Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

4.5 million in funding for greenways just announced including 75k for a feasibility study for Athenry to Milltown on the old unused line

westtip

Deleted User wrote: »

4.5 million in funding for greenways just announced including 75k for a feasibility study for Athenry to Milltown on the old unused line

Oh my god what more can I say, but yes look at this, and it is all over the QMG, sligo mayo greenway and Kiltimagh Greenway FB pages: Unbe---F***ing ---lievable

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/3435e-ministers-announce-funding-of-45m-to-26-greenway-pministers-announce-funding-of-45m-to-26-greenway-projectsrojects/?fbclid=IwAR1oDn3le5HOO5j1Iq0-jcLyClWCRCqIdybnWzeISA3Fg16s4DvndaRCYyg

The press release may not show the detail but look at this:

€75,000 feasibility study for QMG from Athenry to Milltown - given to Galway coco
€300,000 to get the Sligo greenway Charlestown to collooney - given to Sligo coco to get that project fully shovel ready to build
€500,000 to get the Sligo North Leitrim Enniskillen Greenway - given to Leitrim coco to get that project fully shovel ready to build

Mayo county council gets nothing in East Mayo because they didn't ask for it.

So here is a question for ye all---- do you think the Dept of Transport would dole out €75,000 if the rail report was in anyway positive about a railway coming back. Answers on a postcard please.

eastwest

westtip wrote: »

Oh my god what more can I say, but yes look at this, and it is all over the QMG, sligo mayo greenway and Kiltimagh Greenway FB pages: Unbe---F***ing ---lievable

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/3435e-ministers-announce-funding-of-45m-to-26-greenway-pministers-announce-funding-of-45m-to-26-greenway-projectsrojects/?fbclid=IwAR1oDn3le5HOO5j1Iq0-jcLyClWCRCqIdybnWzeISA3Fg16s4DvndaRCYyg

The press release may not show the detail but look at this:

€75,000 feasibility study for QMG from Athenry to Milltown - given to Galway coco
€300,000 to get the Sligo greenway Charlestown to collooney - given to Sligo coco to get that project fully shovel ready to build
€500,000 to get the Sligo North Leitrim Enniskillen Greenway - given to Leitrim coco to get that project fully shovel ready to build

Mayo county council gets nothing in East Mayo because they didn't ask for it.

So here is a question for ye all---- do you think the Dept of Transport would dole out €75,000 if the rail report was in anyway positive about a railway coming back. Answers on a postcard please.

The railway was never coming back.
Except in people's heads.

TCDStudent1

westtip wrote: »

Oh my god what more can I say, but yes look at this, and it is all over the QMG, sligo mayo greenway and Kiltimagh Greenway FB pages: Unbe---F***ing ---lievable

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/3435e-ministers-announce-funding-of-45m-to-26-greenway-pministers-announce-funding-of-45m-to-26-greenway-projectsrojects/?fbclid=IwAR1oDn3le5HOO5j1Iq0-jcLyClWCRCqIdybnWzeISA3Fg16s4DvndaRCYyg

The press release may not show the detail but look at this:

€75,000 feasibility study for QMG from Athenry to Milltown - given to Galway coco
€300,000 to get the Sligo greenway Charlestown to collooney - given to Sligo coco to get that project fully shovel ready to build
€500,000 to get the Sligo North Leitrim Enniskillen Greenway - given to Leitrim coco to get that project fully shovel ready to build

Mayo county council gets nothing in East Mayo because they didn't ask for it.

So here is a question for ye all---- do you think the Dept of Transport would dole out €75,000 if the rail report was in anyway positive about a railway coming back. Answers on a postcard please.

Why does the Athenry - Milltown route need a feasibility study when the Charlestown - Collooney section does not? Or am I missing something???

TCDStudent1

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

Why does the Athenry - Milltown route need a feasibility study when the Charlestown - Collooney section does not? Or am I missing something???

Because they (Sligo CoCo) did the study already and found it was a feckin great idea so applied for and received a lump sum to taking it to the planning phase

The main findings were

Main Findings

• There are no technical reasons why the greenway project should not proceed.
  
• The proposed greenway would provide a sustainable, scenic and safe walking and cycling facility which will benefit the wider north west region.
  
• Responses received indicate that consultees are overwhelmingly positive towards the project.
  
