Royal Canal Greenway

Polar101 · 26-05-2021 10:50pm

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 · 27-05-2021 3:14pm

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 · 04-06-2021 12:22am

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 · 04-06-2021 8:19pm

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 · 04-06-2021 9:34pm

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

daymobrew · 06-06-2021 3:19pm

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 · 06-06-2021 4:14pm

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 · 06-06-2021 7:36pm

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 · 06-06-2021 8:55pm

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 · 06-06-2021 9:36pm

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 · 06-06-2021 9:41pm

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

Codpeas · 10-06-2021 9:04pm

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 · 11-06-2021 7:52pm

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 · 12-06-2021 12:53pm

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 · 12-06-2021 1:39pm

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 · 12-06-2021 9:43pm

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 · 12-06-2021 10:48pm

"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 · 13-06-2021 3:35pm

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 · 14-06-2021 10:12pm

@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 · 14-06-2021 11:08pm

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.

L1011 · 15-06-2021 12:00am

Hanging stuff off a 164+ year old railway embankment isn't particularly sensible in any case.

Chrisam · 15-06-2021 9:49am

Regardless where it goes, Waterways Ireland states the Greenway:

"as a recreation trail for a wide range of users and abilities, the Royal Canal Greenway is best appreciated as a leisurely ride with an emphasis on the journey instead of the destination." (Waterways Ireland's Royal Canal Greenway FAQ doc.)

This doesn't tally with FCC's focus on using it for Active Travel/Eurovelo routes. Wherever it is (eventually) put, I can see a clash between the commuters/serious cyclists and everyone else.

mr potato head · 15-06-2021 10:25am

Active travel doesn't mean it's built 30kph cyclists, it means all types of cyclists from kids going to school to retirees visiting friends.

We need to get away from the idea of commuter cyclists being those on racing bikes, there will be some of these types of users, but clubs will stay away from the greenway (after initial interest) and will mostly stick to traditional club ride routes because of potential conflict.
City bikes will be the main users like in mainland Europe, most current commuters use fast bikes the interaction with traffic requires it which won't be the case as better infrastructure develops and we are cycling for short trips more often.

Active travel by all demographics and ability is precisely the reason that the South Bank only option is unsuitable. Permeability is key to cycling infrastructure and that option has none, where the North bank option does.

Former Former Former · 15-06-2021 2:40pm

00sully wrote: »

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)

Maybe some of the residents are using this as a red herring... but I don't live near the greenway and the ecological impact is my main beef with it. (Edit: I live in Carpenterstown but not close enough to the canal that it will make any direct odds to me which side it's on).

I think there's a wonderful irony in calling something a greenway, then sending a bulldozer in to remove all the green stuff. What some residents did or did not do with their gardens doesn't change the fact that the canal is home to all sorts of foxes, squirrels, bats, birds, etc, and ripping up all the trees will have a huge impact on them, as does having 24/7 lighting.

Now, Fingal and Waterways could offset this to a fairly significant extent by closing off the existing towpath on the southern side and letting that return to nature over time. But they won't do that either because they don't give a f**k about it. They haven't even bothered to explain why.

They're deeply, deeply incompetent when it comes to environmental protection and I will be letting ABP know that when the time comes.

mr potato head · 15-06-2021 5:24pm

Former Former Former wrote: »

I think there's a wonderful irony in calling something a greenway, then sending a bulldozer in to remove all the green stuff. What some residents did or did not do with their gardens doesn't change the fact that the canal is home to all sorts of foxes, squirrels, bats, birds, etc, and ripping up all the trees will have a huge impact on them, as does having 24/7 lighting.

Now, Fingal and Waterways could offset this to a fairly significant extent by closing off the existing towpath on the southern side and letting that return to nature over time. But they won't do that either because they don't give a f**k about it. They haven't even bothered to explain why.

They're deeply, deeply incompetent when it comes to environmental protection and I will be letting ABP know that when the time comes.

There is a consultation page available on the Fingal Co Co website. I'm very much in support of the greenway and the North bank for accessibility reasons, but I will be raising the issue of habitat destruction, rewilding areas as you mentioned and the use of native tree and plant life in any replanting. This is also a place to raise your concerns.

