Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

westtip · 19-05-2021 6:54pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

So official! What would even be 'transported' via a bicycle trail? The 'department' may need an awakening, and they might get one soon.

Ah sure I have heard one mayo cllr say it would be illegal to put a greenway on the transport corridor but he fully supports its use as a velorail which has already received almost €500k in funding, the last €198k was a bung from Leader.

Transported via a bicycle trail, err same as in Waterford and West Mayo - money spending tourists transforming the local economy, I think the department might support that idea.

ezstreet5 · 19-05-2021 7:02pm

westtip wrote: »

Ah sure I have heard one mayo cllr say it would be illegal to put a greenway on the transport corridor but he fully supports its use as a velorail which has already received almost €500k in funding, the last €198k was a bung from Leader.

Transported via a bicycle trail, err same as in Waterford and West Mayo - money spending tourists transforming the local economy, I think the department might support that idea.

The issue is not one to be decided by Mayo, Galway, or Sligo Councils, or any combination. It's not even an issue to be decided by 'the Department.' And if you are focused on Velorail, you are also misguided, as it is likewise unimportant. And I would say it it fanciful to believe that an inland, Tier 2 (or 3) greenway segment, unconnected to the national network, will have any massive economic impact, as is envisioned. There is no yellow-bricked 'sconeway,' sorry about that.

end of the road · 19-05-2021 7:30pm

eastwest wrote: »

There's a lane way near my house, currently overgrown with briars, but I call it a motorway, myself. I know that any day now there'll be lines of trucks on it. Because I believe it.

it's just a lane in fairness.

westtip wrote: »

Western Transport Corridor please, lets use the official language of the Department of Transport, not to mention to remind you of their thinking and that of Irish Rail BTW. At some point you really have to listen to the policy makers.

Source: Submission 1027 DOT: https://consult.mayo.ie/en/submission/myo-c11-1027

Submission from Irish Rail:
Source: Submission number 1027 Irish Rail https://consult.mayo.ie/en/submission/myo-c11-696

Hey Ho on we go.

i'm fine with western railway corridor thanks.
just because the policy makers decide something does not mean i must go along with it, and i won't be doing so.
i believe athenry to claremorris should reopen as a railway, and has little to no potential as a greenway and will not be the tourist benanza, annd i oppose such a greenway on the basis that i believe people are being promised something that won't be another waterford.
to be honest from what i see, as time goes on fewer and fewer people go along with the greenways keeping the asset in state hands yada yada, most of us know if a greenway is built then that is it, until such time as we actually see any former rail route in this country that has a greenway built on it returned to railway use which will then prove us incorrect.

westtip wrote: »

I am just the messenger apparently this is what the department now call the piece of land available for transport solutions between Collooney and Athenry that some people refer to as the Western Rail corridor that used to have a railway on it until the mid 1970s, but is now officially called the Western Transport Corridor, if you don't like it drop a line to the Minister. Hey ho.

BTW I presume these sentence don't need to much explaining ”

I guess in a way you are right in saying , the We I presume is West on Track? In that you have lost that section of the Western Transport to a consensus opinion of the landowner and the DOT to the acceptance a greenway is the best idea on that section now? so yes you are right you have "lost it"!

Hey ho on we go.

there is still a railway on the western rail corridor, it is disused currently and would need rebuilding, and it was operational between athenry and claremorris up until the late 90s.

19-05-2021 9:06pm

end of the road wrote: »

to be honest from what i see, as time goes on fewer and fewer people go along with the greenways keeping the asset in state hands yada yada, most of us know if a greenway is built then that is it, until such time as we actually see any former rail route in this country that has a greenway built on it returned to railway use which will then prove us incorrect.

I'm not sure you understand how leases work

ezstreet5 · 19-05-2021 9:14pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand how leases work

Let's be clear. There is no "greenway lease" that will ever be converted back to a railway.

L1011 · 19-05-2021 9:17pm

I see we're at the "but but but but Comber" fallacy again.

The entire plan in Belfast was changed to a different system, not even vaguely due to the moaning about Comber.

A leased greenway can entirely be taken back by the railway owner; that is the purpose of the lease. Don't even bother mentioning Comber, everyone knows its a fallacy.

ezstreet5 · 19-05-2021 9:23pm

L1011 wrote: »

I see we're at the "but but but but Comber" fallacy again.

The entire plan in Belfast was changed to a different system, not even vaguely due to the moaning about Comber.

