Category Archives: Politics

Our Glorious Leader …

is to address, on Sunday night, anyone who watches television but doesn’t have a choice of television channels. There will be a medium term economic strategy too, promising a new and better future for all our people. But as Finfacts says:

… past experience coupled with signals so far, suggest that [the strategy] will be a promotional brochure for an international audience with some questionable claims and omissions. The expected plunge in services exports by as much as €50bn during the time horizon is not likely to be acknowledged.

There is an urgent need for a credible growth strategy that has an unvarnished assessment of the challenges with an honest analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, using data that is free of the outsize impact of the foreign-owned exporting sector.

I wonder whether the strategy will include any sheughs.

Ballylongford (and Inishmurray/Cahircon)

SHANNON-RIVER. This is by far the most considerable river in Ireland, or perhaps in any known island, not only on account of its rolling 200 miles, but also of its great depth in most places, and the gentleness of its current, by which it might be made exceedingly serviceable to the improvement of the country, the communication of its inhabitants, and consequently the promoting inland trade, through the greater part of its long course, being navigable to a considerable distance, with a few interruptions only of rocks and shallows, to avoid which there are in general small canals cut, to preserve and continue the navigation.

Thus Wm Wenman Seward, Esq [correspondent of Thomas Jefferson], in his Topographica Hibernica; or the topography of Ireland, antient and modern. Giving a complete view of the civil and ecclesiastical state of that kingdom, with its antiquities, natural curiosities, trade, manufactures, extent and population. Its counties, baronies, cities, boroughs, parliamentary representation and patronage; antient districts and their original proprietors. Post, market, and fair towns; bishopricks, ecclesiastical benefices, abbies, monasteries, castles, ruins, private-seats, and remarkable buildings. Mountains, rivers, lakes, mineral-springs, bays and harbours, with the latitude and longitude of the principal places, and their distances from the metropolis, and from each other. Historical anecdotes, and remarkable events. The whole alphabetically arranged and carefully collected. With an appendix, containing some additional places and remarks, and several useful tables printed by Alex Stewart, Dublin, 1795. [Google it if you want a copy.]

Seward was one of many people who saw the Shannon as a valuable resource, even if they were vague on how it was to yield a return. I was reminded of that on reading the Strategic Integrated Framework Plan for the Shannon Estuary 2013–2020: an inter-jurisdictional land and marine based framework to guide the future development and management of the Shannon Estuary. The Introduction includes this:

The Shannon Estuary is an immensely important asset and one of the most valuable natural resources in Ireland and the Mid-West Region in particular — the fringe lands and the marine area both provide space and location for development, activities and opportunities to progress economic, social and environmental growth within the Region.

This report is an attempt to show how the estuary could deliver a return. The core point seems to be that a small number of areas are designated as “Strategic Development Locations for marine related industry and large scale industrial development”, thus protecting them from the attentions of the environmentalists: the whole of the estuary is a Special Area of Conservation and a Special Protection Area.

Almost all the Strategic Development Locations are already industrialied in some way:

  • Limerick Docks (in Limerick city)
  • Ballylongford (of which more below)
  • Tarbert (power station)
  • Aughinish Island (alumina)
  • Askeaton (Nestlé)
  • Foynes Island and land to the rear of Foynes (main port on the estuary)
  • Moneypoint (power station).

There is one more, Inishmurry/Cahircon (which is not boring), which is even more interesting because there is no industry there at present. It was used as a resting place for certain vessels, but it was also proposed as the site for an explosives factory. Perhaps the designation as a Strategic Development Location suggests that that proposal is not dead but merely sleeping.

Ballylongford is equally lacking in industry, despite activity at Saleen in the early nineteenth century. However, Shannon Development assembled a large landbank nearby; the report’s Executive Summary says:

The Ballylongford Landbank benefits from a significant deepwater asset and extant permission for a major LNG bank.

Here is the area in question. Note that the red oval is just to indicate the rough location; it does not show the boundaries of the landbank.

