Mercian Pro wrote: » 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.
Former Former Former wrote: » 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.
mr potato head wrote: » I I've been in direct contact with them, they are residents of the area or family members of residents in the area and regularly frequent the area.
mr potato head wrote: » I'm also in the area between Blanchardstown village and the canal and I would support a North bank option on design for useability/permeability terms alone. Can someone please define "the cycling lobby" for me? I regularly push for better walking and cycling infrastructure, with good design and funding for benefit of all... am I the cycle lobby aka "big cycling"?
mr potato head wrote: » I agree with 90% of what they outline, can you give me an example of where they have made incorrect claims?
mr potato head wrote: » I believe the claims by those proposing to have a South bank only route are far less credible and based on a lack of understanding of modern active travel design and permeability being a key part of usability. I have discussed this and similar projects at length with fellow engineers and academics with urban design and active travel as their primary work and research topics. They would agree that the lack of permeability in a south bank option essentially renders the section useless to those of us North of the canal.
Former Former Former wrote: » Engineers, and certainly the ones in Fingal, don't give a fnck about biodiversity, the environment and they certainly don't give a shyte about residents. I don't really give a shyte about the residents either tbh, I just don't want a bulldozer going through the last genuine wildlife habitat in D15 when a better option is staring us in the face.
Former Former Former wrote: » Where does it say where they live? I don't see that.
Former Former Former wrote: » Here's one that annoyed me. They make a scaremongering claim that not having multiple access points along the route is dangerous, and post a link to a journal.ie article about people being violently mugged on the Grand Canal. Except those attacks happened at the access point on that route. They have nothing to do with permeability. So they either didn't read the article they linked to, or they're hoping no-one else will and just take their word for it. It's either lazy or, more likely, extremely cynical.
Mercian Pro wrote: » 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.
RapaNui wrote: » First line, of the first page of the document. One of the authors is a resident. I contacted them on the email address provided, that author is in Delwood.
Former Former Former wrote: » ...They make a scaremongering claim that not having multiple access points along the route is dangerous,...
Chrisam wrote: » I think the pictures in the consultation documents, of the proposed route along the Delwood/Brompton element on the north bank, looks like a long shaded laneway - high fencing to your left, mature trees to your right (the mock up actually underplays this). The trees will block the natural sunlight for much of the day. I wouldn't fancy walking that, whereas I currently happily walk the existing towpath, which is bright and open, with great views of the beautiful north bank.
magicbastarder wrote: » the north bank is by definition south facing, surely? so will be sunnier than the north facing south bank.
Mercian Pro wrote: » Walking the existing towpath will still be possible if that's your wish although I always find the exposed rocks and tree roots to be quite a nuisance especially in winter. Incidentally, that image indicates a greatly improved level of boundary security for the twenty or so back gardens backing onto the proposed Greenway. As someone whose garden backs onto the Sligo railway line, I would be very happy that level of upgrading.
Be easier to hide in the undergrowth though.
at the risk of hijacking a tragic event, i think this point is worth raising again. there are probably lots of people who would feel safer on a greenway with greater permeability than the south bank option will afford.
It has nothing to with that incident, and disingenuous to associate the two because the locations are completely different in character.
Also by association you're implying the vast majority of the greenway, (which has no exits like you propose) indeed any remote path, walk, park is not safe.
Jesus christ. No, just no. Have some decorum ffs.
it certainly was not my intention to suggest any greenway is unsafe; but that there are design decisions about them which can make them feel safer or more usable.
a woman was thrown into the canal a couple of km from this stretch about 18 months ago. and there were repeated concerns expressed about some sections of canal path in the last couple of years, mainly along the grand canal.
The woman who was pushed in wasn't a result of a lack exits. The issue with Grand canal is basically gangs of scumbags hanging out and robbing people, on specific sections, specially cyclists. Also (AFAIK) no issues with a lack of exits there either, its beside a road for the most part. These have nothing to do with permeability through a residential estate. Nothing. Its absurd.
