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

Phil.x

Hopefully it will be like an Expressway into the city by bike, but I guess it won't.

cgcsb

Phil.x wrote: »

Hopefully it will be like an Expressway into the city by bike, but I guess it won't.

It's rough enough between ashtown and summerhill

Former Former Former

Phil.x wrote: »

Hopefully it will be like an Expressway into the city by bike, but I guess it won't.

In the mornings it will be.

On a summer evening, you'll be sharing it with joggers and families (west of Ashtown) and the local scrotes drinking cans and pelting you with stones (east of Ashtown).

L1011

Scrotes drinking cans will vanish if there's a significant increase in people using it. Broombridge station area was a no-go zone before the Luas works for instance.

Mercian Pro

cgcsb wrote: »

It's rough enough between ashtown and summerhill

All due to be upgraded by Dublin City Council and likely to be well finished before the Fingal sections as the rate they have been going.

Flinty997

Phil.x wrote: »

Hopefully it will be like an Expressway into the city by bike, but I guess it won't.

Going via the canal even before it became popular was a lot slower than just going through the park. So if you wanted speed the canal isn't it. Less so I expect since it got busy.

Still it's a nice alternative route. Especially on a summer evening.

daymobrew

Former Former Former wrote: »

On a summer evening, you'll be sharing it with joggers and families (west of Ashtown) and the local scrotes drinking cans and pelting you with stones (east of Ashtown).

Between 2003 and 2008 I used to commute along the towpath between Ashtown and Cross Guns Bridge. Never did I get any hassle from anyone. Never.

The swans near Broombridge could be aggressive because the narrow path meant you had to pass close to them.

Flinty997

They used to regularly stone the train along there. Smashing windows etc.

I personally never had any hassle cycling that route. But I never cycled it regularly. But back then it's was very quiet and a bit isolated. You'd want to be a bit smart about it.

These days it's probably very busy. Which probably slows you down, but it's not as isolated as it used to be, so much safer I assume.

Former Former Former

daymobrew wrote: »

Between 2003 and 2008 I used to commute along the towpath between Ashtown and Cross Guns Bridge. Never did I get any hassle from anyone. Never.

Ah, I may have been exaggerating for comic effect, but that section of the line has been absolutely plagued with anti-social behaviour for as long as I've been commuting into the city (24 years and counting).

In fairness, it seems to have improved since the Luas opened and hopefully more people on the greenway will mean fewer bored scrotes hanging around looking for something to amuse them - but you only need to be unlucky once.

donaghs

Mercian Pro wrote: »

All due to be upgraded by Dublin City Council and likely to be well finished before the Fingal sections as the rate they have been going.

I'm not sure if he was referring to "rough" "people" or the "surface". :pac:

I've never had any surface or people issues cycling in between Castleknock station and town. But you could certainly bump into the wrong crowd between Ashtown and Summerhill. Ive had more encounters on evening trains though , back in the day.

From the train, used to see plenty of cans drinkers , occasional stone throwers.

Polar101

Former Former Former wrote: »

Jaysus it's all happening this week

https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/royal-canal-urban-greenway

Yay, more consultation. Maybe it will be ready in the next 10 years.
I wonder if the Southwestern High speed train (at Castleknock station in the video) comes included.

daymobrew

Polar101 wrote: »

Yay, more consultation. Maybe it will be ready in the next 10 years.

I've been cycling from Carpenterstown to CETNS with my kids since 2011. We've been waiting for a safe route to school since then. They'll both be well finished primary school before anything is even started.

James 007

Former Former Former wrote: »

Jaysus it's all happening this week

https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/royal-canal-urban-greenway

Interesting I have never seen so many people fishing on that Royal Canal:pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWzIM0bhWGM&t=393s

Please note that Scrotes got paid to act normal when filming this scene:rolleyes:

Former Former Former

James 007 wrote: »

Interesting I have never seen so many people fishing on that Royal Canal:pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWzIM0bhWGM&t=393s

Please note that Scrotes got paid to act normal when filming this scene:rolleyes:

I see that canal barges are going to be our main mode of transport too. What a time to be alive!

L1011

If anything, there's less barges in that animation than there actually are now.

daymobrew

For anyone hoping that the new proposals would go ahead... Varadkar objects to greenway along Royal Canal’s north side (I don't have access to read the entire article but the title and summary is disappointing to read).

The fly through video shows trees and high fencing between greenway and Delwood Park back gardens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWzIM0bhWGM

Former Former Former

daymobrew wrote: »

For anyone hoping that the new proposals would go ahead... Varadkar objects to greenway along Royal Canal’s north side (I don't have access to read the entire article but the title and summary is disappointing to read).

