Royal Canal Greenway

Former Former · 24-03-2019 9:19pm

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

This is why I also can't see a cantilever type structure working. I suspect if you put such a structure in place that obstructs or replaces the tow path, a tow path will have to be constructed on the opposite side of the canal. Again I don't know for sure. But I would guess that terre firma needs to be in place on at least one side of the canal for any vessels in the water.

??

The tow path was there to allow a horse to walk alongside the canal towing a barge, prior to the invention of the steam engine.

Now, I love a bit of retro chic but I think going back to horse-drawn transport might be a bit much.

Birdie Num Num · 24-03-2019 10:21pm

Former Former wrote: »

??

The tow path was there to allow a horse to walk alongside the canal towing a barge, prior to the invention of the steam engine.

Now, I love a bit of retro chic but I think going back to horse-drawn transport might be a bit much.

I’m not a boating expert but anytime I have been on a canal there was always a need to tie the boat up, pull it to a bank or quayside. Nothing much has changed in that respect since prior to the invention of the steam engine.

blanch152 · 24-03-2019 11:22pm

Former Former wrote: »

??

The tow path was there to allow a horse to walk alongside the canal towing a barge, prior to the invention of the steam engine.

Now, I love a bit of retro chic but I think going back to horse-drawn transport might be a bit much.

It doesn't matter what you think tow paths were there for, they are legally required to maintain them.

ilsilenzio · 25-03-2019 12:15am

magicbastarder

Opening up the estates would completely remove any ability for children to play on the roads- there would be even less space with all day parking by rail commuters, would encourage them to wander from relative safety to what could be a dangerous environment, with high drops into the canal, with danger from anti social behaviours. They couldnt clean up the boardwalks in the capital city for Gods sake !. Depending on the height you would have older kids divebombing into the dirty canal aka the Dublin Docks from the Greenway. They are beginning to refer to it as an Urban Greenway and commuter corridor and in this regard I would think that cyclists should want less access points. They would encourage casual mammies and toddlers, casual walkers and god forbid pensioners wandering along. Their progress would be slowed. Has any other Greenway so many access points in such a short stretch.
In summary I would guesstimate that, if given the means, 70% of the residents of the four estates would prefer the current two access points, irrespective of which side was chosen-- not that the Northside is acceptable. Surely 70% of the current residents have rights equal to, at least, of those who wish to have a shortcut into town. Consultation has not taken place-- limited, inadequate, conrtradictory, confusing, un costed and poorly presented data and information were put up as a plan, already sealed as the preferred route, and to hell with those affected. Cyclists outside the area are of course generally rooting for this plan and I have to admit I somewhat understand but.............

Former Former · 25-03-2019 12:49am

blanch152 wrote: »

It doesn't matter what you think tow paths were there for, they are legally required to maintain them.

Jesus, it was only a bit of a joke.

But it's not what I "think" they were there for, it's exactly what they were there for. TOWpath, look closely, there's a very subtle clue in the name. Do you see it?

If the greenway goes on the north bank, they would have to maintain the southern towpath because it has been a public right of way for 200 years, not for any boating reasons.

magicbastarder · 25-03-2019 1:58am

ilsilenzio wrote: »

They would encourage casual mammies and toddlers, casual walkers and god forbid pensioners wandering along.

good god, you're actually making it sound like a good idea!

avalidusername · 25-03-2019 2:13am

ilsilenzio wrote: »

magicbastarder

They are beginning to refer to it as an Urban Greenway and commuter corridor and in this regard I would think that cyclists should want less access points. They would encourage casual mammies and toddlers, casual walkers and god forbid pensioners wandering along. Their progress would be slowed.

If you ask around, you'll probably find that most cyclists going along the canal route, aren't racing for a Tour de France Time Trial, they're casual cyclists enjoying the local scenery and route.

ilsilenzio · 25-03-2019 9:17am

Lest it iwas unclear the words "they would encourage......" was meant to refer to the number of access points rather than the promoters. The more access points the more danger of accidents . Was somewhat tongue in cheek. NO, they , the promoters intend to create an Urban Commuter route......and take cylists off the roads....read their publications !! . They could of course build side slip ways on and off ..... before you respond.... only joking .

ilsilenzio · 25-03-2019 9:19am

Giving up, bye. !!

