Update March 2011: para added about the Royal Canal
The Irish Times of 31 January 2011 carries an article by Frank McDonald about the Enda Kenny (leader of the Fine Gael party) and the western rail corridor. The first sentence sums it up:
FINE GAEL leader Enda Kenny has lent his support to plans for a walking and cycling “greenway” on part of the western rail corridor, implicitly ruling out its reinstatement as a railway.
Part of the western rail corridor (the old Waterford, Limerick & Western Railway) has already been restored. Regular passenger services ceased in 1976 but a partial service between Limerick and Ennis resumed in 1988 and was gradually expanded. Services to Athenry and thus to Galway were reinstated in March 2010 at a cost of €106.5 million. Iarnród Éireann now wants to build two more stations on the route.
However, it seems likely to run at a loss. It is in competition with (and, I believe, slower than) the bus services run by Bus Éireann (which, like Iarnród Éireann, is part of CIE) on the newly-improved, publicly-funded N18/M18 road. Initial passenger numbers were said to be above “expectations”; that’s a standard approach in the Irish public service, where you frame your press release to highlight the good news that your performance is “above expectations” to distract attention from the fact that you’re still losing money (official statements on the economy passim). And, as on the waterways, you can expect higher numbers in the first few months as sightseers take once-in-a-lifetime trips.
On 10 March 2011 the Irish Times reported that passenger numbers were at about two thirds of the level assumed in the “business case”. A business case, like that produced for the Ulster Canal, is not a cost-benefit analysis.
So, despite the urgings of the enthusiasts, I hope that the government won’t be able to waste any more money on this scheme, and especially not on the northern end, which seems even less likely to pay for itself than the southern. As Brendan Quinn says:
[...] let’s use the track bed for something useful. The greenway idea will deliver something very cost-effectively and very quickly.
Wasting money on waterways
As with railways, so with waterways. The urgings of enthusiasts, and of the engineers who would get paid to do the work, have to be subjected to proper cost-benefit analysis, especially when the country is broke. Previous Irish restorations (the Lough Allen Canal, the Naas Branch of the Grand Canal) have not been shown to have justified the investment. I am not aware of any full study even of the most-used of the restored waterways, the Shannon–Erne Waterway, and I greatly fear that the investment in the Royal Canal will never be recouped.
In fact, I cannot see why the government ever committed itself to the restoration of the Royal. A look at the traffic levels on the Grand would surely have shown that there are very few canal enthusiasts who are willing to move their boats more than once or twice a year. The completion of the Royal would be justified only if the resultant availability of a ring route were to produce a major increase in the demand for boating on Irish canals, and such a demand (after the enthusiasts had completed their voyages in the first few years) could come only from the availability of a substantial hire fleet with considerable marketing to British narrowboaters. Meeting their needs, though, would need special arrangements to overcome certain obstacles. And for both aspects a usage plan would be needed, but I have seen no evidence that such a thing exists. As a result, I argue that it is now time to fill in the Royal but, for anyone determined to complete the ring, I offer some suggestions about how the trip might be tackled.
I have argued at length here that the Ulster Canal should not be restored. I hold the same view of my beloved Limerick Navigation: even without any cost-benefit analysis, I can see no point in having the old route restored to navigability, especially as there is already an under-used waterway to Limerick via Ardnacrusha. There might be a case for enabling boats to get through Parteen Villa Weir to travel as far as O’Briensbridge and perhaps Castleconnell (rowers and anglers permitting), but it would have to be shown to be a good investment.
Using waterways wisely
This is not to say, though, that old waterways should be ignored; the very existence of this website shows that I think they are worth visiting. I favour ensuring that the routes are in public hands, with walking or cycling routes provided (bypassing the houses, and respecting the rights and privacy, of people living along the routes, especially on the sites of old lock-houses). Where sections of waterways are in water, I favour keeping them open for small boats. I favour recording and conserving the artefacts (Waterways Ireland has already had the Shannon surveyed) and helping people to interpret them and their significance. And I favour marketing the routes and encouraging both domestic visitors and tourists: the industrial heritage market is ignored in the Waterways Ireland/Fáilte Ireland Lakelands and Inland Waterways Strategy.
But restoration? No. I’m open to being convinced, of course, and I support those engaging in voluntary work on waterways, but I see no future for large-scale publicly-funded waterways restoration projects in Ireland.
Brian,when you boil down any restoration project to cash ,then nothing would get restored.Old houses,cars,barges,boats,canals ,would all be left to rot . Their heritage,rarity,amenity,aesthetic values to the local community or a wider inter/national public would not be taken into consideration. Boiling something down to just money is the work of accountants. Why do you own, maintain,and use an old barge?
There is no doubt that the country has been dragged down by greedy people.The so called developers have contributed nothing only generating huge debts. The logic that ordinary taxpayers have to bail these people out is incomprehensible
By downgrading canal and other projects to c.b.a., you also downgrade the many volunteers who work on restoration projects. They do this work because they have a dream.
