Greenways [greenway map of Ireland in post 1]

Lord Glentoran · 27-05-2020 4:42pm

A tarmac or concrete path is no better than walking on a road. All right for cyclists who want to time trial themselves but of limited utility to anyone else.

MJohnston · 27-05-2020 5:03pm

The idea that a gravel path is of more utility to pedestrians is only proposed by those who have a completely different concern on their minds. It's a deeply selfish idea from people who have zero regard for those in wheelchairs, those with prams, or simply those with less mobility than others.

A tarmac path might feel less "in tune with nature" or some bollocks like that, but that's far outweighed by the utility to more people than just able-bodied wafflers.

hans aus dtschl · 27-05-2020 5:04pm

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

A tarmac or concrete path is no better than walking on a road.

Other than motorised traffic.

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

All right for cyclists who want to time trial themselves but of limited utility to anyone else.

Other than people with reduced mobility, people with buggies etc.

I think we've done this topic to death over the years.
Could we just get a "rail enthusiasts against greenways" forum and be done with it?

hans aus dtschl · 27-05-2020 5:12pm

MJohnston wrote: »

The idea that a gravel path is of more utility to pedestrians is only proposed by those who have a completely different concern on their minds. It's a deeply selfish idea from people who have zero regard for those in wheelchairs, those with prams, or simply those with less mobility than others.

A tarmac path might feel less "in tune with nature" or some bollocks like that, but that's far outweighed by the utility to more people than just able-bodied wafflers.

If you're accessing a greenway then you know what you're getting: a clean, safe, shared environment. It is not suitable for fast cyclists. It is not suitable for people looking for a bog walk or mountain hike.
In fairness, "roughing up" the surface wouldn't satisfy the nature walk people much either IMO. They'll happily head up the mountains etc.

Del.Monte · 27-05-2020 6:17pm

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Other than motorised traffic.

Other than people with reduced mobility, people with buggies etc.

I think we've done this topic to death over the years.
Could we just get a "rail enthusiasts against greenways" forum and be done with it?

As long as it includes "ramblers and nature lovers against greenways" too.

I'm thinking particularly of the crazy East Coast Greenway https://www.facebook.com/eastcoastgreenwaywicklow/ and the plans for the River Barrow walking trail https://www.facebook.com/Save-the-Barrow-Track-333743290118418/

Tigerandahalf · 27-05-2020 7:24pm

As someone who runs I find the loose gravel surface more forgiving on the legs than tarmac. Another plus point for gravel is that you have no issues with an icy surface. This is a huge bonus in winter when many tarred surfaces are very dangerous.

I can understand why tarmacadam is used.

One thing about gravel surfaces is that they hold up better and are easier to patch up when the ground subsides and the surface breaks.

A good solution would be to have tarred surfaces around towns or villages and leave the gravel surface in the middle sections.

no.8 · 27-05-2020 8:01pm

MJohnston wrote:

The idea that a gravel path is of more utility to pedestrians is only proposed by those who have a completely different concern on their minds. It's a deeply selfish idea from people who have zero regard for those in wheelchairs, those with prams, or simply those with less mobility than others.

I think you're slightly over exaggerating now. 'Deeply selfish'. They're not talking a mountainous trail here. Quite a bit of experience on European trails. Most half decent buggies can handle quarry-dust trails. In all likelihood wheelchairs can too.

Either way i'd be happy, but please less of the provocative language. It doesn't help the cause

no.8 · 27-05-2020 8:13pm

Excellent input. That is the balanced input required. This model roughly exists in Switzerland and Germany. Concrete / tarmac walk/cycle/rollerblade ways near the town and inter-town / regional gravel/find dust trails. Works very well + on top of your points, it's likely a lot cheaper per/km (upfront costs and maintenance)

whisky_galore · 27-05-2020 8:48pm

pigtown wrote: »

Roadbridge have won the contract to upgrade the 40km Great Sounthern Greenway in Limerick to a 3m wide tarmac surface for its length.

Hopefully the 3m wide way won't turn it into a speedway for the Tour de France set.

MJohnston · 27-05-2020 9:11pm

no.8 wrote: »

I think you're slightly over exaggerating now. 'Deeply selfish'. They're not talking a mountainous trail here. Quite a bit of experience on European trails. Most half decent buggies can handle quarry-dust trails. In all likelihood wheelchairs can too.

Either way i'd be happy, but please less of the provocative language. It doesn't help the cause

Meh whatever, feel free to appeal to that particular poster's better nature if you wish, but I'm not going to waste my time.

