Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

eastwest

Muckyboots wrote: »

It's actually worse than that. If Athenry to Claremorris, as an option, isn't included in the Greenway Strategy, to be published in April, its game over.

I suspect that this is the strategy. The entire focus coming from that camp in recent times is just to block the greenway. Nobody now believes the train story.

trellheim

I could not believe it when I saw west on track on RTE. What on earth is to be gained by blocking a greenway, much as I'm a rail fan this is siily. Who would block such a thing ?

trellheim

trellheim wrote: »

I could not believe it when I saw west on track on RTE. What on earth is to be gained by blocking a greenway, much as I'm a rail fan this is siily. Who would block such a thing ?

People who are fearful that if ever rail becomes a viable option at some point in the future, the greenway lobbyists will prevent any future reversion to rail use.

The best defence from such a possibility happening, is to stop the greenway from being built.

Isambard

yes it's a good strategy, what's needed is a negotiated settlement where it is laid down that the route can be regained for rail at some future time, maybe a series of short-term leases would achieve that.

eastwest

Isambard wrote: »

yes it's a good strategy, what's needed is a negotiated settlement where it is laid down that the route can be regained for rail at some future time, maybe a series of short-term leases would achieve that.

The Irish rail position is crystal clear. The route remains in their ownership and the greenway is built under a permissive access agreement that gives the local authority no rights in the event that it is needed for rail. Irish Rail official policy is that the wrc 'is required for future rail use' and I don't know any greenway lobbyist who has a problem with that.
The story that the greenway users (they won't own it, any more than a motorist owns the road) could block rail use is just scaremongering. The Comber situation in NI is used by WOT as a reason not to build a greenway, but it has zero relevance to the western rail trail.
The people lobbying now for a greenway don't own the asset, but neither do west on track, they are just a small lobby group with far too much influence.

Isambard

eastwest wrote: »

The Irish rail position is crystal clear. The route remains in their ownership and the greenway is built under a permissive access agreement that gives the local authority no rights in the event that it is needed for rail. Irish Rail official policy is that the wrc 'is required for future rail use' and I don't know any greenway lobbyist who has a problem with that.
The story that the greenway users (they won't own it, any more than a motorist owns the road) could block rail use is just scaremongering. The Comber situation in NI is used by WOT as a reason not to build a greenway, but it has zero relevance to the western rail trail.
The people lobbying now for a greenway don't own the asset, but neither do west on track, they are just a small lobby group with far too much influence.

Yes I know that but would not a short term ,say 10 year, lease solve the problem? A set date at which the Greenway may be closed down and a target for the Greenway people to plan it's replacement if required.
The WoT people will keep fighting if they think that the alignment would be lost forever, making it clear legally that it's only short term usage and giving them the opportunity to plan it's reinstatement as as rail line.
If it's all set down in black and white with no grounds for the Greenway people to oppose it's return as a rail route,a binding agreement, then the grounds for opposing it now would be less.

Muckyboots

Isambard wrote: »

Yes I know that but would not a short term ,say 10 year, lease solve the problem? A set date at which the Greenway may be closed down and a target for the Greenway people to plan it's replacement if required.
The WoT people will keep fighting if they think that the alignment would be lost forever, making it clear legally that it's only short term usage and giving them the opportunity to plan it's reinstatement as as rail line.
If it's all set down in black and white with no grounds for the Greenway people to oppose it's return as a rail route,a binding agreement, then the grounds for opposing it now would be less.

CIE lease all their properties on a 10 year rolling lease with an option to revoke the lease at any time, if the property or land is needed for core activities. WoT know this better than anybody.
Mistakes have made over the last 10 years by pandering to their ideological and nostalgic nonsense. Their political power is weaning and their sphere of influence is diminishing. Time, and a new persistence by the local communities on whom they inflict their crony fuelled backwardness, will sort this out.