• The on-line option was identified as the preferred option under almost all headings as the alongside option would entail significant additional civil engineering works with environmental implications and is more likely to encounter land ownership issues which may prove as significant obstacles to the project’s completion.
• Detailed costings indicated that the on-line option would be at the lower end of the cost range on which the Meehan Tully (2016) report based its cost benefit analysis, and suggests a two year payback as the likely economic impact of the project. The cost of the alongside option was estimated to be 3.5 times the cost of the on-line option.
• The proposed greenway will require Part 8 Planning Application in accordance with Planning and Development Regulations 2001 as amended. A Screening for Appropriate Assessment under Article 6(3) of the EU Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC), the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), and the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 477/2011) as amended and Screening for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in accordance with the EIA Directive 2014/52/EU and the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (as amended) will also be required.

TCDStudent1

Deleted User wrote: »

Because they (Sligo CoCo) did the study already and found it was a feckin great idea so applied for and received a lump sum to taking it to the planning phase

The main findings were

Main Findings

• There are no technical reasons why the greenway project should not proceed.
• The proposed greenway would provide a sustainable, scenic and safe walking and cycling facility which will benefit the wider north west region.
• Responses received indicate that consultees are overwhelmingly positive towards the project.
• The on-line option was identified as the preferred option under almost all headings as the alongside option would entail significant additional civil engineering works with environmental implications and is more likely to encounter land ownership issues which may prove as significant obstacles to the project’s completion.
• Detailed costings indicated that the on-line option would be at the lower end of the cost range on which the Meehan Tully (2016) report based its cost benefit analysis, and suggests a two year payback as the likely economic impact of the project. The cost of the alongside option was estimated to be 3.5 times the cost of the on-line option.
• The proposed greenway will require Part 8 Planning Application in accordance with Planning and Development Regulations 2001 as amended. A Screening for Appropriate Assessment under Article 6(3) of the EU Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC), the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), and the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 477/2011) as amended and Screening for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in accordance with the EIA Directive 2014/52/EU and the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (as amended) will also be required.

aah very good, thanks! So could we end up with a situation now that there is a greenway from Athenry to Milltown, and from Charlestown to Collooney, but none in between around Claremorris area?

ezstreet5

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

Why does the Athenry - Milltown route need a feasibility study when the Charlestown - Collooney section does not? Or am I missing something???

It's not necessary. It's usefulness is for political purposes and for consensus-building. (Which is indeed a very important part of any project, not to belittle it). Nearly all applications under this funding trance were approved, and the full €4.5 million was not allocated. (I can't comment on the applications that were not funded, and why they were not). One may question why Galway Co. Council did not seek more, to perhaps fund the design for a Part 8 application? (It may have been granted). The product of this fesibility study will look a lot like Sligo Greenway's, and will return the same conclusions. Overall, it is a positive step for those advocating for a greenway on the route, as it moves the project from a mere idea, to something worth a more detailed look. To claim that today's funding of a feasibility study negates the possibility of reactivating the rail line would be jumping to desired conclusions.

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

To claim that today's funding of a feasibility study negates the possibility of reactivating the rail line would be jumping to desired conclusions.

Not really making any claims there is still a long way to go, but as I said do you seriously believe the DT would give €75,000 for a feasibility study if there was even a semblance of a chance of the rail report saying the railway needs to come back, this announcement whatever way you look at it is a game changer. The official recognition that a greenway is possible and should be lookedat along with the fact the QMG was a named project in the RSES, and the fact that Sligo is now a given as a greenway project and it seems so is Sligo North Leitrim, is somehow pointing (in my mind anyway) to one conclusion. I will leave it to readers of this thread to try and work out what my conclusion is.

eastwest

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

aah very good, thanks! So could we end up with a situation now that there is a greenway from Athenry to Milltown, and from Charlestown to Collooney, but none in between around Claremorris area?

Unlikely.
Mayo have received a wake-up call today, and are likely to smell the coffee fairly soon.

ezstreet5

eastwest wrote: »

Unlikely.
Mayo have received a wake-up call today, and are likely to smell the coffee fairly soon.

Mayo received what they applied for, so I'm sure they are happy.

ezstreet5

westtip wrote: »

Not really making any claims there is still a long way to go, but as I said do you seriously believe the DT would give €75,000 for a feasibility study if there was even a semblance of a chance of the rail report saying the railway needs to come back, this announcement whatever way you look at it is a game changer. The official recognition that a greenway is possible and should be lookedat along with the fact the QMG was a named project in the RSES, and the fact that Sligo is now a given as a greenway project and it seems so is Sligo North Leitrim, is somehow pointing (in my mind anyway) to one conclusion. I will leave it to readers of this thread to try and work out what my conclusion is.

