Greenways [greenway map of Ireland in post 1]

riddlinrussell · 26-11-2020 6:05pm

daniel_t1409 wrote: »

why not put a green-way on the old track bed to macmine junction instead? Would link up with the New Ross greenway. A greenway on the SW line would completely destroy it and prevent it from ever reopening again. When the track is there it still has a (small) chance of reopening, which southeastontrack.com are campaigning for.

I haven't got a preference for a route across to Wexford myself, if it can be done via Macmine first, then I say have at it, Southeast on track need to be campaigning hard to get that route made into a greenway, otherwise the fully CIE controlled route looks all the more tempting.

What is the financial argument Southeast on track are working off of? I am in favour of subsidised public transport, as long as its being paid for through sensible taxation of the wealth generated by those links, but I wouldnt be in favour of railways just reopening because they can, the route would need to at least be 'minimally' unprofitable.

I know IE have been accused of intentionally trying to get some of these routes mothballed with odd scheduling etc, I'd be inclined to agree. What schedule would SEoT envisage to maximise income from the line?

Pete_Cavan · 26-11-2020 9:41pm

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I haven't got a preference for a route across to Wexford myself, if it can be done via Macmine first, then I say have at it, Southeast on track need to be campaigning hard to get that route made into a greenway, otherwise the fully CIE controlled route looks all the more tempting.

What is the financial argument Southeast on track are working off of? I am in favour of subsidised public transport, as long as its being paid for through sensible taxation of the wealth generated by those links, but I wouldnt be in favour of railways just reopening because they can, the route would need to at least be 'minimally' unprofitable.

I know IE have been accused of intentionally trying to get some of these routes mothballed with odd scheduling etc, I'd be inclined to agree. What schedule would SEoT envisage to maximise income from the line?

There is no financial argument, it is based on "wouldn't it be grand to ride by train" nostalgia rather than any real world considerations. Apart from a tiny number of people living in the immediate area, who in their right mind wants to travel via Rosslare and Bridgetown to get to Waterford?

jackofalltrades · 26-11-2020 9:49pm

daniel_t1409 wrote: »

why not put a green-way on the old track bed to macmine junction instead?

Because that's not a serious option, the route through South Wexford is.

A greenway on the SW line would completely destroy it and prevent it from ever reopening again. When the track is there it still has a (small) chance of reopening, which southeastontrack.com are campaigning for.

It's very unlikely that the Rosslare to Waterford line will ever be used again for regular services.
It's a greenway or let it be slowly taken over, that's the choice right now.

spacetweek · 26-11-2020 10:18pm

Creating cycle lanes on rural/semi-rural roads by putting down concrete barriers is a non-runner. How would you clean inside them? Litter/weeds etc. would gather there. Plus they'd be ugly as hell.

daniel_t1409 · 26-11-2020 10:34pm

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Because that's not a serious option, the route through South Wexford is.

It's very unlikely that the Rosslare to Waterford line will ever be used again for regular services.
It's a greenway or let it be slowly taken over, that's the choice right now.

Not sure what you mean by 'serious option'?

I am well aware that it will never be used as a railway again, noone is listening to the SEOT campaign.:(

I fail to understand why so many people are ok with a railway being turned into a greenway aimed at tourists while the roads become increasingly cogged with cars and lorries and climate change is getting worse too. The only concluson I can come up with is that many people here just don't like railways or trains when they are an efficient mode of transport.

It would be better if it was not turned into a greenway as it would allow for potential reopening of the line. Once the greenway is built, t will stay there forever.

The macmine junction route is probably the best one for a greenway as waterford/new Ross is already being built and it's more interconnected.

rant over :P

daniel_t1409 · 26-11-2020 10:41pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

There is no financial argument, it is based on "wouldn't it be grand to ride by train" nostalgia rather than any real world considerations. Apart from a tiny number of people living in the immediate area, who in their right mind wants to travel via Rosslare and Bridgetown to get to Waterford?

How many people live in wexford and work in waterford, for example? 0?:rolleyes:
How many cars could a proper train service take off the road?

Pete_Cavan · 27-11-2020 8:30am

daniel_t1409 wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by 'serious option'?

I am well aware that it will never be used as a railway again, noone is listening to the SEOT campaign.:(

I fail to understand why so many people are ok with a railway being turned into a greenway aimed at tourists while the roads become increasingly cogged with cars and lorries and climate change is getting worse too. The only concluson I can come up with is that many people here just don't like railways or trains when they are an efficient mode of transport.

It would be better if it was not turned into a greenway as it would allow for potential reopening of the line. Once the greenway is built, t will stay there forever.

The macmine junction route is probably the best one for a greenway as waterford/new Ross is already being built and it's more interconnected.

rant over :P

It wouldn't be a railway being turned into a greenway, it would be a disused strip of publicly owned land with no other purpose for the foreseeable future being put to good use as a greenway. I fail to understand why so many people are ok with it being left to rot. Greenways aren't just aimed at tourists, they are a fantastic amenity for local people and cater to a wide spectrum of the community.

There would be nothing efficient or environmentally friendly about reinstating train services on this line. If public transport is the goal, a bus service between Wexford and Waterford would be faster and could potentially be battery powered, better in every respect than a diesel train going a circuitous route through an area with little population.

I doubt if there is enough of the Macmine Junction route left to create a greenway. If there is, it should be greenway too and create a greenway loop through county Wexford which would be fantastic. Ironically, the Macmine Junction route would be a far better option for future rail services than the south Wexford line, it would avoid about 30km of a journey to Rosslare and serve at least some population in New Ross.

Pete_Cavan · 27-11-2020 8:36am

daniel_t1409 wrote: »

How many people live in wexford and work in waterford, for example? 0?:rolleyes:
How many cars could a proper train service take off the road?

Do you honestly think commuters will take a train from Wexford to Rosslare and then Bridgetown before eventually arriving in Waterford? The journey time would be much greater than via road. The line is single track so the level of service is that can be offered is limited. The number of cars a proper train service would take off the road would be negligible and not justify the significant costs associated with it.

daniel_t1409 · 27-11-2020 9:53am

@Pete_Cavan
I am not going to waste energy fighting with you, but:
1. It's still a railway, not a 'disused strip of publicly owned land'. Even though is has deteriorated, it can still take a train and took an inspection car just last month.
2. There are already plenty of places for tourists in wexford and there are already plenty of amenities in wexford.
3. I would agree with you about a decent bus service, but unless a frequent minibus service could be run going to waterford vis the passage east ferry, they would be going up to New Ross and not serving south wexford at all. Also buses are not a catch-all solution to public transport.
4. The majority of the MJ route is still surprisingly in CIE's ownership. Rosslare is 30km from where?
5.I know that here in ireland we have an obsession with cars, especially SUV's, but if the rail service was promoted, it WOULD be used. Also not everyone has cars, I don't. :rolleyes:

riddlinrussell · 27-11-2020 10:32am

daniel_t1409 wrote: »

@Pete_Cavan
I am not going to waste energy fighting with you, but:
1. It's still a railway, not a 'disused strip of publicly owned land'. Even though is has deteriorated, it can still take a train and took an inspection car just last month.
2. There are already plenty of places for tourists in wexford and there are already plenty of amenities in wexford.
3. I would agree with you about a decent bus service, but unless a frequent minibus service could be run going to waterford vis the passage east ferry, they would be going up to New Ross and not serving south wexford at all. Also buses are not a catch-all solution to public transport.
4. The majority of the MJ route is still surprisingly in CIE's ownership. Rosslare is 30km from where?
5.I know that here in ireland we have an obsession with cars, especially SUV's, but if the rail service was promoted, it WOULD be used. Also not everyone has cars, I don't. :rolleyes:

Hi Daniel, would you possibly be able to answer my questions about the route?

Are SEoT campaigning for the Macmine route? (Not just "Choose the Macmine route", actively discussing its benefits with the locals of North Wexford and convincing the council to look into it.)

What is SEoTs financial analysis of the route, have they worked out how to make it at least not financially ruinous for the operator?

What schedule and goods/passenger mix are SEoT suggesting that would maximise sustainability of the line?

daniel_t1409 · 27-11-2020 4:15pm

Not really, the have just discussed Macmine among themselves as an alternative route to the south Wexford line, go along the old trackbed, go along the river to Wexford, etc.

Seot are aiming for:

After necessary upgrades, extend or alter existing schedules to include regular South Wexford services and establish this as a viable travel option.

Improve journey times on both the Rosslare-Wexford-Dublin and the Rosslare-Wexford-Waterford-Limerick lines.

jackofalltrades · 28-11-2020 2:52pm

daniel_t1409 wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by 'serious option'?

For me to consider it as a serious option it would need to have:

1. An actual plan with details of how much it would cost, the route, possible difficulties
2. Support from the local community and politicans
3. Support from the people who's land it would run through or near. I'm guessing they'll be claims for adverse possession

And finally and most importantly.