Yes ,the state has no spare money. Yet it has money for an Underground to the
airport,rent for all those warehouses that store evoting machines etc. .
There is always money. When the clamour for public money becomes a roar ,politicians always find money.
The long term benefits of a restored canal cannot be measure in money terms. One has only to look at the formerly derelict villages along theSEW to realise the catalyst that the restored canal has been.
Regards, PJN
P J, with the greatest of respect, you are talking through your hat. I have no objection to your using your own money to restore or maintain your old boat, or to my wife’s using her money to maintain her old boat (or old husband), or to anyone, individual or group, using their own money or other resources, including their labour, to amuse themselves or to provide pleasure to others. What I object to is the use of misleading stories to extract money from taxpayers for purposes that simply don’t make sense. The government (I spit on its grave) has never claimed that it proposes to restore the Ulster Canal for its heritage value; indeed some folk think that its heritage value would be reduced by demolishing and rebuilding locks and by removing towing-paths from under bridges. The government seems to think that building a canal to Clones will convince Unionists that cross-border cooperation is a good thing, which is nonsense. And it is pretending that the Ulster Canal is a good investment, which its own figures show it isn’t. It is also, I would argue, in danger of misleading potential investors into thinking that canal-related businesses will be good invesstments, which I don’t think they will be.
That the government is wasting money on all sorts of other rubbish doesn’t make it right that it should waste money on this. I know little about undergrounds and warehouses; I do know a bit about canals, so I’m making my contribution to saving the state (or reducing the interest bill) by tryng to stop the waste of money on the Clones canal.
There is always money, but it has alternative uses. In this case, we still don’t know where the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs proposes to get the money. It could borrow it from the IMF at around 6% or on the bond markets at around 9%. The Ulster Canal would be a good investment only if the return on the money, counting and valuing all benefits, exceeded the cost of the money. None of the government’s own reports shows such a return, and the Northern Ireland Executive has (quite rightly) refused to have anything to do with this proposal. Furthermore, there is an opportunity cost: there may well be other investment possibilities that will provide a higher rate of return, so the government should pursue them instead of this.
It seems to me that you are starting from the position that derelict waterways must be restored and that you are inventing justifications for taking money from the taxpayer to support your hobby. The idiotic buying off of interest groups is what got this state into its present position; I suggest that we need more rather than less discipline in investment appraisal. And we also need to be careful about quoting the SEW as an example of the benefits of waterways restorations: it is arguable that most of the increased prosperity in the region is attributable to Sean Quinn.
As for downgrading volunteers, were the citizens of Clones to start digging, I would applaud them. But I’m not going to be deterred from stating what I consider to be the truth by the possibility that I might hurt some people’s feelings.
bjg
Having been involved in the Fifty year campaign for the restoration of the Droitwich Canals I have witnessed the complete change in public opinions from downright sabotage to 15,000 people attending the wonderful opening ceremonies on July 1st-3rd. 8o boats arrived bringing trade to the towns pubs and shops. It is now forecast several of the closed shops will be open in twelve months bringing considerable new trade to the town. Get on and restore the lost waterways and experience the benefits. Max Sinclair
There are several restored waterways already. The benefits are exaggerated. But the cost-benefit ratio would be different if (as at Droitwich) there were considerable volunteer work and fund-raising. That won’t happen with the Ulster Canal, and volunteer input to the Royal has been insignificant in recent years. bjg
Hi Brian,
Food for thought in these tight times… from a ‘blow-in’s’ persepctive it would be a shame to see these restored waterways now be allowed to return to mother nature…
If the G&S can captivate me as it has then I’m sure many more will start using the canals… non boat use will increase… hopefully making it all worthwhile!
Cheers,
Vossie aka AJ
PS, may I palce a link on my blogroll please?
On the linkl: by all means; I’ve done the same.
On waterways: it would indeed be a shame to see a restored or functioning waterway dried out, but it would be wrong to spend money maintaining something used by only a handful of people. As far as I know, WI has no plan to increase use (I’ll be very glad to hear of it if it has). bjg
While your economic argument is utterly sound it is inevitable that money saved by a sensible analysis of canal, railway and other restorations would be gobbled up by equally wasteful causes like public sector increments or toner cartridges! The only way to win in this broken system is to be selfish and fight for your own interest no matter how hair-brained it may be.
P.S. Have you ever visited Kilkenny to see the remains of the Canal that never was? There are a few bridges and features that would fit in nicely on your site.
The tragedy of the commons …. I continue to hope that challenging lunacy can make a difference.
I have material on the Nore in preparation (amongst many other topics) but haven’t got all the Kilkenny features photographed yet. Kilkenny County Council has been doing a heritage audit of the Nore and has accumulated much material. bjg