A leased greenway can entirely be taken back by the railway owner; that is the purpose of the lease. Don't even bother mentioning Comber, everyone knows its a fallacy.

What are you even on about "Comber?" I'm not even gonna look that up. And there is no case, anywhere, in the Western world where a railbnaked corridor was reactivated. It is a failed concept.

L1011 · 19-05-2021 9:30pm

Where, precisely, have there been serious proposals to do so?

ezstreet5 · 19-05-2021 9:32pm

L1011 wrote: »

Where, precisely, have there been serious proposals to do so?

R8

L1011 · 19-05-2021 9:35pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

R8

?

Google hasn't even got a clue.

ezstreet5 · 19-05-2021 9:37pm

L1011 wrote: »

?

Google hasn't even got a clue.

R8 Newtown, Pennsylvania USA Line should be reopened.

L1011 · 19-05-2021 9:38pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

R8 Newtown, Pennsylvania USA Line should be reopened.

And is there a serious proposal to do so, or is there a few people on a Facebook page or on a 'town' (of ten people) council asking for it with no funding.

Without a serious proposal that has actually been blocked, it does not support your claim.

ezstreet5 · 19-05-2021 9:49pm

L1011 wrote: »

And is there a serious proposal to do so, or is there a few people on a Facebook page or on a 'town' (of ten people) council asking for it with no funding.

Without a serious proposal that has actually been blocked, it does not support your claim.

Agree that Facebook campaigns are junk.

This is legit, but rails-to-trails forces interfered, and perhaps the Swedenborgians. The line needs to be reactivated.

L1011 · 19-05-2021 9:51pm

And where is there any evidence of this actual serious and blocked proposal? Because again, Google is finding nothing other than two groupings looking for more 38 year abandoned sections to be converted to trail.

ezstreet5 · 19-05-2021 9:58pm

L1011 wrote: »

And where is there any evidence of this actual serious and blocked proposal? Because again, Google is finding nothing other than two groupings looking for more 38 year abandoned sections to be converted to trail.

Google will not be a credible source here. This line has been advocated by a community group for years. And there has also been a competing rail-trail group. But the population exists for the railway, but not the will.

L1011 · 19-05-2021 9:59pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Google will not be a credible source here. This line has been advocated by a community group for years. And there has also been a competing rail-trail group. But the population exists for the railway, but not the will.

So, you've no evidence.

Have you another example where we aren't relying on the hearsay of someone with a very fixed viewpoint?

And, remember, "advocated by a community group" is not a serious proposal in the first place.

So this example fails on all grounds to prove your claim.

ezstreet5 · 19-05-2021 10:04pm

L1011 wrote: »

So, you've no evidence.

Have you another example where we aren't relying on the hearsay of someone with a very fixed viewpoint?

And, remember, "advocated by a community group" is not a serious proposal in the first place.

So this example fails on all grounds to prove your claim.

The evidence is thousands of housing starts in the metro area.

The efforts of that particular community group are well documented.

That railway needs to be reactivated. Full stop.

L1011 · 19-05-2021 10:17pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

The evidence is thousands of housing starts in the metro area.

The efforts of that particular community group are well documented.

That railway needs to be reactivated. Full stop.

So there's actually no serious proposal, at all, is what you're saying? And the evidence requested for the proposal, which as there clearly isn't one, cannot exist.

Can we go back to the first question then:

Where, precisely, have there been serious proposals to do so?

This baffling wander through Pennsylvania and the Swedish Luterhan church has not answered that question.

ezstreet5 · 19-05-2021 10:25pm

L1011 wrote: »

So there's actually no serious proposal, at all, is what you're saying? And the evidence requested for the proposal, which as there clearly isn't one, cannot exist.

Can we go back to the first question then:

Where, precisely, have there been serious proposals to do so?

This baffling wander through Pennsylvania and the Swedish Luterhan church has not answered that question.

The illustration is that railway companies (the world over) don't want to expand services. And the reason for that is that new services entail effort, expense, and the risk of failure. So it is safer and easier to maintain the status quo. And that is why we got the bizarre, agenda based report from EY as we did.

L1011 · 19-05-2021 10:27pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

The illustration is that railway companies (the world over) don't want to expand services. And the reason for that is that new services entail effort, expense, and the risk of failure. So it is safer and easier to maintain the status quo. And that is why we got the bizarre, agenda based report from EY as we did.