€75,000 is a small amount of money in the context of what was aimed to be allocated, and is one of the smallest grants. So yes, I do think DTTAS would allocate it for this purpose, even if just for political reasons, and even if there was the possibility for a more substantial rail reactivation project. A refusal would have indicated that the greenway was dead; but that is not the case.

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Mayo received what they applied for, so I'm sure they are happy.

Errr not in East Mayo they are not, and I am not talking about the council but how people feel about the council, Mayo CC will at some point get the message. it will come from the businesses in Swinford, Charlestown, Kiltimagh etc....

ezstreet5

westtip wrote: »

Errr not in East Mayo they are not, and I am not talking about the council but how people feel about the council, Mayo CC will at some point get the message. it will come from the businesses in Swinford, Charlestown, Kiltimagh etc....

Obviously I can't comment on the feelings of the fine folk of East Mayo or the businesses of Swinford, Charlestown, or Kiltimagh, but I would caution that a greenway may not be the cash cow being sold to them.

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Obviously I can't comment on the feelings of the fine folk of East Mayo or the businesses of Swinford, Charlestown, or Kiltimagh, but I would caution that a greenway may not be the cash cow being sold to them.

Fair point yes it will probably be better to keep promising a train north of Claremorris that might come twice a day and in the meantime for the next 40 years to watch the remnants of a closed (already for 40 years) railway rust away and disappear from sight so adjoining landowners can claim it as squatters rights. Yes this idea would be of real benefit to the community....:pac::D:(

Muckyboots

ezstreet5 wrote: »

It's not necessary. It's usefulness is for political purposes and for consensus-building. (Which is indeed a very important part of any project, not to belittle it). Nearly all applications under this funding trance were approved, and the full €4.5 million was not allocated. (I can't comment on the applications that were not funded, and why they were not). One may question why Galway Co. Council did not seek more, to perhaps fund the design for a Part 8 application? (It may have been granted). The product of this fesibility study will look a lot like Sligo Greenway's, and will return the same conclusions. Overall, it is a positive step for those advocating for a greenway on the route, as it moves the project from a mere idea, to something worth a more detailed look. To claim that today's funding of a feasibility study negates the possibility of reactivating the rail line would be jumping to desired conclusions.

I'd have absolutley no problem with a parallel railway being considered alongside the greenway, just as long as it's not another joker card played to filibuster progress.

ezstreet5

Muckyboots wrote: »

I'd have absolutley no problem with a parallel railway being considered alongside the greenway, just as long as it's not another joker card played to filibuster progress.

Even if the stars align, the Quiet Man Greenway would still have a very long lead time. It will take 9-12 months from yesterday's announcement to draft, advertise, and award the tender for the feasibility study, and to complete the work to the final version. It may take another 6 months for local authorities to review it (and the rail report), and coordinate and agree with all stakeholders, including CIE that the project should advance, and to adopt resolutions for the same.

Then, a second application to DTTAS must be made for further funding for scoping, costing, engineering, environmental, and planning services (i.e., full detail design). Provided there is a funding mechanism open (similar to the €4.5m awarded yesterday), that could take up to 3 months to secure (at best). Once secured, the detailed design and planning stage can commence with another tender. At best, the project application and EIAR could be ready to file within 12 months from issuance of the tender, but 18 months is more likely.

The Part 8 process takes about 5 months, plus you need to wait about 2 more months to make sure no party seeks judicial review of the approval in the High Court. If cleared, the project has received its entitlements and can be considered "shovel ready."

So back to DTTAS with a third application for funding of the greenway build itself. Maybe that can be approved in as little as 3 months, with another 3 months to complete the tender process and award the construction contract (very optimistic on these last phases). Now the politician of your choice can don their hardhat and grab their ceremonial spade for the groundbreaking: so 52 months from today until start of construction, and 64 months until opening?

ezstreet5

westtip wrote: »

Fair point yes it will probably be better to keep promising a train north of Claremorris that might come twice a day and in the meantime for the next 40 years to watch the remnants of a closed (already for 40 years) railway rust away and disappear from sight so adjoining landowners can claim it as squatters rights. Yes this idea would be of real benefit to the community....:pac::D:(

East Mayo folk don't engage in animus possidendi because it is truly a bit discourteous.

eastwest

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Obviously I can't comment on the feelings of the fine folk of East Mayo or the businesses of Swinford, Charlestown, or Kiltimagh, but I would caution that a greenway may not be the cash cow being sold to them.

