Greenways [greenway map of Ireland in post 1]

riddlinrussell

bk wrote: »

I believe someone posted earlier that Irish Rail have said for any Greenway built on inactive railways, that the land remains in IR ownership and that they can take it back at any time for rail in the future.

Though I'd hope they'd try to have the rail and greenway run side by side where they can. Many such greenways around the world and no reason they can't exist side by side.

As far as I know the situation was very similar with the Comber Greenway, fully government controlled land that they could do what they liked with, had a verbal agreement with greenway advocates that the corridor would be used for public transport when viable. But they had to cave when push came to shove because they hadn't a written contract and they were accused of destroying a public amenity.

Public outcry can easily tank a project, so it would benefit IR to make sure they have it in writing, it would even benefit them to consider the replacement route of the greenway from the start and buy the land for it as and when it comes up over the course of the greenways lifetime. Then when the time comes to push the button they can basically roll out the new route and immediately start building the commuter rail.

bk

riddlinrussell wrote: »

As far as I know the situation was very similar with the Comber Greenway, fully government controlled land that they could do what they liked with, had a verbal agreement with greenway advocates that the corridor would be used for public transport when viable. But they had to cave when push came to shove because they hadn't a written contract and they were accused of destroying a public amenity.

Public outcry can easily tank a project, so it would benefit IR to make sure they have it in writing, it would even benefit them to consider the replacement route of the greenway from the start and buy the land for it as and when it comes up over the course of the greenways lifetime. Then when the time comes to push the button they can basically roll out the new route and immediately start building the commuter rail.

Not true at all. The history of the Comber line was that it closed in 1950 and Ulster Transport Authority were so enthusiastic about getting rid of it that they lifted the tracks and removed bridges and other structures in the early 60's. It later became a greenway.

There was a proposal to use it for a bus rapid transit route, and while yes their was local objection, it didn't go ahead due to the council dropping financing for it.

riddlinrussell

bk wrote: »

Not true at all. The history of the Comber line was that it closed in 1950 and Ulster Transport Authority were so enthusiastic about getting rid of it that they lifted the tracks and removed bridges and other structures in the early 60's. It later became a greenway.

There was a proposal to use it for a bus rapid transit route, and while yes their was local objection, it didn't go ahead due to the council dropping financing for it.

It was kept clear initially for a motorway route, then Greenway from the 90s but I'm fairly sure that the council and translink were definitely thinking of using it for a rapid transit system in the future and apparently said as much to the greenway advocates. I'm basing my information mostly off Wesley Johnson and NI Greenway's here so I can't guarantee it's not erroneous though...

bk

riddlinrussell wrote: »

It was kept clear initially for a motorway route, then Greenway from the 90s but I'm fairly sure that the council and translink were definitely thinking of using it for a rapid transit system in the future and apparently said as much to the greenway advocates. I'm basing my information mostly off Wesley Johnson and NI Greenway's here so I can't guarantee it's not erroneous though...

Yes, they did consider using it for a bus way, a BRT, as I said. But it didn't go ahead because lack of funding, not due to objections.

Things change over time, infrastructure gets used for different things based on different priorities.

In the late 1800's rural rail routes were heavily used and no one could imagine them being used for anything else, certainly not a cycle/walkway. But then the car came along and killed lots of rural rail routes and they have then been reused as Greenways rather then just letting them rot and people who live along the route take the land like we see all over.

If a rail route can become a greenway, a much more radical change IMO, then nothing stopping it to returning to rail in future if circumstances and priorities change again.

BTW I should point out, that Greenways aren't just about converting railways. They can and are often built on old roads, old footpaths, next to canals or built through greenfields. This thread is about Greenways of all types and not just rail trails, which is only one small part of the bigger Greenway picture.

riddlinrussell

bk wrote: »

Yes, they did consider using it for a bus way, a BRT, as I said. But it didn't go ahead because lack of funding, not due to objections.

Things change over time, infrastructure gets used for different things based on different priorities.

In the late 1800's rural rail routes were heavily used and no one could imagine them being used for anything else, certainly not a cycle/walkway. But then the car came along and killed lots of rural rail routes and they have then been reused as Greenways rather then just letting them rot and people who live along the route take the land like we see all over.

If a rail route can become a greenway, a much more radical change IMO, then nothing stopping it to returning to rail in future if circumstances and priorities change again.