And what relevance does this have to your initial claim and the question you're trying to answer with this?

ezstreet5 · 19-05-2021 10:28pm

L1011 wrote: »

And what relevance does this have to your initial claim and the question you're trying to answer with this?

Wha?

donvito99 · 19-05-2021 10:28pm

L1011 wrote: »

And what relevance does this have to your initial claim and the question you're trying to answer with this?

It is easier to avoid the question and claim that there is a (now GLOBAL) conspiracy to not re-open every railway that was ever closed.

L1011 · 19-05-2021 10:30pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Wha?

You stated that conversions of trails back to rails never happened, and when asked for proof that a serious proposal was stopped you gave some nonsense about a non-existent proposal in the US and some nonsense about a church.

When asked to give another, as your first answer was invalid, you went off on a rant about railway companies and EY. So I asked what relevance this had - answer is zero, of course. You are unable to answer the question I asked.

If there's any posts that are hard to follow here, they're yours not mine.

end of the road · 19-05-2021 10:31pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand how leases work

i'm well aware of how leases work, i'm also well aware of how politics works.

L1011 wrote: »

I see we're at the "but but but but Comber" fallacy again.

The entire plan in Belfast was changed to a different system, not even vaguely due to the moaning about Comber.

A leased greenway can entirely be taken back by the railway owner; that is the purpose of the lease. Don't even bother mentioning Comber, everyone knows its a fallacy.

nobody mentioned comber, even though the issue over that is legitimate.
anyway, we are well aware of what the railway owner can do, can being the most important word here, as can does not mean actually will, or would even be allowed to do by it's shareholder.

L1011 wrote: »

So there's actually no serious proposal, at all, is what you're saying? And the evidence requested for the proposal, which as there clearly isn't one, cannot exist.

Can we go back to the first question then:

Where, precisely, have there been serious proposals to do so?

This baffling wander through Pennsylvania and the Swedish Luterhan church has not answered that question.

it has not only answered the question, but is a perfect example of what you are looking for.
you just have to do the actual research.

L1011 · 19-05-2021 10:33pm

end of the road wrote: »

nobody mentioned comber, even though the issue over that is legitimate.
anyway, we are well aware of what the railway owner can do, can being the most important word here, as can does not mean actually will, or would even be allowed to do by it's shareholder.

Comber was going to come up if it wasn't cut off in advance; as its the crutch used to try and support claims that greenways cannot be reconverted to rail - despite not being true as it relies on misrepresenting what happened.

end of the road wrote: »

it has not only answered the question, but is a perfect example of what you are looking for.
you just have to do the actual research.

I'm not doing anyones research for them.

And on the face of it, its an entirely invalid example as no serious proposal has ever existed. Whatever alternate reality it has come from is not the one we inhabit

ezstreet5 · 19-05-2021 10:34pm

L1011 wrote: »

You stated that conversions of trails back to rails never happened, and when asked for proof that a serious proposal was stopped you gave some nonsense about a non-existent proposal in the US and some nonsense about a church.

When asked to give another, as your first answer was invalid, you went off on a rant about railway companies and EY. So I asked what relevance this had - answer is zero, of course. You are unable to answer the question I asked.

If there's any posts that are hard to follow here, they're yours not mine.

Let me be clear and direct. There has never been a trail-to-rail project, ever, in the Western world. Railbanking is a fallacy that does not work.

L1011 · 19-05-2021 10:34pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Let me be clear and direct. There has never been a trail-to-rail project, ever, in the Western world. Railbanking is a fallacy that does not work.

And yet you cannot even vaguely prove it does not work, giving a spurious "example" and going in to conspiracy theories when asked to actually provide one.

ezstreet5 · 19-05-2021 10:37pm

L1011 wrote: »

And yet you cannot even vaguely prove it does not work, giving a spurious "example" and going in to conspiracy theories when asked to actually provide one.

There is no example where a rail-trail was reactivated. None, nowhere.

donvito99 · 19-05-2021 10:40pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

There is no example where a rail-trail was reactivated. None, nowhere.

That says more about the viability of the railway than anything else TBH.

L1011 · 19-05-2021 10:43pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

There is no example where a rail-trail was reactivated. None, nowhere.

Evidential base failure there.

You need to prove that it can't happen, not that it hasn't happened. If all those rail lines were completely unviable reopened, there would never be a serious proposal to reactivate them.

