many cars could a proper train service take off the road?
daniel_t1409 wrote: » @Pete_Cavan I am not going to waste energy fighting with you, but: 1. It's still a railway, not a 'disused strip of publicly owned land'. Even though is has deteriorated, it can still take a train and took an inspection car just last month. 2. There are already plenty of places for tourists in wexford and there are already plenty of amenities in wexford. 3. I would agree with you about a decent bus service, but unless a frequent minibus service could be run going to waterford vis the passage east ferry, they would be going up to New Ross and not serving south wexford at all. Also buses are not a catch-all solution to public transport. 4. The majority of the MJ route is still surprisingly in CIE's ownership. Rosslare is 30km from where? 5.I know that here in ireland we have an obsession with cars, especially SUV's, but if the rail service was promoted, it WOULD be used. Also not everyone has cars, I don't. :rolleyes:
After necessary upgrades, extend or alter existing schedules to include regular South Wexford services and establish this as a viable travel option. Improve journey times on both the Rosslare-Wexford-Dublin and the Rosslare-Wexford-Waterford-Limerick lines.
daniel_t1409 wrote: » Not sure what you mean by 'serious option'?
I fail to understand why so many people are ok with a railway being turned into a greenway aimed at tourists while the roads become increasingly cogged with cars and lorries and climate change is getting worse too. The only concluson I can come up with is that many people here just don't like railways or trains when they are an efficient mode of transport.
daniel_t1409 wrote: » Whatever...
spacetweek wrote: » Creating cycle lanes on rural/semi-rural roads by putting down concrete barriers is a non-runner. How would you clean inside them? Litter/weeds etc. would gather there. Plus they'd be ugly as hell.
gjim wrote: » That's a strange objection. They could clean them the same way the clean greenways or any other paths/roads which currently do not carry general motorised traffic. If that were a reason to object to public infrastructure we'd build nothing but roads. The aesthetic cost has been acknowledged but the idea is to provide safety for users of all ages under various weather/lighting conditions, not to provide tourist photo ops. If it was the main concern, it could be cheaply alleviated by painting or using coloured concrete versions and in any case the barriers represent a compromise in terms of cost and can be considered temporary/removeable structures until budgets allow for a more permanent solution. A painted line is just not going to cut it.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » The roads with the potential for such a cycle route have numerous junctions with other roads and regular private accesses. There will be bigger risks from cars joining/turning off the road which a concrete barrier will not alleviate, if anything it makes it more dangerous by reducing lines of sight. There would be regular sections of barrier missing right where the greatest risks are, while the barrier does little at lower risk areas where cars and bikes travel parallel with no interaction. Again I'll make the point, other countries whose cycle infrastructure we should be replicating don't put concrete barriers along rural roads, I don't see why we should. It has nothing to do with tourist photo ops, even a painted concrete barrier would be awful. The options aren't limited to a painted line or a concrete barrier, grass verges are used here and all over Europe without issue, why do we suddenly have to jump to concrete barriers?
riddlinrussell wrote: » Pete, the idea would be to have grass verges, but fully putting those in place takes money that councils will be reluctant to spend, where 'temporary barriers' can be installed quickly and cheaply, then numbers using the routes increase, then you can more easily justify permanent upgrades to a grass verge. For an example, the current, very popular, Liffey cycle route is the interim Liffey cycle route, with temporary (and in some places 'ugly concrete') barriers, because the 'full' one was going to take part 8 approval and has been rumbling on for 8 or 9 years at this stage. Getting changes on the ground is more important than getting 'permanent' changes in place, as it allows people to start using it, which then drives more people to demand more changes (There was a great talk on this by Dublin Cycling Campaign recently) The idea wouldn't be to have the 'ugly' barriers for long, just as long as it takes to get funding for the Dutch style verge and path system working. If there was a temporary 'speed ramp' that could be deployed at side roads that would be a good interim solution, I suppose there must be an example of this somewhere else that is trying to rapidly roll out cycleways with the COVID restrictions.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » I genuinely don't think concrete barriers are being put forward here as a short term measure. In any case, it isn't as ease as you make out, it will effect lines of sight and would likely require more daesign work. It also wouldn't be much cheaper, several km of concrete barrier is expensive and you still have to reline the road with associated traffic management, etc. Then you have to do get rid of them to put in a verge for the permanent solution at more cost.
riddlinrussell wrote: Getting changes on the ground is more important than getting 'permanent' changes in place, as it allows people to start using it, which then drives more people to demand more changes (There was a great talk on this by Dublin Cycling Campaign recently)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