Fighting Tao · 25-03-2019 9:25am

I don’t think that there has been one valid argument against made. Everything smacks of Nimbyism. Is this one stretch really so different to other areas that have benefited from greenways? What do the residents want? Money? It usually softens coughs quite easily.

I’d happily buy a house with access to such an amienty down the lane behind me. I’d say there will be an increase in house prices there once it’s built.

Hurrache · 25-03-2019 10:59am

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Is this one stretch really so different to other areas that have benefited from greenways?

In fairness in terms of closeness to the path from that point into the city, I think there is. I'm sure that from say Clonsilla on the houses don't come as close to the path, maybe a couple around Cabra but I think they're elevated. But that brings up the issue as to who gave the home owners permission, if there is, to extend their gardens to the water.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I’d happily buy a house with access to such an amienty down the lane behind me. I’d say there will be an increase in house prices there once it’s built.

It would be great wouldn't it.

beauf · 25-03-2019 11:42am

#1 Its not Nimbyism to keep the lanes and cul de sac closes. They cause anti social activity and crime.

#2 The cycle lane doesn't need the laneways and ul de sac opened.

beauf · 25-03-2019 11:45am

Fighting Tao wrote: »

...Is this one stretch really so different to other areas that have benefited from greenways? ...

Every stretch is different. Have you ever used one?

beauf · 25-03-2019 11:48am

ilsilenzio wrote: »

...They are beginning to refer to it as an Urban Greenway and commuter corridor and in this regard I would think that cyclists should want less access points. They would encourage casual mammies and toddlers, casual walkers and god forbid pensioners wandering along. Their progress would be slowed. Has any other Greenway so many access points in such a short stretch. ...

Its consider an amenity for all types of users not just cyclists.

You should try walking stretch the from 12th lock to ashtown on sat or sun afternoon.

Fighting Tao · 25-03-2019 12:15pm

beauf wrote: »

Every stretch is different. Have you ever used one?

Yes I have and that’s why I can’t figure out what the uproar is here. As you said “every stretch is different”, which is why I am trying to figure out why there wasn’t such uproar over other stretches. Maybe there was but I don’t recall it.

As for laneways...I used to live backing onto one. The greenway will increase people traffic. The more people traffic in an area, generally the less antisocial behaviour because there is a much higher chance of being caught. Although too much people trafficnalso creates situations where it’s easier to get away with antisocial behaviour like the city centre but I’m quite sure that this stretch of greenway and it’s access points will be city centre like.

Bargain_Hound · 25-03-2019 12:22pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Yes I have and that’s why I can’t figure out what the uproar is here. As you said “every stretch is different”, which is why I am trying to figure out why there wasn’t such uproar over other stretches. Maybe there was but I don’t recall it.

As for laneways...I used to live backing onto one. The greenway will increase people traffic. The more people traffic in an area, generally the less antisocial behaviour because there is a much higher chance of being caught. Although too much people trafficnalso creates situations where it’s easier to get away with antisocial behaviour like the city centre but I’m quite sure that this stretch of greenway and it’s access points will be city centre like.

There is no anti social behaviour currently though.

Is it really that unfair of residents to be concerned about the unclear plans neighbouring their properties?

Fighting Tao · 25-03-2019 12:32pm

Bargain_Hound wrote: »

There is no anti social behaviour currently though.

Is it really that unfair of residents to be concerned about the unclear plans neighbouring their properties?

So it’s a “what if” scenario. Ok, I get it now. However, every infrastructure project is a what. There are laws for antisocial behaviour.

How about “what if” there are no antisocial behaviour? Nah, better to scrap plans than accept that there may be no issue and if there is an issue then there are laws that can be invoked.

beauf · 25-03-2019 12:50pm

Its not a what if. They had anti social behaviour and were closed all over Fingal.
Can't speak for other areas.
They were originally open and they were closed after many years of being open.

