Deleted User wrote: » Please research Comber fully before using it as justification, as pointed out, you just shot yourself in the foot
London Correspondent wrote: » God forbid anyone dissents from the prevailing view westtip. How many posts I have under this account is relevant? Enjoy your “debate”. I don’t engage with harassers.
London Correspondent wrote: » Here is some research https://irishrailwaydevelopments.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/107/
McAlban wrote: » the comparison between running a railway and greenway are valid, they still need massive investment initially, and yes that's true for both Greenway and Railway in relative terms. There are a lot more Greenways around the country that are more viable than the WRT and they deserve the funding.
McAlban wrote: » Sam Russell wrote: » Is that not truer for a railway project than a greenway that lives or dies by walkers or cyclist passing along it. Running cost - zero. Rail project requires paying passengers who may or may not wish to travel from small urban centre to a smaller urban centre. The railway is from one end to the other with no stop in between, so little to be gained by those in between. The greenway does not need level crossing gate keepers, or station staff, or ticket collectors, nor does it need train drivers - whether anyone goes or not. It also will not need expensive trains that need millions to purchase and constant maintenance and fuel. The Greenway is the only solution. I'm not advocating for the re-opening of the WRC, as the development of the west is not there to support it yet, (while Dublin and the east coast is grinding to a halt). The Line must be preserved however, but investing in a greenway in this location is not the answer. While your points on the comparison between running a railway and greenway are valid, they still need massive investment initially, and yes that's true for both Greenway and Railway in relative terms. However, Changing this over to a Greenway will kill the possibility of it ever re-opening as a railway, in 10, 50 or 100 years. Comber valley Case in point. eastwest wrote: » The greenway delivers people to local areas and they cannot then speed away to somewhere else. As they've found in waterford, the journey on the greenway is the destination, and the benefits ooze out to the communities through which it passes. The myth that a railway between Galway and Sligo might benefit towns along the route is just that, a myth. It didn't work for Gort and it wouldn't work for Tuam or Kiltimagh. Actually a rail service from Tuam to Galway might serve a lot of people. Judging by the mess the M17 and old N17 are creating when you get to Galway city by Car. I wouldn't trust CIE to run such a service anyway, ever since it's foundation it's been running railways all over the country into the ground. There are a lot more rail projects around the country that are more viable and in some cases urgently needed than the WRC. There are a lot more Greenways around the country that are more viable than the WRT and they deserve the funding.
Sam Russell wrote: » Is that not truer for a railway project than a greenway that lives or dies by walkers or cyclist passing along it. Running cost - zero. Rail project requires paying passengers who may or may not wish to travel from small urban centre to a smaller urban centre. The railway is from one end to the other with no stop in between, so little to be gained by those in between. The greenway does not need level crossing gate keepers, or station staff, or ticket collectors, nor does it need train drivers - whether anyone goes or not. It also will not need expensive trains that need millions to purchase and constant maintenance and fuel. The Greenway is the only solution.
eastwest wrote: » The greenway delivers people to local areas and they cannot then speed away to somewhere else. As they've found in waterford, the journey on the greenway is the destination, and the benefits ooze out to the communities through which it passes. The myth that a railway between Galway and Sligo might benefit towns along the route is just that, a myth. It didn't work for Gort and it wouldn't work for Tuam or Kiltimagh.
Sam Russell wrote: » McAlban wrote: » Perhaps you and your buddies should stop drinking the cool aid? Greenways already approved in local development plans have difficulty getting funding, sure GWG and Tramore or Carlingford/Omeath have been successful I use them myself regularly, but they are connecting what are already tourism centres, what's true for railway passenger numbers is also true for Greenways. The Group in this area would be better served supporting viable greenways already in planning elsewhere than trying to get a greenway through boring flat bogland between small urban centres with limited tourism potential. Much like WOT or any WRC supporter, no hyperbole (or social media based propaganda) of any sort from the campaign spokespeople is going to change that. Is that not truer for a railway project than a greenway that lives or dies by walkers or cyclist passing along it. Running cost - zero. Rail project requires paying passengers who may or may not wish to travel from small urban centre to a smaller urban centre. The railway is from one end to the other with no stop in between, so little to be gained by those in between. The greenway does not need level crossing gate keepers, or station staff, or ticket collectors, nor does it need train drivers - whether anyone goes or not. It also will not need expensive trains that need millions to purchase and constant maintenance and fuel. The greenway is the only solution.
McAlban wrote: » Perhaps you and your buddies should stop drinking the cool aid? Greenways already approved in local development plans have difficulty getting funding, sure GWG and Tramore or Carlingford/Omeath have been successful I use them myself regularly, but they are connecting what are already tourism centres, what's true for railway passenger numbers is also true for Greenways. The Group in this area would be better served supporting viable greenways already in planning elsewhere than trying to get a greenway through boring flat bogland between small urban centres with limited tourism potential. Much like WOT or any WRC supporter, no hyperbole (or social media based propaganda) of any sort from the campaign spokespeople is going to change that.
westtip wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/interiors/postman-pad-village-post-office-with-a-history-gets-new-lease-of-life-1.3800220?mode=amp&fbclid=IwAR2Rph5IVjTHVZ5wPfNXinOhlWTQp1eNjpJY8IVaP7SLn8G1rePz_8OCKkg I think they might find the business case in Kilmactomas, Newport, etc suggest you read the "rubbish" article from the Irish Times about a property owner in Kilmactomas reinventing a family home for tourism, or look at the case study of the Great Western greenway and read every article written on how greenway-nomics transforms small communities, villages and towns. Duh...have you not glanced at all the public articles espousing the economic miracles that greenways bring! And you ask about the business case...Haha go look at every business in Tuam town centre with a sticker in the window saying they support the QMG! Alternatively, perhaps we could re-open the business case again for Athenry/Ennis and see if the business case blindfold can be pulled over the eyes of the independent consultants doing the rail review for Tuam - Claremorris. and as far as I know LEO won't be funding a not for profit community based company in Galway East, unlike some community based companies in Mayo that have had €300K thrown at them by their local chummy TD and Minister for the velo rail project - a project supported by the aforementioned group you refer to with a five letter synonym which I dare not type. Hey ho, keep taking the pills old chap, you cannot stop a Tsunami.
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.
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/
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"
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.
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.
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.
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: » 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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