I believe some of the boardwalk through part of the North Bank is to reduce impact in this area, but yes developers/cc's have a poor reputation and heavy hand when it comes to works.

I would also encourage people who support the development to say so, these portals tend to focus on the negative or make it seem like there is a much greater number against the plan. Voicing support is important to get a genuine picture.
I believe there is also a survey running until early July where this can be done.

00sully · 15-06-2021 7:06pm

Former Former Former wrote: »

Maybe some of the residents are using this as a red herring... but I don't live near the greenway and the ecological impact is my main beef with it. (Edit: I live in Carpenterstown but not close enough to the canal that it will make any direct odds to me which side it's on).

I think there's a wonderful irony in calling something a greenway, then sending a bulldozer in to remove all the green stuff. What some residents did or did not do with their gardens doesn't change the fact that the canal is home to all sorts of foxes, squirrels, bats, birds, etc, and ripping up all the trees will have a huge impact on them, as does having 24/7 lighting.

Now, Fingal and Waterways could offset this to a fairly significant extent by closing off the existing towpath on the southern side and letting that return to nature over time. But they won't do that either because they don't give a f**k about it. They haven't even bothered to explain why.

They're deeply, deeply incompetent when it comes to environmental protection and I will be letting ABP know that when the time comes.

I don't like that at all either I was only pointing out the hypocrisy of the residents argument.

However, I can live with some bulldozing to facilitate greener modes of transport. It's not like putting a road through it or building a massive housing estate on parkland. This should encourage an uptick in commuting to town via cycling.

It should be offset 100% or as close to as possible.

Mercian Pro · 16-06-2021 12:52pm

Excellent response 00Sully on 14/6.

Out of curiosity, I went back and looked at the 2012 Atkins Report to see what they had to say about the north bank option at the Deep Sinking. The answer - precisely nothing. Of the four options considered for this section, three involved various complicated and expensive engineering "solutions" for widening the southern towpath while the fourth proposed diverting the Greenway through adjoining residential areas. Maybe they felt constrained by the brief they were given "to examine the engineering feasibility of upgrading the existing towpath" (my underlining) or maybe they couldn't think outside the box.

PhoenixParker · 16-06-2021 1:44pm

Mercian Pro wrote: »

Excellent response 00Sully on 14/6.

Out of curiosity, I went back and looked at the 2012 Atkins Report to see what they had to say about the north bank option at the Deep Sinking. The answer - precisely nothing. Of the four options considered for this section, three involved various complicated and expensive engineering "solutions" for widening the southern towpath while the fourth proposed diverting the Greenway through adjoining residential areas. Maybe they felt constrained by the brief they were given "to examine the engineering feasibility of upgrading the existing towpath" (my underlining) or maybe they couldn't think outside the box.

They weren't paid to think outside the box. They were paid to write a report fulfilling the brief.

The brief was probably written that way to avoid wasting time on options that were clearly less favourable.

Mercian Pro · 16-06-2021 5:32pm

PhoenixParker wrote: »

The brief was probably written that way to avoid wasting time on options that were clearly less favourable.

Please read https://consult.fingal.ie/en/system/files/materials/19709/Feasibility%20and%20Constraint%20Study%20%28GDG%29.pdf and then explain why the north bank option is less favourable.

knockoutned · 16-06-2021 8:27pm

Firstly, can we move past this notion that the land used for the extended gardens in Delwood is an issue. Some posters are taken this personally and this seems to a major reason why they want the path on the Northside. Look, it is true that some houses did not pay for the land, and there is nowhere where this should be allowed, but that is an issue between them and Waterways Ireland. But it’s a red herring as enough houses did pay and the fact that they did, means that the boundary would still be where it is now. Also, I have read little or no criticism of Waterways Ireland selling this land / chasing residents, it’s all the resident’s fault. As always, no forward planning.