Many who are in the area a long time will remember them as being open.
Fingal in the interest of access have tried to open them up and most places have kept them closes.

This is nothing to do with the Greenway. Its not Nimbyism. its from experience of many years.

beauf · 25-03-2019 12:52pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Yes I have and that’s why I can’t figure out what the uproar is here. As you said “every stretch is different”, which is why I am trying to figure out why there wasn’t such uproar over other stretches. Maybe there was but I don’t recall it. ....

List a few other areas that have laneways/back gardens that back onto the canal and now the greenway.

Fighting Tao · 25-03-2019 1:06pm

beauf wrote: »

List a few other areas that have laneways/back gardens that back onto the canal and now the greenway.

The new stretch on Sheerif St have. Also, the whole way up through north strand and beyond right up to Phibsborough (I think as there are areas I’m not familiar with). It’s been a while since I’ve been on it further.

As for your previous post, you ignore that more people traffic generally means less antisocial behaviour. I’m sure those like yourself who remember the lanes being open also remember them having very few pass through. Unlike how they would be leading to the greenway.

Former Former · 25-03-2019 1:16pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

There are laws for antisocial behaviour.

In fairness, this isn't relevant. Whether it's teenagers drinking, toerags riding scrambler bikes, drug-dealing or illegal dumping, the gardai don't have anywhere near the resources to be responding to it. A law without any enforcement isn't worth the paper it's written on.

The proposed greenway is close enough to residential areas to be accessible to bored teenagers or more unsavoury people, but secluded enough that no-one will be able to see what they're doing. It's tailor-made for anti-social behaviour. Increased foot traffic during the day will help, but at night, not so much.

Now, that is a factor regardless of which side it's sited on, but at least on the south side the train line provides a buffer between the path and any houses.

Fighting Tao · 25-03-2019 1:19pm

Former Former wrote: »

In fairness, this isn't relevant. Whether it's teenagers drinking, toerags riding scrambler bikes, drug-dealing or illegal dumping, the gardai don't have anywhere near the resources to be responding to it.

The proposed greenway is close enough to residential areas to be accessible to bored teenagers or more unsavoury people, but secluded enough that no-one will be able to see what they're doing. It's tailor-made for anti-social behaviour.

Now, that is a factor regardless of which side it's sited on, but at least on the south side the train line provides a buffer between the path and any houses.

Other areas are also exposed too. Maybe the whole length of the canal should be blocked off to ensure that nothing untoward happens there ever again.

donaghs · 25-03-2019 1:39pm

beauf wrote: »

Its consider an amenity for all types of users not just cyclists.

You should try walking stretch the from 12th lock to ashtown on sat or sun afternoon.

Then try walking from Castleknock station to coolmine station on the existing trail. The former feels suburban, and the latter is more like being in the countryside.

Former Former · 25-03-2019 1:58pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Other areas are also exposed too. Maybe the whole length of the canal should be blocked off to ensure that nothing untoward happens there ever again.

Constructive response.

The point is that there are ways to mitigate it.

The cycling die-hards have obviously decided that any criticism of the planned route is just an opposition to the greenway itself. That's the fundamental misunderstanding here and it's why you are all getting so angry. In fairness to you, it's exactly what Fingal and the NTA wanted to happen and they've played it beautifully.

It is possible to be in favour of the greenway but have concerns about these exact proposals.

Fighting Tao · 25-03-2019 2:10pm

Former Former wrote: »

Constructive response.

The point is that there are ways to mitigate it.

The cycling die-hards have obviously decided that any criticism of the planned route is just an opposition to the greenway itself. That's the fundamental misunderstanding here and it's why you are all getting so angry. In fairness to you, it's exactly what Fingal and the NTA wanted to happen and they've played it beautifully.

It is possible to be in favour of the greenway but have concerns about these exact proposals.

