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
Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail
Options
Comments
-
Deafening silence.[Deleted User] wrote: »A quote from the article states
Can you, or anyone else, outline what benefits the opened section has brought to Gort, Ardrahan or Craughwell since it opened. These can be social, economic or other.
Genuinely interested in the results0 -
Deafening silence.
Are you really surprised! I am surprised they haven't said because Dublin has the Luas and now expanded Dart which is going to double peak-hour capacity from 26,000 passengers an hour in each direction to 52,000 an hour per direction by 2028. .....this is of course is Great news for the country building railways where there is an actual market. Let's wait for the deluge of balanced regional development argumentsa nd what Value for Money it is to build a railway that is not needed.
My only disappointment in this plan is that it doesn't extend into the Midlands as far as Mullingar and Longford - now that would be a huge boom to the west for park and ride at places like Edgeworthstown and for proper high speed commuter services to the low cost housing areas like Mullingar and Longford
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dart-extension-to-drogheda-celbridge-maynooth-envisaged-in-expansion-plan-1.43391950 -
Deafening silence.
More a weary silence, the same requests and responses have been made time and time again on this thread.
In this episode the requestor takes a quote from an editor in Mayo, describing how rail would be positive first step in developing an entire region and then takes three specific towns/villages outside of that editors purview and asks the posters here to 'outline' the benefits that rail exclusively brings to these locations. Its a contextual mismatch and my guess is that no one on this thread is bothered getting sucked into that.
Several weeks ago ezstreet responded in good faith to a similar request and articulated his arguments in full on why WRC would be beneficial. He got silence. That gets ignored but then before long the minutely scoped discussions come in again.0 -
DC electric trains arent high speed, they supposedly have better acceleration, but for instance the shortest journey time timetabled tomorrow from Greystones to Bray is 9 mins by Diesel train, vs 10 mins by dartMy only disappointment in this plan is that it doesn't extend into the Midlands as far as Mullingar and Longford - now that would be a huge boom to the west for park and ride at places like Edgeworthstown and for proper high speed commuter services to the low cost housing areas like Mullingar and Longford0 -
The peak rail project doesn't run on the Monsal Trail.
Yet, but that's their long term objective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsal_Trail0 -
Advertisement
-
-
intellectual dosser wrote: »More a weary silence, the same requests and responses have been made time and time again on this thread.
In this episode the requestor takes a quote from an editor in Mayo, describing how rail would be positive first step in developing an entire region and then takes three specific towns/villages outside of that editors purview and asks the posters here to 'outline' the benefits that rail exclusively brings to these locations. Its a contextual mismatch and my guess is that no one on this thread is bothered getting sucked into that.
Several weeks ago ezstreet responded in good faith to a similar request and articulated his arguments in full on why WRC would be beneficial. He got silence. That gets ignored but then before long the minutely scoped discussions come in again.
I don't see how it is a "contextual mismatch" to question the benefits of reopening such rural rail lines at great expense. If the benefits are there, surely there would be tangible evidence from the line which has already reopened? Where else can less mismatched context be derived?
I think it very ironic that you talk about context, listing out high level reasons why WRC would be beneficial is fine but meaningless without the context that is the cost. The Heavy Rail Census shows us that 44 people boarded trains in Gort, Ardrahan, Craughwell on census day, how much benefits accrue from that? How does those benefits compare to the cost (both initial and ongoing) of providing the service?
General statements like "it's great for students/those without a car" or "it helps reduce emissions" mean little, a bus service would offer the same and more services if required at less cost. Then the "contextual mismatch" really starts as people try to find some obscure group who can't/won't use a bus and therefore the train service needs to be reinstated. So in Tuam a train service is needed but in Claregalway or numerous other such towns it is accepted that a bus will do.0 -
Thanks and agree. I too ignored that post because the request was anything but genuine, and these issues have been discussed in detail recently here.intellectual dosser wrote: »More a weary silence, the same requests and responses have been made time and time again on this thread.
In this episode the requestor takes a quote from an editor in Mayo, describing how rail would be positive first step in developing an entire region and then takes three specific towns/villages outside of that editors purview and asks the posters here to 'outline' the benefits that rail exclusively brings to these locations. Its a contextual mismatch and my guess is that no one on this thread is bothered getting sucked into that.
