nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

[Deleted User]

Carrying on with the discussion as the other thread is full

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2055766866/1

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Isambard

Del.Monte wrote: »

I can't imagine anything more soul destroying.

not your cup of tea but there are plenty of long distance walkers and cyclists too who would much prefer a Greenway than risking life and limb on the road.

ezstreet5

donvito99 wrote: »

Journey time by train from Limerick to Galway?

Or if you have an extra 30 mins and €3.44, you could destroy your soul even more on Bus Éireann Rte. 51.

donvito99

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Or if you have an extra 30 mins and €3.44, you could destroy your soul even more on Bus Éireann Rte. 51.

Or save yourself 55 minutes and take the x51.

ezstreet5

donvito99 wrote: »

Or save yourself 55 minutes and take the x51.

I would, but it doesn't stop in my town. It bypasses me on the €1b motorway.

Del.Monte

Isambard wrote: »

not your cup of tea but there are plenty of long distance walkers and cyclists too who would much prefer a Greenway than risking life and limb on the road.

I happen to enjoy walking in the countryside but not on what is to all intents and purposes a tarmac road - only thing missing are road markings.

[Deleted User]

Del.Monte wrote: »

I can't imagine anything more soul destroying.

Wearing out your boots is most certainly sole destroying! :P

marno21

Del.Monte wrote: »

I happen to enjoy walking in the countryside but not on what is to all intents and purposes a tarmac road - only thing missing are road markings.

And cars, trucks and buses. Great not having to look over your shoulder all the time in order to not get mashed onto the tarmac.

[Deleted User]

whisky_galore wrote: »

How do you know they've walked a long distance?

It's as easy to identify one as it is a bike tourer. You can tell by the amount of gear they have and the makeup of it

westtip

Isambard wrote: »

It's been shown on here that there is plenty of room for both. You want it all though and you are damaging your own Greenway campaign .

Just run the greenway to one side and leave a clear path for the railway next to it, it's not impossible. We all know if you build the Greenway on the existing trackbed, then you will fight tooth and nail to keep it should the chance to rebuild the rail line ever occur.

I love it in life when people tell me what I think and that people all know what I think, it is truly a bit discourteous, if a greenway is built on the existing trackbed at a very low cost, I personally would not fight the idea that it was only there temporarily should the railway get the go ahead ....so please don't be so bloody patronising, For the record I would be perfectly happy if they got the go ahead for the railway in the future good stuff, in a few years time I will gladly use it with my rail pass, and no I won't fight tooth and nail against a railway giving way to greenway as long as they put the greenway in alongside and as you don't know me personally please spare me from telling me what I would do. I find it a bloody joke that you think you know my mindset, You F***cking don't.

Muckyboots

Big ideas for Tuam's new "Railway Quarter", including walking and cycling. A €2m budget is secured for this. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g9lb_7kBepE&feature=emb_share

[Deleted User]

4.5 million in funding for greenways just announced including 75k for a feasibility study for Athenry to Milltown on the old unused line

westtip

Deleted User wrote: »

4.5 million in funding for greenways just announced including 75k for a feasibility study for Athenry to Milltown on the old unused line

Oh my god what more can I say, but yes look at this, and it is all over the QMG, sligo mayo greenway and Kiltimagh Greenway FB pages: Unbe---F***ing ---lievable

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/3435e-ministers-announce-funding-of-45m-to-26-greenway-pministers-announce-funding-of-45m-to-26-greenway-projectsrojects/?fbclid=IwAR1oDn3le5HOO5j1Iq0-jcLyClWCRCqIdybnWzeISA3Fg16s4DvndaRCYyg

The press release may not show the detail but look at this:

€75,000 feasibility study for QMG from Athenry to Milltown - given to Galway coco
€300,000 to get the Sligo greenway Charlestown to collooney - given to Sligo coco to get that project fully shovel ready to build
€500,000 to get the Sligo North Leitrim Enniskillen Greenway - given to Leitrim coco to get that project fully shovel ready to build

Mayo county council gets nothing in East Mayo because they didn't ask for it.