You cannot prove your argument.

ezstreet5 · 19-05-2021 10:45pm

L1011 wrote: »

Evidential base failure there.

You need to prove that it can't happen, not that it hasn't happened. If all those rail lines were completely unviable reopened, there would never be a serious proposal to reactivate them.

You cannot prove your argument.

I don't need to prove anything to you.

L1011 · 19-05-2021 10:46pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

I don't need to prove anything to you.

Well, don't expect your baseless argument to be given any credence by anyone except those who work on emotion rather than facts.

end of the road · 19-05-2021 11:02pm

donvito99 wrote: »

That says more about the viability of the railway than anything else TBH.

not as a whole.
it will for some lines but it's not a generality.

L1011 · 19-05-2021 11:06pm

end of the road wrote: »

his argument is non-baseless/very much base and is given credence by those of us who work on facts.

So where's the evidence? Or indeed any facts?

ezstreet5 · 19-05-2021 11:11pm

The railway will come soon. And then we can debate its success.

20-05-2021 2:13am

ezstreet5 wrote: »

The railway will come soon.

There is no viable business case for it, no sources willing to fund it, multiple reports saying it would be a pointless endeavour and dozens of other projects with CB ratios many multiples higher...... yeah, any day now

I've no doubt it will eventually open but we'll be long buried by then.

Use it as a greenway until then

monument · 20-05-2021 8:15am

ezstreet5 banned for two weeks for unnecessary and extreme personalised attack on another poster.

— monument

westtip · 20-05-2021 9:34am

ezstreet5 wrote: »

The issue is not one to be decided by Mayo, Galway, or Sligo Councils, or any combination. It's not even an issue to be decided by 'the Department.' And if you are focused on Velorail, you are also misguided, as it is likewise unimportant. And I would say it it fanciful to believe that an inland, Tier 2 (or 3) greenway segment, unconnected to the national network, will have any massive economic impact, as is envisioned. There is no yellow-bricked 'sconeway,' sorry about that.

The whole point of the Greenway section from Charlestown to Claremorris is that it would be connected to the national network, Charlestown to Sligo to Enniskillen and the plan is to connect that to Cavan and to the East coast, never mind the potential to of the Quiet Man Gway south of Claremorris which should also happen. The East Mayo section could be connected to the West Mayo Greenway network. The whole point of the Western Rail Trail is to provide a spine of a greenway that will connect so many parts of the greenway network together - but I am sure you are well aware of these perfectly rational arguments that have been explained over and over again to you. It will make a far greater economic impact than a single track railway used for two freight trains a week and a couple of up trains and down trains a day for free travel pass user. but if it keeps you happy to keep dreaming then on you go, Why do you have to be the small minority stopping what the majority want to see happen.

end of the road · 20-05-2021 11:16am

westtip wrote: »

Why do you have to be the small minority stopping what the majority want to see happen.

quite simply we believe people are being promised something that is not going to deliver what is being promised, that is not going to be the tourist benanza or economic stimulous being made out.
that is why we believe stopping the greenway is the correct and just thing to do, because it will be spending money on delivering nothing and ultimately set people up to be disappointed.
it's for the greater good.

westtip · 20-05-2021 12:21pm

end of the road wrote: »

quite simply we believe people are being promised something that is not going to deliver what is being promised, that is not going to be the tourist benanza or economic stimulous being made out.
that is why we believe stopping the greenway is the correct and just thing to do, because it will be spending money on delivering nothing and ultimately set people up to be disappointed.
it's for the greater good.

Jaysus how patronizing can you get, many of us have always said this was all about stopping the greenway even though the railway is not going to happen, and to tell us it's for the greater good. I now realise what kind of mindset we are dealing with, it truly makes me want to vomit, but I guess the post was just a way of waving that red flag at many of us that what the railway campaign is about is stopping the greenway at all costs.

Sam Russell · 20-05-2021 12:25pm

end of the road wrote: »

quite simply we believe people are being promised something that is not going to deliver what is being promised, that is not going to be the tourist benanza or economic stimulous being made out.
that is why we believe stopping the greenway is the correct and just thing to do, because it will be spending money on delivering nothing and ultimately set people up to be disappointed.
it's for the greater good.

How does that stack up with a Velorail development that has swallowed €500 K and not Velo has sat upon a rail - nor appeared on a promotional leaflet or web post.