The alternative, the velorail, hasn't delivered much to them so far, although in fairness it's early days.
Now that they have their planning approval I'm sure they can start to spend the half million they got to put their trolleys on the 'railway.'
Because it seems from my observations when I passed there recently that no money of any account has been spent to date.

eastwest

ezstreet5 wrote: »

East Mayo folk don't engage in animus possidendi because it is truly a bit discourteous.

I agree. If they do find themselves in possession of sections of the rail alignment, I'm sure they'll hand it back without an argument if we ever need it.
That would be my experience of people in east mayo anyway, and would explain why nobody ever made a living as a lawyer around those parts.

ezstreet5

eastwest wrote: »

I agree. If they do find themselves in possession of sections of the rail alignment, I'm sure they'll hand it back without an argument if we ever need it.
That would be my experience of people in east mayo anyway, and would explain why nobody ever made a living as a lawyer around those parts.

A brief scroll along the land registry map seems to indicate that very few (or perhaps none) of the adjacent landowners have applied for adverse possession of the permanent way. That's not to say when a planning application for a greenway is filed, or when the railway is reactivated (which may need no application), or both, that a spate of adverse possession claims won't be filed. But adverse possession is difficult to prove, and goes well beyond, "I've been storing bales on those tracks for years."

ezstreet5

ezstreet5 wrote: »

so 52 months from today until start of construction, and 64 months until opening?

Sounds about right

Will possibly miss my personal target of "cycling that route by 2025" but not by much I hope.

blackwhite

ezstreet5 wrote: »

A brief scroll along the land registry map seems to indicate that very few (or perhaps none) of the adjacent landowners have applied for adverse possession of the permanent way. That's not to say when a planning application for a greenway is filed, or when the railway is reactivated (which may need no application), or both, that a spate of adverse possession claims won't be filed. But adverse possession is difficult to prove, and goes well beyond, "I've been storing bales on those tracks for years."

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.0203721,-8.7550374,3a,75y/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2VE4DTFalITqBFOWQcBB1A!2e0

I’d say tarmacing over the line and gating it off probably helps prove the case though

Muckyboots

ezstreet5 wrote: »

So back to DTTAS with a third application for funding of the greenway build itself. Maybe that can be approved in as little as 3 months, with another 3 months to complete the tender process and award the construction contract (very optimistic on these last phases). Now the politician of your choice can don their hardhat and grab their ceremonial spade for the groundbreaking: so 52 months from today until start of construction, and 64 months until opening?

Look. We had a few smart ass Cllrs who pulled the "put your file in a filling cabenet" stunt while laughing up their sleeves. What they didn't expect was a Minister to take the file out and have it examined. Their smart ass plan has backfired and it was wonderful to hear one of the authors having his trousers pulled down around his ankles on local radio yesterday. Most Greenway campaigners that I know are willing to talk to anyone about anything that betters their local community, but there's a handful of sleeveens in Mayo and Galway Co Co who are intent on driving community activism and community spirit into the ground. With them in mind I think your 64 months is probably optimistic.

TCDStudent1

When it comes to a greenway, how are level crossings handled? I think the rail line crosses the N17 4 times between Claremorris & Milltown. Would it be a case that it is up to greenway users to stop and wait for a space to cross the road? Or would a 'pedestrian' bridge be built? I haven't used any greenway in Ireland so I do not know how typically this situation would be handled.

westtip

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

When it comes to a greenway, how are level crossings handled? I think the rail line crosses the N17 4 times between Claremorris & Milltown. Would it be a case that it is up to greenway users to stop and wait for a space to cross the road? Or would a 'pedestrian' bridge be built? I haven't used any greenway in Ireland so I do not know how typically this situation would be handled.

I think common sense reasoning would be applied, it is a busy road, but you are still able to cross it as a pedestrian, I would imagine users of the greenway will have to dismount bikes and use the green cross code to cross the road, or a bridge might be put in, or a cut and cover cycling underpass, or pedestrian crossing with traffic lights. I am sure this issue will be addressed fully with safety in mind, its not as if they are going to have an open gap at the point and allow cyclists just to pop out into the traffic flow, this is exactly one of those issues that will covered in the feasibility study and future engineering surveys will be factored into the project cost and be done, but we won't be seeing broken bikes and bodies spread out over the N17!!!!

Muckyboots

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

When it comes to a greenway, how are level crossings handled? I think the rail line crosses the N17 4 times between Claremorris & Milltown. Would it be a case that it is up to greenway users to stop and wait for a space to cross the road? Or would a 'pedestrian' bridge be built? I haven't used any greenway in Ireland so I do not know how typically this situation would be handled.