Ballylongford (OSI ~1840)

Ballylongford (OSI ~1840)

You can see a proper map and a marked-up aerial photo in Volume 1 of the report [PDF] on page 73 (77/174).

Shannon Development agreed to give a purchase option on a little uder half of the site to Shannon LNG Ltd, which proposed to build a liquefied natural gas terminal there, to be supplied by ship; much information is available here.

The Commission for Energy Regulation decided to introduce charges that would have increased Shannon LNG’s costs; the company took the matter to court but, yesterday, lost its case. The Irish Times report here will probably disappear behind a paywall at some stage; the Irish Independent report is here and the Limerick Leader‘s here (its photo shows Tarbert and Moneypoint; the Ballylongford site is off to the left).

If the Ballylongford development does not proceed, plans for economic growth on the Shannon estuary may prove to be for the birds.

My OSI logo and permit number for website

Sheughery

I wonder why Sinn Féin asks questions when it does. This one [h/t KildareStreet.com] seems to have been asked at a time that the minister might have welcomed.

Sandra McLellan [SF, Cork East]:

To ask the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the position regarding the Ulster Canal restoration project; the steps that must be taken to complete the project; the indicative timeline for the completion of the project; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Jimmy Deenihan [FG, Kerry North/West Limerick] [the third para is the interesting one]:

As the Deputy will be aware, in July 2007 the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) agreed to proceed with the restoration of the section of the Ulster Canal between Clones and Upper Lough Erne. The then Government agreed to cover the full capital costs of the project, which were estimated at that time to be of the order of €35m.

It was always the intention that the Ulster Canal project would be funded from the Waterways Ireland annual allocations, as agreed through the annual estimates processes in this jurisdiction, as well as the deliberations of NSMC in relation to annual budgets. It was a key consideration throughout the process that the Ulster Canal project would be supported by a significant level of projected income from the commercialisation of certain Waterways Ireland assets. However, the economic downturn has had a negative impact on those plans.

I am continuing to explore all possible options to advance this project within the current fiscal constraints. In this regard, I established an Inter-Agency Group on the Ulster Canal to explore ways to advance the project and to examine possible funding options for it, including existing funding streams and the leveraging of funding from other sources. The Inter-Agency Group last met on 9th October and will meet again next week, on 9th December.

In the meantime, the Ulster Canal project is progressing on an incremental basis. Planning approvals have now been received for the project in both jurisdictions. Compulsory Purchase Order land maps are in preparation and consideration is being given to how the construction work and other technical aspects of the project will be structured once the necessary lands have been secured. The timeline for completion of the project will be determined when these preparatory steps have been completed.

I welcome these developments, which, I am sure the Deputy will agree, are a significant milestone for the project.

Hmm. The inter-agency group first met on 20 September 2012 and its second meeting was to take place in May 2013 or thereabouts. Now it’s going much faster, with meetings on 9 October and today, 9 December. Does this suggest that the group has found a pot of gold? Is there any link to the cancellation of SEUPB funding for the Narrow Water project?

And what has been going on in (and around) the North/South Ministerial Council? At its June 2013 meeting the Council approved or noted:

  • the business plan for 2012 (which had ended six months earlier)
  • the budget for 2012
  • the annual report for 2012
  • the draft accounts for 2012.

That suggests to me that there was either a major disagreement between the northern and southern ministers or a serious problem that rendered ministers unable to approve the WI budget and business plan until 18 months after the documents were required. Could it be that the northern minister, Carál Ní Chuilín [SF], like other NI politicians, had been looking for something from the waterways sector that hasn’t been delivered so far?

Note also that Jimmy Deenihan said

[…] consideration is being given to how the construction work and other technical aspects of the project will be structured once the necessary lands have been secured.

I understand that the design and construction of the Clones Sheugh was to be put out to tender but I wonder whether keeping the work in house might help WI to meet its increasing wage costs with a declining budget.