Several weeks ago ezstreet responded in good faith to a similar request and articulated his arguments in full on why WRC would be beneficial. He got silence. That gets ignored but then before long the minutely scoped discussions come in again.Deleted User wrote: ».... Can you, or anyone else, outline what benefits the opened section has brought to Gort, Ardrahan or Craughwell since it opened. These can be social, economic or other.
Genuinely interested in the results
It's the same old strawman/red herring fallacy hybrid. For those just tuning in, it goes like this:
Reactivating Phase I of the WRC was and will always be an epic failure because:
1. We need to disregard the benefits from the (new and successful) Oranmore and Sixmilebridge stations, because a number of trains were passing those places already. So, those benefits come for free and weren't/aren't really contributors to the project's costs.
2. We need to disregard the benefits of increased commuter services between Ennis-Limerick and Athenry-Galway, because again, those towns already had rail service, so the additional five daily commuter services in each direction could have been provided nearly free of cost.
3. And implied in the question, we now need to disregard the passengers traveling between Limerick and Galway (and I guess any other stations except Craughwell, Ardrahan, and Gort). Why? Not sure; but probably because the primary intent of the project was to restore public transit to these places? (We can include Crusheen in later discussions).
So let's take a quick look at these places based on the new 2019 National Rail Census Report released within the last month (maybe yesterday?):
Craughwell: An average of 6 additional daily boardings and 7 additional daily alightings compared to 2018.
Ardrahan: An average of 9 additional daily boardings and 6 additional daily alightings compared to 2018.
Gort: An average of 6 additional daily boardings and 1 additional daily alighting compared to 2018.
Again, rural connectivity is really only one small benefit of the overall scheme, but the modest growth is healthy, and I think it does say something about the increased commutability and livability of these places, and also the slow rate of modal shift (for those who cemented their opinions back in 2011).0 -
Pete_Cavan wrote: »I don't see how it is a "contextual mismatch" to question the benefits of reopening such rural rail lines at great expense. If the benefits are there, surely there would be tangible evidence from the line which has already reopened? Where else can less mismatched context be derived?
I think it very ironic that you talk about context, listing out high level reasons why WRC would be beneficial is fine but meaningless without the context that is the cost. The Heavy Rail Census shows us that 44 people boarded trains in Gort, Ardrahan, Craughwell on census day, how much benefits accrue from that? How does those benefits compare to the cost (both initial and ongoing) of providing the service?
General statements like "it's great for students/those without a car" or "it helps reduce emissions" mean little, a bus service would offer the same and more services if required at less cost. Then the "contextual mismatch" really starts as people try to find some obscure group who can't/won't use a bus and therefore the train service needs to be reinstated. So in Tuam a train service is needed but in Claregalway or numerous other such towns it is accepted that a bus will do.
it's not excepted that a bus will do for those areas, why do you think there are calls for light rail in galway?ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »it's not excepted that a bus will do for those areas, why do you think there are calls for light rail in galway?
And why there is all that guff posted that somehow a bus route will be proof of concept for a light rail service. Status quo at all costs.0 -
Advertisement
-
Lord Glentoran wrote: »And why there is all that guff posted that somehow a bus route will be proof of concept for a light rail service. Status quo at all costs.
Modal shift out of cars and into public transport is not made by bus services alone.0 -
Pete_Cavan wrote: »So in Tuam a train service is needed but in Claregalway or numerous other such towns it is accepted that a bus will do.
Unfortunately there is no rail line in Claregalway though, and there is in Tuam so kinda comparing apples and Mars bars!
Its not just about Tuam, its about connecting the Northwest with an alternative transport solution using the existing alignment which will cost very little in the overall context of transport infrastructure growth but sure we all know that.0 -
River Suir wrote: »Modal shift out of cars and into public transport is not made by bus services alone.
And its not done by building 1 phase of a project which is why the WRC should be completed!0 -
ShaneC1600 wrote: »Unfortunately there is no rail line in Claregalway though, and there is in Tuam so kinda comparing apples and Mars bars!
Its not just about Tuam, its about connecting the Northwest with an alternative transport solution using the existing alignment which will cost very little in the overall context of transport infrastructure growth but sure we all know that.
See this is the thing, people make statements like this but there is nothing to support that and any request for evidence gets brushed off as "sure we all know that". The overall transport infrastructure growth must only refer to km of track as the cost (>€100m capital + considerable operating loss) isn't really very little and the growth in passengers is small.
