Greenways [greenway map of Ireland in post 1]

marno21

MJohnston wrote: »

Fellas, I get the frustration with our often vexatious planning process (although the funding process is usually the source of most delays), I really do.

But making comparisons with China, of all countries, is either ignorant or willfully naive. There are very specific, horrible reasons why they're able to afford and build infrastructure in such a short time. We should not be hoping to emulate their practices.

Let's compare ourselves to some of the many European countries that have also succeeded where we have not.

100% agree with you. We should be looking at a middle ground between Ireland and China which many countries seem to be able to do.

Of course, the lack of particular desire for Government to make the planning process for infrastructure projects any easier for other reasons is clear also. It's not as if once a project gets planning approval, or before it that the Government are keen to deliver it expeditiously.

whisky_galore

marno21 wrote: »

Yes but in China they don't have to listen to the usual suspects rambling on about habitats in hotel conference centres for weeks on end delaying things.

They just jail lads like that and harvest their organs.

marno21

whisky_galore wrote: »

They just jail lads like that and harvest their organs.

Read the post just above yours. I wasn't advocating following the China model, but there is a better system than ours out there.

nilhg

Funding for the canal part of the Barrow Blueway confirmed.

https://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/news/491967/5m-funding-for-barrow-blueway-project-to-benefit-athy-monasterevin-and-rathangan.html

Hopefully not too long till work starts now.

Harry Palmr

There's talk about adding a spur to the Waterford Greenway which will take in Mahon Valley in the Comeragh mountains.

Tigerandahalf

Will the Barrow Blueway be a trail for its full length or a mixture of trail and canal use?

riddlinrussell

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Will the Barrow Blueway be a trail for its full length or a mixture of trail and canal use?

The only section getting funding presently is the Canal Section from Athy to the junction with the Grand Canal proper at Lowtown/Robertstown. The Robertstown-Sallins Section should be the next logical spot for an upgrading push by KCC now that Sallins-Celbridge has funding.

All the GCG really needs at that stage is the short section from Celbridge to Adamstown done and you could cycle greenway from South Circular Road to the Kildare/Laois/Offaly Border and nearly to Carlow.

marno21

Harry Palmr wrote: »

There's talk about adding a spur to the Waterford Greenway which will take in Mahon Valley in the Comeragh mountains.

Would be a fantastic addition. Surely only a matter of time before they propose a Dungarvan-Youghal one too given the Midleton-Youghal Greenway now also under construction.

hans aus dtschl

marno21 wrote: »

Would be a fantastic addition. Surely only a matter of time before they propose a Dungarvan-Youghal one too given the Midleton-Youghal Greenway now also under construction.

Only a matter of time but perhaps not the direct route.
What about a Dungarvan Cappoquin Vilierstown Youghal route? Gives the option of tying on to Fermoy and Mallow in the very long term.

marno21

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Only a matter of time but perhaps not the direct route.
What about a Dungarvan Cappoquin Vilierstown Youghal route? Gives the option of tying on to Fermoy and Mallow in the very long term.

It wouldn’t surprise me if they did both. Coastal/N25 to Youghal and on towards Fermoy on the rail route.

So much demand for greenways at this stage it’s only a matter of time before all the old intact rail corridors get converted.

Del.Monte

marno21 wrote: »

It wouldn’t surprise me if they did both. Coastal/N25 to Youghal and on towards Fermoy on the rail route.

So much demand for greenways at this stage it’s only a matter of time before all the old intact rail corridors get converted.

And then onto ripping up the Nenagh branch and Waterford/Limerick Junction and Waterford/Rosslare.

Christy Browne

Del.Monte wrote: »

And then onto ripping up the Nenagh branch and Waterford/Limerick Junction and Waterford/Rosslare.

The neglect of the Waterford-Limerick Junction-Limerick route does my head in.

Know so many people that would use it commuting to and from college every week if the times were somewhat sensible and you weren’t hanging around in Limerick Junction for a half hour before the train can go again.

Del.Monte

Christy Browne wrote: »

The neglect of the Waterford-Limerick Junction-Limerick route does my head in.

Know so many people that would use it commuting to and from college every week if the times were somewhat sensible and you weren’t hanging around in Limerick Junction for a half hour before the train can go again.

Not to mention the lack of a Sunday service which has been the situation for decades.

hans aus dtschl

marno21 wrote: »

It wouldn’t surprise me if they did both. Coastal/N25 to Youghal and on towards Fermoy on the rail route.

So much demand for greenways at this stage it’s only a matter of time before all the old intact rail corridors get converted.

I could be wrong, but isn't that old Fermoy rail route totally gone now? As in, wasn't that land sold off?