BTW I should point out, that Greenways aren't just about converting railways. They can and are often built on old roads, old footpaths, next to canals or built through greenfields. This thread is about Greenways of all types and not just rail trails, which is only one small part of the bigger Greenway picture.

You'll get no argument from me on your last point, I certainly don't want the government to get to the point of saying "Only disused railways and canals are suitable for becoming greenways" Ideally a massive improvement could be made by designating quieter local routes as local access only for roads. Its a real shame Ireland doesnt have the same level of walking and bridleway routes that other countries have, it would be fertile ground for turning a select few into proper greenways.

Markcheese

I'd agree with ridlin that commuter rail, (or mass transit) should always takes precidence...
To be honest former railways don't usually make the greatest scenic cycleways.... They're generally flat with turns, you can see where you're going for miles...
I know the south kerry has incredible scenery, but Midleton to youghal is fairly flat.. And it only really passes through 2 villages before it gets to youghal..
Still I like east Cork, and think it'll be really good for youghal

Grassey

Markcheese wrote:

I'd They're generally flat with turns, you can see where you're going for miles... Midleton to youghal is fairly flat..

Sounds perfect for the ironman Cork route! 😂

Lord Glentoran

riddlinrussell wrote: »

You'll get no argument from me on your last point, I certainly don't want the government to get to the point of saying "Only disused railways and canals are suitable for becoming greenways" Ideally a massive improvement could be made by designating quieter local routes as local access only for roads. Its a real shame Ireland doesnt have the same level of walking and bridleway routes that other countries have, it would be fertile ground for turning a select few into proper greenways.

Indeed. We only have to look at the never ending nonsense elsewhere where campaigners for greenways spend more time rubbishing railways to achieve their objective. Counter-productive reductional thinking.

marno21

I wouldn't compare Midleton-Youghal with the South Kerry Greenway or similar disused rural lines.

Cork-Youghal is half open as a commuter railway, and is seeing growing use. Cork City Centre is becoming more dense with more and more jobs relocating to the city centre, a short walk from Kent Station. The N25 is already a mess of a route and additional traffic is not wanted on it. In addition, the Cork-Youghal line stops at Little Island, a large employment area, and will hopefully in the future have an additional station at IDA Carrigtwohill.

IMO turning it into a greenway is ridiculous, especially when the alignment is there in full, and it's a decent alignment too.

hans aus dtschl

marno21 wrote: »

I wouldn't compare Midleton-Youghal with the South Kerry Greenway or similar disused rural lines.

Cork-Youghal is half open as a commuter railway, and is seeing growing use. Cork City Centre is becoming more dense with more and more jobs relocating to the city centre, a short walk from Kent Station. The N25 is already a mess of a route and additional traffic is not wanted on it. In addition, the Cork-Youghal line stops at Little Island, a large employment area, and will hopefully in the future have an additional station at IDA Carrigtwohill.

IMO turning it into a greenway is ridiculous, especially when the alignment is there in full, and it's a decent alignment too.

I'm nothing to do with this project, live in East Cork, and am totally in favour of rail where possible, but I'm in favour of this greenway. A few thoughts on this:

Midleton-Youghal railway won't open again for a long time if ever. The population doesn't exist in Youghal, Killeagh or Mogeely (Castlemartyr) to support it. The stations in Youghal and Mogeely are particularly far from the town centres. The Cork-Midleton rail line was commissioned based on projected numbers which never really materialized thanks to the recession and it is still underused around 10 years after completion (at significant cost). I believe it does not have dual track between Glounthaune and Carrigtwohill, and again between Carrigtwohill and Midleton, which limits its capacity and in turn would limit capacity onwards to Youghal.

The Midleton-Youghal greenway is planned to be kept in the ownership of CIE.
The Midleton-Youghal greenway design will already need a new diversion at Ballyquirk because somebody has built on the legacy railway alignment. The line had fallen into disrepair and its alignment needs to be protected better, and the greenway is one crude way to achieve this.

It's currently an asset sitting idle, and could be actually put to use to generate income.

There's talk of an East-West cycle corridor to link into this (Dunkettle-Midleton) running parallel to the rail line, ostensibly as an effort to get cyclists and pedestrians off the N25. If they can do that (run a new greenway alongside the rail line) then they'll be able to do the exact same thing again in future if the greenway is a success and there a need to reopen the Youghal line.

I spend a lot of my time around East Cork and as much as I'd love for public transport to be viable and for the area to be economically strong, I can't see this railway opening in the next 20-30 years and it's currently being encroached upon and being left to ruin.

