Royal Canal Greenway

ilsilenzio · 19-03-2019 11:37am

DETAILED............ PLANS missed in 2nd paragraph

wildlifeboy · 19-03-2019 11:52am

ilsilenzio wrote: »

Beauf--- Word "abuse" was used jocularly rather than in an accusing fashion, as in point/ counterpoint-- my comments were never intended to annoy, rather clarify. Yes the preferred route proposes to open up cul de sacs and remove fencing which were previously, long after estates construction, put in place to prevent anti social behaviour. Those actions in previous 10/ 15 years were successful. If they could justify the remedial action then, how justify reversal now at a whim.

Grudaire. Vested interests was used to refer to parties who are hell bent on following a course of action which they deem to be in our interests. There has been a distinct lack of transparency, (some would claim a conspiracy to obfuscate). Reports and detailed would appear to be supressed/ not appropriate for publication and there has been a distinct lack of preparation for, or understanding of the needs of all stakeholders. There appears to be a passing of the buck in taking ownership by many of the parties FCC/ Planners/ Consutants (paid contractors), Waterways/ Irish Rail etc .

I could go on and list the multitude of genuine concerns which were expressed by what one could not unreasonably describe as mature residents in the 4 or 5 estates which are most affected, but will conclude by submitting my 2.5p worth to the appropriate forum for 22nd March.

when i was a teenager the canal was fully open from Brompton green with no fencing and we hung around there all the time. since its been fenced off it had run completely wild and i know there are foxes, badgers and hedgehogs and its a very import local habitat and that is why its a shame to open it up again. i would prefer it on the northside with a supported deck or such over the canal.

daymobrew · 19-03-2019 1:27pm

If run on the north side, behind Delwood/Brompton, I think that it would facilitate safer access to school for some. If it was there I would find it safer and quieter (and with less air pollution) to use it to go from Carpenterstown to Tesco and Blanch village.

I looked at each of the cul de sacs of Delwood and Brompton and I don't see where the suggested route would overlook properties (I realise that the bridge might - moving it west would solve this). I would expect that it would run at the same level as the road and thus properties would be protected by their existing side walls.

Opening the cul de sacs to the towpath would allow residents immediately access a peaceful, fume free walkway. There's a potential downside that train commuters would park there too but that can be overcome.

With respect to privacy, towpath users generally don't care to look into properties. The train, between Drumcondra and Connolly, is over a lot of properties and it is super easy to look into them.
My family home is off Auburn Avenue in full view of passing and stopped buses. It's no big deal.

Former Former · 19-03-2019 2:15pm

daymobrew wrote: »

If run on the north side, behind Delwood/Brompton, I think that it would facilitate safer access to school for some. If it was there I would find it safer and quieter (and with less air pollution) to use it to go from Carpenterstown to Tesco and Blanch village.

I looked at each of the cul de sacs of Delwood and Brompton and I don't see where the suggested route would overlook properties (I realise that the bridge might - moving it west would solve this). I would expect that it would run at the same level as the road and thus properties would be protected by their existing side walls.

Opening the cul de sacs to the towpath would allow residents immediately access a peaceful, fume free walkway. There's a potential downside that train commuters would park there too but that can be overcome.

With respect to privacy, towpath users generally don't care to look into properties. The train, between Drumcondra and Connolly, is over a lot of properties and it is super easy to look into them.
My family home is off Auburn Avenue in full view of passing and stopped buses. It's no big deal.

Many of the houses don't have side walls. They had fences that were eventually dragged down by ivy and briars. Fingal are adamant they will not build any walls.

Opening the cul de sacs is probably the biggest concern for most people in Delwood. The residents in Brompton fought for years to get "the bushes" fenced off because it was THE place to go for drugs. Residents don't want access to the greenway. Auburn Avenue has always been open but if you've spent 40 years living in a cul de sac, and then find it's going to be opened up, you'd be upset too. It's not only about privacy, it's about security too, and there's no way to prevent parking by train users.

ilsilenzio · 19-03-2019 2:36pm

daymobrew

Had previously decided to desist but last word from me :-

At no stage was it consciously suggested that the cul de sacs would be overlooked-- some Roselawn houses and many in Dewlood Park would be The cul de sacs proposed openings would allow anti socials regain free access -- I and many would prefer to access the canal / walkway at existing access points. It is nigh impossible to appreciate the ins and outs of this proposal if not a resident or alternatively having attending the open day/s and meetings. In any case, in my humble opinion, not being an engineer, it would be "mechanically"impossible to move the bridge further west-- this is where the path narrows and used as justification for its position and crossing the canal. Expecting where exactly the route / and LEVEL thereof would run is all part of the problem-- some engineer/ s planners did not realise the gradient, or consider or even know of the existence / complications of a little known quarry down there, on the Northside. A largely desk based exercise, allegedly principally using drones and questionable levels / drawings do not inspire confidence. For many reasons I purchased a house with a certain aspect, in a culd de sac, and paid appropriately for same, and helped force closure off interconnecting laneway access because of anti social behaviour. Why should I now compromise this-- but one of the many reasons for my objecting.

beauf · 19-03-2019 3:12pm

I would not expect lane ways to be opened. I would expect access to be at the current location at the bridges.