I don't really buy into the "ever-increasing demand for greenways" thing, as a cyclist. I think the next big tranche of demand is going to be for linking the suburbs with the cities. It's very easy for DTTAS to pretend they're "doing something about cycling infrastructure" at the moment by using the old trackbeds. I think that at some point the lack of actual transport infrastructure (as opposed to leisure infrastructure) will become an issue.

easypazz

We need to move on from greenways following old railways. If the land is still in state ownership then yes, as its a quick win. Otherwise we may as well create a new route than focuses on going through the best touristy spots and areas of higher population density.

whisky_galore

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I could be wrong, but isn't that old Fermoy rail route totally gone now? As in, wasn't that land sold off?

I don't really buy into the "ever-increasing demand for greenways" thing, as a cyclist. I think the next big tranche of demand is going to be for linking the suburbs with the cities. It's very easy for DTTAS to pretend they're "doing something about cycling infrastructure" at the moment by using the old trackbeds. I think that at some point the lack of actual transport infrastructure (as opposed to leisure infrastructure) will become an issue.

It's gone, too late, sold off a half century ago.

At a rough guess, I'd say less than half the earthworks are still intact, the rest ploughed up into farmland or with sheds, houses or housing estates built on it.
Anyone even considering a greenway with substantial portions of trackbed no longer intact on what is prime agricultural land is delusional.

And you're right, I think the focus should be truly 'green' greenways, on passages into and around larger towns and cities and outlying industral estates for commuting purposes instead of half baked cycle lanes designed by people who haven't been on a bike since childhood, that end as abruptly as they begin and installed because the EU told us so.

hans aus dtschl

whisky_galore wrote: »

half baked cycle lanes designed by people who haven't been on a bike since childhood, that end as abruptly as they begin and installed because the EU told us so.

This is the bit that's irritating me most at the moment. The engineers responsible for designs near me are seemingly incompetent.

There's no liaison with or understanding of the end-user community they're supposedly designing for. There's no demand analysis before build, no test use of the infrastructure after build and no analysis of whether the finished infrastructure can meet its stated purpose.

In short, they're wasting money, they know they're wasting money, and they don't care.

None of the engineers, councillors, nor NTA, nor TII have anything to say about it either. It's just "we designed this thing purely on paper based on DMURS and that is enough".

You often hear "bloody cyclists won't use the perfectly good cycle lanes". Well nobody would drive on the motorways either if they were discontinuous, had a terrible surface, put you in conflict with other road users every few metres, ceded right of way every few hundred metres, asked you to stop driving altogether every few km, and had a design speed of a third of your normal travelling speed. AKA, if they were designed based on something seen on a single guideline document with no other inputs whatsoever.

CatInABox

In fairness, that "designing in isolation" does seem to be coming to an end. The progress that the Clontarf to City Centre cycle route went through during the public consultation was immense, and shows how public consultations aren't just a tick box exercise. I'd just like them to get started on building it now!

hans aus dtschl

CatInABox wrote: »

In fairness, that "designing in isolation" does seem to be coming to an end. The progress that the Clontarf to City Centre cycle route went through during the public consultation was immense, and shows how public consultations aren't just a tick box exercise. I'd just like them to get started on building it now!

That's positive.
We're still having the opposite experience in Cork with both councils I'm afraid. I unfortunately still hear "nobody will use it" as the excuse for obvious design flaws.
Public consultation is minimal and any input is largely ignored.

Markcheese

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

That's positive.
We're still having the opposite experience in Cork with both councils I'm afraid. I unfortunately still hear "nobody will use it" as the excuse for obvious design flaws.
Public consultation is minimal and any input is largely ignored.

I'm sure cork city council has a public consultation department, who are expressly forbidden from communicating with other council staff,

riddlinrussell

whisky_galore wrote: »

It's gone, too late, sold off a half century ago.

At a rough guess, I'd say less than half the earthworks are still intact, the rest ploughed up into farmland or with sheds, houses or housing estates built on it.
Anyone even considering a greenway with substantial portions of trackbed no longer intact on what is prime agricultural land is delusional.

And you're right, I think the focus should be truly 'green' greenways, on passages into and around larger towns and cities and outlying industral estates for commuting purposes instead of half baked cycle lanes designed by people who haven't been on a bike since childhood, that end as abruptly as they begin and installed because the EU told us so.

The map I put together does indeed heavily rely on the old network for 'potential' greenway routes, this is for a variety of reasons none of which are that I would explicitly object to routes running elsewhere.
Around any town that is more than just a single road you are likely going to want plenty of orbital and feeder routes for bicycles, with sensible radiating routes to various destinations.
However for these cross country routes if you're running along a road it will need extremely high quality segregation and there will still be those who would be put off cycling along with cars whizzing by ('scenic' cyclists).