Secondly, this land was mainly scrub land consisting primarily of nettles and briars, which grew on the rubble from constructing the estate. Yes, some houses cut down trees that grew there, but it was nowhere near the level of destruction that will need to happen to construct the path. The main tree line was always at the edge of the slope and continued down to the canal, while the area where one one of the bridges will be constructed at the quarry has been left untouched for decades and goes all the way to the original boundary with Delwood. I agree with both Former and 00Sully that there needs to offsetting, if the plan is to cut all this down.

On the barge, why would there be any need to “import” one when Waterways Ireland have loads of them that they use regularly to maintain the existing canal network, just google Waterways Ireland workboats. I was just using the video to illustrate what could be done

Finally, with the plan for the Northside, there is a requirement to construct two bridges, one to be an "architectural masterpiece"! Are you as confident that these will not cost more. There seems to be little or no conversation on these. What is also concerning is that Fingal do not have a good record constructing cycling / pedestrian bridges. The footbridge at Coolmine station is an absolute travesty. Yes, it serves its purpose as you can cross the canal, but it such a cheap piece of junk. How is it so noisy! And nothing has been done to address it since it was installed.

It just seems that any potential issue with the construction on the Southside are taken as sacrosanct, while the same issues are dismissed and not important when it comes to the construction on the Northside. And to me, this is a big problem.

BTW, 00Sully, I take it that you moved out of Dublin and Ireland to your Utopia where the city planners are competent and know what they are doing by following proven best practices

Chrisam · 16-06-2021 10:53pm

I wonder how many of the posters here, have walked the towpath from Coolmine to Castleknock? I have, right through spring into summer and the north bank is a glorious wilderness for almost a kilometre, of the 1.55kms from Coolmine train station to Castleknock train station. Foxes, birdsong, hawthorns etc.

I don't care about the residents' gardens, at Delwood or Roselawn - that is just a smokescreen, to hide the fact that FCC are planning a habitat destruction, of 30+ years.

As we can see from the different 'expert' reports, documents can be made to say anything they are commissioned to do. Walk that stretch and see it for yourself. One side of the canal is rich with biodiversity, the other has the towpath. It's as simple as that. And ask FCC why their most up to date biodiversity plan is 2010-2015.

mr potato head · 17-06-2021 11:47am

knockoutned wrote: »

Some posters are taken this personally and this seems to a major reason why they want the path on the Northside.

I have seen this as a secondary conversation, the main points raised here for the suitability of the North bank is permeability for the local community and the engineering challenges of the South bank.
Should the greenway be placed wholly on the south bank there is no safe way to access the infrastructure from Castleknock train station to Coolmine for a large section of Blanchardstown, going against current design principles for cycling/walking infrastructure.

Let's take the example of a young person from Delwood/Brompton/Roselawn/Hazel Lawn/Rushbrook etc. looking to switch from car/bus to active travel to get to St Dominics or St Declans in Cabra (5-6km by bike), in a south bank only scenario there is no way to use the infrastructure without using currently hostile public roads at busy intersections.

These are intersections where I am regularly close/punishment passed by drivers and they are completely unsuitable for a 12-year-old cycling to school... this is who we are trying to build safe cycling infrastructure (freedom) for, not cyclists like me (although I'll welcome it).

knockoutned wrote: »

Finally, with the plan for the Northside, there is a requirement to construct two bridges, one to be an "architectural masterpiece"! Are you as confident that these will not cost more. There seems to be little or no conversation on these.

And a complex cantilevered boardwalk is the simpler and lower risk?

"Option A and Option B are not suitable for construction as the installation of an embedded retaining wall. These options would adversely affect health and safety, temporary works construction, cost, programme, potential for disruption to Irish Rail, noise and vibration. DBFL Option C may be feasible but would require a robust geotechnical design for both the temporary works and permanent works and also a complex construction methodology which would result in a prolonged programme."

Option C - "the installation of the anchors requires specialised access to the site, whilst the lifting and placement of the modular blocks would be challenging. In addition, the ground conditions beneath the structure would have to be reviewed particularly in relation to global stability of the slope beneath both the railway line and the proposed greenway structure."..."Excavation in close proximity to the railway line may pose a risk of destabilising the slope beneath the railway line."

