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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Royal Canal Greenway

  • 26-02-2019 4:24pm
    #1
    Fuseman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 158 ✭✭


    There are rumblings that the Greenway between Castleknock Train Station and Coolmine Train station is getting the go-ahead? Has anyone seen the actual plans?


«134567…16

Comments

  • #2
    AlanG
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,436 ✭✭✭AlanG


    Due to be launched this week I was told - will have a bridge half way along so going west you will go past castleknock station and then cross to the other side before it gets too narrow.


  • #3
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/royal-canal-urban-greenway-public-engagement-0

    Going all the way to the county boundary at Leixlip.

    Section from 12th Lock to Coolmine will run along the railway side until it gets as far as Brompton, when a footbridge will take people across and the path will then run along the green at the bottom of Brompton and then behind the gardens at the back of Delwood.

    Considering some people are now going to have a major public amenity running past their house, there will likely be some 'observations'.


  • #4
    Phil.x
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,757 ✭✭✭Phil.x


    Is it possible now to cycle fron clonsilla station to say ashtown along the canal


  • #5
    abc_xyz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58 ✭✭abc_xyz


    Short answer yes - you can see the marks of bike tires there regularly. There is a section from the bridge before Coolmine train station to Castleknock train station that a lot of people would not be comfortable cycling though. I've done it on a mountain bike but don't think it would be sensible on a road bike. Apart from that section it's either tarmac or compacted gravel and is easy to cycle.


  • #6
    rolion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭rolion


    I cycle that route at least once a month.
    i dont know how to say it but i will prefer to be left as it is,wild,green and hidden away from "civilisation" and "civilised" people.

    It will happen like with St Catherine Park in Lucan ... advertised heavily and now is full of people and their dogs everywhere,like lets go out in that park to get the dog a natural green poo.Avoiding the grass and the greenpaths due to pee and poo.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    mattser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,311 ✭✭✭mattser


    rolion wrote: »
    I cycle that route at least once a month.
    i dont know how to say it but i will prefer to be left as it is,wild,green and hidden away from "civilisation" and "civilised" people.

    It will happen like with St Catherine Park in Lucan ... advertised heavily and now is full of people and their dogs everywhere,like lets go out in that park to get the dog a natural green poo.Avoiding the grass and the greenpaths due to pee and poo.

    Absolutely. Gave up running the canal bank ages ago due to ignorant dog owners with their mutts running loose and ****ting.
    Beautiful amenity ruined by idiots.


  • #8
    chris85
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,502 ✭✭✭chris85


    rolion wrote: »
    I cycle that route at least once a month.
    i dont know how to say it but i will prefer to be left as it is,wild,green and hidden away from "civilisation" and "civilised" people.

    It will happen like with St Catherine Park in Lucan ... advertised heavily and now is full of people and their dogs everywhere,like lets go out in that park to get the dog a natural green poo.Avoiding the grass and the greenpaths due to pee and poo.

    I run along here in Spring/Summer but all for the change. I would imagine it will be just like the Canal walkaway from Castleknock to Ashtown which is great and even at night is lit so good to travel on. I dont see much issue there with dog poo to be honest.

    I would love to jump on the bike with family and spin down to Castleknock or Ashtown for a trip. Its lovely by the canal near Ashtown.


  • #9
    donaghs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,824 ✭✭✭donaghs


    rolion wrote: »
    I cycle that route at least once a month.
    i dont know how to say it but i will prefer to be left as it is,wild,green and hidden away from "civilisation" and "civilised" people.

    It will happen like with St Catherine Park in Lucan ... advertised heavily and now is full of people and their dogs everywhere,like lets go out in that park to get the dog a natural green poo.Avoiding the grass and the greenpaths due to pee and poo.

    I have to agree that I like the natural state of it too. Ideally you could have both, but would of course add to the costs.
    Similar debate occurred about the Barrow paths: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/grass-or-tarmac-the-towpath-debate-1.3105792


  • #10
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    It will be a lovely walk when it's done, but part of me wishes we could just have a little bit of wilderness left. That land has essentially been untouched for 50 years, it's teeming with birds, badgers, squirrels and foxes.