How much economic value has been seen from this bung 'investment' so far - or to be expected in the next few years?

By the way, how do these Velorail vehicles pass each other on a single line rail?

westtip · 20-05-2021 12:31pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

How does that stack up with a Velorail development that has swallowed €500 K and not Velo has sat upon a rail - nor appeared on a promotional leaflet or web post.

How much economic value has been seen from this bung 'investment' so far - or to be expected in the next few years?

By the way, how do these Velorail vehicles pass each other on a single line rail?

Yep indeed they won't answer that one, nor how the velorail got a third capital grant of €198K from Leader in March 2019 before it even had planning permission and having already received almost €300k, how did that happen?. As you say €500K and nothing to show for it and an unworkable ill conceived idea to boot.

end of the road · 20-05-2021 12:59pm

westtip wrote: »

Jaysus how patronizing can you get, many of us have always said this was all about stopping the greenway even though the railway is not going to happen, and to tell us it's for the greater good. I now realise what kind of mindset we are dealing with, it truly makes me want to vomit, but I guess the post was just a way of waving that red flag at many of us that what the railway campaign is about is stopping the greenway at all costs.

the railway campaign is about reinstating the railway, nothing more.
i, and a couple of others on this thread, separately oppose the greenway regardless of what decision is made.

Sam Russell wrote: »

How does that stack up with a Velorail development that has swallowed €500 K and not Velo has sat upon a rail - nor appeared on a promotional leaflet or web post.

How much economic value has been seen from this bung 'investment' so far - or to be expected in the next few years?

By the way, how do these Velorail vehicles pass each other on a single line rail?

you would be best putting those questions to those involved in the project, who i feel would be best placed to answer your questions accurately.there are a couple of possible ways the vehicles can pass on single track.
1. the vehicles are light weight i believe so can be lifted off the track if another vehicle needs to pass.
2. a passing loop somewhere along the line.
3. which i suspect would be the most likely option, vehicles start from 1 end and all travel in the same direction, turning around at the other end.

westtip wrote: »

Yep indeed they won't answer that one, nor how the velorail got a third capital grant of €198K from Leader in March 2019 before it even had planning permission and having already received almost €300k, how did that happen?. As you say €500K and nothing to show for it and an unworkable ill conceived idea to boot.

the idea is very workable and i believe exists in a few countries.
only those involved in the project and the relevant funders can answer your questions in relation to the funding and you would be best to ask them.

eastwest · 20-05-2021 2:10pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Let's be clear. There is no "greenway lease" that will ever be converted back to a railway.

That's simply not the case.
Look at the lease for Mullingar Athlone, it's very clear.

Sam Russell · 20-05-2021 2:34pm

end of the road wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

How does that stack up with a Velorail development that has swallowed €500 K and not Velo has sat upon a rail - nor appeared on a promotional leaflet or web post.

How much economic value has been seen from this bung 'investment' so far - or to be expected in the next few years?

By the way, how do these Velorail vehicles pass each other on a single line rail?

you would be best putting those questions to those involved in the project, who i feel would be best placed to answer your questions accurately.

there are a couple of possible ways the vehicles can pass on single track.
1. the vehicles are light weight i believe so can be lifted off the track if another vehicle needs to pass.
2. a passing loop somewhere along the line.
3. which i suspect would be the most likely option, vehicles start from 1 end and all travel in the same direction, turning around at the other end.

From looking at these velorail projects, they are almost never on single track railways because of the problem of passing.

Answering you solutions:
1. So they are just 4 wheel bikes with railway wheels. Hmm, why not rubber wheels then they could just pass other vehicles on the pathway, and allow bikes and wheelchairs and buggies and pedestrians to pass.
2. Have they proposed passing loops, and how many? So driver stops ahead of passing loop, flicks the points, and goes into siding and waits for opposing velo to arrive, then flicks the points and off they go - oops another velo arriving, so back into siding. - I don't think so.
3. How far is this track? So every velo has to go all the way to the end, and wait for the last one to arrive, and then wait till the ones ahead leave then they can leave. I can see that being popular. It would require staff at both ends to supervise it, so that wont work.