The anger, paranoia nor tin foil battery is not from me. I’ve never cycled any of the route. I have walked it. As an outsider it appears to be much ado about nothing and the objections do not appear to be very well constructed. It all is what ifs and the sky is falling in.

If previous posts are to believed, as per regulations the other side wouldn’t be wide enough. is that not a clear reason for the selection?

blanch152 · 25-03-2019 3:14pm

beauf wrote: »

#1 Its not Nimbyism to keep the lanes and cul de sac closes. They cause anti social activity and crime.

#2 The cycle lane doesn't need the laneways and ul de sac opened.

One of the arguments against closing Coolmine Rail Crossing was that closing routes causes anti-social activity and crime. Now we are hearing that opening routes causes anti-social activity and crime.

That leaves me baffled, and back to the conclusion that NIMBYism always finds an excuse.

beauf · 25-03-2019 3:27pm

blanch152 wrote: »

One of the arguments against closing Coolmine Rail Crossing was that closing routes causes anti-social activity and crime. Now we are hearing that opening routes causes anti-social activity and crime.

That leaves me baffled, and back to the conclusion that NIMBYism always finds an excuse.

Maybe link to what you are talking about.

They've been lots of noise about closing that, and it wasn't handled well either. There was some suggestion that it was used as a PR stunt for local politicians.

The reason for closing crossings is to speed up the train. Where its closed, they intended to create a new bridge. So it wasn't going to be "closed" as you imply. There would still be the canal path.

You seem to use NIMBYism as counter for every argument. Its getting old.

blanch152 · 25-03-2019 3:28pm

Former Former wrote: »

In fairness, this isn't relevant. Whether it's teenagers drinking, toerags riding scrambler bikes, drug-dealing or illegal dumping, the gardai don't have anywhere near the resources to be responding to it. A law without any enforcement isn't worth the paper it's written on.

The proposed greenway is close enough to residential areas to be accessible to bored teenagers or more unsavoury people, but secluded enough that no-one will be able to see what they're doing. It's tailor-made for anti-social behaviour. Increased foot traffic during the day will help, but at night, not so much.

Now, that is a factor regardless of which side it's sited on, but at least on the south side the train line provides a buffer between the path and any houses.

Surely the people high up on the bridge that needs a 20-foot wall to protect a man's privacy will be visible from miles away?

More seriously, if you are right about the greenway attracting anti-social behaviour, our first duty should be to protect other users of the greenway. Having a closed greenway on the southside of the river with the railway line blocking escape, an unwitting victim could be trapped by a split gang of anti-social teenagers. Imagine scrambler bikes coming from both sides of you. With the high drop to the canal, they are in real danger. Situating the greenway on the northside with plenty of access will prevent such risks to vulnerable people. So, health and safety in response to anti-social behaviour would support a northside option with maximum openness. Then again, perhaps the risks of anti-social behaviour are greatly exaggerated.

blanch152 · 25-03-2019 3:29pm

beauf wrote: »

Maybe link to what you are talking about.

They've been lots of noise about closing that, and it wasn't handled well either. There was some suggestion that it was used as a PR stunt for local politicians.

The reason for closing crossings is to speed up the train. Where its closed, they intended to create a new bridge. So it wasn't going to be "closed" as you imply. There would still be the canal path.

You seem to use NIMBYism as counter for every argument. Its getting old.

I was at meetings and heard the comments so I can't obviously link to them. That process completely put me off local consultation in the area.

beauf · 25-03-2019 3:30pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

T...If previous posts are to believed, as per regulations the other side wouldn’t be wide enough. is that not a clear reason for the selection?

The rest of the route isn't always as per regulations.

So thats one of the reasons that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If the suggestion is cost. Then why not show the costs compared.

When people give half truths as facts, that people start distrusting the process.

beauf · 25-03-2019 3:31pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I was at meetings and heard the comments so I can't obviously link to them. That process completely put me off local consultation in the area.

Lot of comments on the local politicians websites and even council minutes.

