Royal Canal Greenway

So you've reverted fear mongering rather than answering the question asked. Enough said.

I never expressed my opinion (safe or unsafe) either way. I'm simply asking ye explain how all these disparate events and locations, relate to each other.

Failing in that, you've reverted to "feelings". So accepting that at face value, I ask how do you expand that to the rest of the route, or at the very least the neighboring sections. Failing in that, you've now switched to anecdotal ad hoc surveys of a tiny sample size.

I know there's studies on the permeability of estates and alleyways in terms of crime and anti social behavior. I can't find any on Greenways in Ireland, I can find them in the UK etc. I assume there must also be some on "riverside walks, canal banks, mountain trails" as people have brought those locations into this thread as being relevant.

You guys are bringing up safety as an issue. I didn't do that you guys did.

Which calls into question safety on the whole route. You can't say ignore the rest of the route, when you are using incidents, and articles from the other parts of the route (and urban and rural planning in general) to justify your proposal. You've irrevocably linked/associated them. In answer how to apply the same solution you're proposing here, to the other sections. "Give more access" is nonsensical. They are remote. Access to where?

You're also ignoring the other aspect of this, part of the objection to this section, and Greenways in general, is the fear of anti-social behavior, crime etc., You're inadvertently agreeing with that.

In order to say exits will lessen the danger. You have to have start with the premise there IS danger.

You are saying what can’t be ignored yet you have ignored what I have repeatedly said as it doesn’t fit into your agenda. I have even explained my posts but your ignorance is a choice.

Deleted. No point engaging someone who takes up everything wrong by choice.

It's very one sided article. There are wrong though there is is data on permeability and it's relationship with crime. It's not as simple as being suggested and it's not all positive either.

It also completely ignores that some of these areas have high level of anti social activity and crime that has nothing to do with the greenway. It's just happens to pass through them. Whereas other sections are in low crime areas but are remote. That's a whole different issue

Compromise and trials are mentioned in the article. But no one in this thread has been interested in any that. What people in this thread want is a fait accompli to get what they want.

But the stretch they are talking about in the article would never have gone ahead without compromise.

It's a wider social issue, can't be solved by greenway design. We could draft all unemployed 15 to 22 year olds into the military and have enough sailors to crewe the fleet, 2 birds 1 stone and all that.

This times 100. There should of course be a public transport, walking and cycling bridge west of the m50. Its the busiest road in the state and there are no realistic alternatives. You either have to cross the liffey in chapelizod, lucan or get in a car and cross the m50. Maybe it's a deliberate revenue protection measure. If people can easily cycle or take buses between blanch and clondalkin then paying a toll to sit in m50 traffic seems less appealing

I was more thinking it was a direct route. Everything else is thorough other people's land.

Good to see I'm not the only one who thinks it would be a good idea!

I contacted Fingal council to see if they had any details, mail was acknowledged and would be passed to relevant area but I'll be surprised if I get a response!

It might be easier to link College Gate and Bracken Park to the open space at the end of Castleknock Way. This would give access to the proposed bridge over M50 to Park Avenue. See attached screenshot.

Even without the bridge over the M50 it makes it easy for people from College Gate and Bracken Park to get to Scoil Thomais and Laurel Lodge Shopping Centre, and 37 bus.

Following on from what Flinty997 says about objections, I cannot picture Church Court residents being happy about increased pedestrian or bicycle traffic (even though the access would benefit them too).

Cycling via Park Avenue to the Beechpark Avenue junction will be okay because it would bring you to cycle tracks along Castleknock Road (designated a Primary Radial route). Of course none of this infrastructure will be built for decades because NTA and other such bodies only specialise in producing nice maps.

The Consultation Report is now available at: https://www.fingal.ie/royalcanalurbangreenway/consultationreport

Summary of changes since the consultation:

• The number of accesses to the greenway via Delwood and Brompton has been reduced from 6 to 3
• The bridge access route/ramp from the Brompton Green area has been shifted further west, with the bridge route/ramp meandering through the wooded area, which should act to screen the bridge access ramp from the Roselawn properties
• The access point into the Brompton green area has been shifted eastwards to respect the privacy of adjacent properties
• To prevent the greenway overlooking the back gardens of the residents of Delwood Park and for security reasons, the ground level of the greenway is proposed to be lowered to match, or be lower than, the existing ground level of the adjacent back gardens and a 2m high timber palisade fence provided, with an anti-climb wire mesh fence.
• The design now includes a 2m high fence line to be maintained along the southern side of the greenway along the Brompton green area. To provide further privacy to the Brompton residents, planting and railings will be provided on the Brompton side of the greenway through the Brompton green area

Its not really much of a compromise though. Its basically what they wanted all along only very slightly modified.

I think there are less confrontational ways of doing things.