… is a loon.
Perhaps he’s basing his economic views on those of his grandfather George, who did his best to drag Ireland back from the nineteenth to the eighteenth century (although he was living — for certain values of “living” — in the twentieth).
What is it about Irish republicans and canals?
Castle Saunderson and the border
Saunderson’s Sheugh, the latest manifestation of the proposed reconstruction of the Ulster Canal, would run along a border for much of its length. That’s the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, but there is one important border it does not seem to cross [as far as I can see]: that between counties Cavan and Monaghan.
Has Cavan stolen the sheugh from its northern neighbour? I’m sure that folk in the Monaghan part of the Dáil constituency of Cavan-Monaghan won’t mind, but I wonder whether the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, who is a TD from the Monaghan end and is in charge of Sheughery, is concerned that her Monaghan colleague Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin [Sinn Féin] might turn the situation to his party’s advantage. On the other hand, from Sinn Féin’s viewpoint, the question might be whether any sheugh is better than none.
Of course, as soon as a coalition of Sinn Féin and the Éamon Ó Cuív wing of Fianna Fáil takes power, we’ll have the entire Ulster Canal built immediately. And there will be grants for growing flax, carrying corn to Dublin and draining the Shannon [which might mean that there are no southern boats to visit the Ulster Canal].
I should say, though, that Davy, in two reports out today, is not very worried about what Sinn Féin might do: Finfacts story here; Davy here; the two reports here and here [each of which should open as a PDF; if that doesn’t work, use the links on the Davy or the Finfacts page].
Map: OpenStreetMap; copyright explained here.
Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Canals, Drainage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Non-waterway, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Shannon, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged Éamon Ó Cuív, bridge, Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, Castle Saunderson, Cavan, Clones, Clones sheugh, dcal, department of arts heritage and the gaeltacht, department of culture arts and leisure, Erne, flax, Heather Humphreys, Ireland, lock, Lough Neagh, Monaghan, Northern Ireland, Saunderson's Sheugh, Shannon, Sinn Fein, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways Ireland
Nice PQ from Éamon Ó Cuív here:
Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail). Question 446: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if Waterways Ireland will have to pay for the abstraction of water for use in the Royal Canal, the Grand Canal, the Shannon-Erne Waterway and other man-made waterways as a result of the reasoned opinion from the European Union in November 2011; the reply sent by him regarding same to the Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8122/12]
Here is the European Commission’s press release on the subject.
Posted in Drainage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Ireland, Irish waterways general, Non-waterway, Operations, Politics, Shannon, Sources, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged abstraction, Éamon Ó Cuív, canal, Grand Canal, Ireland, Royal Canal, Shannon-Erne Waterway, use, water, waterways, Waterways Ireland
I have now completed an examination of the proposals for the reconstruction of a section of the Ulster Canal from Lough Erne to the town of Clones in Co Monaghan. My conclusions are linked from this page, which also contains a brief summary of my views.
Ulster Canal 0: overview presents the main points of the argument in about 3,600 words. It does not contain most of the quotations and omits the references; it also omits some sections of the argument. However, it’s about one fifth of the length of the whole thing.
Ulster Canal 1 to Ulster Canal 10 present the argument under ten headings, amounting to about 18,500 words in all. That may be too much for most people. There are no photos or other illustrations, and most of the argument is about economics or politics.
It will be clear that I do not have full information; I will be glad to have Comments from anyone who can fill the gaps or correct anything I’ve got wrong.
For anyone who can’t wait, here is a copy of the summary of my views.
The Irish government has been pushing, since the 1990s, for the restoration of the Ulster Canal. Several studies have been commissioned; all of them show that the project is uneconomic. At no stage has either the UK or the Northern Ireland administration shown any willingness to commit funding to the project. As a result, the Irish government has scaled back its ambitions, proposing to fund the construction of a canal from Lough Erne to Clones in Co Monaghan: it would cross the border several times, but it would pass through no significant conurbation on the northern side.
However, this scaled-back project makes even less sense than the proposal for full restoration, and there is no reason to believe that the canal will ever get any further than Clones. The Irish government might, I suppose, decide to dig on to Monaghan, as a form of famine relief work, but there is no evidence that the Northern Ireland Executive will ever put money into completing the route to Lough Neagh.
The costs of the proposal have not been reexamined for many years (or, if they have, the results have not been published), and the economic analyses may overstate the likely benefits. Even if they are accurate, though, the main benefits seem to come from casual visitors rather than from boaters. The benefits will go to service providers in the area, rather than to the waterways authority, but even if they went to Waterways Ireland they would not pay the running costs, never mind repaying the capital cost. The project has failed every economic test to which it has been subjected: it simply does not provide the sort of return that would justify the project.
There seems to be some doubt over the source of the proposed funding. The Irish government said that it canal to Clones would be paid for by the Irish Exchequer, but it later said that Waterways Ireland would sell surplus assets to pay some or all of the cost. It is not clear that Waterways Ireland’s surplus assets would, in current economic conditions, bring in enough money; nor is it clear that the Department of Finance is willing to make up any shortfall.
There might be something to be said for acquiring the land and creating a walking and cycling route, but the current proposal for a canal to Clones is utterly unjustifiable and should be dropped.
Posted in Ashore, Economic activities, Extant waterways, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Irish waterways general, Operations
Tagged Assembly, Éamon Ó Cuív, Blackwater, boats, bridge, Caledon, canal, Clones, Dáil, Dublin Docklands Development Authority, Erne, Executive, Finn, Good Friday agreement, implementation body, Ireland, lock, lost, Lough Neagh, MLA, Monaghan, Nelson McCausland, North/South Ministerial Council, Northern Ireland Assembly, Operations, Plot 6, Seanad, TD, Ulster Canal, vessels, waterways, Waterways Ireland
Irish waterways history