Across D15 laneways were largely closed over the past 20yrs. In recent times there has a been a move to open some of them to improve walking routes between areas.
This is usually from those not resident in an area and walking through it. But in general local communities have succeed in keeping them closed. Which is good thing IMO.

beauf · 19-03-2019 3:21pm

Former Former wrote: »

Many of the houses don't have side walls. They had fences that were eventually dragged down by ivy and briars. Fingal are adamant they will not build any walls.

Opening the cul de sacs is probably the biggest concern for most people in Delwood. The residents in Brompton fought for years to get "the bushes" fenced off because it was THE place to go for drugs. Residents don't want access to the greenway. Auburn Avenue has always been open but if you've spent 40 years living in a cul de sac, and then find it's going to be opened up, you'd be upset too. It's not only about privacy, it's about security too, and there's no way to prevent parking by train users.

It would be very unfair to leave it open.
I wonder is a tactic to delay the work. Propose something controversial.
You can see the remains of gatherings on both banks. I wonder is it policed at all.
Makes no sense to spend a fortune on bridges etc, and not build fencing.

Then again I've never understood Fingal planning logic on how it does things in the area. They come out with the most bizarre solutions.

Former Former · 19-03-2019 3:53pm

I just don't get why they abandoned the South side. The train track already provides a barrier between the path and any houses, and there is far less plant and animal life on that side.

So there's a "pinch point" at Coolmine station. Surely there's some creative solution to that.

The mad thing is that, even if the greenway is built on the North side, the tow path on the south has to stay open.

daymobrew · 19-03-2019 3:56pm

ilsilenzio wrote: »

At no stage was it consciously suggested that the cul de sacs would be overlooked

It was mentioned by one or two at the open day and at Roderic's meeting. One person mentioned the need to an additional 10 foot wall on top of his existing 10 foot wall to maintain his privacy. That was the basis for my comment.

Estates are often poorly designed with respect to security. Laneways at the side of end houses are foolish. Changing the orientation of houses results in laneways being in front of multiple houses and this would help, but of course this is not a solution for existing estates.

Most of my journeys are by bike or foot. For this reason I would like additional permeability (access). When the Ashtown/12th Lock greenway was out for consultation I encouraged liaising with Irish Rail to provide access to Navan Road Parkway station. Right now uses must go all the way to Ashtown or Castleknock to get a train. Foolish.

My concern about a cantilever platform on the south bank (something I suggested back during the 2012/3 consultation) is that it would not be sturdy, but the video in beauf's post lessens that concern.

All that aside, who will support a tunnel under Castleknock Road as suggested in the original consultation?

daymobrew · 19-03-2019 4:01pm

Former Former wrote: »

I just don't get why they abandoned the South side. The train track already provides a barrier between the path and any houses, and there is far less plant and animal life on that side.

So there's a "pinch point" at Coolmine station. Surely there's some creative solution to that.

I bet the reasoning is cost. A raised boardwalk/cantilever platform is likely more expensive than laying tarmac on already solid ground.

I read that cutting in towards the train line is a no go - eh, obviously - but then building out is not mentioned. As the canal is way below the towpath, building out would not interfere with the passage of boats. If they can get under Granard Bridge (at Castleknock Road) then it demonstrates that they don't need much height.

beauf · 19-03-2019 4:04pm

It won't be more expensive than a bridge.

I don't get the pinch point at Coolmine. What pinch point?

beauf · 19-03-2019 4:09pm

I see irish Cycle has done a piece on it.

https://irishcycle.com/2019/03/19/public-urged-to-support-royal-canal-greenway-proposals-as-opposition-mounts-in-dublin-15/

If a fence solves the privacy issues seems just stubborn to dismiss it out of hand. Maybe they don't want to set a precedent for other works.

muckwarrior · 19-03-2019 4:20pm

beauf wrote: »

I don't get the pinch point at Coolmine. What pinch point?

The majority of the whole stretch between where it suddenly narrows near the Castleknock end and Coolmine train station. The aim is to have a path that's wide enough for cyclists and walkers to comfortably pass each other. Most of that stretch probably isn't half wide enough for this.