I don't think a few trains per direction's per day (and likely only shuttles reqa change to reach Galway due to lack of capacity on the mainline) can be considered much of a solution. It is only a solution if it is a fast, effective, regular and reliable service which is better than the alternatives. And the whole sustainability argument hardly stands up when people reject a service which can be delivered in a couple of months for one which will take at least a decade to deliver.0 -
Pete_Cavan wrote: »See this is the thing, people make statements like this but there is nothing to support that and any request for evidence gets brushed off as "sure we all know that". The overall transport infrastructure growth must only refer to km of track as the cost (>€100m capital + considerable operating loss) isn't really very little and the growth in passengers is small.
I don't think a few trains per direction's per day (and likely only shuttles reqa change to reach Galway due to lack of capacity on the mainline) can be considered much of a solution. It is only a solution if it is a fast, effective, regular and reliable service which is better than the alternatives. And the whole sustainability argument hardly stands up when people reject a service which can be delivered in a couple of months for one which will take at least a decade to deliver.
Where did I say we should build a poor railway line? We should build a fast, effective, regular and reliable service which is better than the alternatives just like you said! Why would you plan for anything less? Your saying the service will be crap before it’s even designed!
And yes it very little in the overall spend. If we only used cost benefits and potential usage nothing including the QMG would come close to the west.0 -
Thanks and agree. I too ignored that post because the request was anything but genuine, and these issues have been discussed in detail recently here.
It's the same old strawman/red herring fallacy hybrid. For those just tuning in, it goes like this:
Reactivating Phase I of the WRC was and will always be an epic failure because:
1. We need to disregard the benefits from the (new and successful) Oranmore and Sixmilebridge stations, because a number of trains were passing those places already. So, those benefits come for free and weren't/aren't really contributors to the project's costs.
2. We need to disregard the benefits of increased commuter services between Ennis-Limerick and Athenry-Galway, because again, those towns already had rail service, so the additional five daily commuter services in each direction could have been provided nearly free of cost.
3. And implied in the question, we now need to disregard the passengers traveling between Limerick and Galway (and I guess any other stations except Craughwell, Ardrahan, and Gort). Why? Not sure; but probably because the primary intent of the project was to restore public transit to these places? (We can include Crusheen in later discussions).
So let's take a quick look at these places based on the new 2019 National Rail Census Report released within the last month (maybe yesterday?):
Craughwell: An average of 6 additional daily boardings and 7 additional daily alightings compared to 2018.
Ardrahan: An average of 9 additional daily boardings and 6 additional daily alightings compared to 2018.
Gort: An average of 6 additional daily boardings and 1 additional daily alighting compared to 2018.
Again, rural connectivity is really only one small benefit of the overall scheme, but the modest growth is healthy, and I think it does say something about the increased commutability and livability of these places, and also the slow rate of modal shift (for those who cemented their opinions back in 2011).
The question asked was a very simple one which should be possible to answer given that the towns and villages the mentioned in the question are comparable to the towns and villages on additional phases.
Therefore it is not unreasonable to ask the question given that the WRC is being touted as being highly beneficial for towns and villages along the route.
That you are doing gymnastics to avoid answering the question says a lot.
It really is a simple question. The line has been open 10 years, surely there is something to show for the 106 million spent on building it plus the huge subvention in keeping it running.
If towns and villages along the additional phases are being told that reopening will bring major benefits, all I am asking for is some evidence of those benefits for Gort, Craughwell and Ardrahan.
For example, did it bring any additional employment to the local communities, did any new businesses open up to provide ancillary services, did any businesses expand their workforce as a direct result of rail services being provided in those areas etc etc etc.0 -
Pete_Cavan wrote: »See this is the thing, people make statements like this but there is nothing to support that and any request for evidence gets brushed off as "sure we all know that". The overall transport infrastructure growth must only refer to km of track as the cost (>€100m capital + considerable operating loss) isn't really very little and the growth in passengers is small.
I don't think a few trains per direction's per day (and likely only shuttles reqa change to reach Galway due to lack of capacity on the mainline) can be considered much of a solution. It is only a solution if it is a fast, effective, regular and reliable service which is better than the alternatives. And the whole sustainability argument hardly stands up when people reject a service which can be delivered in a couple of months for one which will take at least a decade to deliver.
Its about a bigger picture, and to allude back to that Mayo Editorial its a first step, or just a single step, in regional development for the west.
A bus service won't be as effective in supporting regional development as rail connectivity. You might argue that the numbers don't add up now, but they will never add up without these capital investments because the region will continue to disintegrate without them.
A takeaway from the rail census is that the numbers are growing on those small phase 1 stations, and the numbers on phase 1 overall are growing significantly. In isolation these projects won't be a success on day 1, but over time and with continued planning and investment they'll make a regional structure capable of supporting growth.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »If towns and villages along the additional phases are being told that reopening will bring major benefits, all I am asking for is some evidence of those benefits for Gort, Craughwell and Ardrahan.
For example, did it bring any additional employment to the local communities, did any new businesses open up to provide ancillary services, did any businesses expand their workforce as a direct result of rail services being provided in those areas etc etc etc.
Indeed DC, I am sure these are questions which EY consulting must have asked in considering the business case for the rail review we are not allowed to see. Apart from the feel good factor of "we are on the train line" what are the actual measurable benefits to these communities in real economic benefits since the line was re-opened.
A row of beans is my guess.0 -
ShaneC1600 wrote: »Where did I say we should build a poor railway line? We should build a fast, effective, regular and reliable service which is better than the alternatives just like you said! Why would you plan for anything less? Your saying the service will be crap before it’s even designed!
And yes it very little in the overall spend. If we only used cost benefits and potential usage nothing including the QMG would come close to the west.
It’s back to the same old melodeon tune of allegedly slow and allegedly prohibitively expensive trains. My policy is now not to reply to leading questions that have been asked in the same way by WRC opponents since before they worked out that putting a bike trail over the permanent way would permanently stop it.0 -
Lord Glentoran wrote: »putting a bike trail over the permanent way would permanently stop it.
Whatever:rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
ShaneC1600 wrote: »Where did I say we should build a poor railway line? We should build a fast, effective, regular and reliable service which is better than the alternatives just like you said! Why would you plan for anything less? Your saying the service will be crap before it’s even designed!
And yes it very little in the overall spend. If we only used cost benefits and potential usage nothing including the QMG would come close to the west.
That sound lovely but the reality is that it is a single track line with already busy single track lines at either end which seriously limits the level of service which can be provided. I assume the report will have looked at the limitations and considered the level of service which could be provided, it would make for interesting reading.0 -
Since Google doesn't seem to have picked it up yet here is the report:Thanks and agree. I too ignored that post because the request was anything but genuine, and these issues have been discussed in detail recently here.
It's the same old strawman/red herring fallacy hybrid. For those just tuning in, it goes like this:
Reactivating Phase I of the WRC was and will always be an epic failure because:
1. We need to disregard the benefits from the (new and successful) Oranmore and Sixmilebridge stations, because a number of trains were passing those places already. So, those benefits come for free and weren't/aren't really contributors to the project's costs.
2. We need to disregard the benefits of increased commuter services between Ennis-Limerick and Athenry-Galway, because again, those towns already had rail service, so the additional five daily commuter services in each direction could have been provided nearly free of cost.
3. And implied in the question, we now need to disregard the passengers traveling between Limerick and Galway (and I guess any other stations except Craughwell, Ardrahan, and Gort). Why? Not sure; but probably because the primary intent of the project was to restore public transit to these places? (We can include Crusheen in later discussions).
So let's take a quick look at these places based on the new 2019 National Rail Census Report released within the last month (maybe yesterday?):
Craughwell: An average of 6 additional daily boardings and 7 additional daily alightings compared to 2018.
Ardrahan: An average of 9 additional daily boardings and 6 additional daily alightings compared to 2018.
Gort: An average of 6 additional daily boardings and 1 additional daily alighting compared to 2018.
Again, rural connectivity is really only one small benefit of the overall scheme, but the modest growth is healthy, and I think it does say something about the increased commutability and livability of these places, and also the slow rate of modal shift (for those who cemented their opinions back in 2011).
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/NTA_Heavy_Rail_Census_Report_2019..pdf
From:
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/publications/all-documents-published/
And the relevant tables:
Daily Boardings at each Station, by Service Type
Station Heuston North Bound Heuston South Bound Regional North Bound Regional South Bound 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
Limerick 300 0 186 1024 1510 1508 1287 1112 1157 1073 963
Sixmilebrdg 0 0 7 47 54 66 53 57 53 55 46
Ennis 0 0 42 153 195 218 190 153 261 173 236
Gort 0 0 15 12 27 21 16 31 19 20 13
Ardrahan 0 0 7 5 12 3 3 5 3 7 8
Craughwell 0 0 17 9 26 20 33 18 13 13 10
Athenry 137 177 194 12 520 615 466 376 393 266 141
Oranmore 30 131 109 8 278 180 262 70 63 19 23
Galway 1563 0 108 204 1875 1998 1727 1260 1402 1218 1053
Daily Alightings at each Station
Station Heuston North Bound Heuston South Bound Regional North Bound Regional South Bound 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
Limerick 0 230 668 407 1305 1382 1092 1203 1167 1000 849
Sixmilebrdg 0 0 20 42 62 54 46 55 30 54 28
Ennis 0 0 61 127 188 274 240 211 151 273 199
Gort 0 0 7 10 17 16 17 25 12 17 9
Ardrahan 0 0 3 8 11 5 8 2 8 12 6
Craughwell 0 0 13 15 28 21 30 17 14 28 10
Oranmore 112 32 73 32 249 215 160 89 73 54 22
Athenry 226 202 81 54 563 556 523 368 422 297 133
Galway 0 1502 461 0 1963 1740 1820 1199 1162 778 1125
Limerick regional presumably includes some other services as it doesn't add up.
Let me know if I have made any copy paste errors.
the 0s on the Heuston columns are just to keep the format standard - they are blank on the report.0 -
The figures for many of the regional stations in that report are dire and and a terrible reflection on CIE and how they have run some of these lines into the ground. Cahir, which I have some experience of - a solitary passenger recorded on Census day - which might have something to do with the fact that one never knows whether the train is running or a substitute bus service.
When I look at railways outside the GDA all I see is a massively expensive network built to handle any traffic offering but now shorn of everything save passengers - absolute madness. I don't expect to see freight traffic conjured out of thin air but with the likes of shambolic DPD making money hand over fist on parcels traffic ,,,,,there's a market that CIE ran away from but still retained most of the staff who handled it.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/retail-and-services/dpd-deliveries-double-amid-covid-19-ecommerce-boom-1.43239390 -
You're harping for the auld days of the mail train again, are you!? His Lordship in Ballyglunin getting his dinner on a silver platter delivered direct from the Shelburne Hotel long before Just Eat and Dellveroo saw the potential.
When I look at railways outside the GDA all I see is a massively expensive network built to handle any traffic offering but now shorn of everything save passengers - absolute madness. I don't expect to see freight traffic conjured out of thin air but with the likes of shambolic DPD making money hand over fist on parcels traffic ,,,,,there's a market that CIE ran away from but still retained most of the staff who handled it.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/retail-and-services/dpd-deliveries-double-amid-covid-19-ecommerce-boom-1.43239390 -
Muckyboots wrote: »You're harping for the auld days of the mail train again, are you!? His Lordship in Ballyglunin getting his dinner on a silver platter delivered direct from the Shelburne Hotel long before Just Eat and Dellveroo saw the potential.
Whatever about his Lordship's dinner, taking the mail away from the railway was an enormous waste of money, duplicating of facilities and all done after a big investment in the Central Mail depot at Dublin's Connolly Station. One arm of the state helping in the run down of another arm of the state. Time was when the ESB had a yards at most large railway stations....anyway my point is that the existing rail infrastructure is a waste of money if it's not going to be used to its capacity. All the pious statements from politicians about diverting freight traffic to rail could be kickstarted by State companies being obliged to use the railways.0 -
0
-
Lads, post on trains really is clutching at straws. Isn't mail mostly moved late evening/night, when there is little or no demand for passenger services? Out of all the issues that could be raised, this one is entirely moot.0
-
Deleted User wrote: »The question asked was a very simple one which should be possible to answer given that the towns and villages the mentioned in the question are comparable to the towns and villages on additional phases.
Therefore it is not unreasonable to ask the question given that the WRC is being touted as being highly beneficial for towns and villages along the route.
That you are doing gymnastics to avoid answering the question says a lot.
It really is a simple question. The line has been open 10 years, surely there is something to show for the 106 million spent on building it plus the huge subvention in keeping it running.
If towns and villages along the additional phases are being told that reopening will bring major benefits, all I am asking for is some evidence of those benefits for Gort, Craughwell and Ardrahan.
For example, did it bring any additional employment to the local communities, did any new businesses open up to provide ancillary services, did any businesses expand their workforce as a direct result of rail services being provided in those areas etc etc etc.
No way, José. I don't believe for a minute that your post was genuinely concerned about the economic benefits to Gort (pop. 2,994), Craughwell (pop. 769), and Ardrahan (pop. 540), which are not denied. And I don't believe that those communities should somehow be used as yardstick for reopening the line to Tuam (pop. 8,767) and Claremorris (pop. 3,687). (And you certainly didn't mention Ballyglunin, Milltown, or Ballindine if you were interested in potential benefits to those truly small comparable communities). The gymnastics are your own, and I'm only calling out the fallacy of painting Phase 1 as a failure based on these cherrypicked stations.
Perhaps you will allow me to ask an honest, but equally disingenuous question about the economic benefits of greenways, based on your recent post.Deleted User wrote: »In the last number of weeks I've done
- Westport to Newport greenway (20km)- Went no futher due to poor experience. Might revisit again in the future but go from the Achill side
- Waterford to Kilmacthomas greenway (50km)
- Moate to Mullingar greenway (60km)
- Ballynacarrigy to Abbeyshrule Royal Canal Greenway (20km) - Rained out so only a short spin. Planning to go back soon
My question is, when you visited those greenways, either alone or with family, how long did you stay, and what was your daily spend per family member?
The context here is the "payback period" relied upon in the Sligo Greenway Feasibility Study, which in turn, relies on an unreferenced "Meehan Tully (2016) Report." I was able to unearth it here: http://npf.ie/wp-content/uploads/0402-WRTG.Appendix-2.compressed.pdf. That report classifies visitors as either being "local," "domestic," or "oversees." Presuming that you are not local to any of these places and had to travel to get there, you would squarely be a domestic user and included in the 37% of all users.
If that's the case, did you (and your family) actually stay 4.8 days at each location and spend €49.85 per person-day? I simply can't believe that any more than I can believe that a local user of the greenway spends €27.31 per day more in the locality due to the greenway. Furthermore, I don't believe that an overseas visitor from Germany or America is going to spend 6.8 days in the locality @ €50.71 per person-day due to the greenway. It's likely that the greenway economic benefits are indeed inflated.0 -
No way, José. I don't believe for a minute that your post was genuinely concerned about the economic benefits to Gort (pop. 2,994), Craughwell (pop. 769), and Ardrahan (pop. 540), which are not denied. And I don't believe that those communities should somehow be used as yardstick for reopening the line to Tuam (pop. 8,767) and Claremorris (pop. 3,687). (And you certainly didn't mention Ballyglunin, Milltown, or Ballindine if you were interested in potential benefits to those truly small comparable communities). The gymnastics are your own, and I'm only calling out the fallacy of painting Phase 1 as a failure based on these cherrypicked stations.
Perhaps you will allow me to ask an honest, but equally disingenuous question about the economic benefits of greenways, based on your recent post.
My question is, when you visited those greenways, either alone or with family, how long did you stay, and what was your daily spend per family member?
The context here is the "payback period" relied upon in the Sligo Greenway Feasibility Study, which in turn, relies on an unreferenced "Meehan Tully (2016) Report." I was able to unearth it here: http://npf.ie/wp-content/uploads/0402-WRTG.Appendix-2.compressed.pdf. That report classifies visitors as either being "local," "domestic," or "oversees." Presuming that you are not local to any of these places and had to travel to get there, you would squarely be a domestic user and included in the 37% of all users.
If that's the case, did you (and your family) actually stay 4.8 days at each location and spend €49.85 per person-day? I simply can't believe that any more than I can believe that a local user of the greenway spends €27.31 per day more in the locality due to the greenway. Furthermore, I don't believe that an overseas visitor from Germany or America is going to spend 6.8 days in the locality @ €50.71 per person-day due to the greenway. It's likely that the greenway economic benefits are indeed inflated.
They might spend 6.8 days looking for their bikes after they go in for a cuppa scald and there gone when they come out!!0 -
Advertisement
-
ShaneC1600 wrote: »They might spend 6.8 days looking for their bikes after they go in for a cuppa scald and there gone when they come out!!
Overcrowded passenger trains from Claremorris and pilgrimage trains to Knock will need to drop down blackout blinds and speed-up going through certain area's because the scenery isn't up to scratch.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement