Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail

westtip wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/interiors/postman-pad-village-post-office-with-a-history-gets-new-lease-of-life-1.3800220?mode=amp&fbclid=IwAR2Rph5IVjTHVZ5wPfNXinOhlWTQp1eNjpJY8IVaP7SLn8G1rePz_8OCKkg


I think they might find the business case in Kilmactomas, Newport, etc suggest you read the "rubbish" article from the Irish Times about a property owner in Kilmactomas reinventing a family home for tourism, or look at the case study of the Great Western greenway and read every article written on how greenway-nomics transforms small communities, villages and towns. Duh...have you not glanced at all the public articles espousing the economic miracles that greenways bring! And you ask about the business case...Haha go look at every business in Tuam town centre with a sticker in the window saying they support the QMG!


Alternatively, perhaps we could re-open the business case again for Athenry/Ennis and see if the business case blindfold can be pulled over the eyes of the independent consultants doing the rail review for Tuam - Claremorris.

and as far as I know LEO won't be funding a not for profit community based company in Galway East, unlike some community based companies in Mayo that have had €300K thrown at them by their local chummy TD and Minister for the velo rail project - a project supported by the aforementioned group you refer to with a five letter synonym which I dare not type.

Hey ho, keep taking the pills old chap, you cannot stop a Tsunami.

Perhaps you and your buddies should stop drinking the cool aid?

Greenways already approved in local development plans have difficulty getting funding, sure GWG and Tramore or Carlingford/Omeath have been successful I use them myself regularly, but they are connecting what are already tourism centres, what's true for railway passenger numbers is also true for Greenways. The Group in this area would be better served supporting viable greenways already in planning elsewhere than trying to get a greenway through boring flat bogland between small urban centres with limited tourism potential.

Much like WOT or any WRC supporter, no hyperbole (or social media based propaganda) of any sort from the campaign spokespeople is going to change that.

Sam Russell wrote: »

McAlban wrote: »

Perhaps you and your buddies should stop drinking the cool aid?

Greenways already approved in local development plans have difficulty getting funding, sure GWG and Tramore or Carlingford/Omeath have been successful I use them myself regularly, but they are connecting what are already tourism centres, what's true for railway passenger numbers is also true for Greenways. The Group in this area would be better served supporting viable greenways already in planning elsewhere than trying to get a greenway through boring flat bogland between small urban centres with limited tourism potential.

Much like WOT or any WRC supporter, no hyperbole (or social media based propaganda) of any sort from the campaign spokespeople is going to change that.

Is that not truer for a railway project than a greenway that lives or dies by walkers or cyclist passing along it. Running cost - zero. Rail project requires paying passengers who may or may not wish to travel from small urban centre to a smaller urban centre. The railway is from one end to the other with no stop in between, so little to be gained by those in between.

The greenway does not need level crossing gate keepers, or station staff, or ticket collectors, nor does it need train drivers - whether anyone goes or not. It also will not need expensive trains that need millions to purchase and constant maintenance and fuel.

The greenway is the only solution.

The greenway delivers people to local areas and they cannot then speed away to somewhere else. As they've found in waterford, the journey on the greenway is the destination, and the benefits ooze out to the communities through which it passes.
The myth that a railway between Galway and Sligo might benefit towns along the route is just that, a myth. It didn't work for Gort and it wouldn't work for Tuam or Kiltimagh.

destroyed your argument with the Comber reference.

McAlban wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

Is that not truer for a railway project than a greenway that lives or dies by walkers or cyclist passing along it. Running cost - zero. Rail project requires paying passengers who may or may not wish to travel from small urban centre to a smaller urban centre. The railway is from one end to the other with no stop in between, so little to be gained by those in between.

The greenway does not need level crossing gate keepers, or station staff, or ticket collectors, nor does it need train drivers - whether anyone goes or not. It also will not need expensive trains that need millions to purchase and constant maintenance and fuel.