A boardwalk does seem like it might be feasible so not sure why it was discounted. I did hear one of the engineers at the consultation tell someone that Waterways Ireland stipulated that the tow path must remain functional, so not sure if the required railing that a boardwalk would need is the issue, but there are trees between the tow path and water in many places so technically the tow path isn't functional anyway.

Bargain_Hound · 19-03-2019 4:21pm

I'm not really sure why there is a need to re-open the cul-de-sacs at Delwood and Brompton to provide a greenway? These cul-de-sacs were previously closed off because of previous anti social behaviour it seems - reversing this seems like a move in the wrong direction in my opinion.

muckwarrior · 19-03-2019 4:23pm

Bargain_Hound wrote: »

I'm not really sure why there is a need to re-open the cul-de-sacs at Delwood and Brompton to provide a greenway? These cul-de-sacs were previously closed off because of previous anti social behaviour it seems - reversing this seems like a move in the wrong direction in my opinion.

There isn't a need, it was just a proposal. The engineers at the consultation seemed resigned to the fact that they almost certainly wouldn't go ahead.

wildlifeboy · 19-03-2019 4:25pm

i agree there shouldnt be access other than at both bridges although having grown up where you are talking about the lanes being closed i can assure you that reports of antisocial behaviour in those lane-ways was greatly exaggerated at the time. unless a few teenagers drinking cans is the pinnacle of antisocial behaviour.

abc_abc · 19-03-2019 4:51pm

beauf wrote: »

I see irish Cycle has done a piece on it.

If a fence solves the privacy issues seems just stubborn to dismiss it out of hand. Maybe they don't want to set a precedent for other works.

I don't think there is any conspiracy against the Greenway, in fact most residents are in favour of it but are concerned about privacy and safety. The terrain behind Delwood is elevated which means that the path will run at the height of windows, same with the bridge. The fencing will need to be pretty high to occlude them from the view.

daymobrew · 19-03-2019 5:01pm

ilsilenzio wrote: »

At no stage was it consciously suggested that the cul de sacs would be overlooked-- some Roselawn houses and many in Dewlood Park would be

It is being clearly suggested here:

abc_abc wrote: »

The terrain behind Delwood is elevated which means that the path will run at the height of windows, same with the bridge. The fencing will need to be pretty high to occlude them from the view.

beauf · 19-03-2019 5:10pm

Ignoring the bridge, I'm at a loss to see where its elevated to a height that it causes that problem. (overlooking Cul de Sacs)

At weavers wood in Clonsilla a Cantilever path is proposed. (section H-H on those drawing on Irish Cycle).

abc_xyz · 19-03-2019 5:18pm

To add a bit of clarity/explanation:

Delwood is made up of multiple roads. There are Delwood Park, Grove, Lawn, Close, Drive and Walk.

I believe, because of the topography, in some cases the ground behind the houses on Delwood Park and Delwood Grove is elevated above the back gardens by a couple of metres. I believe the ground by the side of the Delwood cul-de-sacs (Close, Drive and Walk) is at the same elevation as the adjacent gardens.

abc_abc · 19-03-2019 5:20pm

beauf wrote: »

Ignoring the bridge, I'm at a loss to see where its elevated to a height that it causes that problem.

The relevant section for Delwood is section L-L and for Brompton/Roselawn section M-M.

beauf · 19-03-2019 5:24pm

I'm not seeing this 6ft rise in elevaton.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3785776,-6.3905678,3a,60y,169.89h,84.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snF0zIjZHT-P892EQTyClSA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Unless they are planning to build a huge earth rampart there for some reason.

The path looks like its proposed to be on the top of the bank which is level with gardens.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3778111,-6.3923144,3a,75y,74.08h,83.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZzV2rIdClQv2ipMIN5GQow!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

If there is a huge difference in elevation, its not obvious.

Birdie Num Num · 19-03-2019 6:11pm

daymobrew wrote: »

It was mentioned by one or two at the open day and at Roderic's meeting. One person mentioned the need to an additional 10 foot wall on top of his existing 10 foot wall to maintain his privacy. That was the basis for my comment.

Estates are often poorly designed with respect to security. Laneways at the side of end houses are foolish. Changing the orientation of houses results in laneways being in front of multiple houses and this would help, but of course this is not a solution for existing estates.

Most of my journeys are by bike or foot. For this reason I would like additional permeability (access). When the Ashtown/12th Lock greenway was out for consultation I encouraged liaising with Irish Rail to provide access to Navan Road Parkway station. Right now uses must go all the way to Ashtown or Castleknock to get a train. Foolish.