Most talk about the lack of transparency.

beauf · 25-03-2019 3:46pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The new stretch on Sheerif St have. Also, the whole way up through north strand and beyond right up to Phibsborough (I think as there are areas I’m not familiar with). It’s been a while since I’ve been on it further.

As for your previous post, you ignore that more people traffic generally means less antisocial behaviour. I’m sure those like yourself who remember the lanes being open also remember them having very few pass through. Unlike how they would be leading to the greenway.

Your talking about a section that isn't built yet. How can you know what issues there will be?

Also its a raised path. Is there access from the cul de sacs on Sheriff street to this new path/bridge? Plans seem to show the walls will be retained or it will 6ft up in the air?

https://irishcycle.com/2019/02/04/work-starts-on-royal-canal-greenway-beside-dublin-docklands/

What cul de sacs with access to the current path in north strand and up to Phibsborough??? There are none?

beauf · 25-03-2019 3:48pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

...As for your previous post, you ignore that more people traffic generally means less antisocial behaviour. I’m sure those like yourself who remember the lanes being open also remember them having very few pass through. Unlike how they would be leading to the greenway.

No they were busy. Main routes to shops. Busier than the green-way traffic will be. I also remember the blanch cops wouldn't go down them at night. One used to have a timed gate on it. Only opened during the day.

I'm not convinced you know any of the areas you are talking about.

beauf · 25-03-2019 3:52pm

Former Former wrote: »

Constructive response.

The point is that there are ways to mitigate it.

The cycling die-hards have obviously decided that any criticism of the planned route is just an opposition to the greenway itself. That's the fundamental misunderstanding here and it's why you are all getting so angry. In fairness to you, it's exactly what Fingal and the NTA wanted to happen and they've played it beautifully.

It is possible to be in favour of the greenway but have concerns about these exact proposals.

Exactly. The Greenway does not need access into the estates. The only people who will be inconvenienced by no access is those local in estates. Its an entirely seperate issue.

Someones doing a PR job to get any objections valid or not steamrollered by people not even in the area.

Fighting Tao · 25-03-2019 4:00pm

beauf wrote: »

Your talking about a section that isn't built yet. How can you know what issues there will be?

Also its a raised path. Is there access from the cul de sacs on Sheriff street to this new path/bridge? Plans seem to show the walls will be retained or it will 6ft up in the air?

https://irishcycle.com/2019/02/04/work-starts-on-royal-canal-greenway-beside-dublin-docklands/

What cul de sacs with access to the current path in north strand and up to Phibsborough??? There are none?

It is currently being built and was blocked off as there was genuine antisocial behaviour along the canal where houses back onto not some perceived notion that it will automatically turn into post apocalyptic free for all once built.

Also, there was the ability to submit opinions and thoughts for this section. Who knows what will be proposed as a result.

Fighting Tao · 25-03-2019 4:03pm

beauf wrote: »

No they were busy. Main routes to shops. Busier than the green-way traffic will be. I also remember the blanch cops wouldn't go down them at night. One used to have a timed gate on it. Only opened during the day.

I'm not convinced you know any of the areas you are talking about.

I already said I’m not familiar with the area ???

Are the proposals direct routes to the canal or a free for all in a warren of lanes? I’d guess the former. Less areas to hide if I’m right.

beauf · 25-03-2019 4:12pm

blanch152 wrote: »

....our first duty should be to protect other users of the greenway. Having a closed greenway on the southside of the river with the railway line blocking escape,...

Why are the locals not the first duty?

Most of the current route doesn't have an escape route off it.
Even if it did good luck out running teenagers or a motorbike.

Besides ravaging hordes mad max style isn't really what is mean by anti social activity.

beauf · 25-03-2019 4:15pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

It is currently being built and was blocked off as there was genuine antisocial behaviour along the canal ...

Its a well known area.

beauf · 25-03-2019 4:18pm

It took the foot traffic that there is Boombridge with the new Luas terminus, to make a significant difference to that area.

Ye are dragging this well off topic. Just build a wall/fence to keep the locals out. Access at either end at the train stations. End of issue.