MJohnston · 27-05-2020 9:14pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

Hopefully the 3m wide way won't turn it into a speedway for the Tour de France set.

Does this ever actually happen, hmm? Seems to me that most sports cyclists don't bother with greenways, but sure, tell your tales.

whisky_galore · 27-05-2020 9:18pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Does this ever actually happen, hmm? Seems to me that most sports cyclists don't bother with greenways, but sure, tell your tales.

Most? I'd rather none used them, but hey ho.

Sam Russell · 27-05-2020 9:25pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

Hopefully the 3m wide way won't turn it into a speedway for the Tour de France set.

If it becomes a problem, then it is safe to say measures will be taken to stop abuse. There are simple but effective measures available that would not affect normal use.

If there are a lot of users of a normal disposition, Tour de France riders will give up.

Lord Glentoran · 28-05-2020 9:08am

MJohnston wrote: »

The idea that a gravel path is of more utility to pedestrians is only proposed by those who have a completely different concern on their minds. It's a deeply selfish idea from people who have zero regard for those in wheelchairs, those with prams, or simply those with less mobility than others.

A tarmac path might feel less "in tune with nature" or some bollocks like that, but that's far outweighed by the utility to more people than just able-bodied wafflers.

Yeah. Tarmac every off road path. That will really make the Republic attractive to walkers. I am reminded of the old saying, “to a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. :rolleyes:

hans aus dtschl · 28-05-2020 9:38am

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

As someone who runs I find the loose gravel surface more forgiving on the legs than tarmac. Another plus point for gravel is that you have no issues with an icy surface. This is a huge bonus in winter when many tarred surfaces are very dangerous.

I can understand why tarmacadam is used.

One thing about gravel surfaces is that they hold up better and are easier to patch up when the ground subsides and the surface breaks.

A good solution would be to have tarred surfaces around towns or villages and leave the gravel surface in the middle sections.

Good arguments, particularly around ice and forgiveness. Most runners will prefer tarmacadam over cement, and grass tends to be the favourite of all.

I think the "crushed bitumen is cheaper to maintain" argument was disproven in recent years though, the tarmacadam is apparently cheaper in the long run.

On the mixed surface solution you describe, Dungarvan has tar near the population centres and crushed bitumen/gravel thereafter. It doesn't negatively affect cyclists on 23mm tyres (the smaller road tyres used by racers): the only people I've seen with issues have been the elderly and those with mobility problems. They'll turn around where gravel meets tar!

hans aus dtschl · 28-05-2020 10:21am

whisky_galore wrote: »

Most? I'd rather none used them, but hey ho.

Why not though? If they're going slowly and safely and leaving room for others, I don't see what the issue might be? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?
While on the Dungarvan greenway I've seen clubs use it slowly and carefully. I don't see any problems with that.
Actually I've only ever seen a handful of boorish idiots on the Dungarvan greenway, whether they were on rental bikes, walking with children, running
etc it wasn't a case of a specific user type being problematic. I've never seen any clash of user-types on there, just isolated random idiots across all types.

MJohnston · 28-05-2020 11:18am

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Yeah. Tarmac every off road path. That will really make the Republic attractive to walkers. I am reminded of the old saying, “to a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. :rolleyes:

Okay, but whatever all that means, you don't agree that tarmac paths have more utility to the less-abled and anyone who has to push a pram?

Lord Glentoran · 28-05-2020 1:27pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Okay, but whatever all that means, you don't agree that tarmac paths have more utility to the less-abled and anyone who has to push a pram?

I’d prefer the right to roam enshrined by law and then you could tarmac everything else. Roger Garland’s letter in today’s IT encapsulates my view.

hans aus dtschl · 28-05-2020 1:40pm

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

I’d prefer the right to roam enshrined by law and then you could tarmac everything else. Roger Garland’s letter in today’s IT encapsulates my view.

I'm not certain what you're trying to communicate here.
You'd prefer "the right to roam" to be enshrined by law, rather than less-abled or pram-pushing people having a tramacadam-surfaced greenway at their disposal? Have I misunderstood that?

I don't think these two are competing needs?

MJohnston · 28-05-2020 1:46pm

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

I’d prefer the right to roam enshrined by law and then you could tarmac everything else. Roger Garland’s letter in today’s IT encapsulates my view.

As hans aus dtschl said, why are you presenting these as competing outcomes, when they are not?

