Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail

easypazz wrote: »

Tell him what he wants to hear so he votes for you.

If you read her statement then you might think differently, she has had a genuine change of opinion based on reasoned argument, but if this is what you think, then each to their own.

westtip wrote: »

Truth is ShaneC I think we are all getting sick and tired of this on message boards, and FB and twitter etc, lets see the bloody report and get on with it, honestly I am really tired, if the report says the railway is the best idea since sliced white bread and will transform the economy then lets get on with in but can we at least see it ... we paid for it.

In the meantime great to see Marian Harkin come out in support of the greenway, a previous stalwart of West on Track, quite remarkable turn around in views. Well done Marian Harkin for listening and rationalising that takes courage. Thank you!

I agree with you to a point, but - and there's always a 'but' - but when you say "if the report says the railway is the best idea since sliced white bread and will transform the economy then lets get on with in but can we at least see it ... " then can I just point out that a country not-far-from-here has adopted that approach on a certain Other Matter and look at what following advice blindly got them....

Publish, yes, be damned, no.

eastwest wrote: »

It will pretty much end when the report is released, I'm told it is absolutely definitive in its conclusions. The western rail corridor has finally been put to bed by the consultants in a very damning report.

That's so weird because I heard something quiet different from that. My source is a gov. advisor and former public figure. I had heard that the report is neither damning or urgent regarding rail. And they suggested that government want to kick the can down the road and promises nothing to anyone.

A few considerations:

1. The "Rail Report": I think we know by now (from hearsay information we've all received from folk that have read it), that it will neither be a glowing call for reinstating rail service, nor will it damn that option and recommend abandonment of the ROW. It will likely be along the lines of the prior review, where the line has "reactivation potential," but is deemed to not quite meet the cost/benefit threshold for reactivation. There will be nuggets for both sides. So what happens if the report we get is not actionable? Probably nothing at all, and that is unfortunate. But let's not deceive ourselves with the idea that building a greenway somehow "preserves" the ROW. Greenways do not preserve rail corridors...they erase them permanently. I would challenge anyone here to provide a "rails-to-trails-to-rails" example in the modern world. I understand that IE have made various overtures regarding revocable licenses; however, if there is any real possibility of reactivation, you'll never get a license.

2. The "Quiet Man Greenway" is not "shovel-ready." It requires planning permission, which likely entails the preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report. Even if there was 100% political consensus from all stakeholders (including IE), and if funding was secured to pursue entitlements, and if a tender was prepared and issued tomorrow to start that planning process, we are still looking at a minimum of 18-24 months before full planning permission is secured (if everything goes smoothly). My point here is that a greenway is not an easy accomplishment, and the idea that it would just fall from the sky if a few politicians would stand aside is just asinine.

3. The "Quiet Man Greenway" is not inexpensive. Even if IE grant a license to develop a bicycle trail, there are significant costs for developing the project. The greenway is "iffy" (at best) with regard to the scenery and connectivity criteria of the National Greenways Strategy, so funding is not garunteed. Ongoing operation and maintenance costs will compete with local authority roads budgets, which are woefully inadequate.

4. The "Quiet Man Greenway" will require land acquisition. There is a fallacy circulating that all of the land necessary is entirely in public ownership. While that's true of the main corridor, it is not true for access roads that are needed at each intersession with a public roadway, and there are dozens of these along the way. CPOs may still be required to meet design standards with regard to access.

5. There are no ancillary uses of the WRC. I forget where it was, but someone was claiming that the ROW would be suitable for either a natural gas pipeline and/or for a corridor for "industrial strength" broadband. Both were recently developed from Mayo to Athenry in a separate corridor several miles to the west, so there is likely no need for parallel services in our lifetime. Even if there were a need for such projects, they would be completely separate from a rail or greenway project, and could be advanced without either.

Anyway, just a few thoughts this evening. My personal view is that the greenway campaign's best bet is to look at the combined costs/benefits of a side-by-side alignment from Athenry to Tuam, and that such an idea may be the only way that either makes it over the finish line.

EZ you have made a lot of effort there so deserve a response at least

ezstreet5 wrote: »

A few considerations:

1. The "Rail Report": I think we know by now (from hearsay information we've all received from folk that have read it), that it will neither be a glowing call for reinstating rail service, nor will it damn that option and recommend abandonment of the ROW. It will likely be along the lines of the prior review, where the line has "reactivation potential," but is deemed to not quite meet the cost/benefit threshold for reactivation. There will be nuggets for both sides. So what happens if the report we get is not actionable? Probably nothing at all, and that is unfortunate. But let's not deceive ourselves with the idea that building a greenway somehow "preserves" the ROW. Greenways do not preserve rail corridors...they erase them permanently. I would challenge anyone here to provide a "rails-to-trails-to-rails" example in the modern world. I understand that IE have made various overtures regarding revocable licenses; however, if there is any real possibility of reactivation, you'll never get a license.
.

You are probably right it will be a monumental fudge with a bit given here and bit given there, and you are right nothing will happen.

A greenway does protect the route in public ownership in perpetuity, maybe it will never return to rail, it probably won't because the long distance nature of the greenway will make it a resounding success. Re the license model the wording is pretty watertight but has never been tested (no comber please)

ezstreet5 wrote: »

2. The "Quiet Man Greenway" is not "shovel-ready." It requires planning permission, which likely entails the preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment Report. Even if there was 100% political consensus from all stakeholders (including IE), and if funding was secured to pursue entitlements, and if a tender was prepared and issued tomorrow to start that planning process, we are still looking at a minimum of 18-24 months before full planning permission is secured (if everything goes smoothly). My point here is that a greenway is not an easy accomplishment, and the idea that it would just fall from the sky if a few politicians would stand aside is just asinine.

No one ever said it would be easy, and yes the planning permission and all the technical rigmarole has to be sorted, this is only getting started now in Sligo but it will happen there and once it is out the way building will start, the Sligo greenway will probably open in about 4 years time.

ezstreet5 wrote: »

3. The "Quiet Man Greenway" is not inexpensive. Even if IE grant a license to develop a bicycle trail, there are significant costs for developing the project. The greenway is "iffy" (at best) with regard to the scenery and connectivity criteria of the National Greenways Strategy, so funding is not garunteed. Ongoing operation and maintenance costs will compete with local authority roads budgets, which are woefully inadequate.

Relative terms the cost of a greenway on closed railway is small change, re the scenery argument go to the QMG facebook page, people get very touchy on the no scenery argument, personally I think it is a load of old bollox. Re maintenance costs of a greenway they are going to exist but will be neglgble.

ezstreet5 wrote: »

4. The "Quiet Man Greenway" will require land acquisition. There is a fallacy circulating that all of the land necessary is entirely in public ownership. While that's true of the main corridor, it is not true for access roads that are needed at each intersession with a public roadway, and there are dozens of these along the way. CPOs may still be required to meet design standards with regard to access.

Not insurmountable problems, or at least not enough to stop the project from happening.

ezstreet5 wrote: »

5. There are no ancillary uses of the WRC. I forget where it was, but someone was claiming that the ROW would be suitable for either a natural gas pipeline and/or for a corridor for "industrial strength" broadband. Both were recently developed from Mayo to Athenry in a separate corridor several miles to the west, so there is likely no need for parallel services in our lifetime. Even if there were a need for such projects, they would be completely separate from a rail or greenway project, and could be advanced without either.

Anyway, just a few thoughts this evening. My personal view is that the greenway campaign's best bet is to look at the combined costs/benefits of a side-by-side alignment from Athenry to Tuam, and that such an idea may be the only way that either makes it over the finish line.

I have put those arguments up, disagree with you on fibre optic cabling, why not have this route in public ownership as back up to any other route that pre-exist.

Your final comment re side by side, a noble idea, but it is only noble if the railway is ever going to happen. It isn't but the fact the report may say it may be tenable in ten or twenty years time will be enough for West on Track to stop it.

In short I think nothing will happen, but at least the railway campaign will be happy that thousands of people who want a greenway will have been denied.

Hey ho on we go.

westtip wrote: »

I have put those arguments up, disagree with you on fibre optic cabling, why not have this route in public ownership as back up to any other route that

Am I right in saying a fibre optic cable travels along the railway network already? Maybe not along the closed section but along the operating network.

westtip wrote: »

A greenway does protect the route in public ownership in perpetuity, maybe it will never return to rail, it probably won't because the long distance nature of the greenway will make it a resounding success. Re the license model the wording is pretty watertight but has never been tested (no comber please)

My point was that the greenway campaign was claiming that the "international best practice to protect closed railways" was to convert them to greenways, and that "the railway will always take precedence in the future." Does this ring a bell? I would submit this has nowhere occurred, ever, and that it is disingenuous to suggest that "trail-to-rails" is possible in the real world.

westtip wrote: »

No one ever said it would be easy, and yes the planning permission and all the technical rigmarole has to be sorted, this is only getting started now in Sligo but it will happen there and once it is out the way building will start, the Sligo greenway will probably open in about 4 years time.

The discourse I am seeing from the greenway campaign is that there are just a few politicians that are "greenway blockers," and if we vote them out, we'll get our greenway. That's an unfair portrayal.

westtip wrote: »

Relative terms the cost of a greenway on closed railway is small change, re the scenery argument go to the QMG facebook page, people get very touchy on the no scenery argument, personally I think it is a load of old bollox. Re maintenance costs of a greenway they are going to exist but will be neglgble.

No cost numbers have been published, so I cannot comment whether they are small or negligible. With regard to scenery, in fairness, it was one of your own that misquoted a Mayo Councillor to the effect of, "there is nothing to see in East Galway," that caused the annoyance amongst your ranks. Perhaps in the next revision to the Galway County Development Plan, your group can lobby to have the landscape value rating of East Galway reclassified from "Low" to "Outstanding?"

westtip wrote: »

Not insurmountable problems, or at least not enough to stop the project from happening.

Agreed.

westtip wrote: »

I have put those arguments up, disagree with you on fibre optic cabling, why not have this route in public ownership as back up to any other route that pre-exist.

It's a red herring. Nobody is advocating for ceding the WRC back to adjacent landowners. If someone wants to run fibre along that route, they can do that independently of any rail, trail, or rail-trail project.

westtip wrote: »

Your final comment re side by side, a noble idea, but it is only noble if the railway is ever going to happen. It isn't but the fact the report may say it may be tenable in ten or twenty years time will be enough for West on Track to stop it.

In short I think nothing will happen, but at least the railway campaign will be happy that thousands of people who want a greenway will have been denied

My personal (and completely biased) opinion is that there is adequate travel demand to justify reopening the line to Tuam. The centrality of the Tuam station is an amazing opportunity because most of the town core can walk to it. The 20+ buses to Galway each way provide a good service, but rail will beat it during peak times.

Proper planning would be to develop cities for people who want to work in cities and not stringing development along meandering railway lines forcing long commutes on people.

Deleted User wrote: »

Some interesting numbers coming from the Waterford greenway.

It looks amazing. It certainly ticks all of the boxes.