I would see this as high risk with the potential for huge disruption to rail services, hidden costs or even embankment collapse.
If there is an alternative option, with wider social benefits, like the North Bank it should be prioritised for further development.
.

mr potato head · 17-06-2021 12:08pm

Chrisam wrote: »

I wonder how many of the posters here, have walked the towpath from Coolmine to Castleknock? I have, right through spring into summer and the north bank is a glorious wilderness for almost a kilometre, of the 1.55kms from Coolmine train station to Castleknock train station. Foxes, birdsong, hawthorns etc.

I don't care about the residents' gardens, at Delwood or Roselawn - that is just a smokescreen, to hide the fact that FCC are planning a habitat destruction, of 30+ years.

As we can see from the different 'expert' reports, documents can be made to say anything they are commissioned to do. Walk that stretch and see it for yourself. One side of the canal is rich with biodiversity, the other has the towpath. It's as simple as that. And ask FCC why their most up to date biodiversity plan is 2010-2015.

Regularly, and as you say it's wonderful. Everything possible must be done to protect as much of this as possible during construction and to replace/improve habitats (for example rewilding the South Bank) afterwards.

Yet I look around the rest of our area and it's swamped with cars. People sitting in queues of cars all around the area do simple tasks like go to the local shop or visit friends a couple of estates over, speeding through estates like mine to drop off kids in the morning, abanding cars on the pavement where they block those with mobility or vision challenges.

Kids can't safely move independently like I could when I grew up (and they still can in places like Denmark/Netherlands). Older people have to rely on cars too as they might not be confident enough to cycle on the roads.

The little slice of wilderness is a distraction from the reality of the car-focused infrastructure in the whole country which is stripping vast amounts more rich habitats to enable car use than the North Bank ever will for the greenway. Just look at the abomination that was suggested to add extra lanes to the N3?

Former Former Former · 17-06-2021 1:23pm

mr potato head wrote: »

Regularly, and as you say it's wonderful. Everything possible must be done to protect as much of this as possible during construction and to replace/improve habitats (for example rewilding the South Bank) afterwards.

This is the problem though. What you're talking about isn't remotely on anyone's agenda.

Fingal have expressly and repeatedly said that the south bank towpath will remain open. It will not be rewilded.

Fingal want a 4-metre wide path between Coolmine and Castleknock. To allow for access for equipment, fencing, electrics, they'll have to cut a swathe of 6 to 8 metres along the whole length. The lads won't be going in with secateurs and trowels to ensure they don't disturb any habitat, they'll be going in with a bulldozer and clearing it to bare earth.

Now, why it has to be 4-metres when the rest of the greenway is nothing like as wide, I'm not sure.

Fingal will tell us that they're going to plant X trees and they'll treat it all with sensitivity but it's bollocks. They simply don't have the competence or interest to do so. This stretch of canal is unique precisely because it's been left alone for 30 or 40 years. Even if Fingal do all this planting, it will take years to grow and then every spring, the lads will arrive along and prune it all back. In the meantime, all the animals will have died.

It's an incredible price to pay but I know I'm wasting my breath. Neither Fingal nor Waterways Ireland give a f**k.

mr potato head · 17-06-2021 1:52pm

I won't prolong an argument as I've said my piece, but FYI 4m is narrow in comparison to the recommendations for high traffic cycling infrastructure, the Rural Cycleway Design Standards from Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) which is 5m minimum.

The standards state that 4m "values will satisfy the core design principles but will provide a minimum acceptable quality of service.". That is not taking into account of the proposed shared space for the greenway.

knockoutned · 17-06-2021 3:52pm

Just on this, people from Delwood/Brompton would access it from either Coolmine, or Castleknock train stations, while people from Hazel Lawn/Rushbrook would technically have to access it going through Blanchardstown village, as there are no cycle access to the Roselawn Road from these estates, only pedestrian walkways. In an ideal scenario, they should be able to cycle down a Tolka greenway and join at the canal path at either Ashtown, or continue to Broombridge.