Fighting Tao · 25-03-2019 4:21pm

beauf wrote: »

It took the foot traffic that there is Boombridge with the new Luas terminus, to make a significant difference to that area.

Ye are dragging this well off topic. Just build a wall/fence to keep the locals out. Access at either end at the train stations. End of issue.

That may well be the final proposal once submissions are assessed.

Former Former · 25-03-2019 5:01pm

I honestly think that having access to the Greenway at the bottom of cul-de-sacs is so absolutely stupid that the Council just dropped it in there so they'd be able to say "hey, we listened to your concerns and we acted, the access points are gone", and it looks like a genuine consultation.

Then they can push ahead with the pieces they really want and say, well, ye can't have it all your own way lads...

Birdie Num Num · 25-03-2019 5:09pm

I have it sorted. A pair of blinkers should quell any fears of looking into gardens and a few more wires and we should be able to include any walkers and runners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7lLxtCK2aA

blanch152 · 25-03-2019 5:22pm

beauf wrote: »

It took the foot traffic that there is Boombridge with the new Luas terminus, to make a significant difference to that area.

Ye are dragging this well off topic. Just build a wall/fence to keep the locals out. Access at either end at the train stations. End of issue.

Neither Broombridge nor the North Strand are in Fingal.

https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/draft-fingal-development-plan-2017-%E2%80%93-2023-stage-2/chapter/chapter-12-development

"Green corridors are linear open spaces along paths, water courses, planting or other natural features that provide opportunities for walking and cycling, informal recreation, and biodiversity and wildlife migration. They will not generally be included as part of the quantitative calculation for open space provision, except with the agreement of the Planning Authority. Green corridors should be incorporated into all new large developments, as part of Green Infrastructure provision, linking large areas of open space and linking with areas outside the development site."

Walled-off greenways are against the County Development Plan. Dotted through the plan are other proposals (see below for an example) that encourage open access.

"Open Plan Estates
It is important to maintain the openness of residential development, particularly schemes where openness is a defining feature of the development. This can be achieved through the removal of the exempted development rights with regard to the provision of boundary walls, railing or other features to the front of houses.

1
Gated Communities
Gated communities are communities or developments in which access to the public is not readily available due to the erection of different types of physical barriers. Gated communities serve to exclude and divide communities and do not support the development of a permeable, connected and linked urban area.

1
Objective DMS32

Prohibit proposals that would create a gated community for any new residential developments."

beauf · 25-03-2019 5:58pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Neither ...

Literally none of that is relevant to the subject at hand.

You are dragging entirely unrelated issues that no one has proposed into the thread and then arguing against them.
Also you are using terms interchangeably when they are not interchangeable, simply so you can argue against them.

Why not stick to the issues at hand, rather than inventing ones that don't exist here.

beauf · 25-03-2019 6:01pm

Former Former wrote: »

I honestly think that having access to the Greenway at the bottom of cul-de-sacs is so absolutely stupid that the Council just dropped it in there so they'd be able to say "hey, we listened to your concerns and we acted, the access points are gone", and it looks like a genuine consultation.

Then they can push ahead with the pieces they really want and say, well, ye can't have it all your own way lads...

Seem like deflection and miss direction.
Something that other proposed developments have been accused of before.

magicbastarder · 25-03-2019 9:53pm

Former Former wrote: »

I honestly think that having access to the Greenway at the bottom of cul-de-sacs is so absolutely stupid

well, they've access to delwood road at the other end of the cul de sacs - allowing not just pedestrians and cyclists, but even motorists too - yet everyone is more than satisfied with that. weird, huh?

Mercian Pro · 25-03-2019 9:57pm

ilsilenzio wrote: »

Mercian Pro. "A few thoughts having walked......."

Mercian pro has written very reasonable and impressive piece, apparently as a resident from without the area, not that I would in any way deny him his absolute right to comment or advocate because of this. However his interest appears to be influenced to a great degree by the fact that he appears to be a keen cyclist. If I were a keen cyclist I would no doubt also have similar views were it not for a fact that I have resided in one of the cul de sacs for about 40 years. I would suggest that I would be expected to have a slightly different view, opinion and most importantly, expect more influence in something which very directly, adversely affects me, my family and local residents.