You're still promoting the idea that Greenways cause danger, playing on peoples fears, and misfortune and tragedy to do so.
Moreover by implication you're also making the case that permeability will bring crime and antisocial behaviour into the estates.
It dragging any progress on the Greenway backwards. Well done.
You're still promoting the idea that Greenways cause danger
again, i am trying to address the point that there are design decisions which can be made which can make them feel safer. if they feel safer, they will be more popular and more of a success. the rest of what you're saying is reaching for ill-intent on my part.
(i believe) more permeability would allow more easy ingress/egress, greater footfall, and greater footfall would make it feel safer for people. you can colour my intent or the implications of what i say how you wish.
FWIW i just asked my wife and she was adamant that the north bank option sounded safer.
Guess that rules the rest of the greenway out for ye so.
Will you just go and down on this tiny bit of it. Maybe you're suggesting we should all just go up and down on this tiny bit of it. Going to be kind of crowded. The whole of D15 just going up and down between two bridges. Will we only be allowed to use if we have minimum number of people. What will that number be. Will we only be allowed in groups of 4 or 6. I'm curious to see where you are going with this line of insanity.
That is a very disingenuous interpretation of the posts. The conversation is about feeling safe, nothing about rules restricting usage.
As an example of usage levels when there is premeability, the section between Ashtown level crossing and Ratoath Bridge has a few access points and is well overlooked. I expect that these help people feel safer and thus increases usage which further improves how people feel about it.
That's your subjective opinion and it seems completely illogical to me. If someone wanted to plan an attack along the canal, why would they do it in an area where they would be trapped on the canal path as opposed to somewhere they could quickly escape?
I think its ye who are being disingenuous not me. What I'm doing is hyperbole.
Point is you're comparing completely different sections of canal. Incidents that have noting to do with it being busy, or not. The section at Ashtown/Ratoath Bridge is basically part of their park, a road runs along it and its directly attached to their shops. Nothing like the Roselawn section. Also one of the incidents that was mentioned earlier, was short distance from here as well, on the section with no exits, and it was busy with people at time. So being busy, didn't help, and having no exits wasn't the issue either. The other tragedy is out in the countryside in a rural setting. You're playing on peoples hysteria and fears.
So either ye don't know, these are disparate locations and incidents. Or ye do know and doing it deliberately. Not sure which is worse.
But forget all that. What you are doing is picking a fight with the local residents which will go on for years. What's worse is your using fear mongering to do so. Which plays into their narrative completely. Its a dumb tactic, completely counter productive.
But good luck with that.
Trapped vs quick escape works for both sides - in an area with limited access the attacker probably has less chance of being seen by the victim until it is too late. After an attack I would expect that a victim would not be able to give chase and so it would be relatively easy for the attacker to get away, even if there is only 1 or 2 exit options.
If there are lots of escape routes, yes, an attacker could easily get away but maybe other users might be able to easily leave the route if they saw someone that concerned them.
Fair enough, "hyperbole" was a better term.
The woman was pushed in at a location over 1km from Ashtown. The only exits are the nearby small humpback bridge and the Navan Road Parkway station (not an official exit) though these are probably barely used for access.
What and who's narrative is being played into?
To be clear, I would prefer the north bank option. I could use it to travel safely to/from Tesco and beyond (avoiding the horrible Coolmine Road).
FWIW i was saying long before now that i thought the south bank option suffered from that issue, you can see an example if you go about 20 posts back, post dated 3rd july.
and yes, many women will be conscious of a path which offers multiple entry/exit points rather than a 2km stretch before the next access point.
i know quite a few people whose access to the greenway would be trivial were there access points on the north bank option, but would have to walk 1km to get to it on the south bank, and that's before they even set foot on it. the north bank option would open up the greenway as a throughway for many people, who would otherwise face a minimum 4km walk (if they don't double back) to use it, so would use it far less on a casual basis.
