Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail

Greaney

westtip wrote: »

Yep that is one area we all agree with WOT on, which is why the greenway is a good idea, if you really want a railway along the west coast build one in a staight line, and don't accept the compromise of twisty turny C19th alignment.

You obviously don't know the line. The second part of this video from Tuam to Athenry so you can have a look yourself (from 24:00)

ezstreet5

Greaney wrote: »

You obviously don't know the line. The second part of this video from Tuam to Athenry so you can have a look yourself (from 24:00)

I sadly just watched the whole inspection car video, and that's 48 minutes and 20 seconds of my life that I want back. I know it was filmed in winter and while raining, so you have to use your imagination. But I only see a few areas with half-decent scenery, and the rest is rather boring, straight, and flat. It's not going to attract a lot of tourists, and if you name it the "Quiet Man Greenway," those few tourists are going to feel deceived because it doesn't look the the film, and then they will give you only one or two dots on Tripadvisor.

serfboard

Greaney wrote: »

You obviously don't know the line. The second part of this video from Tuam to Athenry so you can have a look yourself (from 24:00)

In fairness, the line from Athenry to Tuam is pretty straight - it's the section north of Tuam where it starts to get twisty. And as I've said before, WOT will not be satisfied with any potential re-opening which does not go to Claremorris.

Academic anyway, because it's not happening.

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

I sadly just watched the whole inspection car video, and that's 48 minutes and 20 seconds of my life that I want back. I know it was filmed in winter and while raining, so you have to use your imagination. But I only see a few areas with half-decent scenery, and the rest is rather boring, straight, and flat. It's not going to attract a lot of tourists, and if you name it the "Quiet Man Greenway," those few tourists are going to feel deceived because it doesn't look the the film, and then they will give you only one or two dots on Tripadvisor.

If you think that scenery is dull and boring you want to see 6 km either side of Kiltimagh that already has had half a million spent on the velorail project, that is the project approved by West on Track by the way because it doesn't pull the tracks up - you know the tracks that could not be used for a railway anymore because they are fit for nothing, anyway that is another story.

ezstreet5

westtip wrote: »

If you think that scenery is dull and boring you want to see 6 km either side of Kiltimagh that already has had half a million spent on the velorail project, that is the project approved by West on Track by the way because it doesn't pull the tracks up - you know the tracks that could not be used for a railway anymore because they are fit for nothing, anyway that is another story.

Last time I checked, WOT does not have approval powers of any kind (although certain folk disengaged from the civic process tend to ascribe mythical dictatorial powers to the group).

My point was that the QMG idea does not enjoy fantastic scenery, and that scenery is key in attracting tourists. In that sense, a realised greenway may only rise to the level of a local amenity (which I, like others, would use). But I'd like to see the costs, and I do hope a cost study materialises from Galway Co. Council's current application. If it is on the order of 10 million, I can think of perhaps better amenity uses for those monies than a bicycle trail. A greenway can equally be a dud, even if no one is complaining that only 39 cyclists passed Ballyglunin in a day.

ezstreet5

ezstreet5 wrote: »

My point was that the QMG idea does not enjoy fantastic scenery, and that scenery is key in attracting tourists. In that sense, a realised greenway may only rise to the level of a local amenity (which I, like others, would use).

Haha, I really do have to laugh. An almost verbatim Gerry Murray tactic in dismissing the greenway. I'm seeing a lot of that lately. Not that hard to connect the dots.

Holding to that argument shows the utter lack of comprehension you and others have in relation to the usage of Greenways all over the world. One of the main reasons for usage is long stretches of peaceful travel fully separated from motor vehicles for walkers, cyclist's, young families and people with disabilities.

It's simple really

Greaney

Deleted User wrote: »

Haha, I really do have to laugh. An almost verbatim Gerry Murray tactic in dismissing the greenway. I'm seeing a lot of that lately. Not that hard to connect the dots.

Holding to that argument shows the utter lack of comprehension you and others have in relation to the usage of Greenways all over the world. One of the main reasons for usage is long stretches of peaceful travel fully separated from motor vehicles for walkers, cyclist's, young families and people with disabilities.

It's simple really

Well actually, this shows the lack of understanding you have about greenways yourself.

1) Since this greenways no.1 sell to the public and supporters is as a tourism product it's good to know that the top 10 greenways in Germany are by water. The top two greenways in Ireland are.... by water.
2) Greenways, as described in gov.ie, in the first paragraph are described as a Tourism Product. It does refer to it as a local amenity however the tourism aspect is front and centre
3) The government consultant for greenways, who was the speaker in Athenry at a previous presentation regarding greenways (former county engineer Martin Lavelle) recommended bringing a greenway along by the rivers (water) that would pass by historical sites. He stated the greenway by the railway line was not only a bad choice, but since it was earmarked for rail, and owned by Irish rail, it was also pointless to pursue. (It has me thinking the Quietman Greeway leadership is acting like the Grand Old Duke of York, marching the public up and down to no end).
4) Greenways are best when they are both looped & linked. The the best stratagey recommended to us in Athenry was to be linked to the Eurovelo and eventually looped back towards Galway.
5) If we want to 'sell' the product to the government to fund a greenway, it's got to tick all the boxes, and if it ticks a few, but there's a better greenway suggestion elsewhere that ticks them all, they'll get the funding.

Finally, I have a sister with a disability whom I try to bring out for a cycle once in a while. I know the reality of it, and I would say, don't overestimate it's use there.

ezstreet5

Deleted User wrote: »

Haha, I really do have to laugh. An almost verbatim Gerry Murray tactic in dismissing the greenway. I'm seeing a lot of that lately. Not that hard to connect the dots.

Holding to that argument shows the utter lack of comprehension you and others have in relation to the usage of Greenways all over the world. One of the main reasons for usage is long stretches of peaceful travel fully separated from motor vehicles for walkers, cyclist's, young families and people with disabilities.

It's simple really

It's not a tactic, and I've never met Gerry Murray, so I'm not sure why his opinion would be particularly important, but it sounds as if he may be correct. I'm referring to the fact that the entirety of East Galway and the WRC is designated has having a "Low Landscape Value Rating" per Table LCM1 of the Co. Galway Development Plan (See p. 177 of the pdf) http://www.galway.ie/en/media/Galway%20County%20Development%20Plan%202015%20-%202021%20(Written%20Statement)(reduced).pdf

And sorry for my utter lack comprehension, but what you described is a local amenity. Conversely others are expecting a "lucrative greenway" where "local people and businesses [would be] benefiting tenfold" due to visitors, which makes it "therefore bound to succeed and succeed well.” (To cobble together a few quotes from my favorite Galway E. TD in a manner I'm sure he would approve of).

Build the Athlone to Galway greenway, and you will have all of the same benefits (arguably to a greater degree), plus the ability to commute to Galway by bicycle from places like Athenry-if aligned correctly.

ezstreet5

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Build the Athlone to Galway greenway, and you will have all of the same benefits (arguably to a greater degree), plus the ability to commute to Galway by bicycle from places like Athenry-if aligned correctly.

Why not build both, it's not like the line beyond Athenry is going to see trains in our lifetimes, might as well use it for the benefit of the community

serfboard

Greaney wrote: »

2) Greenways, as described in gov.ie, in the first paragraph are described as a Tourism Product. It does refer to it as a local amenity

Gov.ie wrote:

The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport recognises the benefits that can arise from the further development of Greenways in Ireland, as a tourism product with significant potential to attract overseas visitors, for local communities in terms of economic benefits, and for all users as an amenity for physical activity and a contributor to health and wellbeing.

And further down the same page it says:

Gov.ie wrote:

It also aims to increase the number and geographical spread of Greenways of scale and quality around the country over a 10 year period with a consequent significant increase in the number of people using Greenways as a visitor experience and as a recreational amenity.

As an advocate, my primary interest in this Greenway is as a local amenity on otherwise unused publicly-owned land - tourism is a "nice-to-have" secondary benefit.

Muckyboots

Greaney wrote: »

3) The government consultant for greenways, who was the speaker in Athenry at a previous presentation regarding greenways (former county engineer Martin Lavelle) recommended bringing a greenway along by the rivers (water) that would pass by historical sites. He stated the greenway by the railway line was not only a bad choice, but since it was earmarked for rail, and owned by Irish rail, it was also pointless to pursue. (It has me thinking the Quietman Greeway leadership is acting like the Grand Old Duke of York, marching the public up and down to no end).

Lets get the facts right here- He supplied a map to one of the local TD's which was later qualified by the same TD as an "option" and not a plan as it involved CPO's from start to finish. A little research on the meaning of riparian rights will bring you up to speed on what it possible and what is fictional. At least he is trying to offer something constuctive, but he seems to be miles off the mark and has zero traction with this "option". On the other hand the Quiet Man Greenway is still the only game in town when it comes to alternative uses for the WRC and without trains running on that line - alternative uses will be "open for discussion" , in the words of a well known Mayo councillor. At least I think that's what he said. Eamon O'Cuiv certainly said it.

Sligo eye

Muckyboots wrote: »

Lets get the facts right here- He supplied a map to one of the local TD's which was later qualified by the same TD as an "option" and not a plan as it involved CPO's from start to finish. A little research on the meaning of riparian rights will bring you up to speed on what it possible and what is fictional. At least he is trying to offer something constuctive, but he seems to be miles off the mark and has zero traction with this "option". On the other hand the Quiet Man Greenway is still the only game in town when it comes to alternative uses for the WRC and without trains running on that line - alternative uses will be "open for discussion" , in the words of a well known Mayo councillor. At least I think that's what he said. Eamon O'Cuiv certainly said it.

I would say on balance the Athlone to Galway greenway is a far higher priority than destroying the railway. Two questions need to be asked;

1: Why did Ciaran Cannon put the interests of wealthy landowners first when he helped to put the kibosh on the Athlone to Galway euro velo route?

2: Is Deputy Cannon’s advocacy of destroying the railway from Athenry to Claremorris to provide a greenway the proverbial dead cat on the table to draw attention away from what he did to stop the euro velo greenway to Galway?

Muckyboots

Sligo eye wrote: »

I would say on balance the Athlone to Galway greenway is a far higher priority than destroying the railway. Two questions need to be asked;

1: Why did Ciaran Cannon put the interests of wealthy landowners first when he helped to put the kibosh on the Athlone to Galway euro velo route? Because the planned was kiboshed by the DTTS in a clumsy attempt to bulldoze a route without consulation, dividing farms and cutting off services. Ciaran was 100% correct and in time you'll see he actually secured the Athlone to Galway section rather than scupper it by putting some thrust back with landowners.

2: Is Deputy Cannon’s advocacy of destroying the railway from Athenry to Claremorris to provide a greenway the proverbial dead cat on the table to draw attention away from what he did to stop the euro velo greenway to Galway? No. He genuinely see's this as a legacy project.

serfboard

Sligo eye wrote: »

I would say on balance the Athlone to Galway greenway is a far higher priority than destroying the railway.

Destroying what railway? The unused, publicly-owned land between Athenry and Claremorris is not a railway.

end of the road

so what is it then? an airport? a military base?
it looks like a railway to me anyway as it has tracks that are similar to those that would be used for the undertaking of allowing for the movement of rail vehicles.

Muckyboots

end of the road wrote: »

so what is it then? an airport? a military base?
it looks like a railway to me anyway as it has tracks that are similar to those that would be used for the undertaking of allowing for the movement of rail vehicles.

Therein lies the heart of the anti-greenway stance. So, Galway airport looks like an airport - so it's an airport. Leave it be. Same with abandoned railways.

end of the road

Muckyboots wrote: »

Therein lies the heart of the anti-greenway stance. So, Galway airport looks like an airport - so it's an airport. Leave it be. Same with abandoned railways.

well, galway airport is an airport to my knowledge.
it's closed as far as i know, but still has it's infrastructure in place yes?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

well, galway airport is an airport to my knowledge.
it's closed as far as i know, but still has it's infrastructure in place yes?

The licence to operate as an airport was allowed to lapse ergo it is no longer able to function as an airport. A windsock does not an airport make

Greaney

Muckyboots wrote: »

Lets get the facts right here- He supplied a map to one of the local TD's which was later qualified by the same TD as an "option" and not a plan as it involved CPO's from start to finish. A little research on the meaning of riparian rights will bring you up to speed on what it possible and what is fictional. At least he is trying to offer something constuctive, but he seems to be miles off the mark and has zero traction with this "option". On the other hand the Quiet Man Greenway is still the only game in town when it comes to alternative uses for the WRC and without trains running on that line - alternative uses will be "open for discussion" , in the words of a well known Mayo councillor. At least I think that's what he said. Eamon O'Cuiv certainly said it.

You're throwing a lot of shade towards someone who's done way more homework than any of us on this thread.

He had given one of the main presentations regarding the Euro Velo (capitals route) in Ireland, the central section dealing with the Shannon and how to use easements by the rivers etc. to the parties that have 'standing' on the issue.
He's been consulted on more that the EuroVelo, on other greenways, by other groups that I know of.

As for the Quiet Man Greenway, what on earth do you mean by the only game in town?? Irish Rail own the line.!! No-one is doing anything on that line without their say so!

Muckyboots

Greaney wrote: »

As for the Quiet Man Greenway, what on earth do you mean by the only game in town?? Irish Rail own the line.!! No-one is doing anything on that line without their say so!

CIE Property own the line and they have already agreed in principle and in writing on a lease to a local authority should they decide to use it for a greenway.

ezstreet5

Muckyboots wrote: »

CIE Property own the line and they have already agreed in principle and in writing on a lease to a local authority should they decide to use it for a greenway.

I'd love to see the lease that was agreed in writing with the local authority. Please share that.

Muckyboots

ezstreet5 wrote: »

I'd love to see the lease that was agreed in writing with the local authority. Please share that.

:D I bet you would. Agreed in principle and in writing. I have a copy, but you do your own research. FOI might be a good start. Just one request now.

ezstreet5

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not build both, it's not like the line beyond Athenry is going to see trains in our lifetimes, might as well use it for the benefit of the community

That's what I'm not exactly sure about, DaCor. I'm not seeing how 45 one-way, weekday bus trips between Tuam and Galway fails to reflect adequate travel demand to justify reinstating peak AM and PM rail service. The bus service will always be needed, just like it compliments the fairly good train service from Athenry. But to be able to bypass Coolagh (M/N6 terminus) Roundabout, the Briarhill Intersection or the Tuam Road through Claregalway surely has benefits with regard to significantly reduced travel time.

If you wanted to be more radical (and I don't), you could even consider running BEV multiple units from Galway to Tuam, which would be within round-trip range. I only mention this due to IE's surficial interest in BEV carriages: https://www.irishrail.ie/about-us/iarnrod-eireann-projects-and-investments.

ezstreet5

Muckyboots wrote: »

:D I bet you would. Agreed in principle and in writing. I have a copy, but you do your own research. FOI might be a good start. Just one request now.

Let's not parse words. There is no lease.

Muckyboots

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Let's not parse words. There is no lease.

CIE Property own the line and they have already agreed in principle and in writing on a lease to a local authority should they decide to use it for a greenway.
Sorry I have to repeat it verbatim for you, but you are the one that read "agreed" and saw "leased" . One day Galway County Council will decide to use it as a greenway and when they do a lease will be arranged by the property owners- CIE Property. It's not complicated, unless you want to make it so.

ezstreet5

Muckyboots wrote: »

CIE Property own the line and they have already agreed in principle and in writing on a lease to a local authority should they decide to use it for a greenway.
Sorry I have to repeat it verbatim for you, but you are the one that read "agreed" and saw "leased" . One day Galway County Council will decide to use it as a greenway and when they do a lease will be arranged by the property owners- CIE Property. It's not complicated, unless you want to make it so.

I asked that we not parse words, but that's exactly what you did. Don't infer that there is a lease agreed in writing.

Muckyboots

ezstreet5 wrote: »

I asked that we not parse words, but that's exactly what you did. Don't infer that there is a lease agreed in writing.

There is an agreement, in writing, to lease it for a greenway, subject to requirements. I could go on all night rearranging these words for you. It won't make it go away.

ezstreet5

Muckyboots wrote: »

There is an agreement to lease it for a greenway, in writing, subject to requirements. I could go on all night rearranging these words for you. It won't make it go away.

Ah, I see. A conditional agreement to discuss a future agreement which would be in the form of a lease or license. It's akin to an agreement to "Let's talk later," and I wouldn't attribute a lot of weight to it. I suppose it's better than agreeing to disagree. Which is what we should do.

Muckyboots

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Ah, I see. A conditional agreement to discuss a future agreement which would be in the form of a lease or license. It's akin to an agreement to "Let's talk later," and I wouldn't attribute a lot of weight to it. I suppose it's better than agreeing to disagree. Which is what we should do.

Now you are parsing something you haven't yet seen but yes, but yes it's irrelevant without a will to proceed. Agreed.

ezstreet5

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Let's not parse words. There is no lease.

If you want to see what a standard lease looks like, just do a foi for any of the other lines already leased to other county councils. The conditions will be copy and paste across them