Sligo eye wrote: » Looks like the velorail concept is a positive thing to have for Kiltimagh. Can’t think why that campaigner guy is trying to stall it. Must be anti tourism I guess.
jasper100 wrote: » Greenways are for scenic areas with a natural footfall of tourists. Tuam just doesn't cut it. A velorail could prove to be an inspired project.
jasper100 wrote: » A velorail could prove to be an inspired project.
what_traffic wrote: » Why would all the local people in Tuam and the surrounding area want to use a velorail day in day out? They just want a walking and cycling resource for the locality that can be used every day.
jasper100 wrote: » But the greenway is not designed for locals though.
Muckyboots wrote: » Inspired by a need to block a greenway using any excuse possible- and they've gone right down to the bottom of the barrel on this occasion. So far down that they've got themselves stuck, heads downs with their bare arses showing.
end of the road wrote: » the greenway supporters need to understand that you are not entitled to the land of the former rail route, over and beyond any other project which wishes to use it such as the rail biking.
Lofidelity wrote: » The velorail is designed to be used by a group of people, so no use to a couple that show up by themselves. Its a novelty with limited appeal. Repeat business is unlikely. Tourists will not stray from the WWW route to visit this.
what_traffic wrote: » No locals allowed to use it then? :rolleyes: School kids in Tuam going to and from School - NOT allowed to use it? People in Tuam going for a daily stoll - NOT allowed to use it? Mix in local use with Tourism use and its a bargain.
jasper100 wrote: » Don't be silly. Nobody said locals won't be allowed use it. The fact is it is being designed as a major tourism project, which it won't deliver.
Muckyboots wrote: » There are deep and personalised trenches dug out by both sides, but public good should win out in the end. Open amenity will trump silly vanity projects, like the nonsensical velo-biking-rail whatchamacallit. Wheels on steel and tracks still there, etc etc. Local elections- sorted. All we need now is a Minister for Transport with a pair, and she is coming, trust me.
Deleted User wrote: » The evidence of all other greenways say otherwise
end of the road wrote: » . like i said, you will need to realise you are not entitled to use of the line over and beyond any other potential project. .
end of the road wrote: » a minister for transport with a pair will do nothing either because there are greenway and rail projects elsewhere that could give a better return.
Muckyboots wrote: » I think you misunderstand. I don't claim to be entitled to use the line over anybody else. Quite the opposite. I wan't everyone, and their grandmothers, to be able to use the line - unlike the vanity wheels on steel cart things.
end of the road wrote: » i don't misunderstand, and you have essentially proved my point. you think the greenway is more entitled to use the alinement then rail biking. it's not. the rail biking project got in on part of the line first, so if it gets off the ground it is first come first served.
end of the road wrote: » so if it gets off the ground it is first come first served.
jasper100 wrote: » The velorail only want 12km. There is plenty of other sections for local communities to develop as a local amenity.
Lofidelity wrote: » Why is the Achill greenway section a success? Im guessing because of the dramatic coastal scenery which would be beautiful on a day like today. The countryside in mid Mayo is not unpleasant, but not dramatic. So that will limit interest for tourists. That means its not going to give much financial return for the money invested in paving and fences. My suggestion would be a hiking/ mountain bike trail along the existing tracks. If they could incorporate return loop sections using country roads that could make it more user friendly.
westtip wrote: » It is fully accepted that not every greenway will run through dramatic scenery, indeed East Mayo is pretty much open bogland, but it has a peace and quiet of its own, the whole point of this long running campaign to utilise the closed railway as a greenway is that it is the cheapest and most cost effective way to deliver a national network, so you can get on a bike in Dublin cycle Dublin Galway, turn north at Athenry and turn west at Swinford to cycle the entire network free of traffic. The railway north of Claremorris is never coming back, the Velorail idea around Kiltimagh has some merit but in truth will have novelty factor whichi is a once only experience, but if tourists decide to do this long distance trail they are going to see parts of Ireland that hitherto had virtually zero visitors or passing trade in terms of tourism. That is what this is all about creating a national network of greenways utilising closed railways that are not going to re-open, using canal banks etc that are already in public ownership and delivering the simple pleasure of a walk in the country for locals without having to wear high viz jackets and be constantly on guard for a 4x4 SUV coming around the corner. It is a pretty simple formula and why people can't grasp the fact the railway is not going to re-open again is beyond comprehension.
Lord Glentoran wrote: » The greenway argument is then a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Leader II project some years back attempted to pay landowners for access to the countryside but it got bogged down in Ireland’s love affair with both compo and “get off my land” idiots like the guy who threatened walkers accessing Ben Bulben. The solution is wide provision of public footpaths, bridleways and greenways, but not simply one path preventing reuse of transport infrastructure. The big flaw in the “we’ll hand over the railway if it’s needed, honest” argument made by the anti WRC campaigners is where will the path go then? Clearances, safety speed limits will prevent both a meaningful railway and a path coexisting. So, if the anti WRC campaigners were serious about opening access to the countryside they would have been previously sought to save the Leader II scheme. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I see zero evidence of that. Instead, the earliest part of the first thread talks about using the trackbed for broadband instead. The zeal of the convert, or the hunt for a convenient alternative use to latch onto instead?
Lord Glentoran wrote: » The solution is wide provision of public footpaths, bridleways and greenways, but not simply one path preventing reuse of transport infrastructure. The big flaw in the “we’ll hand over the railway if it’s needed, honest” argument made by the anti WRC campaigners is where will the path go then? Clearances, safety speed limits will prevent both a meaningful railway and a path coexisting.
Sam Russell wrote: » What actually happened to the railway alignment from Sandyford to Bray that the Harcourt St line ran on?
end of the road wrote: » very simply, we were lucky that it was available so a light rail service could be instated. however that is no guarantee the same could or would happen with other similar alinements. .
Sam Russell wrote: » Well, actually, there had to be a new alignment, and the old aligment would allow conversion to metro, but the new alignmen is not suitable. The new alignment is because the old one was not protected. Even the bit from the canal to Sandyford had been taken over by adjoining properties and had to be bought back when the Luas was built. At least a greenway prevents this.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
