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

Mercian Pro

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?

mr potato head

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

L1011

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.

PhoenixParker

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

Seth Brundle

[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.

[Deleted User]

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.

Former Former Former

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.

mr potato head

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.

daymobrew

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.

knockoutned

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.

mr potato head

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.

Former Former Former

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

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?

mr potato head

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.
.

Chrisam

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.

knockoutned

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

Mercian Pro

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.

PhoenixParker

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

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.

00sully

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.

mr potato head

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.

Former Former Former

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

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.

Chrisam

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.

L1011

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

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.

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:

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.

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.