The fly through video shows trees and high fencing between greenway and Delwood Park back gardens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWzIM0bhWGM

That's an incredibly biased headline and opening paragraph though.

Objecting to the Greenway on the North Bank is not the same as objecting to the Greenway.

The first paragraph reads :

"The plan to build an 8km section of the greenway alongside the Royal Canal has been held up for two years because some residents do not want a 1km section of the route to run along their back gardens on the north side of the canal"

That's not remotely true either. The hold up has nothing to do with the objections. The last consultation closed more than two years ago, you'll have to ask Fingal why it's taken them so long to come back to the table.

Edit: but it's irrelevant really, Varadkar has no more say than you or I. The Council aren't even going to allow their own councillors to vote, by all accounts. Council officials have told residents that they are not under any circumstances going to put it on the south bank. It is going ahead, one way or the other. Or at least, it's going to ABP, one way or the other.

mr potato head

From a design/useability point of view, putting it on the South bank would be a terrible idea.
Active transport relies on permeability and accessibility to function, the North back option allows access from the surrounding estates without having to send kids cycling to school via the dangerous conflict points on the roads at the two train stations.

To be honest, I feel extremely disappointed by the Fingal council members in the areas around D15. Their lack of vision for walking, cycling, and livable towns/villiages (universal design) is stark in comparison to the coastal areas of the City!!!

daymobrew

Former Former Former wrote: »

Objecting to the Greenway on the North Bank is not the same as objecting to the Greenway.

While that is true, I would not be overly surprised if FCC dropped the entire project. They were asked to split the Deep Sinking portion out and work on the rest but they bizarrely chose not to. They could have made some progress on the other sections which have less technical (and resident) challenges.

Former Former Former wrote: »

Edit: but it's irrelevant really, Varadkar has no more say than you or I. The Council aren't even going to allow their own councillors to vote, by all accounts. Council officials have told residents that they are not under any circumstances going to put it on the south bank. It is going ahead, one way or the other. Or at least, it's going to ABP, one way or the other.

This should be repeated though I'm concerned that hearing Leo's stance will make people think the greenway won't happen and they won't bother making a submission. It'll have the opposite effect on me.

mr potato head wrote: »

From a design/useability point of view, putting it on the South bank would be a terrible idea.
Active transport relies on permeability and accessibility to function, the North back option allows access from the surrounding estates without having to send kids cycling to school via the dangerous conflict points on the roads at the two train stations.

Exactly! Being able to cycle safely from Coolmine (or further west) to St Francis Xavier National School, Roselawn shopping centre and Blanch village is only possible with access points.

I would love to be able to avoid Coolmine Road and the frequent close passes like this:

Phil.x

Is the deep sink section the area where people's garden's back onto the canal and have illegally? extended and decked out their own private waterfront.
If so I can't blame them trying to hold on to it, but for the greater good of the area and local amenity it should be built. varadkar is a snake.

mr potato head

The deep sinking part is towards the Coolmine end of the section, the garden extensions are towards the Castleknock end

Codpeas

Phil.x wrote: »

Is the deep sink section the area where people's garden's back onto the canal and have illegally? extended and decked out their own private waterfront.
If so I can't blame them trying to hold on to it...

Not the first place where people have extended onto unused land. Something similar happened over time to the old railway cutting now occupied by the green line of the Luas, particularly around Balally. The legality of what they've done partly depends on when it was done.

In order to get the land back around Balally they ended up having to compulsory purchase the ends of the gardens and then they were quite ruthless in their removal of sheds/workshops that had been built there. Nice little nestegg for the residents though.

Mercian Pro

The plan that is currently out for consultation shows the Greenway running behind and below the level of the extended back gardens. Had the gardens not been extended, the level section at the top of the bank would have been the obvious and most economical route. Instead, it will have to be cut into the bank and a fair few trees and shrubs will have to be removed. AFAIK, the extended gardens have been registered with Land Registry but there is reference in the Report to ownership still residing with Waterways Ireland.

00sully

I used to live in this area. I am hearing conflicting reports on the viability of building this on the south Bank entirely. The people I know objecting have told me there have been multiple independent reports that claim its feasible whereas fingal are saying its not.

I know the land is sinking and I'm sure poses engineering challenges perhaps to the extent of making it non viable.

Does anyone have any more information on North versus South?

I can sympathise with the families on that side as most are old people and have security concerns. Also hard to balance that with the land extensions they took but not sure that if that would have changed their perspective.