But staying with this, what about someone living in any estate off Auburn Avenue or Beechpark Avenue or the new houses in the old race course who also attend these schools. Where should they access the path? I believe currently the only access is at the 12th lock, which is a mess due to construction at the tennis club and Ashtown, which at that stage you may as well stay on the Navan Road. This path has been constructed and been in use for years and yet no work on accessibility has been made.

daymobrew · 17-06-2021 4:26pm

knockoutned wrote: »

I believe currently the only access is at the 12th lock, which is a mess due to construction at the tennis club and Ashtown, which at that stage you may as well stay on the Navan Road. This path has been constructed and been in use for years and yet no work on accessibility has been made.

The works at Castleknock Tennis Club are nearly finished. Even now it's grand - I use it twice a day to bring my child to CETNS via the tunnel/bridge from 12th Lock.

You *could* get from Phoenix Park Racecourse to the towpath via Navan Road Parkway train station but it's a *hack* to say the least - go through this gap in the hedge, up some steps to the eastbound platform and then up lift/steps and down lift/steps to westbound platform and the exit. When that towpath was being upgraded I suggested giving access to the train station but I've found that if I include something in a submission is a guarantee that it won't be done. :rolleyes:

I've use the cycle track along Navan Road from Phoenix Park Racecourse and onto Old Navan Road and to 12th Lock a number of times. As a family it is fine and better than going via the train station or Ashtown.

Former Former Former wrote: »

In the meantime, all the animals will have died.

It's an incredible price to pay but I know I'm wasting my breath. Neither Fingal nor Waterways Ireland give a f**k.

Road building probably ploughs through a lot more animal habitats.
We need a transport modal shift away from cars. We should not need to build greenways but motorists seem to be incapable of sharing existing road space with vulnerable road users so we have to physically protect vulnerable road users from motor vehicles. Existing roadways have extensive permeability but they are not safe for everyone.

mr potato head · 17-06-2021 5:06pm

knockoutned wrote: »

Just on this, people from Delwood/Brompton would access it from either Coolmine, or Castleknock train stations, while people from Hazel Lawn/Rushbrook would technically have to access it going through Blanchardstown village, as there are no cycle access to the Roselawn Road from these estates, only pedestrian walkways. In an ideal scenario, they should be able to cycle down a Tolka greenway and join at the canal path at either Ashtown, or continue to Broombridge.

But staying with this, what about someone living in any estate off Auburn Avenue or Beechpark Avenue or the new houses in the old race course who also attend these schools. Where should they access the path? I believe currently the only access is at the 12th lock, which is a mess due to construction at the tennis club and Ashtown, which at that stage you may as well stay on the Navan Road. This path has been constructed and been in use for years and yet no work on accessibility has been made.

The bridge at Castleknock train station was recently discussed at a council meeting and described as probably the most hostile/dangerous areas for vulnerable road users in the area. I'd agree, I've been physically pushed aside by cars who want to get by and won't wait, not a child or disability-friendly access point at all.

There should be proper cycle access across the greens at Hazel Lawn to Roselawn and the kissing gate on the green should be removed too as it is not wheelchair or cargobike friendly.

I believe that there are plans for a Castleknock-Dunsink cycle path (maybe the old hamilton way), that might provide more access for the Castleknock area. But the Castleknock Manor > Navan Rd Parkway probably should be opened up fully to the greenway as it links active and public transport.

Hopefully there will be a network developing in the area over the next 5-10 years making active travel safer in D15: 6 cycle lane projects planned for Dublin 15 area over the next 5 years.

Former Former Former · 21-06-2021 9:23am

daymobrew wrote: »

Road building probably ploughs through a lot more animal habitats.
We need a transport modal shift away from cars. We should not need to build greenways but motorists seem to be incapable of sharing existing road space with vulnerable road users so we have to physically protect vulnerable road users from motor vehicles. Existing roadways have extensive permeability but they are not safe for everyone.

This greenway won't result in any fewer roads being built though. Building this might put fewer cars on the road, a safer route for cyclists (good things, obviously) but we'll still need the same roads at the end of it all.