Lord Glentoran · 28-05-2020 4:01pm

MJohnston wrote: »

As hans aus dtschl said, why are you presenting these as competing outcomes, when they are not?

I’m not on here 24/7 answering questions on demand.

Right now, we have limited access to the countryside. A number of years ago the Leader II programme attempted to create rights of way in cooperation with farmers. This collapsed when the farmers’ organisations withdrew cooperation from it. Now, all we have are a relatively small number of waymarked trails and the Greenways. Is it reasonable to make every single Greenway buggy accessible but to make it unattractive to walking tourism?

hans aus dtschl · 28-05-2020 4:12pm

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

I’m not on here 24/7 answering questions on demand.

Right now, we have limited access to the countryside. A number of years ago the Leader II programme attempted to create rights of way in cooperation with farmers. This collapsed when the farmers’ organisations withdrew cooperation from it. Now, all we have are a relatively small number of waymarked trails and the Greenways. Is it reasonable to make every single Greenway buggy accessible but to make it unattractive to walking tourism?

Honestly, I hope you're not making the point that it looks like you're making.

That we shouldn't have buggy-accessible greenways because of a collapse of a process that would have enabled "right to roam"?

That people with mobility issues don't deserve high quality infrastructure because people with no mobility issues don't have all their needs/desires met?

I don't understand how it could be a zero sum game? That'd be a pretty....unsavoury discussion to have.

riddlinrussell · 28-05-2020 4:13pm

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

I’m not on here 24/7 answering questions on demand.

Right now, we have limited access to the countryside. A number of years ago the Leader II programme attempted to create rights of way in cooperation with farmers. This collapsed when the farmers’ organisations withdrew cooperation from it. Now, all we have are a relatively small number of waymarked trails and the Greenways. Is it reasonable to make every single Greenway buggy accessible but to make it unattractive to walking tourism?

Somewhat confused by your angle here, If every greenway was tarmaced surely the unattractiveness of them to 'wild' walkers would increase pressure for right to roam legislation to be put in place?

I'd advocate for sections approaching towns to be tarmacked as they will get heaviest use, rest done in some ecologically sound gravel.

And if your'e starting/restarting a right to roam campaign again in Ireland Glentoran let me know, I'd be keen to see that happen!

no.8 · 28-05-2020 5:01pm

hans aus dtschl wrote:

I'm not certain what you're trying to communicate here. You'd prefer "the right to roam" to be enshrined by law, rather than less-abled or pram-pushing people having a tramacadam-surfaced greenway at their disposal? Have I misunderstood that?

A half decent pram can easily handle a loose surface. If you have a path such as that near you, you buy a buggy with large airfilled tires (and not the ones designed for town or. airport

loyatemu · 28-05-2020 5:04pm

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

On the mixed surface solution you describe, Dungarvan has tar near the population centres and crushed bitumen/gravel thereafter. It doesn't negatively affect cyclists on 23mm tyres (the smaller road tyres used by racers): the only people I've seen with issues have been the elderly and those with mobility problems. They'll turn around where gravel meets tar!

this seems the optimum solution; TBH even as a road cyclist I wouldn't expect greenways to be manageable on 23mm tyres, and road bikes are tending to have larger tyres these days anyway.

Tarmaccing everywhere seems overkill, and not very environmentally friendly - people with mobility issues are likely to be driving and parking, having tarmac a couple of KM either direction of the carparks seems a reasonable compromise with the more remote sections as compacted grit.

no.8 · 28-05-2020 5:08pm

Tigerandahalf's proposal is a balanced approach. I think people are are getting their knickers in a twist over whether there should be 100% tarmacadam coverage or 100% loose / compacted surface. I find neither solution by themselves to be the correct approach (e.g. the populous side of a lake say being paved over x km's and loose surface on the other side).

Loads of countries have mixed surface by-ways. The point here is to get the routes in place, linked where possible and asap (not over a 50 year period when we've long hung up our wheels).

There are so many options available but as the situation in Kerry shows, our staunch stance with land ownership really cripples our potential

no.8 · 28-05-2020 5:09pm

Here here. Excellent input imo

Lord Glentoran · 28-05-2020 5:16pm

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Honestly, I hope you're not making the point that it looks like you're making.

That we shouldn't have buggy-accessible greenways because of a collapse of a process that would have enabled "right to roam"?

That people with mobility issues don't deserve high quality infrastructure because people with no mobility issues don't have all their needs/desires met?

I don't understand how it could be a zero sum game? That'd be a pretty....unsavoury discussion to have.