I moved out of the area due to lack of infrastructure exactly like this will bring. Is it is as simple as pay a bit more and build on the south Bank?

Apparently council are refusing to entertain it at all.

daymobrew

00sully wrote: »

Does anyone have any more information on North versus South?

The Feasibility and Constraint Study document covers this.

The Executive Summary is:

This document discusses the feasibility and constraints associated with the proposal to construct the Royal Canal Urban Greenway route along the southern bank of the canal between Coolmine Train Station and Castleknock Train Station. The proposal is, in our opinion, feasible but subject to significant constraints in relation to constructability.

We would not recommend constructing the proposed greenway path from the existing southern towpath due to the lack of access for typical construction plant. It is also impractical to work from the existing railway track due to the frequency of railway traffic along this commuter line and the disturbance that would be caused to the public transportation network.

The most feasible option for construction is to work from a lower level within the canal channel. In order to accommodate this option, a platform will have to be constructed within the canal channel using pipes overlain by granular fill allowing water to flow through the platform embankment throughout the works. Canal traffic may have to be restricted during the construction works due to the presence of this platform. The construction of the platform will likely be a rolling operation which is likely to generate siltation of the canal bed, which may require control measures to be implemented.

This report does not consider wayleave permissions, ecological and environmental constraints or pollution controls. These considerations will likely require stakeholder engagement and consent before progressing to the construction phase of the works.

knockoutned

I must say from just reading the executive summary I am very underwhelmed. I would have to question the scope of the report and what it is trying to achieve. If it was to finally explain why there is no other choice but to construct on the Northside, I believe it fails to do this and just opens up more questions.

While I haven’t read the report in full, in my experience, an executive summary is where an author would include the major findings of their work and list them to support any recommendations they may make. The body of the report is used to supplement these findings with technical work. The fact that there are no decisive technical findings in the summary is telling.

As people may know, there was a report commissioned in 2012 which not only stated that the path on the Southside was feasible, it was also that reports preferred route. As a result, it seems Fingal’s hands were somewhat tide. If they state that the path is not feasible, you would have to expect that the original firm would not be happy as their expertise is being questioned.

So, the authors state that “the proposal is, in our opinion, feasible but subject to significant constraints in relation to constructability”. Coming at this as a non-engineer, but as can be seen from the above post, the two reasons noted are accessibility of machinery, and a platform required for the construction using said machinery, which to use a technical term, are both a bit meh :P These seem to be general construction issues, but should be in this day in age, easily managed.

In my opinion, if the summary said that path was feasible but would involve complex and, as a result, expensive construction work and provided a cost summary of the Southside v Northside paths showing a massive variance, I think most people would understand why the path was being constructed on the Northside. From what I have heard, the costs are not too far apart, as I understand that the difference in the budget is about 2 million (5M v 7M) between the Northside and Southside (open to correction on this). While this is not to be sniffed at, is it large enough when taken into account the full costs to construct the path from Dublin to Longford?

On the findings and firstly accessibility. Since the path is on the Southside for all of the Roselawn section, there appears to be no issue here with access for machinery. So, I think it is fair to say that any issues would be along the Delwood section, as this is where the gap between the canal and the original path starts to increase.

Would the same issues regarding accessibility not be relevant to the Northside along this section? What is the access point for typical construction plant required to construct the bridge at the quarry behind Delwood? The section of path from Coolmine road to the bridge is being cut out of the hill due to the extended gardens. In the summary it states “the most feasible option for the construction is to work from a lower level within the canal channel”. Now this is not to say that the same construction method is being considered on the Northside, however, since the topography of both sections is similar here, I would be concerned that two paths will need to be cleared along the Northside, the path itself and a path below it for the machinery? How much of the vegetation are people happy with being destroyed for the path to be constructed?

Regarding the second point on the platform, I’m actually embarrassed that this was included as a major finding, as surely they could come up with a solution that would allow work to be completed from a lower level, help with accessibility of machinery and, if required could be moved towards Castleknock to ensure the canal remains open. A quick YouTube search shows the following for example. I am sure there are better examples out there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEX6_KkWGUk

Regardless on which side the path show go, at least the people who are responsible for the project should try and be transparent and use every option available to get support for the project. But this is disingenuous, as the reasons for the being against the Southside, could be used as a reason as why it shouldn’t be constructed on the Northside.

Chrisam

"I know the land is sinking and I'm sure poses engineering challenges"

Where is there a reference to this? The name 'Deep Sinking' refers to a cutting in the canal, instead of putting in a lock.