4. I'd want to see it proposed by people who are actually going to use. And not by someone who is only suggesting it to stop cycling/walking infrastructure being built somewhere else.
This is as bad as the crappy alternative plan put forward by the Sandymount residents group for the Strand Road. But at least they went to the trouble of doing crappy drawings.

I fail to understand why so many people are ok with a railway being turned into a greenway aimed at tourists while the roads become increasingly cogged with cars and lorries and climate change is getting worse too. The only concluson I can come up with is that many people here just don't like railways or trains when they are an efficient mode of transport.

It won't be just tourists using the greenway. It will be a great amenity for locals too. Who will now have a safe way of getting around south Wexford that doesn't involve a car. Local children could be able to cycle to school.

28-11-2020 3:57pm

daniel_t1409 wrote: »

Whatever...

And there it is

daniel_t1409 · 28-11-2020 4:56pm

Ok lets go back to discussing greenways. Well, you can, I'm done with this thread, goodbye

.

gjim · 29-11-2020 10:01am

spacetweek wrote: »

Creating cycle lanes on rural/semi-rural roads by putting down concrete barriers is a non-runner. How would you clean inside them? Litter/weeds etc. would gather there. Plus they'd be ugly as hell.

That's a strange objection. They could clean them the same way the clean greenways or any other paths/roads which currently do not carry general motorised traffic. If that were a reason to object to public infrastructure we'd build nothing but roads.

The aesthetic cost has been acknowledged but the idea is to provide safety for users of all ages under various weather/lighting conditions, not to provide tourist photo ops. If it was the main concern, it could be cheaply alleviated by painting or using coloured concrete versions and in any case the barriers represent a compromise in terms of cost and can be considered temporary/removeable structures until budgets allow for a more permanent solution. A painted line is just not going to cut it.

Pete_Cavan · 29-11-2020 3:37pm

gjim wrote: »

That's a strange objection. They could clean them the same way the clean greenways or any other paths/roads which currently do not carry general motorised traffic. If that were a reason to object to public infrastructure we'd build nothing but roads.

The aesthetic cost has been acknowledged but the idea is to provide safety for users of all ages under various weather/lighting conditions, not to provide tourist photo ops. If it was the main concern, it could be cheaply alleviated by painting or using coloured concrete versions and in any case the barriers represent a compromise in terms of cost and can be considered temporary/removeable structures until budgets allow for a more permanent solution. A painted line is just not going to cut it.

The roads with the potential for such a cycle route have numerous junctions with other roads and regular private accesses. There will be bigger risks from cars joining/turning off the road which a concrete barrier will not alleviate, if anything it makes it more dangerous by reducing lines of sight. There would be regular sections of barrier missing right where the greatest risks are, while the barrier does little at lower risk areas where cars and bikes travel parallel with no interaction.

Again I'll make the point, other countries whose cycle infrastructure we should be replicating don't put concrete barriers along rural roads, I don't see why we should. It has nothing to do with tourist photo ops, even a painted concrete barrier would be awful. The options aren't limited to a painted line or a concrete barrier, grass verges are used here and all over Europe without issue, why do we suddenly have to jump to concrete barriers?

riddlinrussell · 29-11-2020 11:17pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The roads with the potential for such a cycle route have numerous junctions with other roads and regular private accesses. There will be bigger risks from cars joining/turning off the road which a concrete barrier will not alleviate, if anything it makes it more dangerous by reducing lines of sight. There would be regular sections of barrier missing right where the greatest risks are, while the barrier does little at lower risk areas where cars and bikes travel parallel with no interaction.

Again I'll make the point, other countries whose cycle infrastructure we should be replicating don't put concrete barriers along rural roads, I don't see why we should. It has nothing to do with tourist photo ops, even a painted concrete barrier would be awful. The options aren't limited to a painted line or a concrete barrier, grass verges are used here and all over Europe without issue, why do we suddenly have to jump to concrete barriers?

Pete, the idea would be to have grass verges, but fully putting those in place takes money that councils will be reluctant to spend, where 'temporary barriers' can be installed quickly and cheaply, then numbers using the routes increase, then you can more easily justify permanent upgrades to a grass verge.

For an example, the current, very popular, Liffey cycle route is the interim Liffey cycle route, with temporary (and in some places 'ugly concrete') barriers, because the 'full' one was going to take part 8 approval and has been rumbling on for 8 or 9 years at this stage.

Getting changes on the ground is more important than getting 'permanent' changes in place, as it allows people to start using it, which then drives more people to demand more changes (There was a great talk on this by Dublin Cycling Campaign recently)

The idea wouldn't be to have the 'ugly' barriers for long, just as long as it takes to get funding for the Dutch style verge and path system working.

If there was a temporary 'speed ramp' that could be deployed at side roads that would be a good interim solution, I suppose there must be an example of this somewhere else that is trying to rapidly roll out cycleways with the COVID restrictions.

Pete_Cavan · 30-11-2020 9:05am

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Pete, the idea would be to have grass verges, but fully putting those in place takes money that councils will be reluctant to spend, where 'temporary barriers' can be installed quickly and cheaply, then numbers using the routes increase, then you can more easily justify permanent upgrades to a grass verge.

For an example, the current, very popular, Liffey cycle route is the interim Liffey cycle route, with temporary (and in some places 'ugly concrete') barriers, because the 'full' one was going to take part 8 approval and has been rumbling on for 8 or 9 years at this stage.

Getting changes on the ground is more important than getting 'permanent' changes in place, as it allows people to start using it, which then drives more people to demand more changes (There was a great talk on this by Dublin Cycling Campaign recently)

The idea wouldn't be to have the 'ugly' barriers for long, just as long as it takes to get funding for the Dutch style verge and path system working.

If there was a temporary 'speed ramp' that could be deployed at side roads that would be a good interim solution, I suppose there must be an example of this somewhere else that is trying to rapidly roll out cycleways with the COVID restrictions.

I genuinely don't think concrete barriers are being put forward here as a short term measure. In any case, it isn't as ease as you make out, it will effect lines of sight and would likely require more daesign work. It also wouldn't be much cheaper, several km of concrete barrier is expensive and you still have to reline the road with associated traffic management, etc. Then you have to do get rid of them to put in a verge for the permanent solution at more cost.

riddlinrussell · 30-11-2020 10:35am

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I genuinely don't think concrete barriers are being put forward here as a short term measure. In any case, it isn't as ease as you make out, it will effect lines of sight and would likely require more daesign work. It also wouldn't be much cheaper, several km of concrete barrier is expensive and you still have to reline the road with associated traffic management, etc. Then you have to do get rid of them to put in a verge for the permanent solution at more cost.

In my original post about these conceptual cycleways I provided examples of Dutch routes, many of which are tree lined roads with good grass verges and cycle priority at junctions, that is exactly what I would envisage as the end goal of these routes, if there is an effective temporary solution to drive demand for the full implementation, then I would favour it going in now rather than a reluctant council spending 20 years planning a verge like it's a big deal, this solution wouldn't be just lines on the road, which isn't safer and wont get a significant modal shift, but I don't think it should be motorway style concrete.

I'm sure there is an effective middle ground, rather than arguing specific implementation of the idea.

gjim · 30-11-2020 10:40am

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I genuinely don't think concrete barriers are being put forward here as a short term measure. In any case, it isn't as ease as you make out, it will effect lines of sight and would likely require more daesign work. It also wouldn't be much cheaper, several km of concrete barrier is expensive and you still have to reline the road with associated traffic management, etc. Then you have to do get rid of them to put in a verge for the permanent solution at more cost.

They are being proposed as a cheaper/easier/quicker first step than digging up roads, installing kerbs/drainage and planting grass or hedges. I'm not sure how you got the impression otherwise.

riddlinrussell wrote:

Getting changes on the ground is more important than getting 'permanent' changes in place, as it allows people to start using it, which then drives more people to demand more changes (There was a great talk on this by Dublin Cycling Campaign recently)

Exactly - "perfect is the enemy of good"

We're talking about quick wins here - rural Ireland at the moment is almost 100% car dependent for transport - even compared to 20 or 30 years ago, you barely see anyone walking or cycling the roads. People are voting with the feet so to speak - walking/cycling on hard shoulders or their equivalent is an unpleasant experience.

nilhg · 30-11-2020 11:09am

There are concrete barriers and then there are concrete barriers, I'm not at all sure reading the past few pages what type people have in mind, reading some of the posts I'm thinking that some of you want something like the median down the middle of a motorway but I'm sure that's just me...

I'm just about at 11,000km on the bike this year and have done similar for the last 7 or 8 years and while I can see the utility of what ye are discussing here I'm not sure it's the first priority when it comes to facilities for and encouragement of cycling especially for commuting close to major urban areas, most regular cyclists are adept at adapting their routes to cope with the vagaries of traffic.

Pete_Cavan · 30-11-2020 2:17pm

I think the "easy win" aspect of this is being overstated and certainly the "cheap" aspect of it is when you consider going back again to do what you always intended doing from the beginning. I think doing this would be much more achievable with less opposition and fewer unintended consequences;

https://www.google.ch/maps/@52.1627521,-10.0235883,3a,75y,65.44h,79.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgMqlg1ZWIJ6wHLslzohwqQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Zubeneschamali · 30-11-2020 2:19pm

nilhg wrote: »

most regular cyclists are adept at adapting their routes to cope with the vagaries of traffic.