You’re right. I’m not. Mixed surfaces would be acceptable to me. As for the right to roam, I suspect we will be waiting for the Apocalypse before that will happen. Too many vested interests. On reflection that issue should be separate from Greenways as access is an emotive issue and clearly can’t be entwined with the wider issue of freedom to roam.

hans aus dtschl · 28-05-2020 5:41pm

Looks like we're almost all in agreement here: tarmacadam just a few km from the population centres and crushed bitumen thereafter. It's very high quality in Dungarvan and I've never heard anyone complaining about it. I've traveled there many times to use it, it's such a good facility.

I'll happily get on board with "right to roam" too BTW.
I personally already behave as if it's the law, as I quite like hiking. It's possibly worthy of a thread in its own right and as others have said, I'd gladly support any efforts in that regard.

hans aus dtschl · 28-05-2020 5:46pm

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

access is an emotive issue and clearly can’t be entwined with the wider issue of freedom to roam.

Nail on the head there, access is an emotive issue. But the whole extent of lengthy routes don't need to be super-sanitised. There's definitely happy mediums to be had.

MJohnston · 28-05-2020 6:17pm

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

I’m not on here 24/7 answering questions on demand.

LOL what?

Right now, we have limited access to the countryside. A number of years ago the Leader II programme attempted to create rights of way in cooperation with farmers. This collapsed when the farmers’ organisations withdrew cooperation from it.

Great! Maybe you can connect this to the whole "tarmac paths vs gravel paths" you kicked off, because it seems terribly unclear otherwise.

Now, all we have are a relatively small number of waymarked trails and the Greenways. Is it reasonable to make every single Greenway buggy accessible

It's reasonable to try but I've never suggested that it should be a blocker to the creation of greenways in the first place. I don't think anyone here has. If that's what you're trying to argue then (a) maybe you should just say that and (b) you're arguing with a POV that doesn't seem to exist.

but to make it unattractive to walking tourism?

Honestly, this seems like the kind of assertion that's so contrary to logic that you're going to have to back it up with something other than your opinion.

Lord Glentoran · 28-05-2020 6:27pm

MJohnston wrote: »

LOL what?

Great! Maybe you can connect this to the whole "tarmac paths vs gravel paths" you kicked off, because it seems terribly unclear otherwise.

It's reasonable to try but I've never suggested that it should be a blocker to the creation of greenways in the first place. I don't think anyone here has. If that's what you're trying to argue then (a) maybe you should just say that and (b) you're arguing with a POV that doesn't seem to exist.

Honestly, this seems like the kind of assertion that's so contrary to logic that you're going to have to back it up with something other than your opinion.

Already answered so I’ll use one of the tools of the board to improve my browsing experience.

MJohnston · 28-05-2020 11:11pm

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Already answered so I’ll use one of the tools of the board to improve my browsing experience.

Excellent - I sure hope it’s the unfollow thread button so you don’t come trolling again

28-05-2020 11:25pm

Why are you all assuming that wheelchair users and those with mobility issues all live in cities and towns?

Disability is not an urban affliction

Muckyboots · 29-05-2020 1:31pm

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

While on the Dungarvan greenway I've seen clubs use it slowly and carefully. I don't see any problems with that.

Let's be fair. Unless they are a bunch of 9-year-olds, they shouldn't be using the Greenway for club or sportive rides.

hans aus dtschl · 29-05-2020 2:41pm

Muckyboots wrote: »

Let's be fair. Unless they are a bunch of 9-year-olds, they shouldn't be using the Greenway for club or sportive rides.

Could you explain why not? If they're going slowly and safely and leaving room for others, I don't see what the issue might be? I suspect you guys are thinking of a potential issue that doesn't occur in practice.

While on the Dungarvan greenway I have seen clubs use it slowly and carefully. I didn't see problems with it. I don't know their reasons but presumably some weak club member or less confident people in the group wanted to get off the road. I suspect I might also have seen a sportive one day, as 20+ people passed at around the same time. It wasn't a club and it was organised.

I've rarely seen bad behaviour on the Dungarvan greenway. A tiny minority sometimes do ignorant selfish things (mostly blocking the path or shouting at people to get out of their way) but I've never seen a specific user type being problematic. I've seen groups of stags and hens on bikes, and one guy dragging a tyre the length of the greenway for charity, but no problem with either!

In any case we then get into never-ending game of "what is a club ride". Is it two people who are in a club, cycling together? "What is a sportive". Is it a couple of octogenarians on e-bikes raising money?