Former Former Former

Codpeas wrote: »

Not the first place where people have extended onto unused land. Something similar happened over time to the old railway cutting now occupied by the green line of the Luas, particularly around Balally. The legality of what they've done partly depends on when it was done.

There are two separate stretches of land involved. At the Castleknock end, the houses on the Roselawn Road apparently got 99 year leases on the land up to the water to stop the land from getting overgrown.

Up at the Delwood end, some of the residents bought the land, others seem to have simply taken it, but either way it's theirs now.

Trying to CPO all this would cost a lot and probably delay the whole thing even more.

00sully

@ned that is an almighty knockout :pac:

I think all in all, taking the easier option here is justified. In my experience public projects that exhibit potential complexity where a simpler option exists providing the exact same functionality it should be taken. Hands down. Managing engineering projects is hard. Estimating them harder and it get's even more difficult and less certain with increasing complexity. With public projects this typically adds a ton of more time and a large cost multiplier. Look at the children's hospital.

You downplay a 40% difference in cost that in all likelihood would be a lot more. A lot more.

knockoutned wrote:

I’m actually embarrassed that this was included as a major finding, as surely they could come up with a solution that would allow work to be completed from a lower level

but...

knockoutned wrote:

While I haven’t read the report in full...

knockoutned wrote:

A quick YouTube search shows the following for example. I am sure there are better examples out there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEX6_KkWGUk

A "quick youtube search" and problem solved? I doubt we have many of these "floating" around for use. But sure we can import one at the expense of the taxpayer to satisfy the houses on that side. And all because they stole land that wasn't theirs in the first place.

knockoutned wrote:

How much of the vegetation are people happy with being destroyed for the path to be constructed?

The same residents that uprooted acres of the ecosystem for their own personal use are now playing the environmental card with regards to removal of vegetation. Absolutely shameful and hypocritical behaviour. How much are they willing to destroy? Only when doing it themselves I guess and all without any consultation with anyone :rolleyes:

knockoutned wrote:

As people may know, there was a report commissioned in 2012 which not only stated that the path on the Southside was feasible, it was also that reports preferred route

I don't think anyone doesn't think the south is preferable or indeed feasible. It is disingenuous to imply as the tone here does, that the council are actively doing this out of some form of malice or laziness. This has been going on for almost a decade. They would surely take the gut-shot straight down the south if they could.

knockoutned wrote:

If they state that the path is not feasible, you would have to expect that the original firm would not be happy as their expertise is being questioned.

And if they are not happy so what? They have no skin the game until they go to tender for it and their "easy" solution invariably is 5-10x cost and takes 5-10x longer. I've been involved in public tenders. Everyone downplays complexity and cost.

knockoutned wrote:

Coming at this as a non-engineer

I am only a software engineer :pac: but intuitively the south side just looks like a massive pain in the hoop

Emerging-Preferred-Route-Sheet-10-of-12-cross-LL.png?w=600&ssl=1

Emerging-Preferred-Route-Sheet-10-of-12-cross-LL.png?w=600&ssl=1

I just can't see how that is going to be only 40% more difficult/costly build without disrupting trains and all sorts

A lot of the concerns of the residents boil down to:

1. Privacy - so give back the land you stole and build your wall back the way it was
2. Security - any evidence there will be an issue here? Last year a couch was found tucked away under the brush about 20 feet from these houses with syringes all around. An open lit space would surely remove this element and increase security.
3. Ecology - pfft as above. Spouting this line should be an absolute embarrassment to the residents (and I know the chief leader in this regard who had no problem with his land grab)

But while they dig their heels in the 99.9% continue to have no decent amenity to safely commute to town, get exercise in a nice environment and get out of the car! It was too late for me, cost me an arm and a leg to move not to mention moving away from family and friends. This was a large factor in me abandoning the entire area. Sick. :mad:

No goalposts on the green either Ned! Sure they'd attract all sorts to the green - we can't have that :eek:

daymobrew

In my opinion the route options report rules out a south side option because Irish Rail won't guarantee that they'd not damage the structure:

Any infrastructure such as anchors below the retained ground level (railway embankment) could possibly be severed during the installation of future overhead infrastructure required for the Dart + West scheme. Permanent anchors under the railway are a poor idea. IE cannot guarantee that these anchors are not going to be severed at some stage in the future including by piling for overhead stanchions.

There's great usage figures for the Baldoyle Greenway - 1296 per day average, increasing to 1681 at the weekend. They were for January and February 2021. I would expect that those figures are even higher when the weather improved.