    I ain't no zoologist but I'd imagine destroying their habitat won't have a happy ending for the little critters.


  • #11
    daymobrew
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,574 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    A few weeks ago I emailed someone in Waterways Ireland to ask them to remove the grass what was encroaching on the two path opposite 12th Lock Hotel. They did it and it looks brilliant. The path is almost twice as wide now.

    Here's what it looked like earlier this month when they did a short part.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Bargain_Hound
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 524 ✭✭✭Bargain_Hound


    daymobrew wrote: »
    A few weeks ago I emailed someone in Waterways Ireland to ask them to remove the grass what was encroaching on the two path opposite 12th Lock Hotel. They did it and it looks brilliant. The path is almost twice as wide now.

    Here's what it looked like earlier this month when they did a short part.

    I knew something looked different when I jogged that path last night :p


  • #13
    muckwarrior
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,102 ✭✭✭muckwarrior


    The walkers paths in the Phoenix park could do with the same. More than half the width is covered by grass in some parts.


  • #14
    sflynn6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24 ✭sflynn6


    There was a meeting last night in St. Bridgets Hall about the proposed greenway and the route. As mentioned here the preferred route is along the north bank of the canal with a crossing at Brompton.
    From what I heard last night , the residents will do what they can to make sure this does not go ahead.
    It would be a tragedy if these few residents get their way and scupper the whole plan.
    Dublin 15 needs this amenity. Maybe setting up a petition would help to let politicians know what people think.


  • #15
    dickwod1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,101 ✭✭✭dickwod1


    I was on the train coming towards Dublin passing Moyvalley and the work on the path beside the canal there is at a fairly advanced stage, It will be nice when it all links up :)


  • #16
    ilsilenzio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭ilsilenzio


    Unclear if sflynn6 was actually at meeting or heard a report thereon. This was the fourth local meeting-- organised over last 10 days or so by FG/ Lab, FF and by Greens last night.

    Rather than a "few residents" threatening "to scupper the whole plan" it should be pointed out that all the local reps were gobsmacked at level of turnout.To summarise the reaction it would be fair to say that 95% of the total diverse attendees, until convinced otherwise (which may prove difficult), would prefer to see the Greenway proceed along the present path (South side, between canal and train tracks), albeit with some little narrowing of the planned width etc. There would be a challenge at the Coolmine end, but nothing like the unknown on the planned route. They do not want to stop the whole process.

    It would appear that a "preferred" route has been chosen by "somebody"/ someone, prior to a full or adequate or any prior public consultation process, based on amateurish plans ( seemingly poorly prepared, apparently/probably using drone footage) with a suspicious reluctance to share any detailed plans/reports/ proper studies/ costings etc. The planners appear to have been surprised at the real extent of difficulties both ecologically and engineering wise. Reports have it that one engineer, after publication, was surprised at the gradient on the Northside side. Ten other plans were reportedly discarded and again no details exist as to why, or by whom. A very detailed study was carried out in or about 2012/2013, by Atkins, which outlined four options with an upgrade of the existing towpath being recommended. It appears to have been totally ignored-- on planner did not know of its existence. At an open meeting at the FCC offices no one there could or would give direct answers to a multitude of questions on the outlined plans, no name badges were worn and there was a distinct lack of notetaking--what few phone numbers taken were not used.

    All the foregoing is in addition to the expected very widespread local objections to loss of privacy in quiet residential areas, previous justified anti social prevention measures being reversed, uncontrolled estate parking, decimating of an existing open green area and probable CPO's of private gardens etc. While no snails have been found the present North Bank is teeming with wildlife which will be destroyed, along with the flora.

    This is an admirable extension of the Canal amenity walkway/ greenway/ cycleway, but on the wrong side of the Canal, in a patently "back of an envelope" planning manner and where costs could certainly not have been properly worked out--- the whole thing smacks of a fait accompli and sod the begrudgers. The bureaucrats apparently know better.

    Rather than calling for petitions etc might it not be preferable to view the plans, arrange meetings with local councillors etc and make submissions thereon by 22nd March as per FCC advices.


