Greenways [greenway map of Ireland in post 1]

riddlinrussell

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Yep agreed. It's symptomatic of their archaic "do-minimum" attitude to sustainable transport, tbh.

And it's squandering public money in your name.

(in my name too, obviously)

For clarity, the document does go on to describe what the relaxations can allow in terms of below-below-minimum-widths and stoppages distances. But crucially there is no quality of service metric and their classification of "rural" appears to be <12,000 AADT, which is quite a lot. The whole thing is weighted heavily in favour of "not impeding motorists".

Honestly enforcing the common thread of transport planning documents, the hierarchy of priority, so that it is carried out in actions as well as in documentation would probably be the most dramatic change we could have to planning in this country.
It should be applied to planning decisions at every level;
"Are pedestrians able to flow freely through this space?",
"Are cyclists able to flow freely except at intersections with pedestrian traffic?",
"Is public transport able to flow freely except where interaction with cyclists and pedestrians occurs?" etc etc down the pyramid

riddlinrussell

nilhg wrote: »

The only problem with that is that a quick look at the OP's excellent greenway map shows that to a large extent the old railway line doesn't still exist to any meaningful extent, reinstating it as a greenway would be a very long term (an expensive) project compared to upgrading the Barrow towpath.

Looking at the satellite view of the New Ross - Muine Bheag Branch Line shows only a small number of encroachments that could be worked around, overall the route is clearly visible, I don't see why it would be any less feasible than something like the Naas to Baltinglass, which is at least being considered by Kildare CC

Edit: To clarify the section under discussion currently (Muine Bheag - New Ross) has been granted preliminary design funding by the Minister for transport to the tune of €150k as detailed here

loyatemu

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Looking at the satellite view of the New Ross Branch Line shows only a small number of encroachments that could be worked around, overall the route is clearly visible, I don't see why it would be any less feasible than something like the Naas to Baltinglass, which is at least being considered by Kildare CC

Waterford-New Ross is intact, CIE only officially closed it a couple of years ago (though it was effectively impassable since the 90s, the last weed-spraying train they sent up the line caught fire!), I think @nilhg is talking about the section from New Ross to Borris which would act as alternative route to the Barrow Blueway - that section of line was abandoned in the 60s.

It's similar to the extension of the Waterford Greenway - the line from Waterford to Dungarvan was open into the 80s for freight traffic so was still mostly clear, but the rest of the line to Mallow closed in the 60s and has been built on, or cleared to make larger fields so the extension is going to need substantial diversions.

riddlinrussell

loyatemu wrote: »

Waterford-New Ross is intact, CIE only officially closed it a couple of years ago (though it was effectively impassable since the 90s, the last weed-spraying train they sent up the line caught fire!), I think @nilhg is talking about the section from New Ross to Borris which would act as alternative route to the Barrow Blueway - that section of line was abandoned in the 60s.

It's similar to the extension of the Waterford Greenway - the line from Waterford to Dungarvan was open into the 80s for freight traffic so was still mostly clear, but the rest of the line to Mallow closed in the 60s and has been built on, or cleared to make larger fields so the extension is going to need substantial diversions.

I was also talking about the New Ross to Bagenalstown section, not New Ross to Waterford, apologies if that wasn't clear

nilhg

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I was also talking about the New Ross to Bagenalstown section, not New Ross to Waterford, apologies if that wasn't clear

It depends on your perspective I suppose, you look at the satellite map and see the old railway line substantially clear, I look at the same thing and see a line running through farmland where a railway used to be 50 or 60 years ago.

From here:

http://glasnost.itcarlow.ie/~feeleyjm/archaeology/bag-wex%20rail2.pdf

The track: In most places the track or road as railwaymen like to call it has disappeared completely.
The land was sold back to the adjoining landowners soon
after closure and has been integrated into the adjoiningfield systems.
.After Bagenalstown Station the trackline has been replaced with houses and gardens. Further on at Philip St
Bridge a section can be seen surrounded by bushes.
Similar stretches exist along the line in several places, a
‘no- mans-land’ and now a haven for wildlife, However
some anomalies exist here and there. A section of track
still fenced off exists at Ballyine Bridge ( Borris) over
forty years after the closure .

Take that in conjunction with this:

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/news/new-greenway-guidelines-not-acceptable-to-farmers-warns-ifa-39474004.html

and you end up with a very long road to building a greenway an any of the old disappeared railway alignments.

And for full disclosure I'm a cycling farmer who very greatly appreciates our greenways.

Edit, just saw your edit above re the 150K for a feasibility study, doesn't really change my view but would be glad if it's possible but would still reckon it's a long road before anyone cycles or walks on it, definitely compared to upgrading the barrrow towpath

Seth Brundle

https://twitter.com/WexBug/status/1298179868778266626

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

https://twitter.com/WexBug/status/1298179868778266626

Just found the original article in the Munster Express...
http://www.munster-express.ie/local-news/line-objectors-blast-greenway-tyranny/

whisky_galore

loyatemu wrote: »

but the rest of the line to Mallow closed in the 60s and has been built on, or cleared to make larger fields so the extension is going to need substantial diversions.