Yes, but part of the point of new cycling infrastructure is lots of people who are not regular cyclists today might start if they didn't have to share the road with killer traffic.

serfboard · 30-11-2020 2:45pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I think the "easy win" aspect of this is being overstated and certainly the "cheap" aspect of it is when you consider going back again to do what you always intended doing from the beginning. I think doing this would be much more achievable with less opposition and fewer unintended consequences;

https://www.google.ch/maps/@52.1627521,-10.0235883,3a,75y,65.44h,79.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgMqlg1ZWIJ6wHLslzohwqQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Thanks for posting that, it's good to see Irish examples.

In the link, the path/cycleway is on both sides of the road, but on one side it is protected by a crash barraier and on the other it is not. To see what I'm talking about, I took a view from further up the road here. Intersting too that there are a couple of people out walking at different points, and both are on the barrier-protected side.

nilhg · 30-11-2020 3:07pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, but part of the point of new cycling infrastructure is lots of people who are not regular cyclists today might start if they didn't have to share the road with killer traffic.

Absolutely, but is the place to start with that long stretches of concrete out in the country on old N roads which have been made partially redundant or something more quickly achievable?

I'll give you an example, we had a conversation on a club spin one day, the new secondary school in Kildare town is probably pretty well setup to have a lot of kids cycle to it, some of the lads have kids attending, none cycle, the main reason weight of school bags....

CatInABox · 30-11-2020 3:08pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, but part of the point of new cycling infrastructure is lots of people who are not regular cyclists today might start if they didn't have to share the road with killer traffic.

Yes, heard a complaint on the radio a while back, along the lines of "sure all the cyclists are men, why should we build infrastructure just for them?"

Totally missing the cause and the effect.

Corca Baiscinn · 30-11-2020 10:45pm

nilhg wrote: »

Absolutely, but is the place to start with that long stretches of concrete out in the country on old N roads which have been made partially redundant or something more quickly achievable?

I'll give you an example, we had a conversation on a club spin one day, the new secondary school in Kildare town is probably pretty well setup to have a lot of kids cycle to it, some of the lads have kids attending, none cycle, the main reason weight of school bags....

A "quick win" re the schoolbags would be a) panniers, b) h/w done in school after school and books left there, c) ebooks. The only quick wins for the fear of traffic factor are cycle buses as in Galway, Limerick, various parts of Dublin and elsewhere and long-term, segregation from other traffic. It comes across as incredibly lacking in empathy to imply "I do 11000 km a year and I'm grand on the roads as they are, so what are ye on about"? As other posters have mentioned, the segregation for rural and urban areas is for those who don't cycle now but would if the infra was suitable

nilhg · 30-11-2020 11:35pm

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

A "quick win" re the schoolbags would be a) panniers, b) h/w done in school after school and books left there, c) ebooks. The only quick wins for the fear of traffic factor are cycle buses as in Galway, Limerick, various parts of Dublin and elsewhere and long-term, segregation from other traffic. It comes across as incredibly lacking in empathy to imply "I do 11000 km a year and I'm grand on the roads as they are, so what are ye on about"? As other posters have mentioned, the segregation for rural and urban areas is for those who don't cycle now but would if the infra was suitable

That's not what I'm saying and I'm sorry if it came across that way, from my point of view and I've advanced it here several times is that if we are going to spend money on infrastructure to encourage cycling, and we do seem to be going to do that then we have to get best value for that.

I'm just not sure that sticking a big concrete barrier onto an old main road with the intention of digging it up later is practical, achievable or the best use of resources, when time, energy and money would be better spent facilitating the school cycle buses that as you point out work so well and all the other stuff that would improve facilities for all to cycle around the country.

I'm lucky, I live out in the country, I work from home (farmer), so I come to this discussion from that perspective, most of the nicest roads I cycle have grass growing up the middle but I'm slap in the middle of the greater Dublin commuter belt, I just think we all need to advocate for more facilities and safer roads. I think we all want the same thing really?

gjim · 30-11-2020 11:46pm

serfboard wrote: »

Thanks for posting that, it's good to see Irish examples.

In the link, the path/cycleway is on both sides of the road, but on one side it is protected by a crash barraier and on the other it is not. To see what I'm talking about, I took a view from further up the road here. Intersting too that there are a couple of people out walking at different points, and both are on the barrier-protected side.