The obvious solution on the old N17 is to reroute the greenway alongside the road for about 3km to remove the necessity for any crossovers and bring the greenway through Ballindine. Excellent service and hospitality options available and an added boost to Ballindine businesses.

Muckyboots

Muckyboots wrote: »

The obvious solution on the old N17 is to reroute the greenway alongside the road for about 3km to remove the necessity for any crossovers and bring the greenway through Ballindine. Excellent service and hospitality options available and an added boost to Ballindine businesses.

Thus proving what the primary reason for the provision of greenways actually is, to generate income for local businesses.

eastwest

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

When it comes to a greenway, how are level crossings handled? I think the rail line crosses the N17 4 times between Claremorris & Milltown. Would it be a case that it is up to greenway users to stop and wait for a space to cross the road? Or would a 'pedestrian' bridge be built? I haven't used any greenway in Ireland so I do not know how typically this situation would be handled.

Waterford is generally now cited as the benchmark for other greenways, so it is likely that the template there will apply. Crossing minor orads will involve two staggered gates to slow down cyclists and walkers, and signage will be erected on the greenway and the roads.
Crossing National primary roads in Waterford was achieved by prefabricated overbridges that were dropped on over a weekend with a minimum of traffic disruption, plus a couple of prefab box underpasses that required excavation. Simple enough stuff.

westtip

eastwest wrote: »

Waterford is generally now cited as the benchmark for other greenways, so it is likely that the template there will apply. Crossing minor orads will involve two staggered gates to slow down cyclists and walkers, and signage will be erected on the greenway and the roads.
Crossing National primary roads in Waterford was achieved by prefabricated overbridges that were dropped on over a weekend with a minimum of traffic disruption, plus a couple of prefab box underpasses that required excavation. Simple enough stuff.

for the nitty gritty of how these issues will be resolved then the place to look is the superb feasibility done for the sligo greenway section of the Western Rail Trail which is available on the sligo coco website, produced by RPS engineering, Galway coco just needs to commission a similar fact based study, which will give exactly what is needed to take the QMG section of the Western Rail Trail to the next step---- construction!

https://www.sligococo.ie/PublicNotices/SligoGreenway/SligoGreenway_FeasibilityStudy.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2d4FxxoT_E5JEIubkGzCsq97qxNb2VVbj2P33BnBQFLK3ffjMZcSbIkGM

https://www.rpsgroup.com/company/offices/

ezstreet5

blackwhite wrote: »

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.0203721,-8.7550374,3a,75y/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2VE4DTFalITqBFOWQcBB1A!2e0

I’d say tarmacing over the line and gating it off probably helps prove the case though

You'd need to check the deed to see if this represents a true case of adverse possession or not. The old gate house was originally CIE property and is built entirely within the permanent way, which remains unregistered land. If CIE sold it it off, they may have retained a right of way or perhaps later given the owner permission to use the land as a garden, both of which would negate a claim. If it is a true case, when a Part 8 (now Part XI) application is filed, the owner will face the dilemma of whether to apply for adverse possession at that point, knowing that the land will be immediately CPO'd back. At that point, the solicitors usually reach a deal for a small payment to be made to avoid adverse possession and/or a CPO.

mayo.mick

ezstreet5 wrote: »

You'd need to check the deed to see if this represents a true case of adverse possession or not. The old gate house was originally CIE property and is built entirely within the permanent way, which remains unregistered land. If CIE sold it it off, they may have retained a right of way or perhaps later given the owner permission to use the land as a garden, both of which would negate a claim. If it is a true case, when a Part 8 (now Part XI) application is filed, the owner will face the dilemma of whether to apply for adverse possession at that point, knowing that the land will be immediately CPO'd back. At that point, the solicitors usually reach a deal for a small payment to be made to avoid adverse possession and/or a CPO.

mayo.mick

blackwhite wrote: »

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.0203721,-8.7550374,3a,75y/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2VE4DTFalITqBFOWQcBB1A!2e0

I’d say tarmacing over the line and gating it off probably helps prove the case though

Erm, I passed by there a few months ago, and I'm nearly sure, but I could be wrong because I was driving, there's been a little bit of work done in that area

River Suir

mayo.mick wrote: »

Where is that?

mayo.mick

River Suir wrote: »

Where is that?

Part of the "Burma Road"

River Suir

mayo.mick wrote: »

Part of the "Burma Road"

Yes I realise that, but where on the Burma Road?

ezstreet5

River Suir wrote: »

Yes I realise that, but where on the Burma Road?

