Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
28-05-2020, 09:38   #1516
hans aus dtschl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerandahalf View Post
As someone who runs I find the loose gravel surface more forgiving on the legs than tarmac. Another plus point for gravel is that you have no issues with an icy surface. This is a huge bonus in winter when many tarred surfaces are very dangerous.

I can understand why tarmacadam is used.

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

A good solution would be to have tarred surfaces around towns or villages and leave the gravel surface in the middle sections.
Good arguments, particularly around ice and forgiveness. Most runners will prefer tarmacadam over cement, and grass tends to be the favourite of all.

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

On the mixed surface solution you describe, Dungarvan has tar near the population centres and crushed bitumen/gravel thereafter. It doesn't negatively affect cyclists on 23mm tyres (the smaller road tyres used by racers): the only people I've seen with issues have been the elderly and those with mobility problems. They'll turn around where gravel meets tar!
hans aus dtschl is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
28-05-2020, 10:21   #1517
hans aus dtschl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by whisky_galore View Post
Most? I'd rather none used them, but hey ho.
Why not though? If they're going slowly and safely and leaving room for others, I don't see what the issue might be? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?
While on the Dungarvan greenway I've seen clubs use it slowly and carefully. I don't see any problems with that.
Actually I've only ever seen a handful of boorish idiots on the Dungarvan greenway, whether they were on rental bikes, walking with children, running
etc it wasn't a case of a specific user type being problematic. I've never seen any clash of user-types on there, just isolated random idiots across all types.
hans aus dtschl is offline  
28-05-2020, 11:18   #1518
MJohnston
Registered User
 
MJohnston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Glentoran View Post
Yeah. Tarmac every off road path. That will really make the Republic attractive to walkers. I am reminded of the old saying, “to a hammer, everything looks like a nail”.
Okay, but whatever all that means, you don't agree that tarmac paths have more utility to the less-abled and anyone who has to push a pram?
MJohnston is offline  
28-05-2020, 13:27   #1519
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 844
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJohnston View Post
Okay, but whatever all that means, you don't agree that tarmac paths have more utility to the less-abled and anyone who has to push a pram?
I’d prefer the right to roam enshrined by law and then you could tarmac everything else. Roger Garland’s letter in today’s IT encapsulates my view.
Lord Glentoran is offline  
Thanks from:
28-05-2020, 13:40   #1520
hans aus dtschl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Glentoran View Post
I’d prefer the right to roam enshrined by law and then you could tarmac everything else. Roger Garland’s letter in today’s IT encapsulates my view.
I'm not certain what you're trying to communicate here.
You'd prefer "the right to roam" to be enshrined by law, rather than less-abled or pram-pushing people having a tramacadam-surfaced greenway at their disposal? Have I misunderstood that?

I don't think these two are competing needs?
hans aus dtschl is offline  
Advertisement
28-05-2020, 13:46   #1521
MJohnston
Registered User
 
MJohnston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Glentoran View Post
I’d prefer the right to roam enshrined by law and then you could tarmac everything else. Roger Garland’s letter in today’s IT encapsulates my view.
As hans aus dtschl said, why are you presenting these as competing outcomes, when they are not?
MJohnston is offline  
28-05-2020, 16:01   #1522
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 844
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJohnston View Post
As hans aus dtschl said, why are you presenting these as competing outcomes, when they are not?
I’m not on here 24/7 answering questions on demand.

Right now, we have limited access to the countryside. A number of years ago the Leader II programme attempted to create rights of way in cooperation with farmers. This collapsed when the farmers’ organisations withdrew cooperation from it. Now, all we have are a relatively small number of waymarked trails and the Greenways. Is it reasonable to make every single Greenway buggy accessible but to make it unattractive to walking tourism?
Lord Glentoran is offline  
(4) thanks from:
28-05-2020, 16:12   #1523
hans aus dtschl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Glentoran View Post
I’m not on here 24/7 answering questions on demand.

Right now, we have limited access to the countryside. A number of years ago the Leader II programme attempted to create rights of way in cooperation with farmers. This collapsed when the farmers’ organisations withdrew cooperation from it. Now, all we have are a relatively small number of waymarked trails and the Greenways. Is it reasonable to make every single Greenway buggy accessible but to make it unattractive to walking tourism?
Honestly, I hope you're not making the point that it looks like you're making.

