I haven’t read the Constraints Report, but just looking at that map there could be a nice route along the lake if it’s possible with landownership etc.
It could easily be unworkable once you get into the details.
Before Christmas, Midleton to Mogeely greenway was set to open in Q1 2023. In January they said the summer 2023 and today, they say Q4, 2023.
These contractors must be bleeding the public purse dry.
It was originally supposed to be open summer 21 ,
Then it was announced the easiest part (midleton to mogely ) would be opened summer 2023 .. now it'll be opened to autumn 2023 ,
So it was 2 years late - now its going to be 2 years and 3 months late ,
Okay covid delayed it by 3 months -
So only 2 years late
- for a 23 km footpath ,
where they already owned the land,had right of way , didn't need to do any major earthworks , and any major roads were already bridged..
So 25 million ?
Usual council arse-scratching and incompetence.
https://www.independent.ie/regionals/wexford/new-ross-news/fears-opening-of-32m-new-ross-to-waterford-greenway-will-be-delayed/a49663188.html
Interesting.
Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) took over the South East Greenway project, which was previously under the auspices of Fáilte Ireland. That handover led to a more rigorous assessment of contracts which, in turn, delayed progress last year.
This was down to the greenway now being primarily considered as an active travel component as opposed to a tourism project.
Seems to me that Fáilte Ireland shouldn't be running any of these Greenway projects - tourism or not, they are all infrastructure which is best dealt with by a body that has experience in that area.
I agree but the switch from Failte Ireland should not also lead to a switch of labeling from a tourism project to active travel. Greenways are tourism and leisure not transportation routes.
Strongly agree with that. It's not really active travel.
It seems to suit them to spin it as "leisure" when they don't want to segregate users or give priority etc and then they spin it back as "active travel" when they want the funding. I'm not against the greenways, it's just irritating cute hoorism.
Except when they are close to cities e.g Royal & Grand Canal Greenways.
I presume the recategorisation is partly down to be ing sure funding will be allocated. NTA funding for tourism projects might take a much lower priority over Active Travel projects.
I'd use the words "centre of employment" rather than city. Places like Athlone and Tralee would be covered, and even a smaller place like Westport. The GWG is seen as a tourism Greenway, but if I work in, for example, Allergan (a big employer), and live in Newport (or somewhere in between), then it's an Active Travel way for me.
You could have a rule stating that a Greenway serving any town/city where there are more than X employed, is an Active Travel project for a distance of Y kilometres from the town.
You could have such a rule but it would be meaningless as x distance is a grand cycle to work for different people, especially when you factor ebikes into it.
Only if the Greenway is a more direct route than the road which is often not the case.
Or take the Limerick to UL one. It can way less practical than the road because Greenways are primarily used by walkers and not great for 20/25kph commuters.
With the odd exception where the Greenway is very scenic such as the Great Western Greenway (or parts of Waterford) I don't really see that their primary focus should be tourism.
Some will fall under active transport to varying degrees but I suspect most will get used similar to a public park of which we lack a lot of in Ireland. Basically somewhere to go for a walk or bring the kids for a safe cycle.
With more being built I suspect people may be less likely to drive to others further away as there is no real need.
Ya public park/amenity is their true focus. They would bring a decent amount of local tourism though. People going Limerick city to west Limerick and that sort of thing.
Not at all - it's perfectly possible to set a reasonable average. I think that 15K sounds about right.
The point of the rule would be to decide which pot the funding comes out of. So take, for instance, the Galway To Oughterard Greenway, which is currently being planned. The total distance may be about 25K or more. But the first 10K will get you to Moycullen. In this case then, to secure funding, you could break the project into an Active Travel part (as far as Moycullen) and a tourism part (from Moycullen to Oughterard).
[Obviously the 10K distance to Moycullen is less than the limit I suggested above. However, the village of Moycullen is an obvious point at which to split it.]
What about the folks who live in Moycullen and work in Oughterard or vice versa?
See the first part of my rule for that conundrum - I don't think that Moycullen or Oughterard are "centres of employment".