That's not gonna be good enough for adverse possession. It does reveal a covetous intent, but the legal test requires more.

ezstreet5

Muckyboots wrote: »

Look. We had a few smart ass Cllrs who pulled the "put your file in a filling cabenet" stunt while laughing up their sleeves. What they didn't expect was a Minister to take the file out and have it examined. Their smart ass plan has backfired and it was wonderful to hear one of the authors having his trousers pulled down around his ankles on local radio yesterday. Most Greenway campaigners that I know are willing to talk to anyone about anything that betters their local community, but there's a handful of sleeveens in Mayo and Galway Co Co who are intent on driving community activism and community spirit into the ground. With them in mind I think your 64 months is probably optimistic.

I reject the mindset of this post in total. It hearkens back to the September 2018 Galway County Council charade, where one group of councilors wanted a Feasibility Study of only the "Quiet Man Greenway" and another contingent wanted a wider study of all possible greenways in the county. Much ado was made about the motion, the amended motion, and the vote. But nobody copped-on that the funding available at the time was reserved for projects with full planning permission. So there was no possibility of success for any motion or vote stemming from that meeting. (And a local TD had full knowledge of this constraint, yet ignored it in favour of the mudslinging). The one positive was that DTTAS realized that they needed to make funds available for greenway planning, which they did, with the current €4.5 million tranche. The current award of €75,000 for a Feasibility Study of the Quiet Man Greenway may indeed be a "filibuster" as it is an unnecessary step in the planning and entitlement process, and will take 17 months to complete (if the pattern of the Sligo Greenway Feasibility Study is repeated). So the can is kicked down the road 17+ months before any decision is officially made to even begin the process to apply for development consent for a greenway (which is long enough).

May I provide some genuine advice to Quiet Man Greenway advocates? What you need to do is engage in the Galway-Dublin Greenway public consultation, to bring the routing north through Athenry. Only then can your greenway of choice connect to the national greenway network, which vastly increases the probability of funding. Otherwise, it remains a disconnected segment. Here's the link to the meeting dates and places of that consultation: http://www.dublingalwaygreenway.com/2020/07/public-consultation-starting-on-athlone.html

Greaney

ezstreet5 wrote: »

May I provide some genuine advice to Quiet Man Greenway advocates? What you need to do is engage in the Galway-Dublin Greenway public consultation, to bring the routing north through Athenry. Only then can your greenway of choice connect to the national greenway network, which vastly increases the probability of funding. Otherwise, it remains a disconnected segment. Here's the link to the meeting dates and places of that consultation: http://www.dublingalwaygreenway.com/2020/07/public-consultation-starting-on-athlone.html

I've been pointing to this Eurovelo project earlier in this thread. This is where the guaranteed funding is. If your town doesn't link to the Eurovelo...... find a way if you want your greenway to be more than a 'local amenity' and a real Tourism draw.

eastwest

Greaney wrote: »

I've been pointing to this Eurovelo project earlier in this thread. This is where the guaranteed funding is. If your town doesn't link to the Eurovelo...... find a way if you want your greenway to be more than a 'local amenity' and a real Tourism draw.

Athenry can easily and cheaply link to the dublin galway greenway if they do what many people have already suggested -- by building a greenway along the edge of the rail alignment on the ennis athenry line.

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

I reject the mindset of this post in total. It hearkens back to the September 2018 Galway County Council charade, where one group of councilors wanted a Feasibility Study of only the "Quiet Man Greenway" and another contingent wanted a wider study of all possible greenways in the county. Much ado was made about the motion, the amended motion, and the vote. But nobody copped-on that the funding available at the time was reserved for projects with full planning permission. So there was no possibility of success for any motion or vote stemming from that meeting. (And a local TD had full knowledge of this constraint, yet ignored it in favour of the mudslinging). The one positive was that DTTAS realized that they needed to make funds available for greenway planning, which they did, with the current €4.5 million tranche. The current award of €75,000 for a Feasibility Study of the Quiet Man Greenway may indeed be a "filibuster" as it is an unnecessary step in the planning and entitlement process, and will take 17 months to complete (if the pattern of the Sligo Greenway Feasibility Study is repeated). So the can is kicked down the road 17+ months before any decision is officially made to even begin the process to apply for development consent for a greenway (which is long enough).