The main reason I picked those routes is because:

• They are previously established routes generally without roads using them now
• They may have easier land acquisition if the land is still in government hands
• There may be a general land boundary running along the route because they were established when the line was in use

I feel that these greenways should come out of the 'Tourism' Pot, while urban cycleways come out of the 'Transport' pot. and planned as such, but that doesn't mean that I don't think routes like the Grand Canal/Royal couldn't also be strategic commuter routes into Dublin. (I fully intend to cycle from Sallins into work when the surface is of sufficient quality)

serfboard

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I feel that these greenways should come out of the 'Tourism' Pot, while urban cycleways come out of the 'Transport' pot. and planned as such

Agree with this, although I wonder how many urban transport planners see cycling as an actual form of transport.

riddlinrussell wrote: »

that doesn't mean that I don't think routes like the Grand Canal/Royal couldn't also be strategic commuter routes

Indeed. For instance, people in Moate can now cycle to work in Athlone, people in Kilmeaden or Kilmacthomas can cycle to work in Waterford and so on, all along segregated cycleways.

Muckyboots

serfboard wrote: »

Agree with this, although I wonder how many urban transport planners see cycling as an actual form of transport.

Indeed. For instance, people in Moate can now cycle to work in Athlone, people in Kilmeaden or Kilmacthomas can cycle to work in Waterford and so on, all along segregated cycleways.

The proposed Enniskillen-Athenry Greenway would open up commuting options for the Galway city catchment area, especially if a greenway ran along with a double-tracked rail alignment from Athenry into the city. E-bikes are going to be global game-changers in terms of sustainable commuting.

flazio

A cycling path beside an active railway doesn't sound all that appealing to be honest.
I know with good fencing there won't be much of a safety issue (eg Royal Canal) but it won't exactly be the most scenic cycle would it?

Zubeneschamali

flazio wrote: »

A cycling path beside an active railway doesn't sound all that appealing to be honest.
I know with good fencing there won't be much of a safety issue (eg Royal Canal) but it won't exactly be the most scenic cycle would it?

No, same as Athlone-Mullingar, bit worse as you'd be on one side of the other, can't see both ways equally.

But at least there are only a few trains a day, so it's not like marking off a bit of an actual road with cars and trucks driving by. And I don't think anyone is really going to do a motorway-style money-no-object CPO to cut through farms to build a greenway.

Muckyboots

flazio wrote: »

A cycling path beside an active railway doesn't sound all that appealing to be honest.

It appeals to anyone who wants to cycle with children away for vehicular danger. I've cycled with kids beside active railways in Wales and the off chance that a train might pass just enhances the experience. 98% - 99% of the time it's just a quiet cycle path. Embankments and fencing create shelter. The route is flat. There's the glass half full version for you.

Pete_Cavan

Prettyssure the intended route for the Dublin - Galway Greenway approach to Galway is to go further south, via Loughrea and Oranmore, so very little would be along side the railway?

riddlinrussell

Muckyboots wrote: »

It appeals to anyone who wants to cycle with children away for vehicular danger. I've cycled with kids beside active railways in Wales and the off chance that a train might pass just enhances the experience. 98% - 99% of the time it's just a quiet cycle path. Embankments and fencing create shelter. The route is flat. There's the glass half full version for you.

Yes this is why my map has active rail trails marked on it, if any safety issues etc can be managed (Plenty of EU and UK examples to work off) then outside of Dublin there's only going to be a train along every hour or so, plenty of the railway routes in Ireland have at least some scenic merit too.

Only real issue I see is when it comes to cuttings/bridges/tunnels/embankments what does the greenway do where the available space narrows.

hans aus dtschl

Muckyboots wrote: »

It appeals to anyone who wants to cycle with children away for vehicular danger. I've cycled with kids beside active railways in Wales and the off chance that a train might pass just enhances the experience. 98% - 99% of the time it's just a quiet cycle path. Embankments and fencing create shelter. The route is flat. There's the glass half full version for you.

Agreed, I'd be happy to have a continuous segregated route.
Trains don't weave at you to threaten you, the drivers don't tend to shout abuse out the window at you, trains don't pass at high speed within inches of you and then jam on the breaks, or left-hook you....they're relatively pleasant as they pass nearby to be honest. A small earthen bank between the two would probably be enough for me.

Golden Horde

riddlinrussell wrote: »

The map I put together does indeed heavily rely on the old network for 'potential' greenway routes, this is for a variety of reasons none of which are that I would explicitly object to routes running elsewhere.
Around any town that is more than just a single road you are likely going to want plenty of orbital and feeder routes for bicycles, with sensible radiating routes to various destinations.
However for these cross country routes if you're running along a road it will need extremely high quality segregation and there will still be those who would be put off cycling along with cars whizzing by ('scenic' cyclists).

The main reason I picked those routes is because:

• They are previously established routes generally without roads using them now
• They may have easier land acquisition if the land is still in government hands
• There may be a general land boundary running along the route because they were established when the line was in use

I feel that these greenways should come out of the 'Tourism' Pot, while urban cycleways come out of the 'Transport' pot. and planned as such, but that doesn't mean that I don't think routes like the Grand Canal/Royal couldn't also be strategic commuter routes into Dublin. (I fully intend to cycle from Sallins into work when the surface is of sufficient quality)

Does anyone have a rough idea as to when the Sallins section of the greenway is proposed to be completed...let alone started..?