 

 

 

Waterways Ireland’s purpose in life

Waterways Ireland is currently (I presume) implementing its Corporate Plan 2011–2013 [PDF], which still has a month to run. That plan set out, inter alia, a mission:

Our mission is to provide a high quality recreational environment centred on the inland waterways in our care, for the benefit of our customers.

It also had core values, which is nice, and a vision:

Our long term vision is to create an interrelated waterways network which will provide accessible recreational benefits and opportunities for all.

We wish to create facilities and services which will attract and impress visitors from home and aboard, supporting and encouraging the tourism and recreational industries in Northern Ireland and Ireland and promoting sustainable economic growth across the island of Ireland. We seek to protect and enhance the natural environment in and along our waterways for the enjoyment of future generations.

For the period of this plan we intend to focus on the consolidation, improvement and promotion of existing waterways in order to maximise their use. We will progress toward our long term vision by focusing development on the Ulster Canal.

And it had strategic objectives:

To deliver the benefits and opportunities the waterways can provide across a range of areas, Waterways Ireland has identified 6 strategic objectives which will drive the delivery of our Mission and Vision and the objectives set out in this Corporate Plan. These Strategic Objectives are to:

1. Manage and maintain a reliable and high quality waterways network.
2. Develop and restore the waterways network.
3. Enhance the existing waterways network to widen its appeal to users.
4. Promote increased use of our waterways resource principally for recreational purposes.
5. Assess, manage and develop the assets of Waterways Ireland.
6. Develop an organisation of excellence.

Reading that lot, it seems to me that the focus was inward rather than outward, perhaps more in line with traditional engineering-led waterways management than with the new and exciting marketing-led organisation of the future.

The mission is de haut en bas, with waterways coming before customers, and the first sentence of the vision continues the theme. The second sentence does mention economic affairs, but “supporting and encouraging the tourism and recreational industries” suggests that tourism and recreation are something that other people do, not something that WI does: it does not seem to see itself as part of the “tourism and recreational industries”.

The intro to the strategic objectives is pure management gobbledegook, but the really revealing bit is the list of objectives. The last two are inward-looking, but note the ordering of the first four and what the balance of elements says about the corporate focus: WI is going to

  • manage and maintain the waterways network
  • develop and restore the waterways network
  • enhance the waterways network
  • and after that promote increased use.

This is what used to be called a sales model: design and build your widgets first; then go and flog them to the punters. There is an alternative approach: start by finding out what the potential punters might want and then design and build your widgets to meet their needs. In reality, of course, you do something in between, because you’re not starting with a blank slate: your factory can make one particular kind of widget, not all possible kinds. And, similarly, WI’s main asset is a collection of waterways, not of (say) amusement parks or bookshops.

But a marketing focus could help an organisation to think about how its widgets are to be used. The result doesn’t have to be as crude as adding the word “solutions” to everything; it can be used to shape how the organisation presents its widgets and to whom it presents them. And, in my view, WI needs to do that because, according to the only reliable (and admittedly inadequate) measure we have, the Shannon traffic figures, waterways usage has been declining for at least ten years. [I know that there are other waterways, and many other types of activities thereon, but I don’t know of any published statistics about the extent of usage.] WI needs to reimagine the waterways.

When Jimmy Deenihan spoke in the Dáil on 16 October 2013, he said:

The [budgetary] provision will enable Waterways Ireland to deliver on its core activities and targets, which include keeping the waterways open for navigation during the main boating season and promoting increased use of the waterways resource for recreational purposes. This expenditure should also assist in developing and promoting the waterways, attracting increased numbers of overseas visitors and stimulating business and regeneration in these areas. Capital funding of almost €4 million will be made available to Waterways Ireland to facilitate the ongoing maintenance and restoration of Ireland’s inland waterways, thereby increasing recreational access along the routes of waterways.