So here is a question for ye all---- do you think the Dept of Transport would dole out €75,000 if the rail report was in anyway positive about a railway coming back. Answers on a postcard please.

eastwest

westtip wrote: »

Oh my god what more can I say, but yes look at this, and it is all over the QMG, sligo mayo greenway and Kiltimagh Greenway FB pages: Unbe---F***ing ---lievable

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/3435e-ministers-announce-funding-of-45m-to-26-greenway-pministers-announce-funding-of-45m-to-26-greenway-projectsrojects/?fbclid=IwAR1oDn3le5HOO5j1Iq0-jcLyClWCRCqIdybnWzeISA3Fg16s4DvndaRCYyg

The press release may not show the detail but look at this:

€75,000 feasibility study for QMG from Athenry to Milltown - given to Galway coco
€300,000 to get the Sligo greenway Charlestown to collooney - given to Sligo coco to get that project fully shovel ready to build
€500,000 to get the Sligo North Leitrim Enniskillen Greenway - given to Leitrim coco to get that project fully shovel ready to build

Mayo county council gets nothing in East Mayo because they didn't ask for it.

So here is a question for ye all---- do you think the Dept of Transport would dole out €75,000 if the rail report was in anyway positive about a railway coming back. Answers on a postcard please.

The railway was never coming back.
Except in people's heads.

TCDStudent1

westtip wrote: »

Oh my god what more can I say, but yes look at this, and it is all over the QMG, sligo mayo greenway and Kiltimagh Greenway FB pages: Unbe---F***ing ---lievable

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/3435e-ministers-announce-funding-of-45m-to-26-greenway-pministers-announce-funding-of-45m-to-26-greenway-projectsrojects/?fbclid=IwAR1oDn3le5HOO5j1Iq0-jcLyClWCRCqIdybnWzeISA3Fg16s4DvndaRCYyg

The press release may not show the detail but look at this:

€75,000 feasibility study for QMG from Athenry to Milltown - given to Galway coco
€300,000 to get the Sligo greenway Charlestown to collooney - given to Sligo coco to get that project fully shovel ready to build
€500,000 to get the Sligo North Leitrim Enniskillen Greenway - given to Leitrim coco to get that project fully shovel ready to build

Mayo county council gets nothing in East Mayo because they didn't ask for it.

So here is a question for ye all---- do you think the Dept of Transport would dole out €75,000 if the rail report was in anyway positive about a railway coming back. Answers on a postcard please.

Why does the Athenry - Milltown route need a feasibility study when the Charlestown - Collooney section does not? Or am I missing something???

[Deleted User]

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

Why does the Athenry - Milltown route need a feasibility study when the Charlestown - Collooney section does not? Or am I missing something???

Because they (Sligo CoCo) did the study already and found it was a feckin great idea so applied for and received a lump sum to taking it to the planning phase

The main findings were

Main Findings

There are no technical reasons why the greenway project should not proceed.
The proposed greenway would provide a sustainable, scenic and safe walking and cycling facility which will benefit the wider north west region.
Responses received indicate that consultees are overwhelmingly positive towards the project.
The on-line option was identified as the preferred option under almost all headings as the alongside option would entail significant additional civil engineering works with environmental implications and is more likely to encounter land ownership issues which may prove as significant obstacles to the project’s completion.
Detailed costings indicated that the on-line option would be at the lower end of the cost range on which the Meehan Tully (2016) report based its cost benefit analysis, and suggests a two year payback as the likely economic impact of the project. The cost of the alongside option was estimated to be 3.5 times the cost of the on-line option.
The proposed greenway will require Part 8 Planning Application in accordance with Planning and Development Regulations 2001 as amended. A Screening for Appropriate Assessment under Article 6(3) of the EU Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC), the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), and the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 477/2011) as amended and Screening for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in accordance with the EIA Directive 2014/52/EU and the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (as amended) will also be required.

TCDStudent1

Deleted User wrote: »

Because they (Sligo CoCo) did the study already and found it was a feckin great idea so applied for and received a lump sum to taking it to the planning phase

The main findings were

Main Findings
There are no technical reasons why the greenway project should not proceed.

The proposed greenway would provide a sustainable, scenic and safe walking and cycling facility which will benefit the wider north west region.

Responses received indicate that consultees are overwhelmingly positive towards the project.

The on-line option was identified as the preferred option under almost all headings as the alongside option would entail significant additional civil engineering works with environmental implications and is more likely to encounter land ownership issues which may prove as significant obstacles to the project’s completion.

Detailed costings indicated that the on-line option would be at the lower end of the cost range on which the Meehan Tully (2016) report based its cost benefit analysis, and suggests a two year payback as the likely economic impact of the project. The cost of the alongside option was estimated to be 3.5 times the cost of the on-line option.