Clearly a waste of time and money. No ditches, trackbed, fences, no nothing but open fields for long stretches. Connecting a few short surviving sections. A look at Google Maps will tell you that, no need to make a pile of 80k and set fire to it. Crazy pie in the sky stuff.

spacetweek

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Just found the original article in the Munster Express...
http://www.munster-express.ie/local-news/line-objectors-blast-greenway-tyranny/

Jesus wept.

Quackster

nilhg wrote: »

It depends on your perspective I suppose, you look at the satellite map and see the old railway line substantially clear, I look at the same thing and see a line running through farmland where a railway used to be 50 or 60 years ago.

From here:

http://glasnost.itcarlow.ie/~feeleyjm/archaeology/bag-wex%20rail2.pdf



Take that in conjunction with this:

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/news/new-greenway-guidelines-not-acceptable-to-farmers-warns-ifa-39474004.html

and you end up with a very long road to building a greenway an any of the old disappeared railway alignments.

And for full disclosure I'm a cycling farmer who very greatly appreciates our greenways.

Edit, just saw your edit above re the 150K for a feasibility study, doesn't really change my view but would be glad if it's possible but would still reckon it's a long road before anyone cycles or walks on it, definitely compared to upgrading the barrrow towpath

The success or otherwise of the inevitable court challenge to the expected South Kerry Greenway CPO order will fundamentally decide how development of greenways on abandoned lines will proceed.

riddlinrussell

Quackster wrote: »

The success or otherwise of the inevitable court challenge to the expected South Kerry Greenway CPO order will fundamentally decide how development of greenways on abandoned lines will proceed.

Yeah that is probably going to decide the shape of Irelands greenways going forward for the most part, if the State/Council argues touristic value only then its probably looking a bit shaky, but they could argue connection between communities and point to it as alternative travel given the congestion of the ring of Kerry in the summer. Will be interesting to see how that goes.

Harry Palmr

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Just found the original article in the Munster Express...
http://www.munster-express.ie/local-news/line-objectors-blast-greenway-tyranny/

Fantastic find

/off to Waterford forums' own greenway thread

Corca Baiscinn

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Just found the original article in the Munster Express...
http://www.munster-express.ie/local-news/line-objectors-blast-greenway-tyranny/

The original tweet didn't name names and maybe that was fairer. It's not an elected Councillor who's being quoted but a representative of a community group who maybe had genuine fears. Remember Mayo was the only substantial greenway up and running at that time. Maybe as a result of the negative feedback the council worked harder to ensure people's privacy was respected. That horizontal wooden fencing hiding views of houses and gardens on the route is well done so hopefully the residents along it are happy with the outcome

hans aus dtschl

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

The original tweet didn't name names and maybe that was fairer. It's not an elected Councillor who's being quoted but a representative of a community group who maybe had genuine fears. Remember Mayo was the only substantial greenway up and running at that time. Maybe as a result of the negative feedback the council worked harder to ensure people's privacy was respected. That horizontal wooden fencing hiding views of houses and gardens on the route is well done so hopefully the residents along it are happy with the outcome

I think the point being made is that we've been seeing the same "anti" greenway arguments for quite a long time now.
It's certainly possible for a local authority to do a bad job of a greenway so people's legitimate concerns must be addressed, no question about it. But the "white elephant" and "crime" arguments have probably been overdone and are looking a bit stale at this point.

serfboard

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

It's not an elected Councillor who's being quoted but a representative of a community group who maybe had genuine fears. Remember Mayo was the only substantial greenway up and running at that time. Maybe as a result of the negative feedback the council worked harder to ensure people's privacy was respected. That horizontal wooden fencing hiding views of houses and gardens on the route is well done so hopefully the residents along it are happy with the outcome

I would be interested to read a follow-up article with those locals who had fears - what they thought might happen, and how they see things now.

Could be useful in dealing with other objectors' concerns.

riddlinrussell

serfboard wrote: »

I would be interested to read a follow-up article with those locals who had fears - what they thought might happen, and how they see things now.

Could be useful in dealing with other objectors' concerns.

Indeed something like that could be a useful record of seeing how the objectors felt their concerns were addressed, I hope that other greenway planners have taken the lessons learned by Waterford Council on board.

riddlinrussell

mitchelsontour wrote: »

Hi everyone

There is a planning proposal to divert a substantial section of the agreed Tralee-Fenit Greenway route from the rail line and detour through a field near Clogherbrien Bridge near Tralee which we disagree with for a number of reasons.
You can email a submission on the proposal to Kerry Council to ciu@kerrycoco.ie by next Friday September 4th and mark it Tralee-Fenit Greenway (Bawnboy), Tralee, Co. Kerry.

Checkout the https://www.facebook.com/TraleeFenitGreenway/ which has more details.

A pallet making company - Southwest Pallet Production - has taken over part of the old railway and are now looking for the green way to deviate even though they do not own the land or have planning permission building erected on it.

If they are allowed this deviation then it does not bode well for future developments of green ways as it will set precedent.

If you can have a quick read of the facebook post and send an email objecting to the diversion it would help.

Cross posting this from the cycling forum, some dodgy dealings going on with this section of the Tralee-Fenit Greenway

hans aus dtschl

Same thing happened on the Cork-Youghal alignment.
Instead of dealing with an encroachment on the line they went around the property, I assume purchasing a sliver of land to do so.
There seems to be an attitude of "it's only a greenway, so we can divert it". And also "dealing with the encroachment is too much hassle".

That may be true, but I don't think it's the right thing to do.

Quackster

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Same thing happened on the Cork-Youghal alignment.
Instead of dealing with an encroachment on the line they went around the property, I assume purchasing a sliver of land to do so.
There seems to be an attitude of "it's only a greenway, so we can divert it". And also "dealing with the encroachment is too much hassle".

That may be true, but I don't think it's the right thing to do.

That's exactly it in a nutshell.

Del.Monte

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Same thing happened on the Cork-Youghal alignment.
Instead of dealing with an encroachment on the line they went around the property, I assume purchasing a sliver of land to do so.
There seems to be an attitude of "it's only a greenway, so we can divert it". And also "dealing with the encroachment is too much hassle".

That may be true, but I don't think it's the right thing to do.

Will the railway have to divert round this usurper when it inevitably returns?

Markcheese

Del.Monte wrote: »

Will the railway have to divert round this usurper when it inevitably returns?

Well, considering they figured it's easier to go round now ,and it's less than 40 years since a train last used the line , I can't imagine they'll have any joy shifting who ever it is in another 20 to 40 years time ..

loyatemu

is it to do with squatters rights? the council may feel it's not worth a legal battle that they may lose.

hans aus dtschl

Del.Monte wrote: »

Will the railway have to divert round this usurper when it inevitably returns?

That was my argument at the time regarding the Youghal line too. It sets a bad precedent and almost lends a kind of legitimacy to the encroachment.

There's a third option available too: both doing the greenway diversion in the short term and dealing with the encroachment in the medium term.

loyatemu wrote:

is it to do with squatters rights? the council may feel it's not worth a legal battle that they may lose.

I suspect it's almost certainly to do with squatters rights.
And secondarily that any legal battle would delay the provision of the greenway.
So I understand their decision, I just disagree with it.

Grassey

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

I suspect it's almost certainly to do with squatters rights.
And secondarily that any legal battle would delay the provision of the greenway.
So I understand their decision, I just disagree with it.

30 years for adverse possession of public land... have they been using it this long?

hans aus dtschl

Grassey wrote: »

30 years for adverse possession of public land... have they been using it this long?

They could have been, it's hard to say.

Topgear on Dave

Grassey wrote: »

30 years for adverse possession of public land... have they been using it this long?

There is certainly "something" there a very long time. The OSI website has aerial photographic maps of the country going back to 1995 and shows a building.

Go to osi.ie and click on the mapviewer. Its quite an interesting website to see how the country has changed over the years and see how towns expanded and houses sprouted all over the country. It also has much older drawn maps too.

loyatemu

when was the Fenit line last used? AFAIK it was listed as an engineers siding up until quite recently, though obviously not actually passable.

whisky_galore

hans aus dtschl wrote: »

Same thing happened on the Cork-Youghal alignment.
Instead of dealing with an encroachment on the line they went around the property, I assume purchasing a sliver of land to do so.
There seems to be an attitude of "it's only a greenway, so we can divert it". And also "dealing with the encroachment is too much hassle".

That may be true, but I don't think it's the right thing to do.

Same thing happened on parts of the Achill greenway, fact of life. Leave something idle for x no of years and people claim it, it should come as no great surprise.

loyatemu

whisky_galore wrote: »

Same thing happened on parts of the Achill greenway, fact of life. Leave something idle for x no of years and people claim it, it should come as no great surprise.

Achill is different, it closed much earlier and the land was sold. Dungarvan, Fenit, Youghal, New Ross were all open until at least the 80s and stayed in CIE ownership until very recently.

whisky_galore

loyatemu wrote: »

Achill is different, it closed much earlier and the land was sold. Dungarvan, Fenit, Youghal, New Ross were all open until at least the 80s and stayed in CIE ownership until very recently.

You would think so, if CIE were remotely interested in reinforcing their ownership over mothballed lines, which they clearly aren't.