Thank you for your kind words. Yes, I confess to being a keen cyclist and to living further along the Canal in Glasnevin. I also admit to being a member of the Royal Canal Amenity Group and to regularly walking my dog on various sections of the canal towpath. This morning we had a most enjoyable stroll from Cross Guns Bridge to Ashtown and back that included lots of "lovely morning" exchanges, a chat with a lovely couple who travel from Dunboyne regularly to walk the canal, a couple of (canine) swims and a rare sighting of an otter (definately not a coypu!) The Royal is my quickist link to the joys of the countryside and I would love to see more people enjoy it on the water and on the slowly developing Greenway.

I find it ironic that an early case of IMBYism by the Duke of Leinster has led us to the contentious situation we are now in. By insisting that the Canal serve his Carton Estate, he forced the alteration of the route through what became the Deep Sinking. Not only did this bankrupt the first Royal Canal Company, it also resulted in the deaths of numerous tow horses and 16 passengers on the Longford in 1845. Had the original planned route not been changed, there would have been a wide and level towpath beside it, easily upgraded to Greenway standards.

Getting back to your comments above, I am interested in your view that you should have more influence on the planning process as one potentially affected by the Greenway than I should as a future user. In practice, from reading the comments of your local Councillors, would-be Councillors and TDs, you have immense influence. Why would they listen to me as my vote is not only in a different area but in a different Council? My own Councillors, while interested in the Dublin sections of the Greenway, have no interest in matters further upstream in Fingal.

As I'm sure you're aware by now, the Royal Canal Greenway when completed will be the longest Greenway in the country at 145km from the Liffey to the Shannon. It will form the major part of the Dublin to Galway Cycle route and, as such, will be the western end of the Moscow to Galway EuroVelo 2 Route. Of more importance from a sustainability perspective, it will facilitate cycle commuting to and from Maynooth, Leixlip and Dublin. Many of those who will make use of the Greenway in the future, walkers, strollers, cyclists, wheelchair users, commuters, tourists, et al, won't even be aware of the current consultation process. I think they should have a say too and I, and a few others, are trying to anticipate and present their views.

The Deep Sinking from Granard Bridge to Kennan Bridge is 2.4km. From Delwood Grove to Brompton Court is approx 500m and the south side of Delwood Park is about 200m long. For the great majority of the proposed route the northside option is far simpler to construct and will involve a lot less damage to the canal side environment. For the difficult section behind Delwood Park, technical solutions can and will be found. I look forward to cycling and walking the Greenway in 2020.

beauf · 26-03-2019 12:00am

magicbastarder wrote: »

...
well, they've access to delwood road at the other end of the cul de sacs - allowing not just pedestrians and cyclists, but even motorists too - yet everyone is more than satisfied with that. weird, huh?

I think you maybe not be aware of the effect of two exits Vs one and through traffic.

blanch152 · 26-03-2019 12:13am

beauf wrote: »

Literally none of that is relevant to the subject at hand.

You are dragging entirely unrelated issues that no one has proposed into the thread and then arguing against them.
Also you are using terms interchangeably when they are not interchangeable, simply so you can argue against them.

Why not stick to the issues at hand, rather than inventing ones that don't exist here.

Not at all. The concept of open access is embedded in the county development plan, and that means the cul-de-sacs should be opened, greenway or not.

beauf · 26-03-2019 12:17am

Mercian Pro wrote: »

......Getting back to your comments above, I am interested in your view that you should have more influence on the planning process as one potentially affected by the Greenway than I should as a future user. .......

Maybe because they've invested their life saving and maybe 20yrs or so in the area. Most users will have invested nothing.

That said there's been a lot of exaggerating on both sides of the discussion.

But the Greenway is an important piece of infrastructure. Some compromise is required.

Royal Canal Greenway

Comments