The alternative for the next 20-30 years is "do nothing".

So yeah, I'd love if this greenway goes ahead, personally.

Markcheese

What's been built on the former alignment of the youghal line? (just noseyness on my part)

loyatemu

Youghal is a long way from Cork - the only way the rail line could be viable is if Youghal was developed as a commuter town. That would be terrible planning IMO, we should not be encouraging long distance commuting. There's no shortage of development land much closer to the city, or around Midleton where there's already a rail service.

hans aus dtschl

Markcheese wrote: »

What's been built on the former alignment of the youghal line? (just noseyness on my part)

Ballyquirk:
It seems like a dwelling is right up to the line (nothing new, we saw this on the Carrigtwohill line also) but it's actually the front door of the dwelling (they obviously refurbed an old building and changed the orientation or something. Their driveway crosses the line, for them to get to their house. Same people have numerous outbuildings (looks like mechanics sheds or something) on the line itself.

Front Strand, Youghal:
Again a dwelling north of the line, but their driveway crosses the line.

Del.Monte

Markcheese wrote: »

What's been built on the former alignment of the youghal line? (just noseyness on my part)

Nothing.

hans aus dtschl

loyatemu wrote: »

Youghal is a long way from Cork - the only way the rail line could be viable is if Youghal was developed as a commuter town. That would be terrible planning IMO, we should not be encouraging long distance commuting. There's no shortage of development land much closer to the city, or around Midleton where there's already a rail service.

Yes I agree with you. Midleton is developing nicely now, and it's becoming a success story after what felt like a long time in the doldrums. It's a thriving county town in its own rights and even though people commute to Cork and the existing rail is great, it's very much at (or beyond) the limit of the towns that gravitate towards Cork.
There should be no drive to pull Castlemartyr, Killeagh and Youghal into Cork's orbit.

We should be talking about commuter rail in places like Blackpool, Ballincollig, Blarney, Carrigaline, etc etc etc long before Youghal comes back into focus.

I believe Iarnród Eireann's next Cork focus after Midleton was Blarney (Monacnappa) and a new town at Monard (no longer in planning). In the heady days of the Celtic Tiger, when money was available they were planning Carrigtwohill and Midleton and they never looked towards Youghal.

hans aus dtschl

Del.Monte wrote: »

Nothing.

See my post above yours.

The Ballyquirk dwelling is the one that will be difficult to resolve. The greenway plans to avoid this property entirely, by diverting to the north.

G-Man

So if so much of they Kerry land has to be CPO'd after months of failed negotiations, is there any benefit to following old rail lines. Surely it might be as easy to just think, where new greeways are needed and do the most useful path.

How much does CPO and its legal costs add to the greenway bill. For motorways its 23% of build cost back in the boom. Is it similar for greenways?

i) you cant CPO until you announce the specific sof the project - so the land and its adjoining all increase in value.
ii) the railway routes split many holdings - so if you resplit there is a compensation cost.

Perhaps the lessons for outer authorities is to build greenfield greenways operating at the margins of existing roads, rivers bogs, forests etc. ANyhow for any type of land is the holding really split. I can only imagine its a significant problem for tillage farms, where the arable field can not now be ploughed as one. For livestock farmers in marginal land areas, is there a need to fence off the greenway - I dont think so, grids at the access would be OK and warning signs.

hans aus dtschl

G-Man wrote: »

So if so much of they Kerry land has to be CPO'd after months of failed negotiations, is there any benefit to following old rail lines. Surely it might be as easy to just think, where new greeways are needed and do the most useful path.

How much does CPO and its legal costs add to the greenway bill. For motorways its 23% of build cost back in the boom. Is it similar for greenways?

i) you cant CPO until you announce the specific sof the project - so the land and its adjoining all increase in value.
ii) the railway routes split many holdings - so if you resplit there is a compensation cost.

Perhaps the lessons for outer authorities is to build greenfield greenways operating at the margins of existing roads, rivers bogs, forests etc. ANyhow for any type of land is the holding really split. I can only imagine its a significant problem for tillage farms, where the arable field can not now be ploughed as one. For livestock farmers in marginal land areas, is there a need to fence off the greenway - I dont think so, grids at the access would be OK and warning signs.

I believe landowners are the ones who want the greenways fenced off for the most part: concerns about crime apparently figure highly in the meetings, even though there's no evidence of increased crime correlating with greenways.