May I provide some genuine advice to Quiet Man Greenway advocates? What you need to do is engage in the Galway-Dublin Greenway public consultation, to bring the routing north through Athenry. Only then can your greenway of choice connect to the national greenway network, which vastly increases the probability of funding. Otherwise, it remains a disconnected segment. Here's the link to the meeting dates and places of that consultation: http://www.dublingalwaygreenway.com/2020/07/public-consultation-starting-on-athlone.html

you have made some very good points there, but the filibuster is not the 17 months to deliver the feasibility study it is possible attempts there will be to stop the feasibility study from even happening, by WOT supporting cllrs in Galway, there are rumours emerging that on light of the news about the funding for the feasibility study attempts are being made to put a spanner in the works to stop it from even happening even though the same council applied for funding for the very same study. They will make every attempt they can to block it. We could see a repeat of what happened in 2017 in the near future if not already. I am sure they will fail ultimately. The study will be done and the rail report will come out, and a lot hinges on that now.

It also hinges on a ministerial decision, if Eamon Ryan makes a decision which none of his predecessors have had the balls to do so, and says the QMG is happening then this will override rogue county councillors trying to block it with shenanigans like those you refer to in 2017.

The only way the QMG will not happen now is if there is a change in government and that is why these cllrs will try and delay things for for another 4 years. Despite the differences of opinion on certain issues I don't think this is going to happen. 17 months for a feasibility study is not a filibuster, it is part of the process that has to happen, the filibuster will be if certain Galway cllrs trying to stop the feasibility study from even happening or changing its terms of reference.

Step up to the plate Minister Ryan please. oh and I agree with you about engaging with the consultation the Dublin Galway greenway and personally will promote the alongside the main line railway route as the simplest solution

ShaneC1600

eastwest wrote: »

Athenry can easily and cheaply link to the dublin galway greenway if they do what many people have already suggested -- by building a greenway along the edge of the rail alignment on the ennis athenry line.

QMG supporters are really drawn to the railway, least amount of thought required I guess.

Muckyboots

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

QMG supporters are really drawn to the railway, least amount of thought required I guess.

The Quiet Man Greenway is a greenway between Athenry and Milltown utilizing the disused railway alignment. There' no ambiguity. It is what it is.

ShaneC1600

Muckyboots wrote: »

The Quiet Man Greenway is a greenway between Athenry and Milltown utilizing the disused railway alignment.

It isn't though, its an idea of a greenway, which is being sold to the gullible as an equal to existing top greenways which the QMG will not be (in terms of location, scenery and/or attractions unless much work is done)
I was referring to one particular statement where it was said linking the QMG to the Dublin/Galway greenway is as simple as placing another greenway along the Athenry/Ennis "railway line".
To some on that group the only place to position a greenway is along the railway, operational and closed.

River Suir

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

It isn't though, its an idea of a greenway, which is being sold to the gullible as an equal to existing top greenways which the QMG will not be (in terms of location, scenery and/or attractions unless much work is done)
I was referring to one particular statement where it was said linking the QMG to the Dublin/Galway greenway is as simple as placing another greenway along the Athenry/Ennis "railway line".
To some on that group the only place to position a greenway is along the railway, operational and closed.

And that is because it appears that the agenda of certain individuals in the QMG is to hobble the railway wherever possible. Putting a parallel greenway on the Galway main line would stop that line from being doubled.

River Suir

River Suir wrote: »

And that is because it appears that the agenda of certain individuals in the QMG is to hobble the railway wherever possible. Putting a parallel greenway on the Galway main line would stop that line from being doubled.

Not at all and I am already planning to make a submission stating such a facility is added when they go to double track that line.

To do so beforehand would be just silly. Wait until they are designing it and make the proposal then

westtip

River Suir wrote: »

And that is because it appears that the agenda of certain individuals in the QMG is to hobble the railway wherever possible. Putting a parallel greenway on the Galway main line would stop that line from being doubled.

No it wouldn't quite simple if you want it widened as a route do exactly the same as when they widen a road. Compulsory purchase, simply widens the alignment doesnt cut a fresh alignment through farmland etc its a pretty simple solution

ezstreet5

westtip wrote: »

you have made some very good points there, but the filibuster is not the 17 months to deliver the feasibility study it is possible attempts there will be to stop the feasibility study from even happening, by WOT supporting cllrs in Galway, there are rumours emerging that on light of the news about the funding for the feasibility study attempts are being made to put a spanner in the works to stop it from even happening even though the same council applied for funding for the very same study. They will make every attempt they can to block it. We could see a repeat of what happened in 2017 in the near future if not already. I am sure they will fail ultimately. The study will be done and the rail report will come out, and a lot hinges on that now.