But that's not really my point. You're arguing the merits of the greenway, but I agree it will be great to have. I just think it could have been done a lot better from an ecological perspective.

Fingal have looked at this from every angle that suits their chosen proposals; permeability, engineering, width of path etc. - but have taken absolutely zero account of environmental factors. They've just completely ignored that whole aspect of it because they don't want to ask any questions they might not like the answers to.

Their approach is to finalise the route, and THEN do an environmental impact assessment. That's ridiculous because even if they find a colony of unicorns in the undergrowth, they'll still have to proceed per the plan because it will be too late to change course. And they know that - in fact, they're counting on it.

21-06-2021 8:16pm

What I don't understand about the plans is if it's a greenway from Dublin to Galway, and it must be connected, then why shoe-horn the Dublin part in along the canal just because it's the canal?

Why not consider an alternative route beginning at the Phoenix Park, through Luttrellstown and Westmanstown and connecting with the rest of the greenway there?

Its obviously not an issue that the route must be along the canal, because the proposed route already diverges from that.

If I was involved in any of cycling groups who currently cycle the back roads along Westmanstown and Luttrellstown that's what I'd be angling for.

Dublin councils can't control people's anti-social behaviour at the Grand Canal, where it's entirely in the open, I don't expect Fingal to fare any better, where cover will be provided for those engaging in that behaviour.

Also just on the engineering design of it, if the elevated part is anything like the new tin-roof bridge at Coolmine then it should be scrapped on that basis alone.

Seth Brundle · 21-06-2021 8:22pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If I was involved in any of cycling groups who currently cycle the back roads along Westmanstown and Luttrellstown that's what I'd be angling for.

Cycling groups are unlikely to use the greenway to any meaningful extent.
It's really intended for tourism and commuting, not sport cycling.

21-06-2021 8:42pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Cycling groups are unlikely to use the greenway to any meaningful extent.
It's really intended for tourism and commuting, not sport cycling.

Tourism and commuting? On your left the historic 1960's housing estates of Dublin 15, on your right the historic 1980's housing estates of Dublin 15 and in front of you a commuter furiously cycling to get home, so you better get out of his way.

PhoenixParker · 21-06-2021 8:52pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Tourism and commuting? On your left the historic 1960's housing estates of Dublin 15, on your right the historic 1980's housing estates of Dublin 15 and in front of you a commuter furiously cycling to get home, so you better get out of his way.

It's a route not a destination. I can absolutely see cycle touring departing Dublin being a popular tourist activity.

German tourists, pick up a bike in the docks and meander along to Mullingar, stopping for snacks, meals, pints and sleep. Hop on the train back after a day or two. Heck I can even see Irish people doing it. Potter to Maynooth as a day trip or further and make a weekend of it.

L1011 · 21-06-2021 9:50pm

There are already Irish people doing Maynooth to Enfield where there's a simple one-way rental available. Grab the train back.

I know a group of Finglas/"Glasnevin" lads, mid 50s, who did a canal walk to Maynooth (with pints at Ashtown, only place there's a very convenient pub currently), more pints in Maynooth and train back as a sort of challenge in Summer '19 - they all made it amazingly.

mr potato head · 21-06-2021 9:56pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Tourism and commuting? On your left the historic 1960's housing estates of Dublin 15, on your right the historic 1980's housing estates of Dublin 15 and in front of you a commuter furiously cycling to get home, so you better get out of his way.

On your left schools where children could cycle to... on your right the shop it's easier to cycle to than drive... on your left the historic Dunsink Observatory established in 1785.

We are not devoid of interesting landmarks or reasons to hop on a bike

Mercian Pro · 21-06-2021 11:19pm

Deleted User wrote: »

What I don't understand about the plans is if it's a greenway from Dublin to Galway, and it must be connected, then why shoe-horn the Dublin part in along the canal just because it's the canal?

It's not just the Dublin to Galway Greenway but also the Royal Canal Greenway to Longford and Cloondara not to mention EuroVelo Route 2. Are you seriously suggesting that it should be diverted to a totally different route because it runs behind the gardens of 20 houses in Delwood Park?

donaghs · 24-06-2021 7:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

What I don't understand about the plans is if it's a greenway from Dublin to Galway, and it must be connected, then why shoe-horn the Dublin part in along the canal just because it's the canal?