  • #17
    rolion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭rolion


    @ilsilenzio

    Thank You !!!!!!!!!!!!


  • #18
    donaghs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,824 ✭✭✭donaghs


    sflynn6 wrote: »
    There was a meeting last night in St. Bridgets Hall about the proposed greenway and the route. As mentioned here the preferred route is along the north bank of the canal with a crossing at Brompton.
    From what I heard last night , the residents will do what they can to make sure this does not go ahead.
    It would be a tragedy if these few residents get their way and scupper the whole plan.
    Dublin 15 needs this amenity. Maybe setting up a petition would help to let politicians know what people think.

    How badly is it needed? There's a natural path there currently which is really good for walking. Also fine for mountain biking.

    I appreciate that tarmac would suit a greater number of cyclists, skateboarders, kids cycling etc. and joining up all the tarmac "greenways". But at the cost of destroying the natural environment I'm not totally convinced of the need for it.


  • #19
    Bargain_Hound
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 524 ✭✭✭Bargain_Hound


    The history of the canal during its construction mentions difficulties around Clonsilla & Castleknock. It was an expensive and time consuming section to construct a canal through. I wonder does this have anything to do with the decision to try avoid widening this narrow section.


  • #20
    muckwarrior
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,102 ✭✭✭muckwarrior


    The narrow section can't be widened, at least not without moving the railway tracks which are right beside it.

    I was at the consultation in the Blanch offices the other week. They're well aware of the environmental impact of clearing trees and that's part of the reason why the path is planned to run alongside the gardens away from the canal instead of by the water. This means that a minimal amount of trees would need to be cleared, and the vast majority of that wild land would be left intact.


  • #21
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    donaghs wrote: »
    How badly is it needed? There's a natural path there currently which is really good for walking. Also fine for mountain biking.

    I appreciate that tarmac would suit a greater number of cyclists, skateboarders, kids cycling etc. and joining up all the tarmac "greenways". But at the cost of destroying the natural environment I'm not totally convinced of the need for it.

    The main purpose is to be a cycle path for commuters rather than a leisure amenity.

    The original plan was to construct a sort of raised platform on the Laurel Lodge side. Not easy, but a whole lot easier than building a bridge across the canal.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    sflynn6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24 ✭sflynn6


    ilsilenzio wrote: »
    Unclear if sflynn6 was actually at meeting or heard a report thereon. This was the fourth local meeting-- organised over last 10 days or so by FG/ Lab, FF and by Greens last night.

    Rather than a "few residents" threatening "to scupper the whole plan" it should be pointed out that all the local reps were gobsmacked at level of turnout.To summarise the reaction it would be fair to say that 95% of the total diverse attendees, until convinced otherwise (which may prove difficult), would prefer to see the Greenway proceed along the present path (South side, between canal and train tracks), albeit with some little narrowing of the planned width etc. There would be a challenge at the Coolmine end, but nothing like the unknown on the planned route. They do not want to stop the whole process.

    It would appear that a "preferred" route has been chosen by "somebody"/ someone, prior to a full or adequate or any prior public consultation process, based on amateurish plans ( seemingly poorly prepared, apparently/probably using drone footage) with a suspicious reluctance to share any detailed plans/reports/ proper studies/ costings etc. The planners appear to have been surprised at the real extent of difficulties both ecologically and engineering wise. Reports have it that one engineer, after publication, was surprised at the gradient on the Northside side. Ten other plans were reportedly discarded and again no details exist as to why, or by whom. A very detailed study was carried out in or about 2012/2013, by Atkins, which outlined four options with an upgrade of the existing towpath being recommended. It appears to have been totally ignored-- on planner did not know of its existence. At an open meeting at the FCC offices no one there could or would give direct answers to a multitude of questions on the outlined plans, no name badges were worn and there was a distinct lack of notetaking--what few phone numbers taken were not used.

    All the foregoing is in addition to the expected very widespread local objections to loss of privacy in quiet residential areas, previous justified anti social prevention measures being reversed, uncontrolled estate parking, decimating of an existing open green area and probable CPO's of private gardens etc. While no snails have been found the present North Bank is teeming with wildlife which will be destroyed, along with the flora.