Yes it's good to see pictures.

One point I'd like to make with respect to this road is that it's not very typical of Irish roads - where there generally the paved surface extends right up to bordering hedgerow/trees.

In many European countries it's far more common to have no hedgerows or trees between road surface and surrounding land. In such a situation providing a separate path with some grass separation is a matter of doing the equivalent of CPOing two or three meters of farm land bounding the road and laying down a relatively cheap gravel path.

To do the same in Ireland would generally require clearing hedgerows and knocking trees - i.e. guaranteed to be politically impossible.

I suppose my point is that if we're talking about re-purposing existing paved surface for cyclist/walkers then this model may not be appropriate.

Pete_Cavan · 01-12-2020 6:48am

gjim wrote: »

Yes it's good to see pictures.

One point I'd like to make with respect to this road is that it's not very typical of Irish roads - where there generally the paved surface extends right up to bordering hedgerow/trees.

In many European countries it's far more common to have no hedgerows or trees between road surface and surrounding land. In such a situation providing a separate path with some grass separation is a matter of doing the equivalent of CPOing two or three meters of farm land bounding the road and laying down a relatively cheap gravel path.

To do the same in Ireland would generally require clearing hedgerows and knocking trees - i.e. guaranteed to be politically impossible.

I suppose my point is that if we're talking about re-purposing existing paved surface for cyclist/walkers then this model may not be appropriate.

The point is that you are taking roads already wide enough to accommodate everything but current layout only allows for cars (i.e. the space outside the driving lanes are hard shoulders). By simply relining wide enough sections of former N roads (removing hard shoulders and reducing the driving lane widths), you gain enough space to have a good shared walking/cycle lane to one side without any landtake. As I said before, it would only work on sections with road pavement min. 11m wide between hedgerows.

What I do think would be politically impossible, and technically impractical, is putting several km of concrete barriers along a rural road.

daniel_t1409 · 01-12-2020 9:04am

gjim wrote: »

Yes it's good to see pictures.

One point I'd like to make with respect to this road is that it's not very typical of Irish roads - where there generally the paved surface extends right up to bordering hedgerow/trees.

In many European countries it's far more common to have no hedgerows or trees between road surface and surrounding land. In such a situation providing a separate path with some grass separation is a matter of doing the equivalent of CPOing two or three meters of farm land bounding the road and laying down a relatively cheap gravel path.

To do the same in Ireland would generally require clearing hedgerows and knocking trees - i.e. guaranteed to be politically impossible.

I suppose my point is that if we're talking about re-purposing existing paved surface for cyclist/walkers then this model may not be appropriate.

What about putting the path on the other side of the hedgerow along the road. I doubt there would be much objections.

loyatemu · 01-12-2020 9:57am

daniel_t1409 wrote: »

What about putting the path on the other side of the hedgerow along the road. I doubt there would be much objections.

I've suggested that here before, though more for the cross-country greenways where there's no old railway alignment (e.g. Athlone-Galway). The main issue is how to deal with houses and driveways. As usual in Ireland, uncontrolled linear development makes providing services and infrastructure more tricky.

nilhg · 01-12-2020 10:09am

daniel_t1409 wrote: »

What about putting the path on the other side of the hedgerow along the road. I doubt there would be much objections.

loyatemu wrote: »

I've suggested that here before, though more for the cross-country greenways where there's no old railway alignment (e.g. Athlone-Galway). The main issue is how to deal with houses and driveways. As usual in Ireland, uncontrolled linear development makes providing services and infrastructure more tricky.

Does a cycle path have to follow the road alignment? One you start to consider physically moving it, even just to the other side of the hedgerow (and I'm not going to to get into all the hassle that would bring) then surely all options are on the table?

Seth Brundle · 01-12-2020 10:24am

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

A "quick win" re the schoolbags would be a) panniers, b) h/w done in school after school and books left there, c) ebooks.

Just in terms of ebooks, my own kids use iPads in school and yet many of the teachers require the kids to bring in the hard copy. In addition, many books have an accompanying workbook which is in hard copy only. Kids will also have copies to bring in.
Realistically, I reckon my kids bags are actually heavier than when I was in school despite using ebooks.

riddlinrussell · 01-12-2020 10:57am

nilhg wrote: »

Does a cycle path have to follow the road alignment? One you start to consider physically moving it, even just to the other side of the hedgerow (and I'm not going to to get into all the hassle that would bring) then surely all options are on the table?