My concern about a cantilever platform on the south bank (something I suggested back during the 2012/3 consultation) is that it would not be sturdy, but the video in beauf's post lessens that concern.

All that aside, who will support a tunnel under Castleknock Road as suggested in the original consultation?

I was a little confused by that concern too. I can't see how gardens would be overlooked. Having looked at the site since last weeks meeting I am not sure even the bridge would be high enough to overlook or even be at a similar height to the houses that back onto the canal.

...As a user of the canal I share concerns of others on the thread about the overdevelopment of the canal towpath and bank. I also like the sense of being away from it all particularly on the stretch between Castleknock and Porterstown and from Clonsilla out past Barberstown Bridge to Confey. I also feel there is somewhat more of an emphasis on creating a commuter cycle route above a recreational route. From my experience from using the canal on the already developed tarmac'd areas, from Castleknock to Ashtown and towards Broombridge, I would say that pedestrian use far outnumbers cyclists.

I am not against the Greenway and certainly would like one opened up to cyclists but with as much sensitivity to what exists there already. If that is at all possible.

I am well aware of the concerns of residents on the Northside of the canal and I share some of those concerns too. I just cannot see how it could be developed on the South bank between Castleknock and Porterstown. Not without losing the existing towpath, undermining the railway and having a huge impact on the canal itself. There are some sections that are only about two metres in width from the waters edge to the railway embankment. Also, I would guess a towpath or some solid ground would need to be maintained on one of the banks.

Whatever happens I hope it will be a positive outcome for all.

beauf · 19-03-2019 6:31pm

They shouldn't have never built right up so close to the Canal.

They do the same everywhere. Build right up to edge of other features, with no space left for any future provision.

beauf · 19-03-2019 6:33pm

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

...There are some sections that are only about two metres in width from the waters edge to the railway embankment.....

Is that not enough?

Lot less than that on the footpath under many of the bridges you go under.
I expect its not the path can't be made wide enough.

But thats it awkward and expensive to build in such an awkward constricted location.
The other bank has vastly more space for construction. Elbow room as it were.

Birdie Num Num · 19-03-2019 6:41pm

beauf wrote: »

Is that not enough?

Lot less than that on the footpath under many of the bridges you go under.

Enough for what though? It's plenty enough for me as it is but is it enough space to build a structure without impacting the railway embankment and the canal?

beauf · 19-03-2019 6:54pm

They could do something like a MTB wooden tack. It would 100 times better than it is now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6htWF2M8Pw

Half the problem is its overgrown and not maintained. I've cycled the deep cutting a few times. It was surprising how busy it was. Maybe thats why they put no cycling signs up a few years back.

Birdie Num Num · 19-03-2019 7:11pm

beauf wrote: »

They could do something like a MTB wooden tack. It would 100 times better than it is now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6htWF2M8Pw

Half the problem is its overgrown and not maintained. I've cycled the deep cutting a few times. It was surprising how busy it was. Maybe thats why they put no cycling signs up a few years back.

I haven't watched your clip yet but I will do. ... That could be to do with the danger of coming off a bike and into the canal. When out for a run one evening I met a drunk in the canal with a mountain bike at the very spot I am thinking of. Refused my help too but somehow managed to get himself out. On my way back he was further up closer to the Station asleep with said bike on the canal bank.

blanch152 · 19-03-2019 7:40pm

daymobrew wrote: »

It was mentioned by one or two at the open day and at Roderic's meeting. One person mentioned the need to an additional 10 foot wall on top of his existing 10 foot wall to maintain his privacy. That was the basis for my comment.

Estates are often poorly designed with respect to security. Laneways at the side of end houses are foolish. Changing the orientation of houses results in laneways being in front of multiple houses and this would help, but of course this is not a solution for existing estates.

Most of my journeys are by bike or foot. For this reason I would like additional permeability (access). When the Ashtown/12th Lock greenway was out for consultation I encouraged liaising with Irish Rail to provide access to Navan Road Parkway station. Right now uses must go all the way to Ashtown or Castleknock to get a train. Foolish.

My concern about a cantilever platform on the south bank (something I suggested back during the 2012/3 consultation) is that it would not be sturdy, but the video in beauf's post lessens that concern.

All that aside, who will support a tunnel under Castleknock Road as suggested in the original consultation?

A 20 foot wall to maintain privacy?

If he needs that, he should be more worried about landslides.

Typical over-excitement of NIMBYism.

blanch152 · 19-03-2019 7:45pm

Having looked at the plans in detail on the Fingal website for the section between Coolmine and Castleknock, I think they are a very good solution.

The wildness of the Southern side can be preserved, but a safe cycleway can also be put into place.

I really don't see what the privacy fuss is about.

Royal Canal Greenway

Comments