Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

Hugh Jampton

monument wrote: »

I live in the west and I can assure you — people here want roads and greenways. The WRC reopening as a railway is on the minds of very few people and anybody I know who has a vague idea of it being a good idea moves away from that when you ask them about the quality of the old route or roads vs rail spending or where it would connect to in Mayo.

If people want roads and greenways, fine. But don’t be wringing your hands in a decade’s time wondering why no one put up an alternative to sprawl. Galway is already reaching the point of no return.

Wagon360

monument wrote: »

I live in the west and I can assure you — people here want roads and greenways. The WRC reopening as a railway is on the minds of very few people and anybody I know who has a vague idea of it being a good idea moves away from that when you ask them about the quality of the old route or roads vs rail spending or where it would connect to in Mayo.

I'm in work so can't give a detailed response to your points however I will say this.

1: Railways aren't the only option for greenways. I am fan of both and would like to see better off road access in Ireland as a whole. One of the key blocks to off road access in Ireland is the privacy laws which act as a block on on land access. Indeed there is an article in todays Irish Times on a court case based on land access in Wicklow. At the same time I believe a greenway or segregated cycle route parallel to the Wild Atlantic Way would be of greater benefit in terms of investment for tourism.

2: The WRC like it or not offers the only potential right now for a basis for a new rail line from Derry to Limerick which is a key part of the original Atlantic Economic Corridor proposals. If there were a firm commitment to a more direct rail route (and I am thinking in particular of rail access to Knock Airport) then the need to preserve existing alignments between say Claremorris and Sligo goes and then a greenway would be the best thing to do on the line, but only when there is such a firm commitment.

3: Fans of Burkes Bus etc may well be pleased with the service as it is but I and others are thinking of medium and long term planning. So what happens if we expand population significantly? Will a bus service be suffiicent then? Probably not. If we do place a greenway on any part of the existing route then I can guarantee there will never be a railway line back on the route, ever. The greenway supporters will see to that. And yes, we have the example of Belfast and Comber as proof of that.

Stephen15

eastwest wrote: »

I agree that rail has been badly managed in the past, and Indeed it suffers badly from a restrictive unionised environment still. However it must be recognised that rail only works well where large numbers of people have to be moved on relatively long distances. The scattered nature of the thinly-spread population along the wrc doesn't lend itself to rail travel.
Many posters on this thread have pretty much conceded this to be the case north of Tuam, but honestly the notion of a Tuam Galway rail commuter route via athenry is clutching at straws.

And that is because of poor planning people living out in the country and not in towns or cities. On the continent the vast majority live large towns or cities where as here people live in random bungalows in the middle of nowhere if they lived in towns or cities rail could be successful.

Quackster

Wagon360 wrote: »

One of the key blocks to off road access in Ireland is the privacy laws which act as a block on on land access. Indeed there is an article in todays Irish Times on a court case based on land access in Wicklow. At the same time I believe a greenway or segregated cycle route parallel to the Wild Atlantic Way would be of greater benefit in terms of investment for tourism.

The key block to off-road access in this country is the constitutional right to private property, which is the root of so much else that's wrong with this country too. A greenway on an entirely green-field route would unfortunately be insanely costly.

The best we can hope for in this regard are further road upgrades similar to Tralee-Dingle and Galway-Clifton that involve the construction of off-road walking/cycle paths alongside the roadway but we'll never see that along much of the WAW for various reasons.

And in any case, these walking/cycle paths adjacent to busy roads are in no way comparable to proper greenways through quiet, peaceful countryside.

Hugh Jampton

Stephen15 wrote: »

And that is because of poor planning people living out in the country and not in towns or cities. On the continent the vast majority live large towns or cities where as here people live in random bungalows in the middle of nowhere if they lived in towns or cities rail could be successful.

The other push factor for pro-sprawl defenders is the idea that selling farm land for development is a legitimate form of farm income. In this way sprawl is seen as a benefit for rural areas, costs are ignored, and there is political pressure to permit and encourage sprawl.

In that context, it is hardly surprising that developing commuter towns with high density is not encouraged and every excuse to keep the status quo of one house to an acre with road frontage, and four houses to an acre in towns is so rigidly defended. As I have said elsewhere, fiscal rectitude for rail and endless largesse for roads is an instrument of sprawl for those who benefit financially from it.

Hugh Jampton

Hugh Jampton wrote: »

The other push factor for pro-sprawl defenders is the idea that selling farm land for development is a legitimate form of farm income. In this way sprawl is seen as a benefit for rural areas, costs are ignored, and there is political pressure to permit and encourage sprawl.

In that context, it is hardly surprising that developing commuter towns with high density is not encouraged and every excuse to keep the status quo of one house to an acre with road frontage, and four houses to an acre in towns is so rigidly defended. As I have said elsewhere, fiscal rectitude for rail and endless largesse for roads is an instrument of sprawl for those who benefit financially from it.