There are some benefits to following old rail alignments:
The route is known / clear from the historical alignment
The gradient is usually ideal for pedestrians and cyclists
Expensive infrastructure already exists (bridges)

There are some negatives to operating at the margins of roads, rivers, bogs and forests:
No population centres to avail of the greenway
Often for rivers, forests and bogs the greenway alignment is slower and with more sharp turns than the road, leaving the greenway purely for leisure users (commuters won't use it, sport cyclists won't use it) so it doesn't draw some users from the road
Often operating on the margins of the roads leads to numerous (side) road crossings where the greenway gives way to traffic, or the greenway isn't properly segregated from motorised traffic, or the greenway is simply used by motorised traffic as a shortcut in some cases and motorists generally will resent driving on a narrow badly maintained road while they see money being spent on a greenway along the same alignment, so it's politically difficult too.

marno21

IFA won't back down on South Kerry greenway

http://www.radiokerry.ie/ifa-president-says-will-fight-south-kerry-greenway-cpo-way/

hans aus dtschl

marno21 wrote: »

IFA won't back down on South Kerry greenway

http://www.radiokerry.ie/ifa-president-says-will-fight-south-kerry-greenway-cpo-way/

I understand that people don't want their land and access disturbed, but if it's in a situation where CPO - against the landowners wishes - is the only solution, it'd be better to leave it off IMO.

Leave the same landowners come back to the table in a weaker position 5-10 years from now when other parts of the country have seen a continued windfall from greenway tourism and tell the local people exactly why they're not getting available investment.

They won't win, simple as. The whole process around CPO is pretty water tight

If this was a road it would be a case of "hey there, fyi, we're taking a chunk of land for the new road, here's the cheque, have a nice day"

Wouldn't matter if it was acres or a corner of a field, that would be the end of it.

Kerry CoCo have a lot of patience. They started negotiations in 2010 and only resorted to CPO this year.

marno21

Deleted User wrote: »

Kerry CoCo have a lot of patience. They started negotiations in 2010 and only resorted to CPO this year.

The Greenways policy and funding of late has likely caused this. Kerry County Council have no incentive to wait around and they may as well plough on with it now that there's a framework for it.

marno21

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Leave the same landowners come back to the table in a weaker position 5-10 years from now when other parts of the country have seen a continued windfall from greenway tourism and tell the local people exactly why they're not getting available investment.

Very unfair on the people of Cahirciveen and other areas along the route who are crying out for this project.

The reality is that this shows up how ham fisted the policy of selling off railway corridors for pittance is.

hans aus dtschl

marno21 wrote: »

Very unfair on the people of Cahirciveen and other areas along the route who are crying out for this project.

Ah I agree with you 100%.

But I think the local community crying out for it must also come together and convince the landowners that they're all in for a windfall, too. It's too easy/convenient to just leave this as "the council's job" or "the government's job".

marno21 wrote: »

The reality is that this shows up how ham fisted the policy of selling off railway corridors for pittance is.

Yeah just awful.

Qrt

bk wrote: »

Though I'd hope they'd try to have the rail and greenway run side by side where they can. Many such greenways around the world and no reason they can't exist side by side.

The DART line near Salthill & Monkstown comes to mind.

flazio

I haven't got full details but apparently some dirty politics has blocked an attempt to get wheels in motion on a greenway between Athenry and Tuam on the old line there.

flazio

flazio wrote: »

I haven't got full details but apparently some dirty politics has blocked an attempt to get wheels in motion on a greenway between Athenry and Tuam on the old line there.

Merely delayed it until after the next election. That's all

plodder

Deleted User wrote: »

Merely delayed it until after the next election. That's all

What is the point of delaying it until after the next election? I don't know that much about this project, but I saw a bit of a fuss on facebook yesterday.

Pete_Cavan

plodder wrote: »

What is the point of delaying it until after the next election? I don't know that much about this project, but I saw a bit of a fuss on facebook yesterday.

I think they are suggesting that those who are causing the delay won't retain their seats after the next election and will be replaced by pro greenway candidates.

plodder

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I think they are suggesting that those who are causing the delay won't retain their seats after the next election and will be replaced by pro greenway candidates.

Duh, yes. I misunderstood the post entirely. Though, is that a foregone conclusion? Greenways might be supported by most people in a council area, but are they supported to the same extent in the wards where they are planned? That's a genuine question now. As I said I know little about this project.