    This is an admirable extension of the Canal amenity walkway/ greenway/ cycleway, but on the wrong side of the Canal, in a patently "back of an envelope" planning manner and where costs could certainly not have been properly worked out--- the whole thing smacks of a fait accompli and sod the begrudgers. The bureaucrats apparently know better.

    Rather than calling for petitions etc might it not be preferable to view the plans, arrange meetings with local councillors etc and make submissions thereon by 22nd March as per FCC advices.

    Thank you for deep insight into the issues involved. You are obviously much more informed of the situation then me. I was only at one meeting and I was expecting everybody to be in favour. Sometimes people tend to object to change and only realise the benefits when the work is all done. So hopefully this will the case and we all benefit from it.
    I am absolutely committed to the Greenway as a whole. I am not completely committed to the northern route along the Deep Sinking and hopefully it will be properly examined as to the various options that are available for this section, once the relevant information has been provided by Fingal county council as regards the reports that they are keeping from us.
    Thank you again for your post which clarify the issues involved.


  • #23
    avalidusername
    Closed Accounts Posts: 132 ✭✭avalidusername


    I'm confused as to the Deep Sinking area. From what I remember there's a huge drop from path to canal along one stretch, maybe 15-20 foot drop or so somewhere between Castleknock and Coolmine. I have a definite recollection of a news report within the last 5 years of a girl falling down that path, and being seriously injured, maybe worse, I choose not to google it. I'm guessing that's the Deep Sinking area?

    Along that path of the walkers/cyclists/strollers route, the path does get a bit higgledy-piggledy for want of a better phrase with tree roots coming into your path, narrowed route, and a bit of sloping path. It was fine on my mountain bike, but I wouldn't try it on my bike with the skinny tyres, nor bring my elderly mother for a stroll along it, that kinda path.

    Regarding CPO of parts of peoples gardens, I can see a future poopstorm in the courts. "Fingal CoCo demand my land for €X, while my property tax rate puts me in the €X+2 category."


  • #24
    daymobrew
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,574 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    avalidusername wrote: »
    I'm confused as to the Deep Sinking area. From what I remember there's a huge drop from path to canal along one stretch, maybe 15-20 foot drop or so somewhere between Castleknock and Coolmine. I have a definite recollection of a news report within the last 5 years of a girl falling down that path, and being seriously injured, maybe worse, I choose not to google it. I'm guessing that's the Deep Sinking area?
    Yes, Deep Sinking is either side of Coolmine level crossing.

    The incident you are thinking of is likely that where the body of a murdered local girl was found on the tow path under Dr Troy Bridge.


  • #25
    Grudaire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    ilsilenzio wrote: »
    Unclear if sflynn6 was actually at meeting or heard a report thereon. This was the fourth local meeting-- organised over last 10 days or so by FG/ Lab, FF and by Greens last night.

    Rather than a "few residents" threatening "to scupper the whole plan" it should be pointed out that all the local reps were gobsmacked at level of turnout.To summarise the reaction it would be fair to say that 95% of the total diverse attendees, until convinced otherwise (which may prove difficult), would prefer to see the Greenway proceed along the present path (South side, between canal and train tracks), albeit with some little narrowing of the planned width etc. There would be a challenge at the Coolmine end, but nothing like the unknown on the planned route. They do not want to stop the whole process.

    To be fair I attended the meeting in Blanchardstown, and I think it would be fair to say a lot of the deep unhappy reaction did seem to come from locals. In fact I can remember someone being asked where they lived after speaking..

    I would be interested in hearing whether all of the complaints and concerns were genuine. For example I don't believe many citing environmental concerns care when trees are felled or habitats destroyed elsewhere, however I do think there are legitimate concerns around antisocial behaviour. For example would the path really be overlooking gardens?

    Generally people are in favour of the greenway so I do hope it goes ahead in some form, and I hope any genuine concerns can be dealt with without compromising the design.


  • #26
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    I think they are missing the point that a cleared Greenway with a lot more traffic on it, will be safer than the current wooded area which seems to have regular anti social activity already.