Good points, well made, but have little to do with the topic at hand.

Irelands planning policies have bitten it in the ass in more ways than one but even if the policies were changed tomorrow morning, it would be 50+ years before population density would justify the expenditure required for a rail line linking Galway to Tuam and at that stage not a penny would be spent on the old alignment as it would be lunacy to use a 19th century one and not to simply design a new alignment going directly from the city, northwards

serfboard

Hugh Jampton wrote: »

fiscal rectitude for rail and endless largesse for roads

Over 100 million Euro spent on Ennis->Athenry and still no desperately needed M20 gives the lie to this claim.

Wagon360

serfboard wrote: »

Over 100 million Euro spent on Ennis->Athenry and still no desperately needed M20 gives the lie to this claim.

How much for the M17 tuam bypass again? €500m plus I believe. Believe it or not in infrastructure terms €100m is actually good value for a virtually new length of railway line, and it is a key investment in our future.

Night Falls

Wagon360 wrote: »

How much for the M17 tuam bypass again? €500m plus I believe. Believe it or not in infrastructure terms €100m is actually good value for a virtually new length of railway line, and it is a key investment in our future.

That scheme was twice the length of the rail line though, and serves a lot more people. It may well be good value for a rail scheme, but if you were to do a cost / benefit analysis on it versus motorway spending (and, say, bus priority measures in traffic blackspots on the general road network), it's unlikely to come out on top.

Quackster

Wagon360 wrote: »

Believe it or not in infrastructure terms €100m is actually good value for a virtually new length of railway line, and it is a key investment in our future.

If it was a new length of railway line that was actually fit for purpose, I'd wholeheartedly agree with you.

Losty Dublin

Muckyboots wrote: »

So you are saying that if the Greenways were not there that the adults and kids would be still be cycling anyway, really?- in heavy traffic? If you are making bubble bursting claims you'll need a better point than this.

I know Westport fairly well and, having a school going niece and nephew who live there, I've done the school run for them and the traffic is shockingly bad. Some mornings you'd need an hour to get in, drop them off and get back to the house, a drive of about 6 miles. The horror is in the last mile into the town itself; central Dublin wouldn't be as bad all the time.

The Western Greenway isn't helping to get school kids on bikes as it doesn't really pass through a residential area (Unless they fancy a 10km trip to Newport for their education) although the Quay one is. It serves several housing estates, cuts out the towns God awful hills and it ends close enough to the town's secondary schools and one of the primary schools. Ironically, Rice College sits beside the Greenway.

Oddly enough, what will ease the towns traffic snarls is the N5 upgrade. Once this is build the commute patterns in the town will change somewhat, and the car will gain once more.

Hugh Jampton

serfboard wrote: »

Over 100 million Euro spent on Ennis->Athenry and still no desperately needed M20 gives the lie to this claim.

€500m on the M17. Was that a less urgent project than the M20? A relief road for Claregalway needed because of the M17 and the constant push for a ring road for Galway? Where does the spending on roads end?

marno21

Wagon360 wrote: »

How much for the M17 tuam bypass again? €500m plus I believe. Believe it or not in infrastructure terms €100m is actually good value for a virtually new length of railway line, and it is a key investment in our future.

The M17, like all major road/transport projects, had/has to meet rigorous DPER project appraisal/cost benefit criteria, which it did.

The M17 does not require an operating subvention. If the M17 required an operating subvention of €40 per passenger journey it certainly would not have been built.

Hugh Jampton

marno21 wrote: »

The M17, like all major road/transport projects, had/has to meet rigorous DPER project appraisal/cost benefit criteria, which it did.

The M17 does not require an operating subvention. If the M17 required an operating subvention of €40 per passenger journey it certainly would not have been built.

But it was a greater priority than the M20, seemingly.. Is there actually a bottom to the number of road schemes and all those lovely compulsory purchase schemes?

marno21

Hugh Jampton wrote: »

But it was a greater priority than the M20, seemingly.. Is there actually a bottom to the number of road schemes and all those lovely compulsory purchase schemes?

It was one of 5 PPP schemes with planning permission when the PPP plan was reactivated in 2012 or so (M17/M18, N7 Newlands Cross, M11 Enniscorthy, M11 Arklow-Rathnew, N25 New Ross). The M20 was cancelled in 2011 when ABP approval would require a land purchase not affordable at the time.

Ireland was quite late to the roadbuilding party. Substantial sections of the Galway/Cork/Limerick/Waterford roads to Dublin were single carriageway less than 10 years ago. We are playing catchup so the roadbuilding is here to stay for a while. Most other countries built their M20s 30/40 years ago.

Hugh Jampton

Hugh Jampton wrote: »

€500m on the M17. Was that a less urgent project than the M20? A relief road for Claregalway needed because of the M17 and the constant push for a ring road for Galway? Where does the spending on roads end?

Oh yes. Shadow Tolls and maintenance costs. Railways are expected to cover their building and maintenance costs and any subvention is a 'shortfall' or 'subsidy'.

TFI was supposed to be part of a move towards having the railways as part of the same national transport network as roads. Yet they are still thought of something to be cannibalised while roads can be constructed to the point where relief roads are necessary. I've never heard advocating for the M20 or an outer relief road for the M50 as "crayonism" or "white elephant" but any attempt to change the disastrous path to gridlock in Galway is fought tooth and nail.

marno21

Hugh Jampton wrote: »

Oh yes. Shadow Tolls and maintenance costs. Railways are expected to cover their building and maintenance costs and any subvention is a 'shortfall' or 'subsidy'.

TFI was supposed to be part of a move towards having the railways as part of the same national transport network as roads. Yet they are still thought of something to be cannibalised while roads can be constructed to the point where relief roads are necessary. I've never heard advocating for the M20 or an outer relief road for the M50 as "crayonism" or "white elephant" but any attempt to change the disastrous path to gridlock in Galway is fought tooth and nail.

I'll assume you quoted my post.

The "shadow toll" is simply how the Government are funding it as a PPP in order to get around capital spending restrictions. Maintenance costs are covered by the PPP concessionaire, it's a DBFOM contract (design build finance operate and maintain). The M17 has a positive cost benefit analysis, otherwise it wouldn't be built.

Empty trains not only don't cover their construction costs but they also don't cover their operating costs. Hence why they are not being built. The Ennis-Athenry line was a political move in a time when the Government thought they could piss money for these vanity projects. It will not be repeated.

TFI or TII? The M20 has previously and will again pass the DPER project appraisal requirements as it would be largely beneficial to the economy of Cork, Limerick, Munster and Ireland. The Western Rail Corridor will not, no matter how many times the trainspotters throw out words like "sprawl" or talk ****e about reducing emissions or sustainable development.

Del.Monte

marno21 wrote: »

I'll assume you quoted my post.

The "shadow toll" is simply how the Government are funding it as a PPP in order to get around capital spending restrictions. Maintenance costs are covered by the PPP concessionaire, it's a DBFOM contract (design build finance operate and maintain). The M17 has a positive cost benefit analysis, otherwise it wouldn't be built.

Empty trains not only don't cover their construction costs but they also don't cover their operating costs. Hence why they are not being built. The Ennis-Athenry line was a political move in a time when the Government thought they could piss money for these vanity projects. It will not be repeated.

TFI or TII? The M20 has previously and will again pass the DPER project appraisal requirements as it would be largely beneficial to the economy of Cork, Limerick, Munster and Ireland. The Western Rail Corridor will not, no matter how many times the trainspotters throw out words like "sprawl" or talk ****e about reducing emissions or sustainable development.

You sound like you work in the NTA or some such and I love the way you're so adamant about the reason for things being built or otherwise. How about Clonsilla/Navan - that wouldn't have been empty trains but it couldn't be completed by the politicians and civil servants that you place so much faith in.

Del.Monte

Del.Monte wrote: »

You sound like you work in the NTA or some such and I love the way you're so adamant about the reason for things being built or otherwise. How about Clonsilla/Navan - that wouldn't have been empty trains but it couldn't be completed by the politicians and civil servants that you place so much faith in.

Navan railway thread is that way - - - - >

marno21

Del.Monte wrote: »

You sound like you work in the NTA or some such and I love the way you're so adamant about the reason for things being built or otherwise. How about Clonsilla/Navan - that wouldn't have been empty trains but it couldn't be completed by the politicians and civil servants that you place so much faith in.

I don't work for the NTA.

My post reflects reality, that's how things are done nowadays. Perhaps Tuam-Athenry may get done as a political scheme down the road, but it certainly will not pass a feasibility study based on reducing sprawl, improving Ireland's contribution to climate change etc.

Before it was built, Ennis-Athenry was championed as a project that would demonstrate the success of the Western Rail Corridor. It has been a massive failure, especially for the towns along the route it was supposed to rejuvenate.

I would fully support Tuam-Athenry if there was a reason for people to make the journey by rail. As long as the majority of people in Galway are employed in business parks along the N6 it has no business case. That's just a reflection of the "road" Galway has gone down in the last few decades.

end of the road

marno21 wrote: »

Before it was built, Ennis-Athenry was championed as a project that would demonstrate the success of the Western Rail Corridor. It has been a massive failure, especially for the towns along the route it was supposed to rejuvenate.

a massive failure dispite growing numbers? the only thing that can rejuvenate towns is jobs.

marno21

end of the road wrote: »

a massive failure dispite growing numbers? the only thing that can rejuvenate towns is jobs.

Can you give me a link to that claim please so I can have a look.

If your second line is true then close the 3 stations and improve end-end line speeds.

Hugh Jampton

marno21 wrote: »

Can you give me a link to that claim please so I can have a look.

If your second line is true then close the 3 stations and improve end-end line speeds.

Here’s one link: http://connachttribune.ie/galway-limerick-passenger-hike-leads-renewed-calls-extension-222/

marno21

Hugh Jampton wrote: »

Here’s one link: http://connachttribune.ie/galway-limerick-passenger-hike-leads-renewed-calls-extension-222/

This is Limerick-Galway, including Ennis-Limerick and Athenry-Galway, am I right?

Most of these passengers would still be there if Ennis-Athenry were shut.

2016 figures are also negatable as they don't reflect the opening of the M18.

end of the road

marno21 wrote: »

This is Limerick-Galway, including Ennis-Limerick and Athenry-Galway, am I right?

Most of these passengers would still be there if Ennis-Athenry were shut.

well actually we don't know this for definite given that there are quite a lot of through passengers now from what i understand.

marno21 wrote: »

2016 figures are also negatable as they don't reflect the opening of the M18.

not really, as the m18 will still have traffic congestion at each end most likely, which won't make it as appealing to travel as some will hope.

monument

marno21 wrote: »

I'll assume you quoted my post.

The "shadow toll" is simply how the Government are funding it as a PPP in order to get around capital spending restrictions. Maintenance costs are covered by the PPP concessionaire, it's a DBFOM contract (design build finance operate and maintain). The M17 has a positive cost benefit analysis, otherwise it wouldn't be built.

Empty trains not only don't cover their construction costs but they also don't cover their operating costs. Hence why they are not being built. The Ennis-Athenry line was a political move in a time when the Government thought they could piss money for these vanity projects. It will not be repeated.

TFI or TII? The M20 has previously and will again pass the DPER project appraisal requirements as it would be largely beneficial to the economy of Cork, Limerick, Munster and Ireland. The Western Rail Corridor will not, no matter how many times the trainspotters throw out words like "sprawl" or talk ****e about reducing emissions or sustainable development.

Please don’t refer to them as trainspotters— it’s irrelevant.

— moderator

Del.Monte wrote: »

You sound like you work in the NTA or some such and I love the way you're so adamant about the reason for things being built or otherwise. How about Clonsilla/Navan - that wouldn't have been empty trains but it couldn't be completed by the politicians and civil servants that you place so much faith in.

One month ban for that given your recent ban and infraction before that.

— Moderater

Hugh Jampton

marno21 wrote: »

talk ****e about reducing emissions or sustainable development.

I was trying to remember where I had heard sustainable development so vehemently criticised. These two links reminded me.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/11/tea-party-agenda-21-un-sustainable-development/

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jun/24/agenda-21-conspiracy-theory-sustainability

I can see why it angers those on the Tea Party Right, it’s less clear in an Irish context. But then again, as I pointed out earlier, those who support sprawl in rural Ireland will latch on to a convenient ideological reason to defend the status quo in the wider political context

Hugh Jampton

Hugh Jampton wrote: »

I was trying to remember where I had heard sustainable development so vehemently criticised. These two links reminded me.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/11/tea-party-agenda-21-un-sustainable-development/

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jun/24/agenda-21-conspiracy-theory-sustainability

I can see why it angers those on the Tea Party Right, it’s less clear in an Irish context. But then again, as I pointed out earlier, those who support sprawl in rural Ireland will latch on to a convenient ideological reason to defend the status quo in the wider political context

Sigh, Nobody is against sustainable development but it has been pointed out that the WRC is the very opposite of sustainable development. Trying to attach that label to that project is laughable considering the subvention and the fact that it's mostly near empty most of the time.

Sustainable development has to be just that, sustainable

schemingbohemia

end of the road wrote: »

a massive failure dispite growing numbers? the only thing that can rejuvenate towns is jobs.

Growing numbers? The numbers at Gort, Ardrahan and Craughwell were less in 2016 than in 2012 - 54 vs 59

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/NTA_Rail_Census_Report_2017_FINAL.pdf

Even skewing things to include Ennis and Sixmilebridge both of those together saw a decrease from 336 in 2012 to 210.

Granted Oranmore has seen an increase to a massive 70 or 2 bus loads.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Sigh, Nobody is against sustainable development but it has been pointed out that the WRC is the very opposite of sustainable development. Trying to attach that label to that project is laughable considering the subvention and the fact that it's mostly near empty most of the time.

Sustainable development has to be just that, sustainable

it's not laughable, normal countries build infrastructure first and then encourage development around that infrastructure. we do the exact opposite.