And then you immediately get into the 'splitting my land in half' side of things, which is already proving a challenge in places where railways once did that exact thing, if it doesn't hug the road route (For the most part) then you will end up with either end up with a heavy handed CPO route (Like the original Athlone-Galway concept) or a route with so many zigs and zags you'll have cycled the length of the country just getting between Dublin and Navan.

EDIT: Just looking at pictures of the newly completed N52 works in the roads thread, some great illustrations of a road where a good cycling/walking path could be put along the edge with a grass verge easily, I do think that 'Grass is not enough' given the speeds some travel on those roads and it would still be a relatively hostile environment, I would want serious consideration given to some natural barrier, shrubs or such, maybe with an incorporated physical crash barrier

nilhg · 01-12-2020 11:38am

riddlinrussell wrote: »

And then you immediately get into the 'splitting my land in half' side of things, which is already proving a challenge in places where railways once did that exact thing, if it doesn't hug the road route (For the most part) then you will end up with either end up with a heavy handed CPO route (Like the original Athlone-Galway concept) or a route with so many zigs and zags you'll have cycled the length of the country just getting between Dublin and Navan.

EDIT: Just looking at pictures of the newly completed N52 works in the roads thread, some great illustrations of a road where a good cycling/walking path could be put along the edge with a grass verge easily, I do think that 'Grass is not enough' given the speeds some travel on those roads and it would still be a relatively hostile environment, I would want serious consideration given to some natural barrier, shrubs or such, maybe with an incorporated physical crash barrier

I fully understand the splitting my land in half issue, however once you go over the hedge the same issues arise with extras since you'll be also encountering private houses, gardens, driveways and farmyards.

The big gains are to be made where there's loads of public lands to be used, Coillte, BNM ect, but then you'll get folk saying those are too remote and not safe. None of this is simple.

On the barrier issue, it's possible to get something which looks better than concrete but still offers decent protection, one possibility below from a road I know well in Tenerife.

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.1393217,-16.621,3a,75y,113.13h,76.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq-ycxfDtt8CCaxKpDCJggw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Pete_Cavan · 01-12-2020 11:39am

Once you leave the existing roadspace, the idea is dead. The point was supposed to be it is cheap, quickly deliverable and an "easy win", all that will have gone out the window. Once you lose sight of that, it is just another "in an ideal world" scenario which will never make it into the real world.

There will be opposition to taking farmland there certainly will be no public support for buying out peoples homes for what will be described as "just a cycle lane", there will be no political support either. Hedgerows are just there to look nice, they serve an important environmental junction. Leaving a hedgerow and putting more tarmac on the otherside of it severely damages that environmental function, would be better off ripping it out and establishing a new hedgerow.

riddlinrussell · 01-12-2020 11:45am

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Once you leave the existing roadspace, the idea is dead. The point was supposed to be it is cheap, quickly deliverable and an "easy win", all that will have gone out the window. Once you lose sight of that, it is just another "in an ideal world" scenario which will never make it into the real world.

There will be opposition to taking farmland there certainly will be no public support for buying out peoples homes for what will be described as "just a cycle lane", there will be no political support either. Hedgerows are just there to look nice, they serve an important environmental junction. Leaving a hedgerow and putting more tarmac on the otherside of it severely damages that environmental function, would be better off ripping it out and establishing a new hedgerow.

I'd be agreed on this, also I think there's a lot of people getting hung up on the 'concrete barrier', the point of that statement initially wasn't "I want a concrete barrier" it was that the end goal should be the proper verged route but it will take time and so a financially viable temporary solution should be considered while the permanent solution is worked on. If concrete barriers (I was thinking more like the kerbs in Dublin not like the motorway type) aren't viable from a safety/cost aspect then another option should be used, I personally don't care if its made of concrete/metal/plastic or what form it takes as long as it does two things:

Provides greater actual safety for a pedestrian or cyclist than a white painted line
Provides greater psychological separation of car and pedestrian/cyclist to make the space more welcoming

MJohnston · 01-12-2020 11:57am

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The point is that you are taking roads already wide enough to accommodate everything but current layout only allows for cars (i.e. the space outside the driving lanes are hard shoulders). By simply relining wide enough sections of former N roads (removing hard shoulders and reducing the driving lane widths), you gain enough space to have a good shared walking/cycle lane to one side without any landtake. As I said before, it would only work on sections with road pavement min. 11m wide between hedgerows.

What I do think would be politically impossible, and technically impractical, is putting several km of concrete barriers along a rural road.

One point that's worth stating outright is that most of these former intercity N routes no longer have any need for the hard shoulders or the lane width.

That's why I see this idea with such potential. I remember as a kid in the early 90s when those roads were the only ways around the country, the old etiquette (that still kind of survives) of the hard shoulder becoming a 'slow lane' when needed. There are so many of these extremely wide shoulders around!

loyatemu · 01-12-2020 12:50pm

I guess for cross-country routes your looking at a combination of all the options - state owned land, repurposed hard shoulders, "traffic calmed" minor roads.

riddlinrussell · 01-12-2020 1:54pm

loyatemu wrote: »

I guess for cross-country routes your looking at a combination of all the options - state owned land, repurposed hard shoulders, "traffic calmed" minor roads.

Exactly, it's the same with urban areas, you don't go in and just build a big single project to link all the places in somewhere like DLRCC, there are already routes through parks, alleyways etc, what is needed is to build the connections, widen the pinch points, and, key to this idea, promote the cohesive 'route'.

I don't really envisage the 'C7' Dublin to Limerick cycleway as being a route on the verge of the R445 all the way from Dublin to Limerick, but sections of it, along with some Boreens, BnM/Coillte/Irish Waterways lands could make up the optimal route.

Ireland is somewhat unusual in Europe by not having a cohesive National Cycle Network, if you search for it you get 'scoping documents' from 8 years ago and that's it. Even the UK, which is relatively bike-phobic, has a network, the routes themselves may not be up to a good standard, but the routes are at least identified and can be focused on if there is a will for it.

daniel_t1409 · 13-12-2020 7:40pm

are horses allowed on any of the greenways? or are they just for cyclists/walkers

loyatemu · 15-12-2020 12:01am

daniel_t1409 wrote: »

are horses allowed on any of the greenways? or are they just for cyclists/walkers

I assume unless they're specifically banned, then they're allowed?

But I believe many horses are nervous of bikes, I've certainly been told to be very cautious when cycling past them, so a greenway probably not the best choice for a trek.

daniel_t1409 · 15-12-2020 10:05pm

loyatemu wrote: »

I assume unless they're specifically banned, then they're allowed?

But I believe many horses are nervous of bikes, I've certainly been told to be very cautious when cycling past them, so a greenway probably not the best choice for a trek.

reenways would certainly be better for horse riding than the roads - you don't have to deal with cars speeding past, it's a problem even on quiet roads, we have an obsession with cars in this country

Sam Russell · 15-12-2020 11:12pm

daniel_t1409 wrote: »

Greenways would certainly be better for horse riding than the roads - you don't have to deal with cars speeding past, it's a problem even on quiet roads, we have an obsession with cars in this country

. . . and a obsession with speeding.

Why are cars not limited on speed when the maximum legal speed on Irish roads in 120 km/hr. Now I am not suggesting limiting them to 120 km/hr, but having drivers going at 200 km/hr on or motorways is insanity.

whisky_galore · 16-12-2020 9:21am

daniel_t1409 wrote: »

are horses allowed on any of the greenways? or are they just for cyclists/walkers

Doesn't say they're banned. The trails are advertised specifically for walking and cycling. There's no sign saying you can't bring a horse into a supermarket or church, but common sense you know.

I'd imagine anyone bringing a horse onto a greenway would be made most unwelcome and get stares and comments from other users. Not everyone likes being in close quarters to a large unpredictable animal.

Duckjob · 16-12-2020 10:11am

riddlinrussell wrote: »

... I would want serious consideration given to some natural barrier, shrubs or such, maybe with an incorporated physical crash barrier

When visiting inlaws in France last year I was out and about on a bike a bit, and I noticed a lot of the local roads that had a sort of v shaped trench (going maybe 6ft down separating the road from the shared foot and cycle path.

I thought it seems like quite a good idea as any car that goes offroad is extremely unlikely to reach the paths and it would appear to make drivers think twice before putting the boot down on those roads.

Seth Brundle · 16-12-2020 10:19am

6 feet or 6 inches?

Duckjob · 16-12-2020 10:38am

Seth Brundle wrote: »

6 feet or 6 inches?

Feet - you could stand in them!

Edit: maybe not 6ft - but at least enough to "hold" an out-of-control car from getting to the other side unless the speed was absolutely crazy.

CatInABox · 16-12-2020 10:45am

Sam Russell wrote: »

. . . and a obsession with speeding.

Why are cars not limited on speed when the maximum legal speed on Irish roads in 120 km/hr. Now I am not suggesting limiting them to 120 km/hr, but having drivers going at 200 km/hr on or motorways is insanity.

It's so bizarre. We need speed limiters on electric bikes and scooters because they're "dangerous", but cars? Trucks? Nah, they're totally safe. Totally.

Greenways [greenway map of Ireland in post 1]

Comments