Rather than clubs and sportives per se, what people might be more against is the idea of a large volume of people moving as a group, or a group moving at high pace, but I don't think the greenway lends itself to that kind of thing anyway because you can't really cycle safely at speed or in a large group on a greenway. It's not safe for pedestrian or cyclist. The onus is primarily on the faster user to give the slower user time, space, etc and keep them safe. What happens in practice is that fast-moving groups just avoid the greenway. But I wouldn't knock their right to be on there if they're behaving themselves, being courteous and allowing space for other users, same as anyone. That's not banning clubs and sportives though it's just common sense.

Muckyboots · 29-05-2020 3:24pm

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Could you explain why not? If they're going slowly and safely and leaving room for others, I don't see what the issue might be? I suspect you guys are thinking of a potential issue that doesn't occur in practice.

While on the Dungarvan greenway I have seen clubs use it slowly and carefully. I didn't see problems with it. I don't know their reasons but presumably some weak club member or less confident people in the group wanted to get off the road. I suspect I might also have seen a sportive one day, as 20+ people passed at around the same time. It wasn't a club and it was organised.

I've rarely seen bad behaviour on the Dungarvan greenway. A tiny minority sometimes do ignorant selfish things (mostly blocking the path or shouting at people to get out of their way) but I've never seen a specific user type being problematic. I've seen groups of stags and hens on bikes, and one guy dragging a tyre the length of the greenway for charity, but no problem with either!

In any case we then get into never-ending game of "what is a club ride". Is it two people who are in a club, cycling together? "What is a sportive". Is it a couple of octogenarians on e-bikes raising money?

Rather than clubs and sportives per se, what people might be more against is the idea of a large volume of people moving as a group, or a group moving at high pace, but I don't think the greenway lends itself to that kind of thing anyway because you can't really cycle safely at speed or in a large group on a greenway. It's not safe for pedestrian or cyclist. The onus is primarily on the faster user to give the slower user time, space, etc and keep them safe. What happens in practice is that fast-moving groups just avoid the greenway. But I wouldn't knock their right to be on there if they're behaving themselves, being courteous and allowing space for other users, same as anyone. That's not banning clubs and sportives though it's just common sense.

I agree there needs to be room for common sense but I also see some cyclists complaining about the number of speed controls, chicanes and gates, on greenways. There is a clear difference between leisure cycling and sports cycling. Sports cycling has no place on a greenway.

MJohnston · 29-05-2020 3:37pm

Muckyboots wrote: »

I agree there needs to be room for common sense but I also see some cyclists complaining about the number of speed controls, chicanes and gates, on greenways. There is a clear difference between leisure cycling and sports cycling. Sports cycling has no place on a greenway.

This is all self-selecting though. If there are speed controls, sports cyclists will be mostly happy to go elsewhere, and most pedestrians and leisure cyclists will be happy to share the space at reasonable spaces.

There's not really any point bringing outlier opinions into this - if some small number of sports cyclists are complaining, whatever, leave them to it. Let the rest of us enjoy it.

Gates — those can be a different story. They're sometimes badly designed and exclude a wide range of prams, less-abled folks, and larger bikes.

hans aus dtschl · 29-05-2020 3:37pm

Muckyboots wrote: »

I agree there needs to be room for common sense but I also see some cyclists complaining about the number of speed controls, chicanes and gates, on greenways. There is a clear difference between leisure cycling and sports cycling. Sports cycling has no place on a greenway.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about gates and chicanes other than cargo bike users to be honest? They don't pose any difficulty to a person on a road bike, where the bars are narrow and maneuverability is high. I saw one lad on a mountain bike in a tracksuit get a nasty fall trying to pass through one of the gates at speed one day but that's about it.

MJohnston · 29-05-2020 3:39pm

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about gates and chicanes other than cargo bike users to be honest? They don't pose any difficulty to a person on a road bike, where the bars are narrow and maneuverability is high. I saw one lad on a mountain bike in a tracksuit get a nasty fall trying to pass through one of the gates at speed one day but that's about it.

Some of the ones along the Royal Canal are hell even if you just have a buggy. Struggled with them more than once when my kid was in his.

what_traffic · 29-05-2020 4:37pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Gates — those can be a different story. They're sometimes badly designed and exclude a wide range of prams, less-abled folks, and larger bikes.