Why not consider an alternative route beginning at the Phoenix Park, through Luttrellstown and Westmanstown and connecting with the rest of the greenway there?

Its obviously not an issue that the route must be along the canal, because the proposed route already diverges from that.

If I was involved in any of cycling groups who currently cycle the back roads along Westmanstown and Luttrellstown that's what I'd be angling for.

I'm assuming they choose the Royal Canal as part of the Dublin-Galway greenway as there's an existing route and rough path in place, going mostly in that direction, which just needs to be tarmaced.
(BTW The Royal Canal was once planned to be turned into a Motorway heading West out of Dublin https://randall.ie/unfinished-dublin/?page=2)

Similarly the Mullingar to Athlone greenway section utilises an old railway line.

AFAIK, there is no such easy option on the Galway to Athlone section. Farmers etc will have to allow the route across their land.

A greenway along the Strawberry Beds would be great idea IMHO, but similarly, I assume very hard to achieve due to land ownership issues.

mr potato head wrote: »

On your left schools where children could cycle to... on your right the shop it's easier to cycle to than drive... on your left the historic Dunsink Observatory established in 1785.

We are not devoid of interesting landmarks or reasons to hop on a bike

And the Deep Sinking has both history and nice scenery.

Mercian Pro wrote: »

It's not just the Dublin to Galway Greenway but also the Royal Canal Greenway to Longford and Cloondara not to mention EuroVelo Route 2. Are you seriously suggesting that it should be diverted to a totally different route because it runs behind the gardens of 20 houses in Delwood Park?

I don't think he mentioned the gardens at Delwood?

RapaNui · 26-06-2021 4:37pm

New to this, but there appear to be some residents in the adjacent estates who DO support the greenway proposal for the North Bank between Castleknock and Coolmine (despite what the noise might tell you).

Some of them have done an analysis of the proposal, and a rebuttal of residents objections. As well as a detailed guide on how to submit your observations to the public consultation and local reps:

https://bit.ly/LovelyGreenway

https://twitter.com/MyLovelyGrnway

Mercian Pro · 26-06-2021 9:01pm

RapaNui wrote: »

New to this, but there appear to be some residents in the adjacent estates who DO support the greenway proposal for the North Bank between Castleknock and Coolmine (despite what the noise might tell you).

Around the time of the last consultation, I was walking around the Delwood/Brompton area and taking photos of the northern bank where I could. I became aware that I was being watched and followed by a woman and prepared to defend myself for nosing around a quite residential area. I was pleasantly surprised at her reaction when I explained I was working on a submission supporting the northern option. She lived in Delwood and was very enthusiastic about the possibility of being able to access the Greenway from the end of her road. Unfortunately she felt unable to express her views locally as there was very much a neighbourhood line of supporting the twenty or so residents whose gardens backed on to the northern bank.
Great to see this time she is not alone and that's one very convincing analysis for anyone working on a submission.

Former Former Former · 26-06-2021 9:03pm

RapaNui wrote: »

New to this, but there appear to be some residents in the adjacent estates who DO support the greenway proposal for the North Bank between Castleknock and Coolmine (despite what the noise might tell you).

Some of them have done an analysis of the proposal, and a rebuttal of residents objections. As well as a detailed guide on how to submit your observations to the public consultation and local reps:

https://bit.ly/LovelyGreenway

https://twitter.com/MyLovelyGrnway

Where does it say where they live? I don't see that.

Look, that's very nicely presented but it is essentially a copy and paste of the Council claims, I'm not sure it really counters the arguments against the North Bank. It's an incredibly slanted viewpoint and some of the claims don't really make sense, some are outright lies (which is fine, it's not as if the local residents are trying to be balanced either).

When you see who they follow and who follows them on Twitter, it's very obvious they're cycle lobbyists. Again, that's fine, but let's call it what it is.

Royal Canal Greenway

Comments