    I think there is enough room on the current bank though.


  • #27
    ilsilenzio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭ilsilenzio


    While not wishing to get into or continue a tit for tat challenge and rebuttal of points made, nor asserting certainty on all points, it should be noted that the attendance at the open day and the four councillor convened meetings appeared to be 95% local residents. This is what would be expected as they are the ones who feel themselves to be most directly affected. "Non residents" do not normally care for the more mundane, in their view, details. As an example a 40 meter ramp up to the proposed bridge will directly shadow approx four houses in line with upper floor windows! The residents of the wider Dublin 15 area would of course be in favour of the greenway-- they would enjoy the obvious benefits but not the negatives.

    As regards anti social behaviour, the arguments made are to the effect that there is little more than normal of that at present as actions such as closing laneways and fencing off access from the canal banks in previous years succeeded satisfactorily. The present plans will contradict past justified remedial measures, and allow uncontrolled access too liberally into residential areas, many of which are cul de sacs.

    In summary the proposal to extend is very widely welcomed but the most obvious route till PROVEN otherwise, is to continue on the Southside. It is "ready made" , can be improved/ remediated and inconveniences no one and the costs would probably be less-- current plan could develop into an NCH like debacle, albeit on a more minor scale. A wonderful project, in the wrong place, at possibly greater cost with little regard for locals / proper planning /implementation or the overall greater good. Vested interests were allowed to dominate.

    The best way to proceed rather than "abuse" each other is to make comments before 22nd March, for or against !


  • #28
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    ilsilenzio wrote: »
    ...
    The best way to proceed rather than "abuse" each other...

    Good job no one here has done that. Not so sure why you'd post this though.

    What has the fencing and laneways got to do with it. Does the proposed northern route remove existing fencing and open up laneways?

    If you use the current path you can see the debris of gatherings on both banks.


  • #29
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    muckwarrior wrote: »
    The narrow section can't be widened, at least not without moving the railway tracks which are right beside it. ...

    I don't think its so narrow that you can't put a foot path on it. Cantilever a short stretch at the narrowest bit. No bridges required.

    Jump to 1:55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKLTKe18HYs

    That said I don't see why they can't run it down the other side and put a tall fence and new planting either. The bridges seem a bit overkill though.


  • #30
    Grudaire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    ilsilenzio wrote: »
    "Non residents" do not normally care for the more mundane, in their view, details. As an example a 40 meter ramp up to the proposed bridge will directly shadow approx four houses in line with upper floor windows!

    Is this the new proposed bridge from the south to the North side of the canal? What is the proposed bridge height?
    ilsilenzio wrote: »
    Vested interests were allowed to dominate.

    Interested in hearing more on this point.. I thought the council developed this plan?


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    ilsilenzio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭ilsilenzio


    Beauf--- Word "abuse" was used jocularly rather than in an accusing fashion, as in point/ counterpoint-- my comments were never intended to annoy, rather clarify. Yes the preferred route proposes to open up cul de sacs and remove fencing which were previously, long after estates construction, put in place to prevent anti social behaviour. Those actions in previous 10/ 15 years were successful. If they could justify the remedial action then, how justify reversal now at a whim.

    Grudaire. Vested interests was used to refer to parties who are hell bent on following a course of action which they deem to be in our interests. There has been a distinct lack of transparency, (some would claim a conspiracy to obfuscate). Reports and detailed would appear to be supressed/ not appropriate for publication and there has been a distinct lack of preparation for, or understanding of the needs of all stakeholders. There appears to be a passing of the buck in taking ownership by many of the parties FCC/ Planners/ Consutants (paid contractors), Waterways/ Irish Rail etc .

    I could go on and list the multitude of genuine concerns which were expressed by what one could not unreasonably describe as mature residents in the 4 or 5 estates which are most affected, but will conclude by submitting my 2.5p worth to the appropriate forum for 22nd March.