My attention was attracted by the phrase about keeping waterways open “during the main boating season”, which suggests a new, restrictive policy. However, the rest of the list is pretty much in line with the existing objectives. I hope that something more radical will come out of the corporate planning process in which WI tells me it is currently engaged.

By the way, note that there was no mention of either heritage, which was the excuse for nicking the waterways from the OPW, or northsouthery.

Waterways budgets: cut by one third in six years

I wrote here and here about the RoI budgetary allocations to Waterways Ireland for 2014, here about the difficulty of establishing exactly what WI’s budget is and here about some questions I have put to the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht on the matter.

But, while a focus on the procedural woods is important, I may have been neglecting the implicational trees. I am recalled to a consideration of the details by two written Dáil questions asked by Gerry Adams [SF, Louth] on 19 November 2013, one of Brendan Howlin, Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, and the other of Jimmy Deenihan, Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. Reading the runes is reminiscent of Kremlinology, but it seems to be possible that Waterways Ireland will have to make significant cuts in its spending, cuts that will reduce the services it provides to waterways users.

The questions and the answers

This is what Gerry Adams asked Brendan Howlin:

To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the total budget for each All Ireland Body established under the Good Friday Agreement for the years 2010 to date in 2013; and any proposed budget reductions to the these bodies currently being considered.

And this is what he asked Jimmy Deenihan:

To ask the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the total budget for each of Waterways Ireland, Fóras na Gaeilge and Ulster-Scots Agency for the years 2010 to date in 2013; and any proposed budget reductions to these bodies currently being considered.

Ignoring the details given for bodies other than Waterways Ireland, we learn that its allocations from its two “sponsor departments”, DCAL in NI and DAHG in RoI, were:

2010 €38.99 million
2011 €35.18 million
2012 €31.15 million

These figures appear to include capital and current expenditure.

For some reason,

The 2013 Budget allocation to the Body are subject to on-going discussion by the two Sponsor Departments.

But Jimmy Deenihan said

My Department’s REV provision for Waterways Ireland for 2013 is €25.463m, a 6% efficiency saving on 2012. My Department’s Estimates provision for 2014 is €24.183m, a 5% efficiency saving on 2013.

The extent of the cuts

I don’t know how to get from a REV provision, or indeed an Estimates provision, to WI’s total budget for 2013 or 2014. One possibility is that the figures include capital and current expenditure. In that case, the RoI contribution to WI’s 2013 budget would be €21.383 million current and €4.080 million capital [PDF; see p160]; adding the NI 15% contribution to current would bring that to about €25.156 million; the €4.080 million capital makes €29.236 million. Perhaps there might be a small amount extra for NI capital spending. By the same logic [and I repeat that I don’t know whether this is the way to do it], the 2014 Estimates provision gives €27.752 million plus NI’s capital spending. Without NI capital spending, the total is 71% of the 2010 figure, so WI will have had its total spending cut by 29% in four years.

Another crude calculation is that the 2012 figure of €31.15 million is 80% of the 2010 figure. Knock off Jimmy Deenihan’s 6% in 2013 and 5% in 2014; the 2014 total comes out again at 71% of the 2010 figure.

But that’s not all. Brendan Howlin said:

In common with other public sector bodies North and South, the North South Implementation Bodies are expected to deliver their objectives in a cost effective and efficient manner. In order to provide a framework for this, my Department and the Department of Finance and Personnel, have issued guidance to the North South Implementation Bodies requiring them to achieve a minimum of 4% efficiency savings per annum in 2014, 2015 and 2016.

So we have to cut another 4% in 2015 and 4% in 2016, by which stage the total will be just under 66% of the 2010 figure: a cut of one third in six years.

Coping

The brunt of the cuts has been borne by the capital budget; we have no figures for expected NI capital spending from 2013 onwards, but on the RoI figures capital spending by 2016 will have been cut by 70%. That seems to have been the general pattern in the Irish public service: cut capital spending first, cut staff costs last.

WI’s operating income is negligible: in 2011 it was €71,000 from licences, €120 from property and €193,000 from permits, lock charges etc, as well as a few other bits and pieces; it is almost entirely reliant on its sponsor departments. So if it is to cope with reduced departmental income, it must either devise new and significant earning opportunities quickly or make serious cuts to its services.

WI’s spending is categorised under five headings, one of which (currency gains or losses and interest) involves a tiny amount. The other four are depreciation, which can’t readily be cut, staff costs, “programme costs” and “other operating costs”.

The “other operating costs” are:

Travel
Recruitment costs
Training and conferences
Contracted in services
Compensation/provision for liability claims
Premises running costs including utilities
Health and safety
Communications
Other operating lease rental
Printing and stationery
Computer running costs
Rent
Audit fee
Marketing and promotions
Insurance and legal fees
Pension administrator costs
General expenditure.

The 2011 total was €5,026,000. None of the individual items looks as if it could provide huge savings, although I imagine each category is being shaved.

The programme costs are allocated to individual waterways; in 2011 (the latest available accounts) the total was €8,082,000, and 63% of those were incurred on the Grand, Royal and Barrow. The Royal’s programme costs were up in 2011, with the reopening, but the Grand’s were cut by 25% and the Barrow’s by 17%. You can’t keep cutting at that sort of rate every year, but I suspect that the Grand, Royal and Barrow will continue to be cut more than the Shannon, Erne and SEW (the Lower Bann cost is tiny).

WI’s main cost is staff: €21,903,000 in 2011, up very slightly on the previous year. I don’t know what cuts have been made in hours or rates (I have heard that there is an overtime ban) but I suspect we haven’t seen the last of them.

At this stage, I imagine that the easy cuts have been made; further cuts may require some combination of

  • reductions in services to users
  • major changes in work practices
  • cuts in staff costs.

There are interesting times ahead.

One small pointer

I noted that, when Jimmy Deenihan spoke in the Dáil on 16 October 2013, he said that WI’s “core activities and targets” included

… keeping the waterways open for navigation during the main boating season.

The last five words [emphasis mine] may be significant: Mr Deenihan may have been hinting that boating is no longer to be regarded as a year-round activity.

Modern management

I’ve just read the minutes (they call ’em joint communiqués, to be posh) of all the North South Ministerial Council Inland Waterways meetings since northsouthery got going again in 2007.

After a bit of catching up in the first couple of years, the NSMC has usually managed to “note” WI’s Annual Reports and Accounts about six months after the end of the year to which they refer: the accounts for 2008 were noted in 7 months, 2009 in 5, 2010 in 7, 2011 in 7 and 2012 in 6. But “noting” doesn’t mean approving: various other bods, including two Comptrollers and Auditors General, then have to look at them, so the citizenry doesn’t get to see the accounts for many months afterwards: the report and accounts for 2012 are still not available.

Nothing to see there, then: both WI and the NSMC appear to be doing their bit as fast as could reasonably be expected. But what is odd is the delay in noting or approving plans and budgets. Knowing litle of management science, I had the naive idea that managers would be working to approved plans and budgets from the start of the year, but WI usually doesn’t get approval until the year is almost over. I do not know why that is.

WI’s business plan for 2008 was approved in October 2007, which is reasonable, although it seems to have been revised in July 2008. But the plans for 2009 and 2010 were not approved until 11 months into the year, that for 2011 until 10 months and that for 2012 until June 2013, six months after the end of the year. I realise that forecasting is difficult, but retrospective planning is surely less than useful.

The same delays apply to the budgets for 2010, 2011 and 2012. So the June 2013 meeting of the NSMC approved or noted:

  • the business plan for 2012 (which had ended six months earlier)
  • the budget for 2012
  • the annual report for 2012
  • the draft accounts for 2012.

I do hope that someone checked to ensure that all the documents accorded with one another: it would be really embarrassing if they didn’t. But as a management exercise this seems to be somewhat less than useful.

The same meeting also

… noted progress on the development of the 2013 Business Plan and budget. Following approval by Sponsor Departments and Finance Ministers the plan will be brought forward for approval at a future NSMC meeting.

It is good to know that, six months into the year, there was progress on the business plan and budget for that year. The minutes of the November meeting don’t mention the 2013 business plan and budget (but do, I am pleased to note, mention the 2014 versions), but there was a disturbing item of information on the previous day, 19 November 2013. Brendan Howlin, Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, replied to a written question from Gerry Adams [SF, Louth], saying inter alia

The 2013 Budget allocation to the Body are subject to on-going discussion by the two Sponsor Departments.

This is November; 88% of the year has passed and the Irish budget for 2013 was approved long ago — yet WI still hasn’t been told its budget for 2013. WTF is going on?

I note that the same applies to the other north-south body or bodies that share the [RoI] Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and the [NI] Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure as sponsors. An Foras Teanga, which includes Foras na Gaeilge and Tha Boord o Ulstèr-Scotch, likewise still has its 2013 budget under discussion by the two departments.

I have asked DAHG about this, and will no doubt receive a full and frank reply in due course. In the meantime, I can only speculate. Is it possible that one minister wants to spend very much more or less on waterways than the other does? As the total current expenditure is fixed at 85%/15%, it seems to me that one side might very well come up with a figure that the other didn’t like.

Is it possible that DCAL, run by Mr Adams’s party colleague Carál Ní Chuilín, is more keen on cross-border bodies than is DAHG, run by Fine Gael minister Jimmy Deenihan? Or are both of them struggling to find savings to pay for the Clones Sheugh, or at least as a deposit for the SEUPB?

Or could it simply be that WI is having great difficulty in cutting its expenditure to fit within the limits imposed by the RoI budget?

 

Questions, questions

I reproduce below the text of an email I have sent to the press office at the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, which is responsible for waterways in RoI. Though you wouldn’t think it; DAHG’s home page has this list of activities on the left-hand side:

Arts
About Us
Culture
Heritage
20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language 2010–2030
Irish
Islands
An Ghaeltacht
Aran LIFE+ Posts
Ministers
Public Service Reform
National Famine Commemoration 2013
National Ploughing Championships
EU Presidency
Censorship of Publications
Press Releases
Publications
Speeches
Consultations
Links
Contact Details

Nothing about either waterways or northsouthery (which is the category into which waterways fall).

Anyway, here are the questions I asked.

1. On 19 November 2013, in a written answer to Gerry Adams, Jimmy Deenihan said:

My Department’s REV provision for Waterways Ireland for 2013 is €25.463m, a 6% efficiency saving on 2012. My Department’s Estimates provision for 2014 is €24.183m, a 5% efficiency saving on 2013.

I would be grateful if you could tell me what a REV provision is.

2. Your minister also said:

The 2013 and 2014 Budget allocations to the Bodies are subject to ongoing discussion by the two Sponsor Departments and will require, of course, formal approval by the NSMC.

I would be grateful if you could tell me (a) why Waterways Ireland’s budget had not been finalised when 88% of the year had passed and (b) how that affected budgetary management in the Body.

3. I would be grateful if you could tell me when Waterways Ireland’s report and accounts for 2012 will be published.

4. I would be grateful if you could tell me when Waterways Ireland’s plan for 2014 and subsequent years is to be published and what public consultation there has been on it.

5. On 16 October 2013 Jimmy Deenihan said in the Dáil that WI’s

core activities and targets

include

keeping the waterways open for navigation during the main boating season.

I would be grateful if you could tell me whether that formulation represents any forthcoming change in WI’s practices in keeping waterways open outside the main boating season.

 

Setback for Sheugh

The likelihood that limitless wealth will result from the construction of the Clones Sheugh was reduced recently with the closure of the cruiser-hire base closest to the Ulster Canal: the Emerald Star (Le Boat) operation at Belturbet.

Perhaps, though, it reflects a wider decline in the hire business rather than disappointment at the delay in the canal’s reconstruction.

Effin stats

I wrote here about Maureen O’Sullivan’s questioning of ministers about Effin Bridge, the lifting railway bridge below Newcomen Bridge on the Royal Canal in Dublin. It seems that she would like a drop-lock to replace the bridge, thus enabling boats to pass under the railway at any time without interfering with the operation of the trains. Which would be very nice, but that it would cost over €5 million and cause significant disruption to the railway during construction.

I was distressed by Ms O’Sullivan’s failure to make any sort of economic case for the drop-lock or for any other measure that might allow for free movement of boats on that section of the Royal Canal. I said:

As the expenditure on reopening the Royal Canal is a sunk cost, I am all in favour of making its use easier — provided that it can be demonstrated that (a) there is a demand for increased use, (b) such increased use will have benefits that outweigh the costs of any improvements and (c) no alternative investment offers better returns. As far as I can see, Ms O’Sullivan has demonstrated none of the three: indeed I see no evidence that she has even considered them.

Ms O’Sullivan’s position might be described as favouring an increase in the supply of possible passages along that section of the canal, but I thought it might be interesting to know what the demand for such passages was, so I asked Waterways Ireland how many boats had passed under Effin Bridge in 2013.

I was wrong about the number of days on which the bridge was lifted: nine lifts were available altogether. Six were on Tuesdays, two on Saturdays and one on a Sunday (to facilitate the Dublin boat rally):

Tuesday 16 April 2013:           0 boats
Tuesday 30 April 2013:         10 boats
Sunday 5 May 2013:            24 boats
Tuesday 21 May 2013:           0 boats
Saturday 1 June 2013:           8 boats
Tuesday 18 June 2013:           2 boats
Saturday 20 July 2013:          3 boats
Tuesday 13 August 2013:       7 boats
Tuesday 17 September 2013:  4 boats

So that’s 58 boats in a year.

I asked what the cost was: I was told that Irish Rail charges €1200 per weekday lift and €2000 per weekend lift. I presume that Waterways Ireland itself incurs other costs, perhaps overtime at weekends, but I don’t know what they are. The cost per boat for each lift was:

Tuesday 16 April 2013:           0 boats: lift cancelled as no boats wanted it
Tuesday 30 April 2013:         10 boats: €120.00 per boat
Sunday 5 May 2013:            24 boats: €83.33 per boat
Tuesday 21 May 2013:           0 boats: lift cancelled as no boats wanted it
Saturday 1 June 2013:           8 boats: €250.00 per boat
Tuesday 18 June 2013:           2 boats: €600.00 per boat
Saturday 20 July 2013:          3 boats: €666.67 per boat
Tuesday 13 August 2013:       7 boats: €171.43 per boat
Tuesday 17 September 2013:  4 boats: €300.00 per boat

The total charged to Waterways Ireland (not to the boaters) by Irish Rail was €10800.00.

Suppose that a drop-lock had been built for €5000000. Would it be worth investing that amount to save an annual expenditure of €10800? I suspect not, although I am open to correction by anyone capable of calculating NPVs or other relevant measures.

It seems to me, though, that the case for any capital expenditure is weak while demand for passages is lower than supply. Perhaps Royal Canal enthusiasts might work on attracting more boats to the Dublin end, whether from the Shannon end or from the Grand and Liffey.

 

SEUPBer

SEUPB, the Special European Union Programmes Body, has withdrawn its offer of funding for the Narrowwater bridge about which I wrote here and here.

Perhaps the scheme’s proponents might now consider a Newry Southern Relief Road instead. It might not be iconic, but it would be considerably more useful.

And I really don’t think it needs an opening span to cater for a couple of yachts going up the Newry Ship Canal.

It seems that the SEUPB wants to reallocate the money to a project that could be completed by December 2015. A cross-border sheugh, maybe?