Can add lots of users to that list
Even an ordinary touring bike fully laden panniers and tent - kissing gates are a pain in the ....:mad:

Carawaystick · 30-05-2020 1:54am

no.8 wrote: »

A half decent pram can easily handle a loose surface. If you have a path such as that near you, you buy a buggy with large airfilled tires (and not the ones designed for town or. airport

Telling people with small children, who might be financially stretched, to spend money to conform to your desired method,
isn't a great look.
Would you advocate the same approach to footpaths?

Carawaystick · 30-05-2020 2:00am

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

As someone who runs I find the loose gravel surface more forgiving on the legs than tarmac. Another plus point for gravel is that you have no issues with an icy surface. This is a huge bonus in winter when many tarred surfaces are very dangerous.

I can understand why tarmacadam is used.

One thing about gravel surfaces is that they hold up better and are easier to patch up when the ground subsides and the surface breaks.

A good solution would be to have tarred surfaces around towns or villages and leave the gravel surface in the middle sections.

If the tarmac route is salted, and has good drainage, I can't see the issue.

The park in my town has a dust finish on its path, and has had to be rebuilt several times due to subsidence and surface water erosion, and ponding has had slippy surfaces, just like on hard surfaces.

Sam Russell · 30-05-2020 11:36am

Mod: @ MJohnson and Lord Glentoran.

Stop the sniping at each other and cool it.

Pete_Cavan · 31-05-2020 8:44pm

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Looks like we're almost all in agreement here: tarmacadam just a few km from the population centres and crushed bitumen thereafter.

Given walkers/joggers are more likely to be close to population centres and they generally cover shorter distances than cyclists, would it not make more sense for the unbound surface to be close to the population centres? The reasons given in support of the unbound surface are it is more forgiving to walkers/joggers and less susceptible to frost for the benefit of walkers, why have it further out where fewer walkers will benefit. Cyclists are also likely to travel faster away from population centres as likely fewer people so having the bound surface further out makes more sense.

To go back to the wider topic of conversation, I think Greenways should have a bound surface. I don't buy the idea of the Greenway needing a surface with a more "natural" feel, particularly when any imported surface is not going to look or feel natural anyway. Also most Greenways are along disused rail lines or canal towpaths which are far from natural and have plenty of man-made features. If natural is what you are looking for, there are plenty* of more natural walking routes, some with no imported surface at all, in parks, forest parks, National Parks, and various other hiking trails and trekking routes. As has been already said, tar surface suits a wider spectrum of users, I don't see what is gained from deviating from that.

*before anyone jumps on this, I'm not saying that there are enough of these or that more shouldn't be provided.

no.8 · 01-06-2020 10:28am

Nonsense. I fit that bill. You buy to suit the application. Small babies require prams which are generally sturdier anyway. We're not talking about cars or bikes here. Buggies aren't cheap. You buy new or second hand, but most importantly you buy to fit the purpose.

Yes i would actually advocate that, because it's often necessary. The paths in towns in Ireland can be so narrow that you haven't a hope of getting by without a small, narrow stroller.

Markcheese · 01-06-2020 11:06am

I've seen paths done with tar and chip on a well compacted surface ,they're visually a lot less jarring than tarmac (in a rural setting ) ,would be fine for buggies ,wheelchairs and bikes , mightnt suit very skinny tyres though ,
Kind of a halfway house , cheaper than tarmac ,more stable than compacted quarry dust....and feels more "rural" too ðŸ˜

Golden Horde · 02-06-2020 3:55pm

What's the feeling re Greenways funding given the likelihood that exchequer funding is likely to be tight for the next few years.

Specifically interested in the Grand Canal Greenway as I know funds were previously allocated. I'm hoping that they'll still proceed as I think the tourist benefits would pay off as well as quality of life improvements for locals to have an amenity like a greenway close by.

serfboard · 02-06-2020 7:36pm

Golden Horde wrote: »

What's the feeling re Greenways funding given the likelihood that exchequer funding is likely to be tight for the next few years.

There will need to be massive investments by governments all over the world to restore the global economy - infrastructure spending is how a lot of that spending is going to be carried out.

And given the fact that a) Greenway spending is as cheap as (gravel) chips, and b) the Greens are going to be in government, I expect to see Greenway funding increased.

Sam Russell · 02-06-2020 8:07pm

serfboard wrote: »

There will need to be massive investments by governments all over the world to restore the global economy - infrastructure spending is how a lot of that spending is going to be carried out.

And given the fact that a) Greenway spending is as cheap as (gravel) chips, and b) the Greens are going to be in government, I expect to see Greenway funding increased.

Also, it is a quick build.

Greenways [greenway map of Ireland in post 1]

Comments