Who is going to feed the velos?

end of the road · 20-05-2021 2:52pm

eastwest wrote: »

That's simply not the case.
Look at the lease for Mullingar Athlone, it's very clear.

again you are not understanding what is being said.
the point he is making is that no rail line anywhere so far that has been turned into a greenway has been returned to rail use and he believes as do i, that such won't be so, and the same will be the case here.
he believes, as do i, that it won't be because a lease prevents it, as the lease will be very clear on what can happen, but because other concerns and pressures, as in politics, will prevent it.
realistically speak of leases may as well be redundant to this part of the discussion, given that if the politicians do not want irish rail to act on it's rights, then it won't be happening.

end of the road · 20-05-2021 3:06pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

From looking at these velorail projects, they are almost never on single track railways because of the problem of passing.

Answering you solutions:
1. So they are just 4 wheel bikes with railway wheels. Hmm, why not rubber wheels then they could just pass other vehicles on the pathway, and allow bikes and wheelchairs and buggies and pedestrians to pass.
2. Have they proposed passing loops, and how many? So driver stops ahead of passing loop, flicks the points, and goes into siding and waits for opposing velo to arrive, then flicks the points and off they go - oops another velo arriving, so back into siding. - I don't think so.
3. How far is this track? So every velo has to go all the way to the end, and wait for the last one to arrive, and then wait till the ones ahead leave then they can leave. I can see that being popular. It would require staff at both ends to supervise it, so that wont work.

Who is going to feed the velos?

1. most of those groups realistically would be better served by building foot paths in the villages and towns themselves.2. point 3 of my original post addresses all of the issues, and there would realistically have to be a start and end point with supervision of some sort so that isn't really an issue as far as i can see rather then an expensive greenway.

20-05-2021 3:10pm

end of the road wrote: »

again you are not understanding what is being said.
the point he is making is that no rail line anywhere so far that has been turned into a greenway has been returned to rail use and he believes as do i, that such won't be so, and the same will be the case here.
he believes, as do i, that it won't be because a lease prevents it, as the lease will be very clear on what can happen, but because other concerns and pressures, as in politics, will prevent it.
realistically speak of leases may as well be redundant to this part of the discussion, given that if the politicians do not want irish rail to act on it's rights, then it won't be happening.

Your "beliefs" has little basis in reality and are nothing more than notions

Some facts
- As you noted the leases cover the legality of who owns what and under what terms. Anything contrary to this is tinfoil hat stuff
- Any greenways which have utilised closed rail lines have used lines which were closed due to not being viable long before the greenway and the viability situation hasn't changed therefore no greenway has been switched back to rail. You can take that as covering the situation worldwide

Now, WRT reinstatement, its a small matter to say "the line is being reopened, we need to rebuild the line to modern specs so the greenway will be moved X meters to the left/right of the line, apologies for any inconvenience during construction".

You are correct in saying no govt is ever going to shutdown a successful greenway however that does not stop a line from being reopened. It just means additional land purchases, additional engineering etc. to move the greenway to one side. In the context of the Western Transport Corridor, you would be talking about adding a few million to a 270+ million price tag if reopening from Athenry to Sligo, so really, not a big deal.

Cycling beside an active rail line is not a big deal, its done the world over and I doubt if anyone in the greenway campaign has any problem with it

Decades · 20-05-2021 3:12pm

end of the road wrote: »

1. most of those groups realistically would be better served by building foot paths in the villages and towns themselves.2. point 3 of my original post addresses all of the issues, and there would realistically have to be a start and end point with supervision of some sort so that isn't really an issue as far as i can see rather then an expensive greenway.

Footpaths are not legitimate shared spaces between walkers, runners, wheelchair users and cyclists - greenways are. We can all learn about each other's advocacy here.

end of the road · 20-05-2021 3:54pm

Deleted User wrote: »

- Any greenways which have utilised closed rail lines have used lines which were closed due to not being viable

that is not completely true.
while some lines certainly weren't viable, some were but were closed for
various reasons nothing to do with viability.

Decades wrote: »

Footpaths are not legitimate shared spaces between walkers, runners, wheelchair users and cyclists - greenways are. We can all learn about each other's advocacy here.

strange seeing as i saw most of those sharing foot paths on a regular basis before covid.
walkers, the odd runner granted early in the morning, wheel chair users i have saw on the foot path also and the odd cyclist, who may or may not be supposed to be there as i do not know the various rules for cyclists.
i reccan foot paths would be perfectly fine for the amount of interested members of most of those groups in the areas of the proposed greenway givenn there seems to be little if any tourist potential and a railway would actually allow the people to travel to the areas where there is something to offer them.

Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

Comments