what_traffic wrote: » I agree with most of your post - but is it really that crazy? Alot of the expansion of Parkmore is based on the current occupiers adding additional buildings. Why would they want to split operations?
Isambard wrote: » when cost benefit analysis is done though, double tracking into Galway and running through services from Tuam could tip the balance too far the wrong way. Realistic is the word I picked up on.
ShaneC1600 wrote: » Council/politicians need to create an incentive to the organisations to move/split operations, if the incentive was beneficial enough they would want to move. Space is getting restrictive up there and traffic is not improving.
what_traffic wrote: » No bus lanes yet up in Parkmore.
end of the road wrote: » i would very much doubt it as apparently double tracking athenry to galway will have to be done anyway in the long term .
serfboard wrote: » This is what makes a joke of all this discussion. People are on here proposing tens of millions for a line north of Athenry, and we can't even get the basic and inexpensive things right.
ShaneC1600 wrote: » We cant even get an adequate development plan in place! Something has to be done though, traffic is terrible and getting worse. We also can't continue to plan for the now when we know population is increasing. Also very little election chat regarding transport this time around, people are fixated on a report when its an achievable long term transport plan that is required for the city and county.
Isambard wrote: » and if running through to Galway entailed a second unit and second driver?
end of the road wrote: » i suspect it will require a couple of units to run it anyway. if it reopens then by the time it does there will be plenty of stock and no excuses i would imagine.
Isambard wrote: » the problem is what you are expecting is a commuter service which would entail high frequency and that's a higher level of service than most lines get. A two hourly frequency would be of little use to many commuters. Cost benefit. Investment on this level would be of far greater cost/benefit if used to improve the line towards Dublin, an inconvenient fact for the Tuam /rail supporters.
end of the road wrote: » most lines are long distance regional/inter city lines, so would have lower frequencies then a suburban service. no reason why tuam shouldn't be a suburban service with a high frequency, it in all likely hood won't catch dart levels of passenger numbers at first, but if existing could be 1 part of making tuam an attractive place for development and relieve the pressure on galway city, and in turn attract reasonable patronage long term. other lines of a different profile not having the frequencies they should does not mean a reopened line shouldn't have a good frequency from the start, if we took that stance then midleton would only have a frequency of a train every 2 or 3 hours. the benefit of the cost comes in the form of not needing further road expansion. improving the main line to dublin is needed but there is money for both improvements and reopening together, it's the political will to have a big bang investment in the rail network like we had with the road network that is missing.
donvito99 wrote: » It is absurd to suggest Tuam as a sort of 'relief' for Galway City. This demonstrates everything that is wrong with Irish planning - let's not live in proximity to where we work and lets not develop our cities. Instead, lets live miles and miles from where we work because we need to justify reopening a railway, and in doing so allow Dublin to runaway with itself as the only self sufficient centre of employment on the island...
intellectual dosser wrote: » Nobody wants to raise a family in an apartment / urban jungle
donvito99 wrote: » That's absolutely ludicrous
end of the road wrote: » most lines are long distance regional/inter city lines, so would have lower frequencies then a suburban service. no reason why tuam shouldn't be a suburban service with a high frequency, it in all likely hood won't catch dart levels of passenger numbers at first, but if existing could be 1 part of making tuam an attractive place for development and relieve the pressure on galway city, and in turn attract reasonable patronage long term.
intellectual dosser wrote: » 'Nobody' may be an exaggeration, but I believe the majority would rather raise family outside of a condensed city setting.
CatInABox wrote: » And yet, the majority now live in urban areas, and is continuing to increase.
Isambard wrote: » Tuam doesn't need further road expansion, it has a brand new shiny M17
westtip wrote: » Demographics. Make Tuam an attractive place to live etc. What kind of numbers of people are we talking about? This is one of the myths of the Western Rail Corridor, always has been always will be, no doubt we are going to have a more pro wasting money government on fantasy projects elected this time around, the long wait and can kicking may well have worked for West on Track, but the demographics are facts of life, this is one of the slides presented to EY in July last year, EY of course had seen the population figures but said yes we completely understand where you are coming from. Claremorris to Galway The myth of passenger demand on this route Athenry/Oranmore to Galway already serviced Claremorris 4,487 Ballindine 349 Milltown 207 Tuam 8767 Total living in towns along the propose route: 13,810. +10,000 people for the wider rural areas Building a commuter rail route to accommodate such a low level of population. Does not stack up economically We can argue endlessly around the houses on this issue, but you are not going to get an commuter service with the levels of frequency required to service this population level, and remember these are the overall population figures, every man woman and child, and pensioners who don't commute but would of course welcome a railway to use their free pass on ....BTW you don't build railways to accomodate pensioners, maybe we should but that is a whole different argument of political philosophy. Get real folks the numbers don't stack up.
end of the road wrote: » which is probably not going to remain at it's current capacity forever, and will i suspect be expanded again and again long term at a large cost each time. tuam has over 8000 people alone, i think it would potentially be naive to think that this won't grow long term, therefore building a commuter rail line to the town to relieve the pressure on galway traffic is likely to make sense long term, whatever about going past it for which i would agree there are bigger priorities.
Sligo eye wrote: » The point is that by killing the railway
Sligo eye wrote: » The point is that by killing the railway you kill any opportunity for further expansion and planned development. That’s what the anti rail campaign want, keep these places as poorly connected backwaters and therefore allow uncontrolled development to continue without any strategic planning. Perhaps the upcoming change of government will bring new thinking, dare I say it, standard European approaches to development and infrastructure rather than the “we’re Irish and we do it different” thinking that has held us back for so long.
westtip wrote: » It died 40 years ago. As for the new government you hope for, if one of the upcoming parties gets into power they have great experience of actually closing railways, sure look at how many times they closed Belfast - Dublin.
Muckyboots wrote: » If I thought this was acutally the case, I would support it. Nobody with a whiff of local knowledge of the Tuam-Galway commute issues would propose that a train from Tuam to Athenry would do anything to resolve them. "It'd be lovely" is about the most reasonable positve case.....and it would be lovely.
Greaney wrote: » Sadly, 50% of all workers in Galway City live in the county and Tuam is the second largest commuter town after Oranmore, so presently, they live there!
serfboard wrote: » When you talk about workers in Galway City, are you including Parkmore, Ballybrit and Mervue in that? Because if you are, a train service is absolutely useless to them.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