BowSideChamp

What is the rest of WRC line like - Athenry to Tuam? Is it a flooded swamp like Ballycar?

eastwest

WoT fear the success of the greenway more than any concerns about the lease. The fear isn't that the 'people on bikes' will prevent the development of a railway, it is that a successful greenway will become such a backbone of the local economy that it will completely eclipse their railway dream.
In short, they know that the greenway is a much more attractive project than the railway, and that is what bothers them. The only way to combat that is to block and belittle the greenway.

end of the road

eastwest wrote: »

WoT fear the success of the greenway more than any concerns about the lease. The fear isn't that the 'people on bikes' will prevent the development of a railway, it is that a successful greenway will become such a backbone of the local economy that it will completely eclipse their railway dream.
In short, they know that the greenway is a much more attractive project than the railway, and that is what bothers them. The only way to combat that is to block and belittle the greenway.

in my opinion you are effectively backing up the reason the other poster gave for wot trying to block the greenway. they know that if the greenway is successful the greenway lobby will fight regardless of legalities to keep it, prohibiting it's re-use for rail. it will be politically unacceptable and impossible to allow the greenway to be removed, and CIE would be told not to persue the issue in my view. had the greenway lobby gone with another route there could have been a greenway up and running a long time ago even if it cost a bit more to build in terms of land purchase costs. i'm with wot on this one even if i believe the wrc past tuam at least shouldn't be reopened in the medium term.

Harcourt Street

eastwest wrote: »

WoT fear the success of the greenway more than any concerns about the lease. The fear isn't that the 'people on bikes' will prevent the development of a railway, it is that a successful greenway will become such a backbone of the local economy that it will completely eclipse their railway dream.
In short, they know that the greenway is a much more attractive project than the railway, and that is what bothers them. The only way to combat that is to block and belittle the greenway.

Let’s make this perfectly clear. You don’t speak for anyone other than yourself and your anti rail campaign.

Accidentally

I honestly cannot believe that people are still fighting for this. The section to Athenry has already proved that it's a waste of money. Yes people like the idea of having a railway, but they have little intention of using it.

Let the cyclists have their greenway. It will be a lot safer than the current route, and might actually generate some tourism and jobs. For everyone else, continue the road upgrades from Milltown north.

I've nothing against railways, but we should be concentrating on links to places like Navan, or tram systems in Cork and Galway.

Harcourt Street

Accidentally wrote: »

I honestly cannot believe that people are still fighting for this. The section to Athenry has already proved that it's a waste of money. Yes people like the idea of having a railway, but they have little intention of using it.

Let the cyclists have their greenway. It will be a lot safer than the current route, and might actually generate some tourism and jobs. For everyone else, continue the road upgrades from Milltown north.

I've nothing against railways, but we should be concentrating on links to places like Navan, or tram systems in Cork and Galway.

There’s a far wider issue of how the entire West is connected by road as well as rail. If towns and cities are being developed it makes far more sense to discourage sprawl and one off housing by building towns up. There is however a very strong road lobby out there who want sprawl and want our current situation with one off housing to continue. Couple that with the tendency of the anti WRC campaigners to make it all very personal against their opponents and you have a perfect storm.

eastwest wrote: »

In a sense, what the public wants is irrelevant. This is all about politics; eamon o'cuiv is promising trains everywhere so Sean Kyne had to promise more trains to more places. Sean Canney is a one trick pony who built his reputation on trains and can't afford to tell the truth at this stage. Michael Ring will fund anything as long as it is in westport, so promising a train is easy for him -- he knows it will never happen so it won't ever be a drain on his budget. And all of them have assorted councilors who are sticking with the west on track bandwagon because it works as a vote getter. There is even a bit of crossover, with Sean Kyne's parliamentary assistant being a WOT councillor.
Mad stuff, but don't be fooled into thinking that the interests of the population has anything to do with it.

There’s more of this stuff from the anti rail campaigners, they like to find a villain to campaign against; anyone who doesn’t follow their trains bad, bikes good mantra will do. They make blatantly false statements about passenger numbers, they bully and harass council officers doing their job and anyone who campaigns against them is “fair game” along the lines of how the Scientologists manage dissent.