The proposed greenway will require Part 8 Planning Application in accordance with Planning and Development Regulations 2001 as amended. A Screening for Appropriate Assessment under Article 6(3) of the EU Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC), the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), and the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 477/2011) as amended and Screening for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in accordance with the EIA Directive 2014/52/EU and the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (as amended) will also be required.

aah very good, thanks! So could we end up with a situation now that there is a greenway from Athenry to Milltown, and from Charlestown to Collooney, but none in between around Claremorris area?

ezstreet5

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

Why does the Athenry - Milltown route need a feasibility study when the Charlestown - Collooney section does not? Or am I missing something???

It's not necessary. It's usefulness is for political purposes and for consensus-building. (Which is indeed a very important part of any project, not to belittle it). Nearly all applications under this funding trance were approved, and the full €4.5 million was not allocated. (I can't comment on the applications that were not funded, and why they were not). One may question why Galway Co. Council did not seek more, to perhaps fund the design for a Part 8 application? (It may have been granted). The product of this fesibility study will look a lot like Sligo Greenway's, and will return the same conclusions. Overall, it is a positive step for those advocating for a greenway on the route, as it moves the project from a mere idea, to something worth a more detailed look. To claim that today's funding of a feasibility study negates the possibility of reactivating the rail line would be jumping to desired conclusions.

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

To claim that today's funding of a feasibility study negates the possibility of reactivating the rail line would be jumping to desired conclusions.

Not really making any claims there is still a long way to go, but as I said do you seriously believe the DT would give €75,000 for a feasibility study if there was even a semblance of a chance of the rail report saying the railway needs to come back, this announcement whatever way you look at it is a game changer. The official recognition that a greenway is possible and should be lookedat along with the fact the QMG was a named project in the RSES, and the fact that Sligo is now a given as a greenway project and it seems so is Sligo North Leitrim, is somehow pointing (in my mind anyway) to one conclusion. I will leave it to readers of this thread to try and work out what my conclusion is.

eastwest

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

aah very good, thanks! So could we end up with a situation now that there is a greenway from Athenry to Milltown, and from Charlestown to Collooney, but none in between around Claremorris area?

Unlikely.
Mayo have received a wake-up call today, and are likely to smell the coffee fairly soon.

ezstreet5

eastwest wrote: »

Unlikely.
Mayo have received a wake-up call today, and are likely to smell the coffee fairly soon.

Mayo received what they applied for, so I'm sure they are happy.

ezstreet5

westtip wrote: »

Not really making any claims there is still a long way to go, but as I said do you seriously believe the DT would give €75,000 for a feasibility study if there was even a semblance of a chance of the rail report saying the railway needs to come back, this announcement whatever way you look at it is a game changer. The official recognition that a greenway is possible and should be lookedat along with the fact the QMG was a named project in the RSES, and the fact that Sligo is now a given as a greenway project and it seems so is Sligo North Leitrim, is somehow pointing (in my mind anyway) to one conclusion. I will leave it to readers of this thread to try and work out what my conclusion is.

€75,000 is a small amount of money in the context of what was aimed to be allocated, and is one of the smallest grants. So yes, I do think DTTAS would allocate it for this purpose, even if just for political reasons, and even if there was the possibility for a more substantial rail reactivation project. A refusal would have indicated that the greenway was dead; but that is not the case.

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Mayo received what they applied for, so I'm sure they are happy.

Errr not in East Mayo they are not, and I am not talking about the council but how people feel about the council, Mayo CC will at some point get the message. it will come from the businesses in Swinford, Charlestown, Kiltimagh etc....

ezstreet5

westtip wrote: »

Errr not in East Mayo they are not, and I am not talking about the council but how people feel about the council, Mayo CC will at some point get the message. it will come from the businesses in Swinford, Charlestown, Kiltimagh etc....

Obviously I can't comment on the feelings of the fine folk of East Mayo or the businesses of Swinford, Charlestown, or Kiltimagh, but I would caution that a greenway may not be the cash cow being sold to them.

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Obviously I can't comment on the feelings of the fine folk of East Mayo or the businesses of Swinford, Charlestown, or Kiltimagh, but I would caution that a greenway may not be the cash cow being sold to them.

Fair point yes it will probably be better to keep promising a train north of Claremorris that might come twice a day and in the meantime for the next 40 years to watch the remnants of a closed (already for 40 years) railway rust away and disappear from sight so adjoining landowners can claim it as squatters rights. Yes this idea would be of real benefit to the community....:pac::D:(

Muckyboots

ezstreet5 wrote: »

It's not necessary. It's usefulness is for political purposes and for consensus-building. (Which is indeed a very important part of any project, not to belittle it). Nearly all applications under this funding trance were approved, and the full €4.5 million was not allocated. (I can't comment on the applications that were not funded, and why they were not). One may question why Galway Co. Council did not seek more, to perhaps fund the design for a Part 8 application? (It may have been granted). The product of this fesibility study will look a lot like Sligo Greenway's, and will return the same conclusions. Overall, it is a positive step for those advocating for a greenway on the route, as it moves the project from a mere idea, to something worth a more detailed look. To claim that today's funding of a feasibility study negates the possibility of reactivating the rail line would be jumping to desired conclusions.

I'd have absolutley no problem with a parallel railway being considered alongside the greenway, just as long as it's not another joker card played to filibuster progress.

ezstreet5

Muckyboots wrote: »

I'd have absolutley no problem with a parallel railway being considered alongside the greenway, just as long as it's not another joker card played to filibuster progress.

Even if the stars align, the Quiet Man Greenway would still have a very long lead time. It will take 9-12 months from yesterday's announcement to draft, advertise, and award the tender for the feasibility study, and to complete the work to the final version. It may take another 6 months for local authorities to review it (and the rail report), and coordinate and agree with all stakeholders, including CIE that the project should advance, and to adopt resolutions for the same.

Then, a second application to DTTAS must be made for further funding for scoping, costing, engineering, environmental, and planning services (i.e., full detail design). Provided there is a funding mechanism open (similar to the €4.5m awarded yesterday), that could take up to 3 months to secure (at best). Once secured, the detailed design and planning stage can commence with another tender. At best, the project application and EIAR could be ready to file within 12 months from issuance of the tender, but 18 months is more likely.

The Part 8 process takes about 5 months, plus you need to wait about 2 more months to make sure no party seeks judicial review of the approval in the High Court. If cleared, the project has received its entitlements and can be considered "shovel ready."

So back to DTTAS with a third application for funding of the greenway build itself. Maybe that can be approved in as little as 3 months, with another 3 months to complete the tender process and award the construction contract (very optimistic on these last phases). Now the politician of your choice can don their hardhat and grab their ceremonial spade for the groundbreaking: so 52 months from today until start of construction, and 64 months until opening?

ezstreet5

westtip wrote: »

Fair point yes it will probably be better to keep promising a train north of Claremorris that might come twice a day and in the meantime for the next 40 years to watch the remnants of a closed (already for 40 years) railway rust away and disappear from sight so adjoining landowners can claim it as squatters rights. Yes this idea would be of real benefit to the community....:pac::D:(

East Mayo folk don't engage in animus possidendi because it is truly a bit discourteous.

eastwest

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Obviously I can't comment on the feelings of the fine folk of East Mayo or the businesses of Swinford, Charlestown, or Kiltimagh, but I would caution that a greenway may not be the cash cow being sold to them.

The alternative, the velorail, hasn't delivered much to them so far, although in fairness it's early days.
Now that they have their planning approval I'm sure they can start to spend the half million they got to put their trolleys on the 'railway.'
Because it seems from my observations when I passed there recently that no money of any account has been spent to date.

eastwest

ezstreet5 wrote: »

East Mayo folk don't engage in animus possidendi because it is truly a bit discourteous.

I agree. If they do find themselves in possession of sections of the rail alignment, I'm sure they'll hand it back without an argument if we ever need it.
That would be my experience of people in east mayo anyway, and would explain why nobody ever made a living as a lawyer around those parts.

ezstreet5

eastwest wrote: »

I agree. If they do find themselves in possession of sections of the rail alignment, I'm sure they'll hand it back without an argument if we ever need it.
That would be my experience of people in east mayo anyway, and would explain why nobody ever made a living as a lawyer around those parts.

A brief scroll along the land registry map seems to indicate that very few (or perhaps none) of the adjacent landowners have applied for adverse possession of the permanent way. That's not to say when a planning application for a greenway is filed, or when the railway is reactivated (which may need no application), or both, that a spate of adverse possession claims won't be filed. But adverse possession is difficult to prove, and goes well beyond, "I've been storing bales on those tracks for years."