The Greenway is the only solution.

I'm not advocating for the re-opening of the WRC, as the development of the west is not there to support it yet, (while Dublin and the east coast is grinding to a halt). The Line must be preserved however, but investing in a greenway in this location is not the answer. While your points on the comparison between running a railway and greenway are valid, they still need massive investment initially, and yes that's true for both Greenway and Railway in relative terms. However, Changing this over to a Greenway will kill the possibility of it ever re-opening as a railway, in 10, 50 or 100 years. Comber valley Case in point.

eastwest wrote: »

The greenway delivers people to local areas and they cannot then speed away to somewhere else. As they've found in waterford, the journey on the greenway is the destination, and the benefits ooze out to the communities through which it passes.
The myth that a railway between Galway and Sligo might benefit towns along the route is just that, a myth. It didn't work for Gort and it wouldn't work for Tuam or Kiltimagh.

Actually a rail service from Tuam to Galway might serve a lot of people. Judging by the mess the M17 and old N17 are creating when you get to Galway city by Car.

I wouldn't trust CIE to run such a service anyway, ever since it's foundation it's been running railways all over the country into the ground.

There are a lot more rail projects around the country that are more viable and in some cases urgently needed than the WRC.

There are a lot more Greenways around the country that are more viable than the WRT and they deserve the funding.

Pretty much everybody, including Irish Rail, accepts that greenways help keep routes in public ownership in case they are ever needed for rail. The alternative, allowing them to be lost to squatters or to road needs, is not effective in retaining these assets in state ownership.
All licenses issued by Irish Rail fir gteenway development are contingent on rail having priority. The Comber issue, frequently trotted out by **/*** as a reason to oppose greenways, is entirely different and not relevant at all to the case of the WRT.

London Correspondent wrote: »

Here is some research https://irishrailwaydevelopments.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/107/

I think what is most interesting about your link is the column on the right hand side of the main "story" about Comber and the bus corridor

1. An editorial from the Western People about the Western Rail Corridor

2. An article from Sean Kyne about the Western Rail Corridor

3. An article about the so called Atlantic Economic Corridor and need for the railway along it.

In other words, London Correspondent ( and nice of you to join the debate with 10 posts so far on boards), its seems to be that Irish Railway Developments is a quasi lobbying publication for the Western Rail Corridor.

Say it as it is please and don't try to flannel any of us that lobbyists publications are independent research or views.

Anything published by Irish Railway Developments is a lobbying publication that support **/WOT and is not an independent viewpoint.

London Correspondent wrote: »

God forbid anyone dissents from the prevailing view westtip. How many posts I have under this account is relevant? Enjoy your “debate”. I don’t engage with harassers.

Hilarious, anyone is allowed to dissent from the prevailing view, whatever that happens to be. My point was made simply. You put up a link asking people to read some "research", it wasn't research it was an article in a publication that quite clearly supports the **/WOT view, all I did was point this out to other readers, I was welcoming you to the debate as a new poster, which actually is quite relevant, unless you are suggesting you hold more than one account on boards, which may indicate you are in fact trolling.

Hey ho. Keep taking the pills.

westtip wrote: »

Just to pull a bit of your speech there. A greenway in relative terms is not massive investment, the accepted (and I think over the top) costing is about 100k per km. So for the WRT we are talking about 180 km from Athenry to Collooney, so ball park 18 million, in fact with no land ownership issues and the ballast from the train track there already it will probably be less.
It is not a lot of money in the grand scheme and the payback forecasts range from 2 to 5 years, an incredible payback for a capital project. The railway, well lets not even talk about the potential billions that could cost and then there is the subvention cost. So please lets not muddy the economic waters about a greenway being a massive investment, in real terms its not.

