Tag Archives: bridge

Reading list

Waterways Ireland has been putting out more and more stuff on its website.

If you haven’t already seen them, you can get the full set of Product Development Studies, in PDF format, here.

Even more interesting, to this site, are the waterway heritage surveys. Those for all waterways other than the Shannon are available here. The Shannon study was done some years ago (I remember making some comments on it at the time) and will be uploaded “in due course”.

I was in a WI office yesterday and had a quick look at the Lower Bann survey, which was done by Fred Hamond (so we know it will be good), and I’m looking forward to learning more about the waterway I know least about. It is done thematically and has lots of illustrations: Fred is able to see and present the bigger picture, but a full database, with all the supporting information, is available on request.

Maureen O’Sullivan asks sensible questions …

I am happy to report that Maureen O’Sullivan TD [Ind, Dublin Central] asked some sensible written questions in the Dáil on 15 January 2014.

Under the rather odd heading “Waterways Ireland Remit“, she asked Jimmy Deenihan [FG, Kerry North/West Limerick; Minister for the City of Culture]

[…] if he will include work on land maps to determine what land abutting the canals is owned privately, by Waterways Ireland, the Railway Procurement Agency, Iarnrod Éireann, Dublin City Council, Office of Public Works or other; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The minister replied:

I am informed that Waterways Ireland already has an ongoing programme to modernise historic canal ownership maps and register navigation property in its ownership.

She put another question to Jimmy Deenihan under the same heading; you can see the link between the two questions:

[…] having regard to the prospective re-opening of the Royal Canal towpath at Portland Place in Summer 2014 further to the refurbishment of the collapsed wall at Portland Place and having regard also to the Spencer Dock Greenway Project and the re-lining works to be carried out at the sixth level, if he will direct Waterways Ireland to commission a strategic environment assessment for a new canal-side walkway along the south side of the sixth level of the Royal Canal at Phibsborough from Shandon Gardens to the railway bridge at the seventh lock with a new pedestrian crossing (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The only problem with this is that even getting an environmental assessment done is likely to strain WI’s budget at the moment, so it’s not a good time to be suggesting new expenditure. However, it didn’t matter in this case, as Jimmy Deenihan explained:

I am informed by Waterways Ireland that it does not own the lands on the southside of the Royal Canal between Shandon Gardens and the 7th lock, at Liffey Junction and therefore will not be commissioning a Strategic Environment Assessment for a new canalside walkway.

She also asked Alan Kelly [Labour, Tipperary North] about that:

[…] noting that it is the intention of the National Transport Authority to pursue a cycling and walking greenway along the Royal Canal in Dublin city, if he will ask Iarnród Eireann, the Railway Procurement Agency and Dublin City Council to assess the viability of opening a new walkway along the Royal Canal, 6th level, from Shandon Gardens to the 7th lock with a new footbridge at the 7th lock railway crossing linking to the existing Greenway route; if, in particular, this option will be explored alongside any re-lining work that might be undertaken by Waterways Ireland along that level.

He said:

The development of walking and cycling facilities within the Greater Dublin Area is a matter for the National Transport Authority (NTA) in conjunction with the relevant local authority, which is Dublin City Council in this case.

The NTA provides funding to local authorities for a range of schemes to benefit pedestrians, including new walkways, under the Sustainable Transport Management Grants Programme. Accordingly, I have sent your request to the NTA and have asked them to reply to you directly in relation to the above matter.

I’m all in favour of getting money from other people to pay for waterways.

Finally, under the heading of Inland Waterways Development, she had another question for Jimmy Deenihan:

[…] if he will explore all possible options within current fiscal constraints to advance and develop the potential of the Royal and Grand canal lines that pass through Dublin city; if he will establish an inter-agency group on the Dublin City reaches of the Royal and Grand canals; if he will explore ways to advance their development, examining funding options, including existing funding streams and the leveraging of funding from other sources and the possibility of EU funding which may be available.

I might say at this stage that I don’t see why TDs are asking ministers about stuff that they could find out themselves by asking WI directly. It’s not as though they’re going to get a lot of favourable publicity by doing so: this isn’t the PAC grilling a hospital or charity board and the meeja aren’t really interested.

