Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Royal Canal Greenway

Options
1…5681011…26

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,228 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    Is this one stretch really so different to other areas that have benefited from greenways?

    In fairness in terms of closeness to the path from that point into the city, I think there is. I'm sure that from say Clonsilla on the houses don't come as close to the path, maybe a couple around Cabra but I think they're elevated. But that brings up the issue as to who gave the home owners permission, if there is, to extend their gardens to the water.
    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    I’d happily buy a house with access to such an amienty down the lane behind me. I’d say there will be an increase in house prices there once it’s built.

    It would be great wouldn't it.


  • Options
    #213
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    #1 Its not Nimbyism to keep the lanes and cul de sac closes. They cause anti social activity and crime.

    #2 The cycle lane doesn't need the laneways and ul de sac opened.


  • Options
    #214
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    ...Is this one stretch really so different to other areas that have benefited from greenways? ...

    Every stretch is different. Have you ever used one?


  • Options
    #215
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    ilsilenzio wrote: »
    ...They are beginning to refer to it as an Urban Greenway and commuter corridor and in this regard I would think that cyclists should want less access points. They would encourage casual mammies and toddlers, casual walkers and god forbid pensioners wandering along. Their progress would be slowed. Has any other Greenway so many access points in such a short stretch. ...

    Its consider an amenity for all types of users not just cyclists.

    You should try walking stretch the from 12th lock to ashtown on sat or sun afternoon.


  • Options
    #216
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    beauf wrote: »
    Every stretch is different. Have you ever used one?

    Yes I have and that’s why I can’t figure out what the uproar is here. As you said “every stretch is different”, which is why I am trying to figure out why there wasn’t such uproar over other stretches. Maybe there was but I don’t recall it.

    As for laneways...I used to live backing onto one. The greenway will increase people traffic. The more people traffic in an area, generally the less antisocial behaviour because there is a much higher chance of being caught. Although too much people trafficnalso creates situations where it’s easier to get away with antisocial behaviour like the city centre but I’m quite sure that this stretch of greenway and it’s access points will be city centre like.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Bargain_Hound
    Registered Users Posts: 521 ✭✭✭Bargain_Hound


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    Yes I have and that’s why I can’t figure out what the uproar is here. As you said “every stretch is different”, which is why I am trying to figure out why there wasn’t such uproar over other stretches. Maybe there was but I don’t recall it.

    As for laneways...I used to live backing onto one. The greenway will increase people traffic. The more people traffic in an area, generally the less antisocial behaviour because there is a much higher chance of being caught. Although too much people trafficnalso creates situations where it’s easier to get away with antisocial behaviour like the city centre but I’m quite sure that this stretch of greenway and it’s access points will be city centre like.

    There is no anti social behaviour currently though.

    Is it really that unfair of residents to be concerned about the unclear plans neighbouring their properties?


  • Options
    #218
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Bargain_Hound wrote: »
    There is no anti social behaviour currently though.

    Is it really that unfair of residents to be concerned about the unclear plans neighbouring their properties?

    So it’s a “what if” scenario. Ok, I get it now. However, every infrastructure project is a what. There are laws for antisocial behaviour.

    How about “what if” there are no antisocial behaviour? Nah, better to scrap plans than accept that there may be no issue and if there is an issue then there are laws that can be invoked.


  • Options
    #219
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Its not a what if. They had anti social behaviour and were closed all over Fingal.
    Can't speak for other areas.
    They were originally open and they were closed after many years of being open.

    Many who are in the area a long time will remember them as being open.
    Fingal in the interest of access have tried to open them up and most places have kept them closes.

    This is nothing to do with the Greenway. Its not Nimbyism. its from experience of many years.


  • Options
    #220
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    Yes I have and that’s why I can’t figure out what the uproar is here. As you said “every stretch is different”, which is why I am trying to figure out why there wasn’t such uproar over other stretches. Maybe there was but I don’t recall it. ....

    List a few other areas that have laneways/back gardens that back onto the canal and now the greenway.


  • Options
    #221
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    beauf wrote: »
    List a few other areas that have laneways/back gardens that back onto the canal and now the greenway.

    The new stretch on Sheerif St have. Also, the whole way up through north strand and beyond right up to Phibsborough (I think as there are areas I’m not familiar with). It’s been a while since I’ve been on it further.

    As for your previous post, you ignore that more people traffic generally means less antisocial behaviour. I’m sure those like yourself who remember the lanes being open also remember them having very few pass through. Unlike how they would be leading to the greenway.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    There are laws for antisocial behaviour.

    In fairness, this isn't relevant. Whether it's teenagers drinking, toerags riding scrambler bikes, drug-dealing or illegal dumping, the gardai don't have anywhere near the resources to be responding to it. A law without any enforcement isn't worth the paper it's written on.

    The proposed greenway is close enough to residential areas to be accessible to bored teenagers or more unsavoury people, but secluded enough that no-one will be able to see what they're doing. It's tailor-made for anti-social behaviour. Increased foot traffic during the day will help, but at night, not so much.

    Now, that is a factor regardless of which side it's sited on, but at least on the south side the train line provides a buffer between the path and any houses.


  • Options
    #223
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Former Former wrote: »
    In fairness, this isn't relevant. Whether it's teenagers drinking, toerags riding scrambler bikes, drug-dealing or illegal dumping, the gardai don't have anywhere near the resources to be responding to it.

    The proposed greenway is close enough to residential areas to be accessible to bored teenagers or more unsavoury people, but secluded enough that no-one will be able to see what they're doing. It's tailor-made for anti-social behaviour.

    Now, that is a factor regardless of which side it's sited on, but at least on the south side the train line provides a buffer between the path and any houses.

    Other areas are also exposed too. Maybe the whole length of the canal should be blocked off to ensure that nothing untoward happens there ever again.


  • Options
    #224
    donaghs
    Registered Users Posts: 2,739 ✭✭✭donaghs


    beauf wrote: »
    Its consider an amenity for all types of users not just cyclists.

    You should try walking stretch the from 12th lock to ashtown on sat or sun afternoon.

    Then try walking from Castleknock station to coolmine station on the existing trail. The former feels suburban, and the latter is more like being in the countryside.


  • Options
    #225
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    Other areas are also exposed too. Maybe the whole length of the canal should be blocked off to ensure that nothing untoward happens there ever again.

    Constructive response.

    The point is that there are ways to mitigate it.

    The cycling die-hards have obviously decided that any criticism of the planned route is just an opposition to the greenway itself. That's the fundamental misunderstanding here and it's why you are all getting so angry. In fairness to you, it's exactly what Fingal and the NTA wanted to happen and they've played it beautifully.

    It is possible to be in favour of the greenway but have concerns about these exact proposals.


  • Options
    #226
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Former Former wrote: »
    Constructive response.

    The point is that there are ways to mitigate it.

    The cycling die-hards have obviously decided that any criticism of the planned route is just an opposition to the greenway itself. That's the fundamental misunderstanding here and it's why you are all getting so angry. In fairness to you, it's exactly what Fingal and the NTA wanted to happen and they've played it beautifully.

    It is possible to be in favour of the greenway but have concerns about these exact proposals.

    The anger, paranoia nor tin foil battery is not from me. I’ve never cycled any of the route. I have walked it. As an outsider it appears to be much ado about nothing and the objections do not appear to be very well constructed. It all is what ifs and the sky is falling in.

    If previous posts are to believed, as per regulations the other side wouldn’t be wide enough. is that not a clear reason for the selection?


  • Options
    #227
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,901 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    beauf wrote: »
    #1 Its not Nimbyism to keep the lanes and cul de sac closes. They cause anti social activity and crime.

    #2 The cycle lane doesn't need the laneways and ul de sac opened.



    One of the arguments against closing Coolmine Rail Crossing was that closing routes causes anti-social activity and crime. Now we are hearing that opening routes causes anti-social activity and crime.

    That leaves me baffled, and back to the conclusion that NIMBYism always finds an excuse.


  • Options
    #228
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    blanch152 wrote: »
    One of the arguments against closing Coolmine Rail Crossing was that closing routes causes anti-social activity and crime. Now we are hearing that opening routes causes anti-social activity and crime.

    That leaves me baffled, and back to the conclusion that NIMBYism always finds an excuse.

    Maybe link to what you are talking about.

    They've been lots of noise about closing that, and it wasn't handled well either. There was some suggestion that it was used as a PR stunt for local politicians.

    The reason for closing crossings is to speed up the train. Where its closed, they intended to create a new bridge. So it wasn't going to be "closed" as you imply. There would still be the canal path.

    You seem to use NIMBYism as counter for every argument. Its getting old.


  • Options
    #229
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,901 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Former Former wrote: »
    In fairness, this isn't relevant. Whether it's teenagers drinking, toerags riding scrambler bikes, drug-dealing or illegal dumping, the gardai don't have anywhere near the resources to be responding to it. A law without any enforcement isn't worth the paper it's written on.

    The proposed greenway is close enough to residential areas to be accessible to bored teenagers or more unsavoury people, but secluded enough that no-one will be able to see what they're doing. It's tailor-made for anti-social behaviour. Increased foot traffic during the day will help, but at night, not so much.

    Now, that is a factor regardless of which side it's sited on, but at least on the south side the train line provides a buffer between the path and any houses.


    Surely the people high up on the bridge that needs a 20-foot wall to protect a man's privacy will be visible from miles away?

    More seriously, if you are right about the greenway attracting anti-social behaviour, our first duty should be to protect other users of the greenway. Having a closed greenway on the southside of the river with the railway line blocking escape, an unwitting victim could be trapped by a split gang of anti-social teenagers. Imagine scrambler bikes coming from both sides of you. With the high drop to the canal, they are in real danger. Situating the greenway on the northside with plenty of access will prevent such risks to vulnerable people. So, health and safety in response to anti-social behaviour would support a northside option with maximum openness. Then again, perhaps the risks of anti-social behaviour are greatly exaggerated.


  • Options
    #230
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,901 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    beauf wrote: »
    Maybe link to what you are talking about.

    They've been lots of noise about closing that, and it wasn't handled well either. There was some suggestion that it was used as a PR stunt for local politicians.

