Isambard wrote: » No I agree. I could list a couple of dozen projects that would be ahead of it in the queue (not going to )
Deleted User wrote: » What other use case is there? Pax from beyond Tuam? Won't be built in the next 100 years Freight? From who? To where? There is no market worth the spend
Del.Monte wrote: » Because you can't. There are not a couple of dozen rail projects that are realistically under any sort of consideration. Off the top of my head these are the only ones that I can think of. 1. DART Underground/Metro to Swords. 2. Various Luas extensions.3. 3. Extension of MGWR route to Navan. 4. Midleton/Youghal 5. Charleville/Limerick via Patrickswell. 6. Limerick/Foynes. 7. Mullingar/Athlone. 8. Waterford/Wexford.
Del.Monte wrote: » There are not a couple of dozen rail projects that are realistically under any sort of consideration. Off the top of my head these are the only ones that I can think of. 1. DART Underground/Metro to Swords. 2. Various Luas extensions. 3. Extension of MGWR route to Navan. 4. Midleton/Youghal 5. Charleville/Limerick via Patrickswell. 6. Limerick/Foynes. 7. Mullingar/Athlone. 8. Waterford/Wexford.
end of the road wrote: » galway is choked with traffic and we cannot afford to keep widening the road network to cope with cars and busses both in galway and to the towns around it.
Greaney wrote: » Even the cycling advocates don't want money spent on the ring road but on Galway city cycling infrastructure.
serfboard wrote: » The only solution, for a decade or more, to Galway's traffic problem was the Galway Outer Bypass, to be followed by public transport initiatives after it. However, since the bypass/ring road will not be built for a decade or more, if ever, the public transport initiatives have been re-prioritised. So, to inform yourself better, I suggest that you examine the plans for Bus Connects Galway. While it does indeed, plan for widening certain roads to install additional Bus Lanes, what's radical about the new thinking are the plans to remove private cars from certain streets altogether - making them Bus only. Just outside the city, there are also plans to extend the very successful Claregalway Bus Lanes further inward into the city along the Tuam road, giving buses considerable advantage over cars. As I've said previously in this thread, once this comes about, the planners will have removed the only advantage that rail currently has - the ability to beat the traffic into the city centre.
ezstreet5 wrote: » Rail service provides a massive utility to a community; why would anyone want to deny that? A bicycle greenway also provides weather-dependent and seasonal utility, and may induce some tourism. But the opportunity costs will never pencil out. No studies should be needed to show that rail transport benefits always prevail. There is a bizarre antipathy toward rail transport in this case that should be squelched. We need to be fighting for our railways, and for better railways, and not attacking them.
Deleted User wrote: » Opportunity costs? Can you clarify. I know along most greenways built so far that have been in any way marketed, that there has been significant gains for the local communities in the form of jobs and visitor spend in accommodation, amenities, shops, pubs and restaurants.
ezstreet5 wrote: » That is a belief of some. But the economic benefits of greenway tourism are notoriously difficult to quantify. Just look at the Sligo Greenway Feasibility Study - not exactly robust science. I'm not discounting the benefits. It's just that the quantification problem can lead to entrenched opinions. It's easy to see a bustling cafe or a bike hire business add a few staff during summer months due to the greenway, and then improperly apply that benefit across the wider local economy.
eastwest wrote: » I'd suggest taking a trip to dungarvan, which was sluggish, to say the least, and to kilmacthomas, which was dead. And maybe take a look at Tubbercurry and Coolaney now, so you can have a baseline against which to measure the changes in five years time.
Greaney wrote: » Those routes you describe are by water. The top 10 cycle ways in Germany are all by water. Athenry to Tuam railway line is not
eastwest wrote: » The Veenbahn isn't, and it's extremely popular. Neither is the Monsal Trail in the UK, and look at how busy that is.https://www.vennbahn.eu/en/about-the-project/
Greaney wrote: » I didn't say all.... just the top ones
Deleted User wrote: » There's more than one reason why you see thousands walking & cycling on greenways, regardless of where they are, compared to roads in the same localities. Have a think about what those reasons are and feel free to post what you think they might be.
ohographite wrote: » There is a reason why I still don't think that reopening the section of railway between Ennis and Athenry was a waste of money. The reason is that it has been used for a similar number of passenger kilometres to the number of passenger kilometres that the Dublin Metrolink is expected to be used for if reopened, relative to the amount of money it cost to reopen. I might not have explained that very well, but I will show how many passenger kilometres both railway investments(Metrolink & Ennis-Athenry) would carry in a day, relative to the money needed to introduce them. The section of railway between Ennis and Athenry was used for 159, 829 journeys in 2019, which works out as 440 journeys a day. My guess is the average length of a journey made on it is 80km, as most journeys on it probably make use of both the Ennis-Athenry section and railways which were already open, like Limerick-Ennis or Athenry-Galway, and these journeys probably wouldn't have been made on any railway at all without Ennis-Athenry reopening. 440 journeys a day, with 80km as the average length of the journey, makes 32, 000 passenger km a day on the Ennis-Athenry section in 2019. It cost 106 million euro to reopen, for 32, 000 passenger km a day, so that works out as 30, 188 passenger km a day per 100 million euro spent on it. The Dublin Metrolink, if built, is expected to be used for 100, 000 journeys a day. My guess is that the average length of a journey which would be made on it is 10km. So if that estimate is correct, it would be used for 1 million passenger km a day. It would cost 3 billion euro to reopen, for 1 million passenger km a day, so that works out as 33, 333 passenger km a day per 100 million euro spent on it. The Dublin Metrolink would still be used for more passenger km than Ennis-Athenry relative to the money spent on it, but not by enough of a difference to make Dublin Metrolink a good investment and also make Ennis-Athenry an inherently crazy investment.
Sam Russell wrote: » [Passenger Km] is not a recognised metric for investment. A lot of dubious statistics in your post, along with plenty of suppositions that are unfounded in any reality. Most of the statistics coming from that line are of dubious merit, where passengers are counted from Ennis to Galway even if they alight at Oranmore for Galway. The line does not make any positive contribution to its running cost. 220 passengers each way each day. Three full coaches each way from Ennis to Athenry would carry that many passengers at significant lower cost.
Deleted User wrote: » Your arguments didn't stand up to scrutiny in the Wex/Waterford thread and they won't here either
end of the road wrote: » no as the infrastructure cost of those coaches has to be taken into account, said infrastructure being more expensive. we have had a number of reports either on here or other places of full trains on the line, which 3 coaches certainly would not provide such capacity.
Sam Russell wrote: » The M18 is built. When were the trains full, and how often does it occur?