Taking each project on it's own merits, both are a huge investment. Relative to a Railway, Motorway, Hospital etc. it is not a large investment, but as a capital investment in recreational facilities €18m is a huge investment. Where do you want the money to come from? You're increased LPT if the Council is paying for it? Of Course EU and regional funding can also be secured, but that must be matched locally.

GWG = 42km @ €7.5m
WGW = 46Km @ €15m

I think 180km @ €18m is a bit optimistic even factoring in the Land Ownership and existing state of the permanent way. No Land was purchased for the GWG for example.

westtip wrote:

Now your second point about a lot more greenways being more deserving. You are of course entitled to view on this, I am not sure of the logistics of your view, in fact neither are the department of transport mandarins and planners who will make the recommendation, as the original Greenway Strategy actually listed the Western Rail Trail by name as a greenway of strategic importance due to its length and connecting Dublin-Galway greenway with Enniskillen and with Achill. So your view is rather subjective and personal. Our view is also subjective but also happens to be backed up by being a shared idea in the department of transport, in sligo County council and now thankfully in Galway county council. It has also been supported by several TDs who have made submissions supporting the idea to the North West Regional Assembly in regard to the new Regional Planning Guidelines.

The Logistics of my view is irrelevant, do you now speak for the DOT? Strategy is just that, and I would 100% back a strategy that turns every disused and abandoned railway line in the country into a greenway (and we are overly blessed with them). However, the bean counters and vested interests will be arguing over that limited funding for years, some greenways will win, some will lose, for the points I mentioned already, WRT is not a priority compared to other greenways, sure TD's and councillors can make submissions and will, it's easy vote winning to be seen to support local projects. For example where I live in North Dublin they've been doing it for years, but no move on the Cycleways and Greenways approved in the LDP's. Snags appear everywhere (Example: https://www.independent.ie/regionals/fingalindependent/news/broadmeadow-way-project-hits-snag-36997638.html) My MSc. In Sustainable Development (Focusing on Transport) allows me to make such "Subjective and Personal" conclusions when compared to emotional rhetoric and conspiracy theories relating to opposing viewpoints.

westtip wrote:

Perhaps you could come back to me on why the WRT is less deserving and the issue of the actual costs of building a greenway with no more than a five year payback for less than €20million as opposed to the economic argument for a train line that will cost billions (probably about 2 billion for the whole way to Sligo), will be a drain on Irish Rail subvention and for which there is not a strong economic argument.

It will be interesting to hear your well thought out structured arguments.

Remember the West of Ireland is not St Albans.

In my previous post, I said "I'm not advocating for the re-opening of the WRC, as the development of the west is not there to support it yet"
So please point out where I said the WRT is less deserving than the WRC? As usual you seem to think that anyone opposing your subjective and very personal view must be some kind of WOT/SF troll. I am neither.

I certainly did opine that it was less deserving than other Greenway routes that will or already have planning and funding, e.g. Carlingford Lough/Great Easter Greenway which is getting funding matching from the EU, Newry and Louth Councils.

Finally...

westtip wrote:

Greenway Strategy actually listed the Western Rail Trail by name as a greenway of strategic importance due to its length and connecting Dublin-Galway greenway with Enniskillen and with Achill.

Except it won't link Dublin-Galway with Eniskillen and Achill yet.

• Eniskillen to Collooney
• Collooney to Ballahy/Charlestown
• The Existing Tour de Humber route (using a very loose definition of Greenway here.)
• Swinford to Tougher Greenway
• Tougher to Castlebar
• Castlebar to Westport (and onto GWG)
  

Which of these these planned or existing Greenways do you think the WRT should be prioritised over?

All these would all need to be completed first before that statement is even remotely true. Long Term Strategy at best, Magical thinking at worst.
Hopefully like Dart Underground, Metro-link, and the Luas these routes will be completed when I retire in 2048.

So it would appear that the sole legacy left to the west of Ireland by **/*** is that they put up barriers to funding in the west of Ireland, despite all the weight of evidence that makes it clear that a greenway won't have any impact on any decision regarding investment in new railway projects.
From that document it is clear that the west was going to get a big slice of the funding, until the intervention stopped it.