    The reason for closing crossings is to speed up the train. Where its closed, they intended to create a new bridge. So it wasn't going to be "closed" as you imply. There would still be the canal path.

    You seem to use NIMBYism as counter for every argument. Its getting old.


    I was at meetings and heard the comments so I can't obviously link to them. That process completely put me off local consultation in the area.


  • Options
    #231
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    T...If previous posts are to believed, as per regulations the other side wouldn’t be wide enough. is that not a clear reason for the selection?

    The rest of the route isn't always as per regulations.

    So thats one of the reasons that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    If the suggestion is cost. Then why not show the costs compared.

    When people give half truths as facts, that people start distrusting the process.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I was at meetings and heard the comments so I can't obviously link to them. That process completely put me off local consultation in the area.

    Lot of comments on the local politicians websites and even council minutes.

    Most talk about the lack of transparency.


  • Options
    #233
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    The new stretch on Sheerif St have. Also, the whole way up through north strand and beyond right up to Phibsborough (I think as there are areas I’m not familiar with). It’s been a while since I’ve been on it further.

    As for your previous post, you ignore that more people traffic generally means less antisocial behaviour. I’m sure those like yourself who remember the lanes being open also remember them having very few pass through. Unlike how they would be leading to the greenway.

    Your talking about a section that isn't built yet. How can you know what issues there will be?

    Also its a raised path. Is there access from the cul de sacs on Sheriff street to this new path/bridge? Plans seem to show the walls will be retained or it will 6ft up in the air?

    https://irishcycle.com/2019/02/04/work-starts-on-royal-canal-greenway-beside-dublin-docklands/

    What cul de sacs with access to the current path in north strand and up to Phibsborough??? There are none?


  • Options
    #234
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    ...As for your previous post, you ignore that more people traffic generally means less antisocial behaviour. I’m sure those like yourself who remember the lanes being open also remember them having very few pass through. Unlike how they would be leading to the greenway.

    No they were busy. Main routes to shops. Busier than the green-way traffic will be. I also remember the blanch cops wouldn't go down them at night. One used to have a timed gate on it. Only opened during the day.

    I'm not convinced you know any of the areas you are talking about.


  • Options
    #235
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Former Former wrote: »
    Constructive response.

    The point is that there are ways to mitigate it.

    The cycling die-hards have obviously decided that any criticism of the planned route is just an opposition to the greenway itself. That's the fundamental misunderstanding here and it's why you are all getting so angry. In fairness to you, it's exactly what Fingal and the NTA wanted to happen and they've played it beautifully.

    It is possible to be in favour of the greenway but have concerns about these exact proposals.

    Exactly. The Greenway does not need access into the estates. The only people who will be inconvenienced by no access is those local in estates. Its an entirely seperate issue.

    Someones doing a PR job to get any objections valid or not steamrollered by people not even in the area.


  • Options
    #236
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    beauf wrote: »
    Your talking about a section that isn't built yet. How can you know what issues there will be?

    Also its a raised path. Is there access from the cul de sacs on Sheriff street to this new path/bridge? Plans seem to show the walls will be retained or it will 6ft up in the air?

    https://irishcycle.com/2019/02/04/work-starts-on-royal-canal-greenway-beside-dublin-docklands/

    What cul de sacs with access to the current path in north strand and up to Phibsborough??? There are none?

    It is currently being built and was blocked off as there was genuine antisocial behaviour along the canal where houses back onto not some perceived notion that it will automatically turn into post apocalyptic free for all once built.

    Also, there was the ability to submit opinions and thoughts for this section. Who knows what will be proposed as a result.


  • Options
    #237
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    beauf wrote: »
    No they were busy. Main routes to shops. Busier than the green-way traffic will be. I also remember the blanch cops wouldn't go down them at night. One used to have a timed gate on it. Only opened during the day.

    I'm not convinced you know any of the areas you are talking about.

    I already said I’m not familiar with the area ???

    Are the proposals direct routes to the canal or a free for all in a warren of lanes? I’d guess the former. Less areas to hide if I’m right.


  • Options
    #238
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    blanch152 wrote: »
    ....our first duty should be to protect other users of the greenway. Having a closed greenway on the southside of the river with the railway line blocking escape,...

    Why are the locals not the first duty?

    Most of the current route doesn't have an escape route off it.
    Even if it did good luck out running teenagers or a motorbike.

    Besides ravaging hordes mad max style isn't really what is mean by anti social activity.


  • Options
    #239
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    It is currently being built and was blocked off as there was genuine antisocial behaviour along the canal ...

    Its a well known area.


  • Options
    #240
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    It took the foot traffic that there is Boombridge with the new Luas terminus, to make a significant difference to that area.

    Ye are dragging this well off topic. Just build a wall/fence to keep the locals out. Access at either end at the train stations. End of issue.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    beauf wrote: »
    It took the foot traffic that there is Boombridge with the new Luas terminus, to make a significant difference to that area.

    Ye are dragging this well off topic. Just build a wall/fence to keep the locals out. Access at either end at the train stations. End of issue.

    That may well be the final proposal once submissions are assessed.


Advertisement