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.

Greenways [greenway map of Ireland in post 1]

Comments