Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail

Deleted User wrote: »

Probably not an issue between Athlone and Galway, but can cause congestion between Athlone and Portarlington.

Which could be solved by reopening the Athlone/Mullingar route.

Wouldn't a Cork Luas not be a better use of taxpayer money in terms of improving PT in the west than building more WRC?


I know Galways populations smaller than Tallaght so they are not ready for one but Cork could get one line going surely?



As I always say, as part of a proper regional development strategy.


If you exclude Cross City (which is a total and utter farce, in every way, and should have been done underground from the get go) the Luas was a godsend to Dublin and nobody can imagine being without it. It would do wonders for Cork I think.

Deleted User wrote: »

Probably not an issue between Athlone and Galway, but can cause congestion between Athlone and Portarlington.

It prevents a commuter service running between Galway and Athlone - more so between lets say Ballinasloe and Galway - lots of people could use athenry via oranmore to Galway if it was more regular - a DART type service

Isambard wrote: »

lots of people but nowhere near enough to make it stand up on cost/benefit basis. Many higher priorities

the severe and getting worse traffic congestion would be enough alone to make it stand up on cost/benefit basis.
it would be cheaper to implement then more road expansion.
so no doubt more road expansion is what galway will get.

what_traffic wrote: »

True dont have "density" along the corridor within the City for a GLUAS tram - if that cannot be justifed then how can WRC North of Athenry?
100 million on Bus Infrastructure in the City would build a lot of KM of bus lanes and bus priority infrastructure in City and on approach to the City.

it still won't remove the need for a light rail system, and improvements to the heavy rail, however.

end of the road wrote: »

the severe and getting worse traffic congestion would be enough alone to make it stand up on cost/benefit basis.
it would be cheaper to implement then more road expansion.
so no doubt more road expansion is what galway will get.



it still won't remove the need for a light rail system, and improvements to the heavy rail, however.

well that's the position of rail enthusiasts, who may promote rail for it's own self, but the most outmoded part of a rail line is the actual rail itself, the main purpose of which is mostly to guide the vehicle, a function which technology can do away with. Which leaves the big advantage that rail has which is a reserved corridor. The Permanent Way is extremely expensive, particularly when only a handful of trains a day run in each direction, a modern solution to this would make it cheaper than both Rail and Road.

Isambard wrote: »

well that's the position of rail enthusiasts, who may promote rail for it's own self, but the most outmoded part of a rail line is the actual rail itself, the main purpose of which is mostly to guide the vehicle, a function which technology can do away with. Which leaves the big advantage that rail has which is a reserved corridor. The Permanent Way is extremely expensive, particularly when only a handful of trains a day run in each direction, a modern solution to this would make it cheaper than both Rail and Road.

the advantage of rail is the large amounts of capacity it can provide over any other form of transport for a reasonable over all cost. when we hear of road expansions, the costs are generally in the billions. when we hear of rail costs, it's generally in the millions.
technology won't do away with guided rail. guided rail will always be the best way of moving large vehicles such as trams and trains around because it just works.
a proper galway suburban on the heavy rail system won't be a few trains a day but will be something similar to the cork suburban if there is any sense.

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

It would be interesting if the full cost of the M17 was charged out on a per use basis. So, let’s say the whole cost including land purchase, materials, construction costs and maintainence was amortised over a twenty year period. .

Personally I would have no problem with a toll on the M17 to pay for it. In fact every new road, if they had toll buckets with an electronic counter above the toll booth saying so much had to be paid for and then it was free to use. I think this model was put in somewhere around the world, it means less resentment to tolls as long as there is a free route people can use if they want to.
Take a route like the N4. if they had put tolls on the Roosky bypass say a fiver, would I use it with this model - yes of course I would.

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

It would be interesting if the full cost of the M17 was charged out on a per use basis. So, let’s say the whole cost including land purchase, materials, construction costs and maintainence was amortised over a twenty year period. The annual cost would then be charged on a per use basis. The lesser the use, the higher the charge to the individual trucker or motorist.

So, on that basis it would be highly likely that the M17 could be turned over for cycling, because there would be a strong disincentive for use by road traffic, given the empty pictures on the Roads thread.

I am of course making a Swiftian Modest Proposal here.

The M17/18 underwent a full cost benefit analysis before getting the green light. Ironically because it’s a PPP the government are doing exactly what you say and paying for this over a 30 year period.
Charging more if less people use is senseless economics 101.

A photo a given time does not offer a true reflection of the road as a whole.

Might I also add that a significant cost of the scheme as the provision of a rail bridge over the WRC at Tuam. The WRC also increased the cost of N63 upgrade.

I’m not against the WRC, but I don’t think it’s justifiable at present. North of Tuam and in particular north of Claremorris was never designed as a main rail line and instead to serve local traffic. Upgrading it to current standards would be very expensive.