easypazz wrote: » Tell him what he wants to hear so he votes for you.
westtip wrote: » she has had a genuine change of opinion based on reasoned argument
westtip wrote: » Truth is ShaneC I think we are all getting sick and tired of this on message boards, and FB and twitter etc, lets see the bloody report and get on with it, honestly I am really tired, if the report says the railway is the best idea since sliced white bread and will transform the economy then lets get on with in but can we at least see it ... we paid for it. In the meantime great to see Marian Harkin come out in support of the greenway, a previous stalwart of West on Track, quite remarkable turn around in views. Well done Marian Harkin for listening and rationalising that takes courage. Thank you!
eastwest wrote: » It will pretty much end when the report is released, I'm told it is absolutely definitive in its conclusions. The western rail corridor has finally been put to bed by the consultants in a very damning report.
Greaney wrote: » That's so weird because I heard something quiet different from that. My source is a gov. advisor and former public figure. I had heard that the report is neither damning or urgent regarding rail. And they suggested that government want to kick the can down the road and promises nothing to anyone.
westtip wrote: » Nothing new there then so; however if the report is not urgent re the railway doesn't that exactly fit the greenway argument; not urgent in government parlance is never, and as we know doing nothing and promising maybe doesn't lose votes.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » A rare thing in Irish politics, unfortunately.
Sligo eye wrote: » So the call to release the report will be: “What do we want?” “Something mediocre” “When do we want it?” “Whenever you can get round to it”
ezstreet5 wrote: » A few considerations: 1. The "Rail Report": I think we know by now (from hearsay information we've all received from folk that have read it), that it will neither be a glowing call for reinstating rail service, nor will it damn that option and recommend abandonment of the ROW. It will likely be along the lines of the prior review, where the line has "reactivation potential," but is deemed to not quite meet the cost/benefit threshold for reactivation. There will be nuggets for both sides. So what happens if the report we get is not actionable? Probably nothing at all, and that is unfortunate. But let's not deceive ourselves with the idea that building a greenway somehow "preserves" the ROW. Greenways do not preserve rail corridors...they erase them permanently. I would challenge anyone here to provide a "rails-to-trails-to-rails" example in the modern world. I understand that IE have made various overtures regarding revocable licenses; however, if there is any real possibility of reactivation, you'll never get a license. .
ezstreet5 wrote: » 2. The "Quiet Man Greenway" is not "shovel-ready." It requires planning permission, which likely entails the preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report. Even if there was 100% political consensus from all stakeholders (including IE), and if funding was secured to pursue entitlements, and if a tender was prepared and issued tomorrow to start that planning process, we are still looking at a minimum of 18-24 months before full planning permission is secured (if everything goes smoothly). My point here is that a greenway is not an easy accomplishment, and the idea that it would just fall from the sky if a few politicians would stand aside is just asinine.
ezstreet5 wrote: » 3. The "Quiet Man Greenway" is not inexpensive. Even if IE grant a license to develop a bicycle trail, there are significant costs for developing the project. The greenway is "iffy" (at best) with regard to the scenery and connectivity criteria of the National Greenways Strategy, so funding is not garunteed. Ongoing operation and maintenance costs will compete with local authority roads budgets, which are woefully inadequate.
ezstreet5 wrote: » 4. The "Quiet Man Greenway" will require land acquisition. There is a fallacy circulating that all of the land necessary is entirely in public ownership. While that's true of the main corridor, it is not true for access roads that are needed at each intersession with a public roadway, and there are dozens of these along the way. CPOs may still be required to meet design standards with regard to access.
ezstreet5 wrote: » 5. There are no ancillary uses of the WRC. I forget where it was, but someone was claiming that the ROW would be suitable for either a natural gas pipeline and/or for a corridor for "industrial strength" broadband. Both were recently developed from Mayo to Athenry in a separate corridor several miles to the west, so there is likely no need for parallel services in our lifetime. Even if there were a need for such projects, they would be completely separate from a rail or greenway project, and could be advanced without either. Anyway, just a few thoughts this evening. My personal view is that the greenway campaign's best bet is to look at the combined costs/benefits of a side-by-side alignment from Athenry to Tuam, and that such an idea may be the only way that either makes it over the finish line.
westtip wrote: » In short I think nothing will happen, but at least the railway campaign will be happy that thousands of people who want a greenway will have been denied.
westtip wrote: » I have put those arguments up, disagree with you on fibre optic cabling, why not have this route in public ownership as back up to any other route that
ShaneC1600 wrote: » Am I right in saying a fibre optic cable travels along the railway network already? Maybe not along the closed section but along the operating network.
westtip wrote: » A greenway does protect the route in public ownership in perpetuity, maybe it will never return to rail, it probably won't because the long distance nature of the greenway will make it a resounding success. Re the license model the wording is pretty watertight but has never been tested (no comber please)
westtip wrote: » No one ever said it would be easy, and yes the planning permission and all the technical rigmarole has to be sorted, this is only getting started now in Sligo but it will happen there and once it is out the way building will start, the Sligo greenway will probably open in about 4 years time.
westtip wrote: » Relative terms the cost of a greenway on closed railway is small change, re the scenery argument go to the QMG facebook page, people get very touchy on the no scenery argument, personally I think it is a load of old bollox. Re maintenance costs of a greenway they are going to exist but will be neglgble.
westtip wrote: » Not insurmountable problems, or at least not enough to stop the project from happening.
westtip wrote: » I have put those arguments up, disagree with you on fibre optic cabling, why not have this route in public ownership as back up to any other route that pre-exist.
westtip wrote: » Your final comment re side by side, a noble idea, but it is only noble if the railway is ever going to happen. It isn't but the fact the report may say it may be tenable in ten or twenty years time will be enough for West on Track to stop it. In short I think nothing will happen, but at least the railway campaign will be happy that thousands of people who want a greenway will have been denied
L1011 wrote: » Multiple. BT, Irish Rail Telecoms and some spare duct space depending on where. I believe the only disused section to have it is the North Kerry alignment TII have ducts on all semi recent build roads sot there is already a duct to Tuam but the schemes north of there on the N17 that are done are too old.
ezstreet5 wrote: » My point was that the greenway campaign was claiming that the "international best practice to protect closed railways" was to convert them to greenways, and that "the railway will always take precedence in the future." Does this ring a bell? I would submit this has nowhere occurred, ever, and that it is disingenuous to suggest that "trail-to-rails" is possible in the real world. The discourse I am seeing from the greenway campaign is that there are just a few politicians that are "greenway blockers," and if we vote them out, we'll get our greenway. That's an unfair portrayal. No cost numbers have been published, so I cannot comment whether they are small or negligible. With regard to scenery, in fairness, it was one of your own that misquoted a Mayo Councillor to the effect of, "there is nothing to see in East Galway," that caused the annoyance amongst your ranks. Perhaps in the next revision to the Galway County Development Plan, your group can lobby to have the landscape value rating of East Galway reclassified from "Low" to "Outstanding?" Agreed. It's a red herring. Nobody is advocating for ceding the WRC back to adjacent landowners. If someone wants to run fibre along that route, they can do that independently of any rail, trail, or rail-trail project. My personal (and completely biased) opinion is that there is adequate travel demand to justify reopening the line to Tuam. The centrality of the Tuam station is an amazing opportunity because most of the town core can walk to it. The 20+ buses to Galway each way provide a good service, but rail will beat it during peak times.
Sligo eye wrote: » I can confirm that International Best Practice is actually to reopen railway routes and undertake a completely thorough planning exercise that builds housing and Zones business districts adjacent to the route.
Muckyboots wrote: » You put "international best practice" with caps. I presume so there is a link that you can share.
westtip wrote: » And you think that is going to happen in the land of one off housing in rural ireland, the horse has already bolted Sligo Eye, well and truly over the horizon.
Sligo eye wrote: » I’d say from that remark you are totally unaware of planning policy.
Lord Glentoran wrote: » I presume there is a link you can share where greenways are happily handed over to rail use.
lans for the Waterford Greenway commenced in 2004, Reddan outlined. It had 250,000 visitors in 2018 and 290,000 last year. During the Council’s trip, they used three businesses on the day, these included Waterford Greenway Bike Hire Company which has twelve full-time staff and 10 part-time staff, hiring out 300 bikes per day and 500 on peak days, there are an additional 12 bike hire companies on the route. They also stopped at Coach House Coffee in Kilmacthomas which opened in 2017. The previously derelict building opened in 2017 and in the space of two years has gone from having twenty six seats to two hundred, their staff has also increased from five to twenty five with forty five people employed in high season. “Kilmacthomas has gone from having one to seven cafes in two years, 120 people are employed from Kilmacthomas,” Reddan stated. She pointed out that visitors will stay 65km away from the Greenway during peak times.
Deleted User wrote: » Some interesting numbers coming from the Waterford greenway.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