  • #32
    ilsilenzio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭ilsilenzio


    DETAILED............ PLANS missed in 2nd paragraph


  • #33
    wildlifeboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭wildlifeboy


    ilsilenzio wrote: »
    Beauf--- Word "abuse" was used jocularly rather than in an accusing fashion, as in point/ counterpoint-- my comments were never intended to annoy, rather clarify. Yes the preferred route proposes to open up cul de sacs and remove fencing which were previously, long after estates construction, put in place to prevent anti social behaviour. Those actions in previous 10/ 15 years were successful. If they could justify the remedial action then, how justify reversal now at a whim.

    Grudaire. Vested interests was used to refer to parties who are hell bent on following a course of action which they deem to be in our interests. There has been a distinct lack of transparency, (some would claim a conspiracy to obfuscate). Reports and detailed would appear to be supressed/ not appropriate for publication and there has been a distinct lack of preparation for, or understanding of the needs of all stakeholders. There appears to be a passing of the buck in taking ownership by many of the parties FCC/ Planners/ Consutants (paid contractors), Waterways/ Irish Rail etc .

    I could go on and list the multitude of genuine concerns which were expressed by what one could not unreasonably describe as mature residents in the 4 or 5 estates which are most affected, but will conclude by submitting my 2.5p worth to the appropriate forum for 22nd March.

    when i was a teenager the canal was fully open from Brompton green with no fencing and we hung around there all the time. since its been fenced off it had run completely wild and i know there are foxes, badgers and hedgehogs and its a very import local habitat and that is why its a shame to open it up again. i would prefer it on the northside with a supported deck or such over the canal.


  • #34
    daymobrew
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,574 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    If run on the north side, behind Delwood/Brompton, I think that it would facilitate safer access to school for some. If it was there I would find it safer and quieter (and with less air pollution) to use it to go from Carpenterstown to Tesco and Blanch village.

    I looked at each of the cul de sacs of Delwood and Brompton and I don't see where the suggested route would overlook properties (I realise that the bridge might - moving it west would solve this). I would expect that it would run at the same level as the road and thus properties would be protected by their existing side walls.

    Opening the cul de sacs to the towpath would allow residents immediately access a peaceful, fume free walkway. There's a potential downside that train commuters would park there too but that can be overcome.

    With respect to privacy, towpath users generally don't care to look into properties. The train, between Drumcondra and Connolly, is over a lot of properties and it is super easy to look into them.
    My family home is off Auburn Avenue in full view of passing and stopped buses. It's no big deal.


  • #35
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    daymobrew wrote: »
    If run on the north side, behind Delwood/Brompton, I think that it would facilitate safer access to school for some. If it was there I would find it safer and quieter (and with less air pollution) to use it to go from Carpenterstown to Tesco and Blanch village.

    I looked at each of the cul de sacs of Delwood and Brompton and I don't see where the suggested route would overlook properties (I realise that the bridge might - moving it west would solve this). I would expect that it would run at the same level as the road and thus properties would be protected by their existing side walls.

    Opening the cul de sacs to the towpath would allow residents immediately access a peaceful, fume free walkway. There's a potential downside that train commuters would park there too but that can be overcome.

    With respect to privacy, towpath users generally don't care to look into properties. The train, between Drumcondra and Connolly, is over a lot of properties and it is super easy to look into them.
    My family home is off Auburn Avenue in full view of passing and stopped buses. It's no big deal.

    Many of the houses don't have side walls. They had fences that were eventually dragged down by ivy and briars. Fingal are adamant they will not build any walls.

    Opening the cul de sacs is probably the biggest concern for most people in Delwood. The residents in Brompton fought for years to get "the bushes" fenced off because it was THE place to go for drugs. Residents don't want access to the greenway. Auburn Avenue has always been open but if you've spent 40 years living in a cul de sac, and then find it's going to be opened up, you'd be upset too. It's not only about privacy, it's about security too, and there's no way to prevent parking by train users.