This is really over-the-top cynical and paranoid. Councilors voted unanimously to apply, and staff prepared and filed that application for funding, and that application was successful. Nobody's trying to block it from going to tender.

westtip wrote: »

It also hinges on a ministerial decision, if Eamon Ryan makes a decision which none of his predecessors have had the balls to do so, and says the QMG is happening then this will override rogue county councillors trying to block it with shenanigans like those you refer to in 2017.

I suspect Eamon Ryan's position has not changed much from his 17 April 2019 Dáil motion calling for the Government to complete the Western Rail Corridor. https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2019-04-17/32/

As for "rouge county councilors" and "shenanigans," it was equally humorous and painful to observe the antics of some of the less-experienced councilors during the September 2018 Galway Co. Council meeting, and the bizarre interpretation that emerged in the local media and on social media that there was a "spoiler" vote. I know that some will never understand those events in any other manner for it to make sense to them. Others realize that the funding was only for shovel-ready projects having (or close to having) full planning permission. So the entire agenda item was moot to begin with. A post-rally inconvenient truth, so to speak. But the stink that rose thereafter was so strong that TD's as far away as Loughrea couldn't resist meddling in local authority issues.

westtip wrote: »

The only way the QMG will not happen now is if there is a change in government and that is why these cllrs will try and delay things for for another 4 years. Despite the differences of opinion on certain issues I don't think this is going to happen.

There are many, many reasons why a Quiet Man Greenway project may not advance, with collapse of the current Government being but one. I won't enumerate them here, but we should be able to agree that the project is by no means a certainty at this point.

westtip wrote: »

17 months for a feasibility study is not a filibuster, it is part of the process that has to happen, the filibuster will be if certain Galway cllrs trying to stop the feasibility study from even happening or changing its terms of reference.

I disagree that a Feasibility Study is necessary. It is not part of the statutory process, and can be skipped in cases where a local authority is certain they want to proceed. Look at the funding just awarded, and how many of those projects applied for and received funding for detailed design, environmental, and/or the statutory process while skipping a feasibility study entirely.

westtip wrote: »

Step up to the plate Minister Ryan please. oh and I agree with you about engaging with the consultation the Dublin Galway greenway and personally will promote the alongside the main line railway route as the simplest solution

I really don't think this is Eamon Ryan's call, or at least not entirely. I found the Taoiseach's quote from last Tuesday interesting:https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2020-07-28/6/

The national development plan will be reviewed and obviously there are key agenda items in terms of rail infrastructure generally across the country. In the July stimulus funding is already going into remedial works in our existing railways. Developing fast-track rail between the major cities is one agenda item. There are major projects in and around the Dublin area, including the metro and so on. There is a review of the western rail corridor and proposals for that are being looked at as well. The trend will be strongly towards public transport into the future. Deputy Kelly is right, projects will take a lot of planning and design but the development of public transport initiatives in the NDP review will be important to achieving our climate goals.

Greaney

eastwest wrote: »

Athenry can easily and cheaply link to the dublin galway greenway if they do what many people have already suggested -- by building a greenway along the edge of the rail alignment on the ennis athenry line.

Things are never ever as easy & cheap casual commentators suggest.

Nothing with Irish rail is easy, we know that in Athenry from the construction of the M6 having to go over the train line. It was one of the last parts of the motorway to be built due to Irish Rail delaying their permission. I was also made aware by the former principal of the Presentation Secondary School that they had issues with Irish rail when they wanted to plant & landscaping the embankments between their buildings and the line & bridge, many years back.


Personally side by side is not what I'd have a problem with as supporter of rail..... as for when I'm cycling... with regard proposed greenway North of Athenry.... It's not the prettiest route Having the train as a homeward option if one tires during the cycle ....;)

ShaneC1600

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not at all and I am already planning to make a submission stating such a facility is added when they go to double track that line.

To do so beforehand would be just silly. Wait until they are designing it and make the proposal then

Why would you want to? Why would you want a greenway beside the railway? I understand along the disussed railway even if its not in a nice scenic area. Its bananas. Who would want to walk or cycle beside an operating railway, we have a wonderful countryside, and a greenway is perfect for showcasing our countryside to tourists but just sticking a greenway beside any old railway is just lazy. Galway has more to offer to tourists and locals than a half ar*ed greenway beside the railway just because a few "greenway on or beside railway leaders" from around the country say its the best we can offer.

ShaneC1600

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

Why would you want to? Why would you want a greenway beside the railway?

For commuting by bike into Galway on an e-bike