Anyway, Jimmy Deenihan replied:

As the Deputy may be aware, the Dublin City Canals Study [PDF] was launched on 20th July 2010. This was prepared by consultants on behalf of Waterways Ireland, Fáilte Ireland, Dublin Docklands Development Authority and Dublin City Council. The study examined the existing activities on the Royal and Grand Canals and identified an overall vision for the development of the City Canals within the M50. I am advised that following on from the study an Operations Liaison Group plus two sub-groups (one for the Royal Canal and one for the Grand Canal) were established and continue to meet to deliver the recommendations identified, within the current fiscal constraints.

I am informed that to complement the above study, Waterways Ireland engaged additional consultants to carry out a detailed study of Grand Canal Dock and Spencer Dock with the objective of producing a Master Plan, currently at draft stage, that realises their potential as a recreational amenity and a living, vibrant part of Dublin and its Docklands. Waterways Ireland will continue to work collaboratively to unlock the pivotal role of these two major docks and to attract funding to develop a maritime quarter within the city of Dublin.

I wasn’t very impressed by the Dublin City Canals Study, which didn’t seem to me to be rooted in actual conditions in Dublin. I will look forward to seeing the master plan for the two dock areas.

Anyway, that was a more sensible set of questions from Maureen O’Sullivan, and it kept her off the subject of Effin Bridge.

Grace’s Guide and the Brunswick Dockyard

William Watson, of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, held patents for a double canal boat, capable of being shortened to pass through locks, and for a form of composite construction for boats, with iron ribs and wooden planking. I found recently that at least one composite boat was built for the CoDSPCo at the Brunswick boatyard in Ringsend, Dublin.

The invaluable Grace’s Guide had no entry for the Brunswick boatyard/dockyard but, when I mentioned the matter, undertook some research and produced a page about it. Grace’s and I would welcome any more information about that yard; as the Guide says:

The precise location of the dockyard has yet to be identified.

Pat Sweeney’s Liffey Ships and Shipbuilding (Mercier 2010) just mentions Henry Teal [sic]; Irish Maritime History’s list is light on early nineteenth century construction.

I would welcome information about other yards that might have built vessels for the CoDSPCo.

 

A threat to an existing navigation

I have a page here about the River Maigue, one of Ireland’s oldest improved navigations. Incidentally, the river’s name is locally pronounced Mag, to rhyme with bag.

In 2009 I wrote to the Powers That Be to suggest that the (much to be desired) bypass of Adare, a major bottleneck on the N21 Limerick–Tralee/Killarney road, should pass to the south of the town, thus avoiding the interference with the navigation that would undoubtedly have resulted from a northern bypass. It was no doubt the strength of my case, and a recognition of the importance of the navigation, that caused the Powers to opt for a southern bypass. A proposed link to a proposed M20 Limerick–Cork motorway may have been a minor factor in their decision: as nobody was going to build a motorway to Kerry, Adare would piggyback on the motorway to Cork.

However, An Bord Pleanála overturned the decision [PDFs available here] because the M20 proposal was withdrawn. The Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers’ Association is pleased because it wanted a northern bypass of Adare, to be linked to a new road from Limerick to the port of Foynes; its submission on the matter is here [PDF]. A Limerick ICSA chap has a letter to the editor about the Foynes link in the current issue of the Limerick Leader, although it’s not yet available online.

Now, this proposal has the drawback that it might actually be slightly sensible: a better road to Foynes might stop people agitating for a restoration of the railway line and enable a speedy ending of port activities in Limerick, thus removing large piles of scrap from the riverside. But have the ICSA not considered the damage to the turf-boat traffic to Adare if a road bridge is added to the railway bridge downstream of Adare?

Winter Quarters

At Leinster Mills, Naas Branch, new year's eve 2013

At Leinster Mills, Naas Branch, new year’s eve 2013

“Ireland has no inland waterways …” says Minister for Transport

Those very words came from Leo Varadkar [FG, Dublin West], Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, in a written answer to a Dáil question on 3 December 2013.

I have, of course, quoted him selectively and out of context. The full sentence was

Ireland has no inland waterways within the definition of the EU legislation as Ireland’s inland waterways are not navigable for commercial traffic and we do not have any interconnected inland commercial transport for the purposes, or on the scale, envisaged by EU proposals in this area.

The poor man was responding to yet another question from the Pest of the Royal Canal, Maureen O’Sullivan [Ind, Dublin Central], who was continuing her misguided campaign to get public money from anywhere at all to replace Effin Bridge, the lifting railway bridge at Newcomen Bridge over the Royal Canal in Dublin 1. I reported on her campaign here, here and here, with the last of those showing that current demand for passages is less than the (admittedly restricted) supply. That being so, I cannot see how any expenditure on replacing Effin Bridge could be justified, especially in the country’s current situation and with Waterways Ireland desperate for money. I would, of course, have no objection to any voluntary fund-raising campaign that Ms O’Sullivan might initiate.

Ms O’Sullivan questioned two ministers on 3 December. She asked Leo Varadkar:

…  if his attention has been drawn to Inland Waterway Transport Funding, the Funding Guide for Inland Waterway Transport in Europe published by the European Commission’s Directorate General for Energy and Transport in 2008; the reason the 19 countries’ inland waterways systems referenced in the publication does not include Ireland; if he will ensure that any future edition of the guide will contain a country profile for Ireland including information on major inland waterways and ports together with an overview on the national inland waterways transport funding policy, funding programmes and institutions; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The saintly and erudite minister replied:

The Funding Guide that the Deputy refers to was published following the launch of the 2006 NAIADES Action Programme, a multi-annual programme on the promotion of inland waterways transport. The Commission has recently decided to update and renew this programme until 2020. Ireland does not have a country profile in the Funding Guide as, in general, Ireland is exempt from EU inland waterways rules and proposals since they relate to waterways of a greater size and carrying a greater capacity of goods than exist in Ireland. The European Union’s inland waterway network spans 20 Member States with about 37,000 kilometres of inland waterways. Every year, these transport around 500 million tons of cargo, in particular in the densely populated and congested areas of Germany, the Netherlands, France and Belgium.

Ireland has no inland waterways within the definition of the EU legislation as Ireland’s inland waterways are not navigable for commercial traffic and we do not have any interconnected inland commercial transport for the purposes, or on the scale, envisaged by EU proposals in this area.

My Department is responsible for licensing all commercial inland craft in Ireland. There are no commercial cargo craft on Ireland’s inland waterways, apart from some small workboats. There are a number of domestic passenger boats and ships operating locally as tourist excursion vessels.

Ireland keeps a watching brief on EU inland waterways matters, mainly to ensure that any proposals do not conflict with, or overlap, the existing maritime safety regimes.

I expect that Ms O’Sullivan will be back shortly to propose the setting up of a horse-drawn barge fleet on the Royal Canal, returning Ireland to the late eighteenth century, to which the Irish left (and republicans) seem so devoted.

Her other questions were to Jimmy Deenihan [FG, Kerry North/West Limerick], Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. She asked:

… if he will identify the various State agencies whose operations bear upon the management of the Royal Canal and the steps they are taking, individually or collaboratively; if he will increase commercial-leisure use of the Royal Canal since the reopening of Spencer Dock to navigation in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

… if the European Regional Development Fund has been considered as a possible source of funding towards the costs, estimated at over €5 million, of overcoming obstacles to navigation, namely, the lifting bridge and the fixed Spencer Dock bridge on the sea level of the Royal Canal; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The patient and polite minister said:

[…] Waterways Ireland is the navigation authority for the Royal Canal and is responsible for the management, maintenance and development of the Royal Canal, principally for recreational purposes. Waterways Ireland undertook the work to re-commission the Royal Canal prior to its reopening in 2010 and continues to develop the canal and its facilities, and promote its use for recreation.

I am advised that Waterways Ireland has not sought funding to redevelop the lifting bridge referred to by the Deputy and has no plans to seek such funding at this time. Ongoing operation of the bridge continues to be kept under review with Iarnród Éireann, while Dublin City Council remains responsible for the operation of the Spencer Dock Bridge at Sheriff Street.

And rightly so.

Note that the €5 million figure referred only to Effin Bridge; replacing Sheriff Street Bridge would be another kettle of fish.

Lowtown Canal Yard is for sale

Details here.

If I won the lottery I’d buy it myself. Sad to see Robert and Caroline Few selling, after many years of service to the canal; I wish them all the best in the future.

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.

 

 

 

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.

Sallins delay?

Waterways Ireland has readvertised for a contractor to build a houseboat facility at Sallins on the Grand Canal:

Waterways Ireland seeks tenders from experienced and competent contractors for the construction of a House Boat Mooring Facility in Sallins, Co Kildare.