  • #36
    ilsilenzio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭ilsilenzio


    daymobrew


    Had previously decided to desist but last word from me :-

    At no stage was it consciously suggested that the cul de sacs would be overlooked-- some Roselawn houses and many in Dewlood Park would be The cul de sacs proposed openings would allow anti socials regain free access -- I and many would prefer to access the canal / walkway at existing access points. It is nigh impossible to appreciate the ins and outs of this proposal if not a resident or alternatively having attending the open day/s and meetings. In any case, in my humble opinion, not being an engineer, it would be "mechanically"impossible to move the bridge further west-- this is where the path narrows and used as justification for its position and crossing the canal. Expecting where exactly the route / and LEVEL thereof would run is all part of the problem-- some engineer/ s planners did not realise the gradient, or consider or even know of the existence / complications of a little known quarry down there, on the Northside. A largely desk based exercise, allegedly principally using drones and questionable levels / drawings do not inspire confidence. For many reasons I purchased a house with a certain aspect, in a culd de sac, and paid appropriately for same, and helped force closure off interconnecting laneway access because of anti social behaviour. Why should I now compromise this-- but one of the many reasons for my objecting.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    I would not expect lane ways to be opened. I would expect access to be at the current location at the bridges.

    Across D15 laneways were largely closed over the past 20yrs. In recent times there has a been a move to open some of them to improve walking routes between areas.
    This is usually from those not resident in an area and walking through it. But in general local communities have succeed in keeping them closed. Which is good thing IMO.


  • #38
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Former Former wrote: »
    Many of the houses don't have side walls. They had fences that were eventually dragged down by ivy and briars. Fingal are adamant they will not build any walls.

    Opening the cul de sacs is probably the biggest concern for most people in Delwood. The residents in Brompton fought for years to get "the bushes" fenced off because it was THE place to go for drugs. Residents don't want access to the greenway. Auburn Avenue has always been open but if you've spent 40 years living in a cul de sac, and then find it's going to be opened up, you'd be upset too. It's not only about privacy, it's about security too, and there's no way to prevent parking by train users.

    It would be very unfair to leave it open.
    I wonder is a tactic to delay the work. Propose something controversial.
    You can see the remains of gatherings on both banks. I wonder is it policed at all.
    Makes no sense to spend a fortune on bridges etc, and not build fencing.

    Then again I've never understood Fingal planning logic on how it does things in the area. They come out with the most bizarre solutions.


  • #39
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    I just don't get why they abandoned the South side. The train track already provides a barrier between the path and any houses, and there is far less plant and animal life on that side.

    So there's a "pinch point" at Coolmine station. Surely there's some creative solution to that.

    The mad thing is that, even if the greenway is built on the North side, the tow path on the south has to stay open.


  • #40
    daymobrew
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,574 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    ilsilenzio wrote: »
    At no stage was it consciously suggested that the cul de sacs would be overlooked
    It was mentioned by one or two at the open day and at Roderic's meeting. One person mentioned the need to an additional 10 foot wall on top of his existing 10 foot wall to maintain his privacy. That was the basis for my comment.

    Estates are often poorly designed with respect to security. Laneways at the side of end houses are foolish. Changing the orientation of houses results in laneways being in front of multiple houses and this would help, but of course this is not a solution for existing estates.

    Most of my journeys are by bike or foot. For this reason I would like additional permeability (access). When the Ashtown/12th Lock greenway was out for consultation I encouraged liaising with Irish Rail to provide access to Navan Road Parkway station. Right now uses must go all the way to Ashtown or Castleknock to get a train. Foolish.

    My concern about a cantilever platform on the south bank (something I suggested back during the 2012/3 consultation) is that it would not be sturdy, but the video in beauf's post lessens that concern.


    All that aside, who will support a tunnel under Castleknock Road as suggested in the original consultation?


  • #41
    daymobrew
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,574 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    Former Former wrote: »
    I just don't get why they abandoned the South side. The train track already provides a barrier between the path and any houses, and there is far less plant and animal life on that side.

    So there's a "pinch point" at Coolmine station. Surely there's some creative solution to that.
    I bet the reasoning is cost. A raised boardwalk/cantilever platform is likely more expensive than laying tarmac on already solid ground.

    I read that cutting in towards the train line is a no go - eh, obviously - but then building out is not mentioned. As the canal is way below the towpath, building out would not interfere with the passage of boats. If they can get under Granard Bridge (at Castleknock Road) then it demonstrates that they don't need much height.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    It won't be more expensive than a bridge.

