… seeing sense?
A cynic (not that there are any of them around here) might say that DAHG feels that it has done as much as it’s going to do (admittedly at Waterways Ireland’s expense) by dredging the River Finn and that it has told Monaghan Council that, if it wants any more Sheughery for Clones, it will have to pay for it itself. The Council might like a canal, but only if someone else pays for it, so it will have to be content with a greenway.
And rightly so.
The though struck me that if the Shinners, or the sheughery want this canal why don’t they organise a work group as is being done on the Drogheda Navan canal.
On the contrary, this looks like the Minister and WI are still planning to open the canal from Castle Saunderson to Clones, but now, as they say, “with added greenway”. No surprise there, as the DAHG 2015 business case for the canal to Clones expects 90% of the benefits to accrue from walkers, not boaters.
At €46m for 13kms the Clones walking route looks expensive compared to its 42km Mayo counterpart, which cost €3m to open.
Brilliant! The first good news I have read about the Ulster Canal in years.
… or indeed the Newry. But Éamon Ó Cuív wanted a government-built sheugh, as I suspect did SF, to show the benefits that would flow from a united Ireland. bjg
My draft replies keep disappearing …. It is of course impossible to find the truth by reading government press releases, comments or inspired leaks. However, I interpret this greenway news in the light of the complete failure of DAHG or the committee of treasure-hunters to find the 46 million euro needed for the Clones Sheugh. I suspect. therefore, that the good people of Clones are to be fobbed off with a dredged River Finn, which they will be told is (part of) the Ulster Canal and a walking and cycling route or greenway.
Of course as soon as Sinn Fein takes power, perhaps with the assistance of the Cornamona wing of FF, there will be millions available for sheughs, linen production and carrying corn to Dublin.
The Achill green way is on private land with permissive access which can be (and has been) revoked when the landowners have a hissy fit about something or other. It is not a valid comparison.
The comparison is between the cost to the public finances to develop an amenity that attracts 200k+ walkers per annum to Mayo, vs one that has a projected cost of €46m and is expected to (but will not) attract 50-100k p.a. to Monaghan.
@Martin The cost quoted is for restoration of a navigable canal – something that I (along with Brian Goggin) have been vehemently opposed to. In fact, on my own website, I have been arguing against the “restoration” of the Ulster Canal and argued for a greenway along the route with the towpath for walkers and a separate cyclepath in the bed of the canal.
The cost difference between the Mayo Greenway (on private land with permissive access) and a route where the land has to be purchased by CPO remains valid.