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

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

I don't understand how it could be a zero sum game? That'd be a pretty....unsavoury discussion to have.
hans aus dtschl is offline  
(2) thanks from:
28-05-2020, 16:13   #1524
riddlinrussell
Registered User
 
riddlinrussell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Glentoran View Post
I’m not on here 24/7 answering questions on demand.

Right now, we have limited access to the countryside. A number of years ago the Leader II programme attempted to create rights of way in cooperation with farmers. This collapsed when the farmers’ organisations withdrew cooperation from it. Now, all we have are a relatively small number of waymarked trails and the Greenways. Is it reasonable to make every single Greenway buggy accessible but to make it unattractive to walking tourism?
Somewhat confused by your angle here, If every greenway was tarmaced surely the unattractiveness of them to 'wild' walkers would increase pressure for right to roam legislation to be put in place?

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

And if your'e starting/restarting a right to roam campaign again in Ireland Glentoran let me know, I'd be keen to see that happen!
riddlinrussell is offline  
Advertisement
28-05-2020, 17:01   #1525
no.8
Registered User
 
no.8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by hans aus dtschl
I'm not certain what you're trying to communicate here. You'd prefer "the right to roam" to be enshrined by law, rather than less-abled or pram-pushing people having a tramacadam-surfaced greenway at their disposal? Have I misunderstood that?

A half decent pram can easily handle a loose surface. If you have a path such as that near you, you buy a buggy with large airfilled tires (and not the ones designed for town or. airport
no.8 is offline  
28-05-2020, 17:04   #1526
loyatemu
Registered User
 
loyatemu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 12,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by hans aus dtschl View Post
On the mixed surface solution you describe, Dungarvan has tar near the population centres and crushed bitumen/gravel thereafter. It doesn't negatively affect cyclists on 23mm tyres (the smaller road tyres used by racers): the only people I've seen with issues have been the elderly and those with mobility problems. They'll turn around where gravel meets tar!
this seems the optimum solution; TBH even as a road cyclist I wouldn't expect greenways to be manageable on 23mm tyres, and road bikes are tending to have larger tyres these days anyway.

Tarmaccing everywhere seems overkill, and not very environmentally friendly - people with mobility issues are likely to be driving and parking, having tarmac a couple of KM either direction of the carparks seems a reasonable compromise with the more remote sections as compacted grit.
loyatemu is offline  
28-05-2020, 17:08   #1527
no.8
Registered User
 
no.8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 753
Tigerandahalf's proposal is a balanced approach. I think people are are getting their knickers in a twist over whether there should be 100% tarmacadam coverage or 100% loose / compacted surface. I find neither solution by themselves to be the correct approach (e.g. the populous side of a lake say being paved over x km's and loose surface on the other side).

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

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

Last edited by no.8; 28-05-2020 at 17:11.
no.8 is offline  
28-05-2020, 17:09   #1528
no.8
Registered User
 
no.8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 753
Here here. Excellent input imo
no.8 is offline  
28-05-2020, 17:16   #1529
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 844
Quote:
Originally Posted by hans aus dtschl View Post
Honestly, I hope you're not making the point that it looks like you're making.

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

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

I don't understand how it could be a zero sum game? That'd be a pretty....unsavoury discussion to have.
You’re right. I’m not. Mixed surfaces would be acceptable to me. As for the right to roam, I suspect we will be waiting for the Apocalypse before that will happen. Too many vested interests. On reflection that issue should be separate from Greenways as access is an emotive issue and clearly can’t be entwined with the wider issue of freedom to roam.
Lord Glentoran is offline  
(2) thanks from:
28-05-2020, 17:41   #1530
hans aus dtschl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,930
Looks like we're almost all in agreement here: tarmacadam just a few km from the population centres and crushed bitumen thereafter. It's very high quality in Dungarvan and I've never heard anyone complaining about it. I've traveled there many times to use it, it's such a good facility.

I'll happily get on board with "right to roam" too BTW.
I personally already behave as if it's the law, as I quite like hiking. It's possibly worthy of a thread in its own right and as others have said, I'd gladly support any efforts in that regard.
hans aus dtschl is offline  
(4) thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet