Mikedexter wrote: » The velorail is all tied to the FG side I Don't.know.much about the wider picture
eastwest wrote: » 'Faceless men' didn't close and don't close railways.
eastwest wrote: » 'Local people who don't use them are the ones that close them
eastwest wrote: » 'you can't keep a railway open once usage drops down to a handful of people. The reason local people don't use these 19th century routes of course is because there aren't enough of them, they don't suit their needs, and alternatives are more attractive and cost effective. every rail route in the country is from the 19th century, so the 19th century nonsense is invalid. the "alternatives" that are supposibly "more cost effective" are really only so because they get away with not having their infrastructure cost counted as part of their running cost like rail has to put up with. eastwest wrote: » 'The notion that resurrecting a piece of antiquated victorian infrastructure will solve the problems of the west is naive and shows a complete lack of understanding of why the west is in decline. nobody said it would solve the problems of the west. eastwest wrote: » 'This ignorance is often manifested be a hatred of tourism, one of the industries that helps sustain local communities elsewhere, that can be the catalyst for rural renewal, and that helps make areas attractive to modern in industries such as the IT sector. This ilogical hatred of outsiders coming to spend money on rural localities is often described in populist, disparaging terms as 'Dublin 4 types on bikes' or indeed in terms like 'compliant playground'. this is complete nonsense tbh. i have saw absolutely nothing from those proposing the railway to show your claim to be the case. it sounds like the usual "they don't agree with us so they agin us" guff. eastwest wrote: » 'Areas that understand basic economics and the development of sustainable industries are happy to allow high-end sustainable tourism to maintain local services, to support local jobs and to attract additional industries drawn by the resultant quality of life can and do profit from tourism infrastructure. yes, however they also understand the reality that nothing is guaranteed, and they are realistic in terms of their projections in terms of what to expect, and what they will likely get. eastwest wrote: » 'In laces like Kiltimagh and Claremorris however, a small number of people prefer to wallow in the past while leaving their brains outside the door. The only way forward, while these views prevail, is downward. it's nothing to do with some people who supposibly "Wallow in the past" . it's actually quite likely that these people actually do believe that these towns aren't really going to attract the numbers to make it worth while converting a cross-country corridor/main line into a greenway. perhapse they may believe and understand that for something for locals, something else could be found that would deliver just as much of a benefit to them.
eastwest wrote: » 'The notion that resurrecting a piece of antiquated victorian infrastructure will solve the problems of the west is naive and shows a complete lack of understanding of why the west is in decline.
eastwest wrote: » 'This ignorance is often manifested be a hatred of tourism, one of the industries that helps sustain local communities elsewhere, that can be the catalyst for rural renewal, and that helps make areas attractive to modern in industries such as the IT sector. This ilogical hatred of outsiders coming to spend money on rural localities is often described in populist, disparaging terms as 'Dublin 4 types on bikes' or indeed in terms like 'compliant playground'.
eastwest wrote: » 'Areas that understand basic economics and the development of sustainable industries are happy to allow high-end sustainable tourism to maintain local services, to support local jobs and to attract additional industries drawn by the resultant quality of life can and do profit from tourism infrastructure.
eastwest wrote: » 'In laces like Kiltimagh and Claremorris however, a small number of people prefer to wallow in the past while leaving their brains outside the door. The only way forward, while these views prevail, is downward.
Del.Monte wrote: » Where are you getting this stuff from? The anti-rail colours of those supporting the WRC project are really showing now. I'll say no more in case I get site banned.
Deleted User wrote: » What the hell are you talking about! I was just making aa general comment about railway development in the past and why they came into being in the first place.
Isambard wrote: » well of course there was no competition when lines were built, but nowadays people like the immediacy of their cars which means for a service to succeed there needs to be as intensive a service as possible. It's no longer a case of people planning their journeys around the train times, they want transport when they want it and if there isn't a convenient train, they'll go another way. Of course adding more trains dilutes the passenger numbers and increases the costs, and there's a huge gulf there that is probably not fillable in most of Ireland. I wonder how Bus Eireann does on it's services that aren't supposed to be subsidised? To add a rail service (from the same Company)when there's a parallel bus route seems crazy to me .
Lord Glentoran wrote: » So just cars, and buses as a fill-in for the majority of the country then. Yee-hah.
Isambard wrote: » what choice is there? If you built 6 lines tomorrow you still would only be covering a tiny proportion of the population, most of the rest of whom you could never serve with a train or indeed a bus. What is the point of running buses and trains on parallel routes when much of rural Ireland has neither?
Lord Glentoran wrote: » So no point in the railways existing then. Thanks for the clarification.
Sam Russell wrote: » Well, not a lot of point having railways in remote rural areas that have small populations. Lots of reason for having them feeding commuters into cities from outlying centres of population. This can be improved by feeder bus services and P&R facilities. Hence Dart expansion, Metrolink, Dart Underground, Quad tracking of the mainline feeding Dublin. Cork could do with more trains as well as Limerick.
Del.Monte wrote: » Why bother - surely buses are cheaper and faster and will do for the great unwashed and FT pass holders who don't have cars.
Mikedexter wrote: » The cost overrun was on the rail lines Not sure where the money will come from to complete the project It certainly won't come from the so-called charity behind the project
Muckyboots wrote: » http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/518http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/5187676 There is enough Irony in this to fully Ferrous Oxide the tracks from Sligo to Athenry.
serfboard wrote: » Jaysus that's feckin hilarious. You could imagine a German MEP (let's call him Helmut Fritz) looking at a map of Ireland and thinking - "Yes, there is no rail infrastructure there. There should be." Unfortunately, Herr Fritz is basing that analysis on the belief that Ireland is planned like Germany, where only people who work on the land live on the land, and everyone else is in a well-planned town or city. That is not Ireland. Here, we scatter the houses throughout the countryside like confetti, hence no critical mass in our towns, hence no demand for rail services from those towns. Bus and Rail Park 'n Rides on the peripheries of the cities are what's needed here. Not empty trains meandering around the countryside.
Muckyboots wrote: » These reports go on to the Commission next. I'd expect big Phil & Co will but a thooth in it so as not to leave the Government exposed to a half billion white elephant & to the EU stumped to match it. Zee Germans will get to march through and cycle our fair and pleasant lands and leave their easily earned euros in towns and villages all along the inner West. WAW for the yanks in hired cars and guided coaches.
I am making a submission in relation to the RSES draft report. It is clear that Objectives 115 (a) and 115 (b) of the draft plan need to be removed as they clearly contravene the National Development Plan. Both objectives 115 (a) and 115 (b) are presumptive of the outcome of the Western Rail Corridor Review of the closed railway line that is currently being undertaken by the DTTAS as part of the Ireland 2040 National Development Plan. It is not within the remit of the Regional Spatial Economic Strategies to assume the outcome of the rail review. Objectives 115 (a) and objective 115 (b) contradict the Ireland 2040 National Development Plan which only facilitates a review of the line from Athenry to Claremorris and does not include the line north of Claremorris. Until this review is completed no assumptions can be made about the closed railway line ever being re-opened and to make such a sweeping assumption and build it into a Regional Strategy would be contrary to the National Development Plan. I suggest that objectives 115 (a) and (b) be reworded so they do not contravene the National Development plan and instead include the following text; Revision of objectives 115 (a) and 115 (b): If the outcome of the Western Rail Corridor Review from Athenry to Claremorris indicates that the closed railway is unlikely to be re-opened before 2030, then the closed railway shall be considered for alternative uses, for example such as a greenway, until such time as a railway might be possible, in order to protect the route in public ownership. Such alternative usage of the closed railway route would be under a strict licensing arrangement with Irish Rail that if needed for railway in the future then railway will take precedence at that time.
Deleted User wrote: » All the greenway groups along the route are actively now making submissions to the North West Regional Assembly after it was spotted that some WOT shenanigans were underway. The submissions being made are as follows and are being submitted through the online submission form at https://www.nwra.ie/rses/ I am making a submission in relation to the RSES draft report. It is clear that Objectives 115 (a) and 115 (b) of the draft plan need to be removed as they clearly contravene the National Development Plan. Both objectives 115 (a) and 115 (b) are presumptive of the outcome of the Western Rail Corridor Review of the closed railway line that is currently being undertaken by the DTTAS as part of the Ireland 2040 National Development Plan. It is not within the remit of the Regional Spatial Economic Strategies to assume the outcome of the rail review. Objectives 115 (a) and objective 115 (b) contradict the Ireland 2040 National Development Plan which only facilitates a review of the line from Athenry to Claremorris and does not include the line north of Claremorris. Until this review is completed no assumptions can be made about the closed railway line ever being re-opened and to make such a sweeping assumption and build it into a Regional Strategy would be contrary to the National Development Plan. I suggest that objectives 115 (a) and (b) be reworded so they do not contravene the National Development plan and instead include the following text; Revision of objectives 115 (a) and 115 (b): If the outcome of the Western Rail Corridor Review from Athenry to Claremorris indicates that the closed railway is unlikely to be re-opened before 2030, then the closed railway shall be considered for alternative uses, for example such as a greenway, until such time as a railway might be possible, in order to protect the route in public ownership. Such alternative usage of the closed railway route would be under a strict licensing arrangement with Irish Rail that if needed for railway in the future then railway will take precedence at that time.
eastwest wrote: » I'm surprised that an official body like the NWRA would propose a draft document like this with such an obvious anomaly. It smells of undue influence by the anti-greenway lobby, and it removes all credibility from the NWRA -- they are nothing more than another quango of expenses-gathering councillors with their thinking done for them by wot.
westtip wrote: » I don't believe the NWRA planners were fully aware of the facts, my understanding is that SF/WOT virtually told them at the pre-draft stage of the new regional plans, there was to be no mention of greenway or western rail trails in the initial first draft. From what I have heard the NWRA planners met and listened to the greenway advocates in the now closed public consultation period and seemed to take on the ideas as quite rational. I also understand an unprecedented number of submissions has been made on the greenway idea so at least it might be up for discussion. Mind you we have been at this a long time, and you never can tell what SF/WOT might do to make sure the members of the North West Regional Assembly don't even get the chance to debate the greenway, they have done this before now, they (SF/WOT) still consider the closed railway as "not up for discussion"
westtip wrote: » More pressure on politicians in Galway East that refuse to support the Greenway, and as for Mayo, dinosaurs still prevail.https://www.tuamherald.ie/news/roundup/articles/2019/02/20/4169634-greenway-group-form-company/
McAlban wrote: » I wonder how much LEO money will be thrown at this company to support their "marketing" god knows the group could do with some better copywriters than the usual anti WOT/SF rubbish that's being put out lately. That said they would need an actual business plan to get that funding, it would be interesting to read to see where they think the business case is.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d96cd5eb793ec44f833dd8d0bb2a52ac.svg)