Jackhammer9 wrote: »

200k for the velorail

This is reported here:

Midwest Radio wrote:

Minister Michael Ring has allocated almost €200,000 for the Kiltimagh Velorail Project, to purchase railcars and provide storage.

This project involves the running of pedal-powered railcars along the old railway line, and is aimed at bringing in tens of thousands of visitors to the town each year.
...
The Minister for Community & Rural Development Michael Ring, whose Department oversees the LEADER programme, says these projects will help in promoting tourism and creating jobs.

and here:

The Connaught Telegraph wrote:

FIVE local Mayo initiatives are to receive over €375,762.34 in LEADER funding, Minister Michael Ring has announced today.
...
Kiltimagh velorail project: To purchase railcars and provide storage for same and associated equipment for getting these on and off the tracks for this velorail project in Kiltimagh (€198,794.61).
...
The funding will be provided by Minister Ring’s department and directed through the Mayo LEADER Local Action Group.

Said Minister Ring: “I’m delighted to announce this funding for these five initiatives. LEADER provides invaluable support to communities and businesses and I have no doubt that this funding will be of great benefit to them as they develop.

“I’m particularly excited about the significant funding being announced for the Kiltimagh velorail project and for the Ballinglen Museum of Contemporary Art. These projects have the potential to develop into high quality projects which could be of significant local benefit.

“I’m glad to see LEADER funding being used to support local communities and businesses here in Mayo. This illustrates the importance of the LEADER Programme for local businesses and communities in Mayo.

Seriously? Is no-one going to shout stop?

eastwest wrote: »

Ring is on a roll, chucking money at anything that moves in mayo.

I think his mantra is as long as it doesn't have planning permission its good to go.

westtip wrote: »

Here is an interesting snippet, The Western Development Commission, a quango based in Ballaghaderreen in Mayo has always been a staunch supporter of **/West on Track, The organization made a submission on the North West Regional Assembly draft Regional Spatial Strategies. The submission made in February can be viewed at this link:

https://www.wdc.ie/wp-content/uploads/wdc-submission-draft-rses-for-nwra-07.02.19.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0o3mxDvZiEN2VNTPnFKCd-VnFPL6DQvGZ2e_H2TpNdZ29eqJofoU6Be90

Rather than being very much in the Claremorris camp of **/WOT that the mantra must be railway railway railway, the WDC has clearly gone down the line of thinking that is now the commonly held view that the development of the railway, if it is ever going to happen has to be contingent on the outcome of the rail review. In the past the WDC would have had no debate in its thinking process about the Western Rail Corridor, it was always we will support the railway and only the railway. For the WDC to even contemplate that the rail review will be the pointer of what happens is indeed a sign of shifting sands. Clearly there are cracks in the hard line of support for **/WOT, I guess with both Sligo and Galway coco now supporting the greenway option the hardline view of Claremorris and county hall in Castlebar has to be countered with slightly more pragmatic view.

What it does say though that West on Track no longer control the thinking of this particular quango, the WDC, scary thought for **/WOT

Don't write off **/*** just yet. The rail review will find against the case for rail, they can hardly do otherwise, but the review has your then go to the minister for consideration before being published.
No review ever gets into the public domain in the same format as it left the consultant's desk, it is always tweaked for political nuance, and this one will be no different.
The report will go to Ross, if he's still minister, and will.tgen be worked on so as to appease the **/*** lobby. Expect the addition of a vague paragraph about future changes in demographic ladiladila, just enough to avoid coming down absolutely against rail in the next few decades.
That's all they need to stop the greenway, they don't need facts, just vague nonsense about freight' or 'industry' that will.be enough to maintain continued stagnation, giving hope to the realists as well as the rail buffs, and not upsetting landowners who want to absorb the route into their holdings.