Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

relaxed wrote: »

So the consensus on here seems to be that the land has already been claimed. So the argument that a greenway will preserve the alignment seems to be null and void. Who is going to fit the legal bill to lay claim to all this land?

Some of the land has been stolen yes and that needs to be addressed. A greenway would prevent any further land loss. Irish Rail need to get the land back - they need to take up the legal issues, the comparison with Lisadell is interesting, we (irish rail ie the public) own the land, not the squatters - as far as I am aware the people who won the Lissadell case are the owners of the land, which they purchased but did not assume rights on via squatting. The case for the state of the access rights has been reinforced by Lissadell because it upheld the rights of landowners, Squatters on public land do not own it.

relaxed wrote: »

Its not like its even a proven viable tourist project

- Of course its not a proven viable project because its in Ireland and we are so very different from everywhere else in the world - where entire networks of cycling trails have proven to be viable tourist projects. but hey ho the difference is we're irish.

relaxed wrote: »

I can see why Mayo county council would be more interested in expanding and developing the Achill greenway, or why the minister for transport might be more inclined to invest the limited funds available in a coastal greenway project on the Dingle peninsula or the ring of Kerry.

We should be using routes in public ownership like the Claremorris/Collooney route as they are the most cost effective routes to convert to greenway - and by the way its not all about tourism, the creation of a national cycle network is about the people who live here benefitting, perhaps you haven't grasped that bit of the argument. The minister you refer to Alan Kelly told the SMG campaign he simply cannot understand Mayo and Sligo county council not pushing for this idea, the Minister and his staff see it as an absolute shoe in of an idea but they need to see the local councils supporting it.

eastwest wrote: »

Disused rail lines all over Europe have been reborn as cycle trails because they are flat. Ireland really isn't a special case; what works elsewhere will work here.

Indeed Eastwest. I am surprised the lack of scenery wasn't mentioned, one of the key arguments Sinn Fein/West on track use against the Sligo Mayo greenway!....The message though will sink in, its safe cycling facilities people want first and foremost oh and by the way the views of the Ox mountains from Coolaney are very scenic!

dowlingm wrote: »

So they opened the greenway with all this fanfare on a revocable "yerra go on so" from the landowners? *shakes head*.

Thanks for the clarification though.

Essentially, yes.

Banjoxed wrote: »

So basically the direct opposite of the situation of the WRC. The State through CIE can assert its rights at any time as no abandonment, a formal legal procedure, had been made. That is why a private individual has been able to cut across the GW greenway.

The state doesn't need to formally abandon the so-called WRC to lose ownership of it. A considerable number of individuals have attempted to acquire possessive title to portions of the line, without challenge by CIE.
This lack of governance has created a situation where many sections of line may no longer be in the effective ownership of the state.

Can't help but wonder if this situation of encroachment through neighboring landowners 'squatting' on the alignment, could help the Greenway argument in respect to how the likes of WOT regard it.

As things are now, I imagine that much of the alignment is overgrown and devoid of attention beyond the sections near population centers. Many of those who have encroached onto the alignment, probably have done so where it is less obvious that there was a railway there.

Assuming a scenario where the WRC is actually approved for re-construction, these land owners might see an opportunity to dig in and try to cash in on a such major capital project. It might be possible that IE would be willing to pay off some of these land-squatters to avoid delays caused by legal proceedings. IE would most likely win these legal challenges either way, but they may possibly care more about delivery timetable at the time.

However, Greenway construction can be considerably cheaper (mostly a large pathway on the old track bed), and might not attract as much temptation to dig in. A Greenway can also be constructed in sections and those sections can become functional almost immediately. (Walkers and cycles don't require faculties to turn around, and can temporarily re-route onto existing roadways).

The main reason I think (or hope) that the likes of WOT would reconsider their opinion of a Greenway, is mostly due to this challenge of land-squatters. The longer it takes the State/IE to rebuild the WRC, the stronger the case the landowners have to stay on it. The cost of re-purchasing this land might make a future rail project too expensive to consider.

A way to prevent that situation is to build the Greenway which would do two things in favor of any future railway:

1) Create a very clear physical marker of the alignment, making it obvious where the railway was, and would be if were re-built.

2) Encourage the public to travel along the alignment, making any attempt to encroach upon it difficult to hide. If for example, a neighboring land owner extended a boundary wall across the greenway, it would noticed very quickly by the greenway's users.

I can't pretend to know all of the legal ins-and-outs at play here, but I feel that the issue of land-squatting is a potential threat to both Greenway and Rail projects, and I am of the belief that both projects can mutually benefit form each other, possibly even promoting the existence of both Greenway and Railway.

Sorry of the length of that

Rawr wrote: »

The main reason I think (or hope) that the likes of WOT would reconsider their opinion of a Greenway, is mostly due to this challenge of land-squatters.

God bless your naivety. WOT will never reconsider their opinion of a Greenway - even if they saw it as a useful tool to prevent squatting.

If the land has to lay idle (i.e. in a Greenway-free state) for 100 years until funds can be found to re-build it, then that's what has to happen in their view.

They don't give a sh1te how much it will cost to buy back the land from the squatters, because they won't be paying it - 'twill be "them above in Dublin" who will only be giving the Wesht the infrastructure it deserves.

And why are they so vehemently opposed to a cheaply-built, alignment-protecting Greenway? Because the more successful it is, the less the chance that the railway will be rebuilt. (Never mind the fact that the current alignment, alternative public & private transport options and population numbers don't support it).

Banjoxed, much as I wouild like to think you are correct, I believe this is not the case. As I understand it, in order to defeat an adverse possession claim, the supposed legal owner would need to show possession to the exclusion of the party claiming adverse possession. It almost goes without saying that merely "asserting" rights of ownership through statements or the like while individuals and businesses effectively take over parts of the line does not demonstrate any form of exclusion. In fact quite the opposite.

Correction, CIE land is covered by driveways, garage forecourts, gardens and the like. It does not matter in theory how many times it is said that CIE owns the land, if they do not positively assert their rights it will be, and in many cases it probably already has been, lost to private ownership.