I'm sure the businesses and locals in those places would disagree. I still say it would be too subjective though but I take your point
I'm pretty sure that the businesses and locals in Moycullen and Oughterard aren't deluded enough to believe that their villages are "centres of employment" comparable to Athlone or Tralee.
True, but by the same measure you could say the same if comparing Athlone to Galway or Galway to Dublin.
Don't get me wrong, I get where you are coming from, I'm just not sure at what point you draw the line at a size and say everything above x is to be considered a center of employment for the area if you're trying to say a route is primarily tourist or primarily active travel
IMHO opinion it doesn't make any difference and removing Failite Ireland from the equation just means all routes are treated the same. Where potential for tourism opportunities exist, they should be explored and exploited but I wouldn't try make a hard rule around it.
To give another example, I lived in Athenry for several years and was really hoping to see a greenway built which would have allowed me to cycle from there to Galway for work. It would have been about 22/25km depending on the route but I was legit looking at it as a viable option for commuting. Granted there wouldn't be a huge amount that would look to do the same but for me it would have been an active travel route, for others it would have been a tourist route.
This is kinda what I was getting at when I said a distance of X means different things to different people
Any word on when the cycle bridge over the Shannon in Athlone is actually going to open? All I can see online is that it would be the end of May at the earliest (was originally supposed to be Easter). I pass it most days and it looks painfully close to being ready, will be good for my commute when it opens.
The problem with Greenways coming under active travel is it's a handy and popular way to spend money that should be going to upgrading high volume "crow flies" cycling routes.
Its all funded from the one bucket I thought? the 360 odd million annual allocation for bike routes is paying for both no?
Or is greenway funding on top of that?
Edit: Yeah it all comes from the one pot
Separately, funding of approximately €63 million through TII’s Greenway Programme will see the ongoing development of around 70 Greenway projects around the country. The funding will see construction continue on a number of projects which will be completed in 2023, with other projects moving through planning and design stage.
This funding forms part of the overall Programme for Government commitment of €360 million per annum for walking and cycling, so that more people can choose a safe, sustainable and healthier alternative to private car use.
See it's that last bit is my problem. Greenways don't really provide a "safe, sustainable and healthier alternative to private car use"
I'm sure some people will get that benefit but they are not commuter infrastructure.
Yep, my issue is that if I'm stopping for stretchy dogs leads and charity events and groups of people chatting, and generally needing to stop for every side-road and boreen that I pass, it becomes a very low quality piece of commuter infrastructure. A high quality piece of leisure infrastructure though. So when we build "greenways" as commuter infrastructure everyone gets a lower quality end-result.
Some leisure people get irritated by people trying to commute, some commuters get irritated by leisure users. And then there's the whole left/right slalom game which can be dangerous. If it's coming from the "transportation" funding bucket I'd like them to be for transportation.
I suspect that a lot of it is down to pandering to various cranks well intended lobby groups and individuals and this pandering is being done by people who don't commute by bike so don't understand the issues.
Councils and parties can point to money being spent "on cycling" and the anti cycling crowd can point to "shure did we not give ye a cycleway down the road" any time a proper cycle lane is suggested on a main road.
It's painful how many times I have heard them referred to as "cycleways".
Are there any actual figures out there on the cycle/walk splits on Greenways ?
I think a big factor too is that it's sometimes MUCH easier to get "greenways" through public consultation processes than it is to get cycle infrastructure through.
Greenways are for "us" whereas cycle infrastructure is for "them" if you know what I mean. I have seen this myself in my own locality.
Except for the farmers who want Greenways on the side of the road 🤣
The Sligo Greenway new website went live yesterday
https://sligogreenway.ie/
There is likely very few charity events or groups of people chatting at typical commuting times so likely not a big conflict there. Dog walkers are always a possibility but probably not in significant numbers at typical commuting times.
It's probably more the high speed leisure cyclists who have problems with what you described but it's a public facility and if they want to cycle at speed they should target times when less other people are likely to be using it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