So yes, it’s bitter. However not everyone in power sees the world the way they see it; and that is what makes them angry.

eastwest

end of the road wrote: »

in my opinion you are effectively backing up the reason the other poster gave for wot trying to block the greenway. they know that if the greenway is successful the greenway lobby will fight regardless of legalities to keep it, prohibiting it's re-use for rail. it will be politically unacceptable and impossible to allow the greenway to be removed, and CIE would be told not to persue the issue in my view. had the greenway lobby gone with another route there could have been a greenway up and running a long time ago even if it cost a bit more to build in terms of land purchase costs. i'm with wot on this one even if i believe the wrc past tuam at least shouldn't be reopened in the medium term.

With respect, you're missing the point. The 'greenway lobby' will have no say in whether the route reverts to rail at some time in the distant future. If the numbers stack up, nobody in their right mind would oppose a railway on the route.
The problem, as outlined in Dail Eireann by an Taoiseach last week, is that the numbers are a universe away from stacking up at this point in time, so rail is not an option for the foreseeable future. The options are either to let the asset disintegrate or to use it for some other purpose that does not preclude future rail use. A greenway is the accepted best practice to that end; letting it rot just leaves it open to being lost from public ownership, by squatting and by loss to road building as has happened elsewhere.
Irish Rail, whose stated policy is that the asset is required for future rail use, supports this view. Furthermore, they have clearly stated that the existing tracks and stone base are if scrap value only and will have to be removed if they are to build a functioning railway.
So, just using logic for a minute instead of emotive 'save the rails' rhetoric, the obvious solution that meets everyone's needs is to build a greenway on the existing track bed, instead of trucking in thousands of tons of stone to build it beside the rusting line. Then, in twenty years time when things may be different and a railway makes sense, remove the greenway in sections and replace it with a railway, and include in the construction contract a design element that builds a greenway on the edge of the alignment as part of the job.
Why not build it on the edge of the alignment now? Because it will cost significantly more and make a greenway bid uncompetitive compared to places like Waterford where they understand all this basic stuff. And because a greenway on the track bed protects the entire alignment, and because it is daft to get involved in the expense of building bridges and other diversions for the greenway now unless there is a definite railway project on the cards.
Campaigners like me are not anti railway, just anti the wasting of public funds and the diversion of our taxes away from real infrastructure that gives a return and on to vanity projects based on some political ideology. When and if a railway meets the accepted financial criteria on this route, I will get behind it just as I have got behind the logical project now. 'Build it and they will come' might have beem the mantra in the wild west when rail was the only game in town, but it is not good governance in this day and age and it is not the solution to the problems of towns like Kiltimagh.

westtip

Harcourt Street wrote: »

Let’s make this perfectly clear. You don’t speak for anyone other than yourself and your anti rail campaign.

Actually Mr 2 posts EASTWEST speaks for quite few (well actually thousands) who support the greenway on the closed railway campaign, would you like to know the numbers EASTWEST is speaking for:

800 people in Mayo who expressed a view they wanted a greenway in the Swinford Vision for the future survey in 2012

287 people who made submissions to Mayo county council in 2013 asking for a greenway on the closed railway to be written into the Mayo county plan

Over 6000 people who have signed petitions on change.org asking for a greenway on the route of the closed railway. I set those petitions up and can reliably inform you over 4,000 signatures come from folk living in the West.

As for the support and likes etc in places like Facebook it runs into thousands of well wishers for the greenway campaign.

I think but I am sure someone from Tuam can confirm this, in excess of 3000 hard copy petitioners signatures asking for the Tuam greenway section to be built, tht is actual people putting their hands on a piece of paper and saying yes I want to see this happen.

Over 1000 people who have actually put their hands in their pockets and purchased shares in the Sligo Greenway Co-op in county sligo.

Oh and by the way as you have only written two posts on this thread you could trawl back a bit. EASTWEST nor indeed me, nor indeed others like Muckyboots are anti rail. We happen to be anti waste and there are thousands of people in the west of Ireland who support this idea.

But let's not make this personal, lets make it factual eh. This whole thing has got a bit fractious the past few days, you would think the announcement there was going to be yet another study into the WRC was a cast iron guarentee the thing is going to be added to the National Development Plan as if it naturally belonged there.

Canney has been given his report because he is needed to hold the government up, not because of same change of opinion at cabinet level.

The Taoiseach spelt out the numbers last Wednesday. Cost 100 Benefit 6 for the last report into the WRC, so be careful what you wish for. Canney is on record of saying if he report says its not a runner he will back the greenway, he has his escape clause. And who knows the report that West on Track spokesperson on the 6.1 news last Friday welcomed may turn out to be the end of this show. Be careful what you wish for. It won't be another McCann Report.

devnull

Reminder to all members to play the post and not the poster.

- Moderator

Accidentally

Harcourt Street wrote: »

There’s a far wider issue of how the entire West is connected by road as well as rail. If towns and cities are being developed it makes far more sense to discourage sprawl and one off housing by building towns up. There is however a very strong road lobby out there who want sprawl and want our current situation with one off housing to continue. Couple that with the tendency of the anti WRC campaigners to make it all very personal against their opponents and you have a perfect storm.

I've no problem with any of this, but unfortunately that's not the reality on the ground today, and is not likely to be so for at least a generation. In the meantime roads, cars and buses are the only game in town.

Contrast that with Navan, where you have exactly the density and demand you talk about, but no rail service.

The cycle route may upset railway enthusiasts, but at least you won't find a pipeline or bungalow built across the line when you come to reinstate it.

Shn99

People need to just get over it, The fantasy that is the Western Rail Corridor is not happening. Maybe if Phase 1 was done properly in the first place there might be a case for P2 and P3. But no. The WRC line speeds are slow, stopping at pointless stations doesnt help either. The bit on the WRC in the National Plan was only to shut Canney up.Stop getting excited

end of the road

Accidentally wrote: »

I honestly cannot believe that people are still fighting for this. The section to Athenry has already proved that it's a waste of money. Yes people like the idea of having a railway, but they have little intention of using it.

Let the cyclists have their greenway. It will be a lot safer than the current route, and might actually generate some tourism and jobs. For everyone else, continue the road upgrades from Milltown north.

I've nothing against railways, but we should be concentrating on links to places like Navan, or tram systems in Cork and Galway.

yes, let the cyclists have their greenway, on a different and likely more attractive route with more potential. if the cyclists had done that years ago they would probably have a greenway by now. what upgrades are planned north of milltown, and what justification is there for these upgrades? is there enough traffic to justify those upgrades?

eastwest wrote: »

With respect, you're missing the point. The 'greenway lobby' will have no say in whether the route reverts to rail at some time in the distant future. If the numbers stack up, nobody in their right mind would oppose a railway on the route.
The problem, as outlined in Dail Eireann by an Taoiseach last week, is that the numbers are a universe away from stacking up at this point in time, so rail is not an option for the foreseeable future. The options are either to let the asset disintegrate or to use it for some other purpose that does not preclude future rail use. A greenway is the accepted best practice to that end; letting it rot just leaves it open to being lost from public ownership, by squatting and by loss to road building as has happened elsewhere.
Irish Rail, whose stated policy is that the asset is required for future rail use, supports this view. Furthermore, they have clearly stated that the existing tracks and stone base are if scrap value only and will have to be removed if they are to build a functioning railway.
So, just using logic for a minute instead of emotive 'save the rails' rhetoric, the obvious solution that meets everyone's needs is to build a greenway on the existing track bed, instead of trucking in thousands of tons of stone to build it beside the rusting line. Then, in twenty years time when things may be different and a railway makes sense, remove the greenway in sections and replace it with a railway, and include in the construction contract a design element that builds a greenway on the edge of the alignment as part of the job.
Why not build it on the edge of the alignment now? Because it will cost significantly more and make a greenway bid uncompetitive compared to places like Waterford where they understand all this basic stuff. And because a greenway on the track bed protects the entire alignment, and because it is daft to get involved in the expense of building bridges and other diversions for the greenway now unless there is a definite railway project on the cards.
Campaigners like me are not anti railway, just anti the wasting of public funds and the diversion of our taxes away from real infrastructure that gives a return and on to vanity projects based on some political ideology. When and if a railway meets the accepted financial criteria on this route, I will get behind it just as I have got behind the logical project now. 'Build it and they will come' might have beem the mantra in the wild west when rail was the only game in town, but it is not good governance in this day and age and it is not the solution to the problems of towns like Kiltimagh.

sorry but i would have to disagree. if the greenway was successful, even if the numbers did stack up for a railway, the outcry over the removal of the greenway would be such that it would be politically impossible to facilitate and allow it's removal. CIE are owned by the state so in that situation, i believe it is likely they would be "asked" not to persue the issue. removing the greenway in sections and including the rebuilding of the greenway in the rail construction contract would put the price of the railway up quite a bit, so it's not an option. building it on the edge of the line now would absolutely make a greenway bid competitive, as even if it cost more, it would likely be a lower cost then your idea of tagging it onto the rail construction contract.

westtip wrote: »

Actually Mr 2 posts EASTWEST speaks for quite few (well actually thousands) who support the greenway on the closed railway campaign, would you like to know the numbers EASTWEST is speaking for:

800 people in Mayo who expressed a view they wanted a greenway in the Swinford Vision for the future survey in 2012

287 people who made submissions to Mayo county council in 2013 asking for a greenway on the closed railway to be written into the Mayo county plan

Over 6000 people who have signed petitions on change.org asking for a greenway on the route of the closed railway. I set those petitions up and can reliably inform you over 4,000 signatures come from folk living in the West.

As for the support and likes etc in places like Facebook it runs into thousands of well wishers for the greenway campaign.

I think but I am sure someone from Tuam can confirm this, in excess of 3000 hard copy petitioners signatures asking for the Tuam greenway section to be built, tht is actual people putting their hands on a piece of paper and saying yes I want to see this happen.

Over 1000 people who have actually put their hands in their pockets and purchased shares in the Sligo Greenway Co-op in county sligo.

Oh and by the way as you have only written two posts on this thread you could trawl back a bit. EASTWEST nor indeed me, nor indeed others like Muckyboots are anti rail. We happen to be anti waste and there are thousands of people in the west of Ireland who support this idea.

But let's not make this personal, lets make it factual eh. This whole thing has got a bit fractious the past few days, you would think the announcement there was going to be yet another study into the WRC was a cast iron guarentee the thing is going to be added to the National Development Plan as if it naturally belonged there.

Canney has been given his report because he is needed to hold the government up, not because of same change of opinion at cabinet level.

The Taoiseach spelt out the numbers last Wednesday. Cost 100 Benefit 6 for the last report into the WRC, so be careful what you wish for. Canney is on record of saying if he report says its not a runner he will back the greenway, he has his escape clause. And who knows the report that West on Track spokesperson on the 6.1 news last Friday welcomed may turn out to be the end of this show. Be careful what you wish for. It won't be another McCann Report.

thousands of people supporting it is different to thousands actually using it. ireland has a long history of it's people supporting things but when it comes to actually doing, the numbers end up being very small. if these thousands of people support the idea so much, then why not find a more attractive route and get the funds together to help toards the build of the greenway, had you done that you would have had one years ago. as it stands, you are unlikely to get a greenway any time soon.

Accidentally wrote: »

I've no problem with any of this, but unfortunately that's not the reality on the ground today, and is not likely to be so for at least a generation. In the meantime roads, cars and buses are the only game in town.

Contrast that with Navan, where you have exactly the density and demand you talk about, but no rail service.

The cycle route may upset railway enthusiasts, but at least you won't find a pipeline or bungalow built across the line when you come to reinstate it.

roads cars and busses are not the only game in town, the world has moved on since the 1960s when that idea was all the rage and didn't work. building for the future starts now, today.

end of the road

Shn99 wrote: »

People need to just get over it, The fantasy that is the Western Rail Corridor is not happening. Maybe if Phase 1 was done properly in the first place there might be a case for P2 and P3. But no. The WRC line speeds are slow, stopping at pointless stations doesnt help either. The bit on the WRC in the National Plan was only to shut Canney up.Stop getting excited

people don't need to get over it at all, they are correct to have reservations about the use of any rail line as a greenway, especially one the length of the wrc north of athenry, even if it isn't planned to open. they are also entitled to be against such a proposal and protest it, as some are doing.
whether The bit on the WRC in the National Plan was or wasn't to shut Canney up isn't relevant, it means nothing to be honest.

monument

Harcourt Street wrote: »

Let’s make this perfectly clear. You don’t speak for anyone other than yourself and your anti rail campaign.

Let’s make this perfectly clear -- if you want to wait around here you have to follow the Commuting and Transport Charter.

Productive posts only.

-- moderator

Isambard

Building a short branch line to Tuam makes no sense. There are many bigger towns to which branches could be built to better effect and also some much larger towns on existing lines that are threatened with closure (Nenagh, Clonmel, Carrick-on-Suir for example ) plus I can think of several larger towns that are on existing main lines not under threat and yet have no station.

Muckyboots

end of the road wrote: »

whether The bit on the WRC in the National Plan was or wasn't to shut Canney up isn't relevant, it means nothing to be honest.

It means a lot to many people in Tuam who feel they have been kicked in the teeth by their own TD yet again. But that's his problem. You are correct that in the long run it will really means nothing- which is exactly why they gave it to him as an "appraisal" and not a statement of intent.

Accidentally

end of the road wrote: »

roads cars and busses are not the only game in town, the world has moved on since the 1960s when that idea was all the rage and didn't work. building for the future starts now, today.

In Tuam, roads, cars and Burkes buses are most definitely the only game in town, and that's not going to change anytime soon, whether the world has moved on or not.

Build it and they will come might be okay if the line was going to Galway, but Athenry is useless to people going to work, and lenses and cameras don't need rail freight.

I still can't understand why people are pushing the reopening of a line that has no density of population and won't be used, when you have Dunshauglin and Navan with the density you need and a population crying out for their line to be reopened.

end of the road

Accidentally wrote: »

In Tuam, roads, cars and Burkes buses are most definitely the only game in town, and that's not going to change anytime soon, whether the world has moved on or not.

it is going to change, cars and especially Burkes buses will never be the only solution to galway's transport needs long term. they will only ever be a part of it. rail, either light or heavy is coming to galway, it' is a case of when and not if.

Accidentally wrote: »

I still can't understand why people are pushing the reopening of a line that has no density of population and won't be used, when you have Dunshauglin and Navan with the density you need and a population crying out for their line to be reopened.

normal countries would do a couple of projects at the same time, it wouldn't be a case of not doing one because another that should have been done, hasn't been done. + most people have the capacity to support multiple things at the same time. it seems it's only ireland and the uk where it is frowned upon to support multiple causes, to support something because something else that should have been done hasn't been done, or because one may not support something else. i have the capacity to support multiple reopenings myself, i can't speak for others. i support a rail based solution to tuam whether light or heavy rail, and the reopening of the railway to navan.

eastwest

end of the road wrote: »

people don't need to get over it at all, they are correct to have reservations about the use of any rail line as a greenway, especially one the length of the wrc north of athenry, even if it isn't planned to open. they are also entitled to be against such a proposal and protest it, as some are doing.
whether The bit on the WRC in the National Plan was or wasn't to shut Canney up isn't relevant, it means nothing to be honest.

In Ireland in particular, people's first instinct is to be against projects that differ from what they are used to. There is an element of this in local politics in Galway and Mayo with regards to the closure of the railway -- councillors can only manage to grasp the notion that the railway is gone and that the enemy -- that crowd up in Dublin -- must have caused the problem. Therefore the best political route is always to rail against the closure and promise to make everything like it used to be if they get elected.
Providing an alternative, even one that makes more sense, doesn't take away the narrative of being hard done by, so it doesn't get political support even when it has strong support among the population -- 'we know best' is another part of the local political mantra.
In Waterford a significant number of councillors fought against the County Manager's plan to build the Deise Greenway. Right up to the opening day, nine councillors were firmly set against it, predicting everything from absolute failure to a crime wave if it went ahead. On the opening day in March of last year they put on their suits and lined up for photographs, never ones to miss getting their pictures in the paper. 250,000 annual visitors further on, the current proposal to extend the greenway towards Rosslare on a line that only closed ten years back has attracted almost no opposition in the Council chamber. The status quo is now a greenway that is successful, so they back it now even though they couldn't see far enough ahead to back it from the outset.
It will be the same in Tuam and Athenry. The same people who are openly opposing this development right now, and the ones who are sneakily working to block it in the background, will find it hard to stay away when the ribbon is cut. They will explain their opposition by some spin that suggests that all they wanted was to get a greenway and a railway and that they will continue to fight for the second half of the deal, if we keep voting for them.
The problem in the west is that we have a greater percentage of naysayers in politics than they do in Waterford or Kerry, and that is why we lose out on funding and they don't. The problems affecting the west are mostly located in the west, not up in Dublin.

end of the road

eastwest wrote: »

250,000 annual visitors further on, the current proposal to extend the greenway towards Rosslare on a line that only closed ten years back has attracted almost no opposition in the Council chamber.

no opposition from the council, but little to no support for it locally either from talking to people who i know around the areas the line goes through.
i don't see this particular part of the greenway happening as.
1. the line is part of a cross-country rail route and there will be those of us who will fight it being turned into a greenway.
2. the barrow bridge is in use, and will require maintenence. there are at least 1 or 2 viaducts on the line. looking after those along with drainage and all else won't come cheap.
3. bellview is in use, a new route would have to be found. waterford county council may be able to afford that but.
4. the line from rosslare strand is in use, a new route would have to be found. i'm unsure if wexford county council could afford either a new route and maintenence of the proposed greenway, and even if they could, quite frankly there are more pressing priorities on which to spend the money, some of the local roads around are a complete joke for a start.

Accidentally

end of the road wrote: »

Accidentally wrote: »

In Tuam, roads, cars and Burkes buses are most definitely the only game in town, and that's not going to change anytime soon, whether the world has moved on or not.

it is going to change, cars and especially Burkes buses will never be the only solution to galway's transport needs long term. they will only ever be a part of it. rail, either light or heavy is coming to galway, it' is a case of when and not if.

Accidentally wrote: »

I still can't understand why people are pushing the reopening of a line that has no density of population and won't be used, when you have Dunshauglin and Navan with the density you need and a population crying out for their line to be reopened.

normal countries would do a couple of projects at the same time, it wouldn't be a case of not doing one because another that should have been done, hasn't been done. + most people have the capacity to support multiple things at the same time. it seems it's only ireland and the uk where it is frowned upon to support multiple causes, to support something because something else that should have been done hasn't been done, or because one may not support something else. i have the capacity to support multiple reopenings myself, i can't speak for others. i support a rail based solution to tuam whether light or heavy rail, and the reopening of the railway to navan.

Light rail coming to Galway would be great, but it needs to be Tuam-Claregalway-Galway, not a line to Athenry that won't be used.

Again, I have no problem with multiple projects at the same time, but they have to be multiple viable projects, not reinstating a line because its there, even though it doesn't go where people need to go.

dowlingm

westtip wrote: »

the contributors to that report were loaded with west on track advocates like the former county manager of Roscommon and members of the Western Development Commission. They will not get away with such a joke report again.

*looks around* this is still Ireland, isn't it?

westtip

dowlingm wrote: »

*looks around* this is still Ireland, isn't it?

Ir does indeed concern me you may be right. But McCann happened when no one was challenging west on track, the whole thihg was a farce; they know now they are being challenged, they know what Varadkar thinks, what Donohoe thinks. This report may actually be the endgame, give Canney his report to crucify this project may actually be the double jeopardy being played here. One thing is for sure, they won't get away with another McCann, they know that we know that Varadkar knows that. we are barking and snapping at their heels.