Galway to Moycullen Cycle Greenway?

nuac

galwaycyclist wrote: »

This is exactly the point. The potential benefits are huge and if done correctly we could see multiples of this across the country.

However, Mayo did not invent cycling tourism and many would dispute descriptions of the the Westport Greenway as "world class". It is simply the best we have at the moment. Likewise the tourism product associated with the current greenway is very limited.

Mayo got lucky in that when funding came up it went to the Community and Enterprise Department of the County Council rather than the Roads Department.

It could just as easily been a similar cock up to Galway but the gods happened to flip the coin the right way for change.

In Mayo I don't think it was a matter of luck between Roads and Community Enterprise. The COunty Manager of the day had appointed a dynamic Director of Services to the Westport/West Mayo area. An architect with a strong interest in community development rather than a former roads engineer.

The Achill/Westport line had long been discussed for various uses. The DOS appointed an engineer and walks officers who were good negotiators. They liaised with Failte Eireann, local community groups and landowners. Many meetings with landowners in their houses and with community groups rather than correspondence and notices.

I think it was always regarded in West Mayo as a community tourism project .rather than a roads project.

As stated above it is small ( for now ) but we, and many thousands of visitors each year like it.
It has been extended to Castlebar and there are plans to further extend it

Pete_Cavan

Does anyone know the official status of the former rail line in question? Has the land has officially changed ownership or if the current occupiers just moved in and think they can claim squatters or other rights to it? From other reading on this site (which I assume to be true, open to correction), the land has to be formally abandoned by way of Act of Parliament before adverse possession can occur because statute law trumps common law. This would mean that the state can ultimately enforce their ownership of lines not formally abandoned.

If the above is true, and no agreement can be reached, then the state should fight someone claiming squatters rights/adverse possession all the way through the courts until we have a definitive outcome. At least that way greenway promoters and landowners would know exactly where they stand in these situations. We need an official legal ruling on former rail lines and parameters set as to when they change ownership. It would simplify greenway negotiations and it might prompt CIE to actually do something about protecting unused rail lines.

This may not be relevant to this greenway project but it does effect other proposed greenway projects around the country. IMO the one off cost of taking such a case would be well worth it if it gives clarity no these matters and we dont have to go round in circles for years before we can build a greenway.

Bullocks

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Does anyone know the official status of the former rail line in question? Has the land has officially changed ownership or if the current occupiers just moved in and think they can claim squatters or other rights to it? From other reading on this site (which I assume to be true, open to correction), the land has to be formally abandoned by way of Act of Parliament before adverse possession can occur because statute law trumps common law. This would mean that the state can ultimately enforce their ownership of lines not formally abandoned.

If the above is true, and no agreement can be reached, then the state should fight someone claiming squatters rights/adverse possession all the way through the courts until we have a definitive outcome. At least that way greenway promoters and landowners would know exactly where they stand in these situations. We need an official legal ruling on former rail lines and parameters set as to when they change ownership. It would simplify greenway negotiations and it might prompt CIE to actually do something about protecting unused rail lines.

This may not be relevant to this greenway project but it does effect other proposed greenway projects around the country. IMO the one off cost of taking such a case would be well worth it if it gives clarity no these matters and we dont have to go round in circles for years before we can build a greenway.

That would be interesting to know alright ,we have the railway on some of our land but don't know did the grandfather buy it or just claim it after it was abandoned . It was ridiculous that the government didn't at least keep it fenced off just in case they wanted it in the future and even more ridiculous that they actually gave planning permission for some people to build houses and sheds on it

nuac

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Does anyone know the official status of the former rail line in question? Has the land has officially changed ownership or if the current occupiers just moved in and think they can claim squatters or other rights to it? From other reading on this site (which I assume to be true, open to correction), the land has to be formally abandoned by way of Act of Parliament before adverse possession can occur because statute law trumps common law. This would mean that the state can ultimately enforce their ownership of lines not formally abandoned.

If the above is true, and no agreement can be reached, then the state should fight someone claiming squatters rights/adverse possession all the way through the courts until we have a definitive outcome. At least that way greenway promoters and landowners would know exactly where they stand in these situations. We need an official legal ruling on former rail lines and parameters set as to when they change ownership. It would simplify greenway negotiations and it might prompt CIE to actually do something about protecting unused rail lines.

This may not be relevant to this greenway project but it does effect other proposed greenway projects around the country. IMO the one off cost of taking such a case would be well worth it if it gives clarity no these matters and we dont have to go round in circles for years before we can build a greenway.

Keep it simple here folks

Regarding the Wesport/Achill line

This was owned by one of the Railway companies, not by the state. When the service finished in late thirties the entire line Wpt to Achill was sold, including gatekeepers' cottages, railway stations etc. The disused railway line, after the rails were taken up, was sold to adjoining landowners.

There were covenants regarding the upkeep of fences and drains which are still on the titles there

Some people may have acquired title by adverse possession later. That would depend on local circs, nothing to do with rail co.

Same rail co operated Galway -Clifden, so legal position the same imho

flazio

I would consider Westmeath the capital of trail biking at the moment. Between the Old Rail Trail and the Royal canal between Abbeyshrule and Hill of the Downs all tarmacced. Plenty of milage available.

galwaycyclist

nuac wrote: »

Keep it simple here folks

Regarding the Wesport/Achill line

This was owned by one of the Railway companies, not by the state. When the service finished in late thirties the entire line Wpt to Achill was sold, including gatekeepers' cottages, railway stations etc. The disused railway line, after the rails were taken up, was sold to adjoining landowners.

There were covenants regarding the upkeep of fences and drains which are still on the titles there

Some people may have acquired title by adverse possession later. That would depend on local circs, nothing to do with rail co.

Same rail co operated Galway -Clifden, so legal position the same imho

Yes the Galway Clifden line was sold to the landowners whose land it passed through.

It is their land.

yer man!

Is there any update on the progress of the this section? I've heard the Clifden to Oughterard is being constructed.

Bullocks

yer man! wrote: »

Is there any update on the progress of the this section? I've heard the Clifden to Oughterard is being constructed.

I'd say there is still a fair bit of opposition to it going in . We have a bit of the railway in our place and havent been approched about it at all lately