    I don't get the pinch point at Coolmine. What pinch point?


  • #43
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    I see irish Cycle has done a piece on it.

    https://irishcycle.com/2019/03/19/public-urged-to-support-royal-canal-greenway-proposals-as-opposition-mounts-in-dublin-15/

    If a fence solves the privacy issues seems just stubborn to dismiss it out of hand. Maybe they don't want to set a precedent for other works.


  • #44
    muckwarrior
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,102 ✭✭✭muckwarrior


    beauf wrote: »
    I don't get the pinch point at Coolmine. What pinch point?

    The majority of the whole stretch between where it suddenly narrows near the Castleknock end and Coolmine train station. The aim is to have a path that's wide enough for cyclists and walkers to comfortably pass each other. Most of that stretch probably isn't half wide enough for this.

    A boardwalk does seem like it might be feasible so not sure why it was discounted. I did hear one of the engineers at the consultation tell someone that Waterways Ireland stipulated that the tow path must remain functional, so not sure if the required railing that a boardwalk would need is the issue, but there are trees between the tow path and water in many places so technically the tow path isn't functional anyway.


  • #45
    Bargain_Hound
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 524 ✭✭✭Bargain_Hound


    I'm not really sure why there is a need to re-open the cul-de-sacs at Delwood and Brompton to provide a greenway? These cul-de-sacs were previously closed off because of previous anti social behaviour it seems - reversing this seems like a move in the wrong direction in my opinion.


  • #46
    muckwarrior
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,102 ✭✭✭muckwarrior


    Bargain_Hound wrote: »
    I'm not really sure why there is a need to re-open the cul-de-sacs at Delwood and Brompton to provide a greenway? These cul-de-sacs were previously closed off because of previous anti social behaviour it seems - reversing this seems like a move in the wrong direction in my opinion.

    There isn't a need, it was just a proposal. The engineers at the consultation seemed resigned to the fact that they almost certainly wouldn't go ahead.


  • #47
    wildlifeboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭wildlifeboy


    i agree there shouldnt be access other than at both bridges although having grown up where you are talking about the lanes being closed i can assure you that reports of antisocial behaviour in those lane-ways was greatly exaggerated at the time. unless a few teenagers drinking cans is the pinnacle of antisocial behaviour.


  • #48
    abc_abc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14 ✭abc_abc


    beauf wrote: »
    I see irish Cycle has done a piece on it.



    If a fence solves the privacy issues seems just stubborn to dismiss it out of hand. Maybe they don't want to set a precedent for other works.

    I don't think there is any conspiracy against the Greenway, in fact most residents are in favour of it but are concerned about privacy and safety. The terrain behind Delwood is elevated which means that the path will run at the height of windows, same with the bridge. The fencing will need to be pretty high to occlude them from the view.


  • #49
    daymobrew
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,574 ✭✭✭daymobrew


    ilsilenzio wrote: »
    At no stage was it consciously suggested that the cul de sacs would be overlooked-- some Roselawn houses and many in Dewlood Park would be
    It is being clearly suggested here:
    abc_abc wrote: »
    The terrain behind Delwood is elevated which means that the path will run at the height of windows, same with the bridge. The fencing will need to be pretty high to occlude them from the view.


  • #50
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Ignoring the bridge, I'm at a loss to see where its elevated to a height that it causes that problem. (overlooking Cul de Sacs)

    At weavers wood in Clonsilla a Cantilever path is proposed. (section H-H on those drawing on Irish Cycle).


  • #51
    abc_xyz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58 ✭✭abc_xyz


    To add a bit of clarity/explanation:

    Delwood is made up of multiple roads. There are Delwood Park, Grove, Lawn, Close, Drive and Walk.

    I believe, because of the topography, in some cases the ground behind the houses on Delwood Park and Delwood Grove is elevated above the back gardens by a couple of metres. I believe the ground by the side of the Delwood cul-de-sacs (Close, Drive and Walk) is at the same elevation as the adjacent gardens.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement