Tag Archives: Ulster Canal

Enda gets confused

In the Dáil on 19 June 2012, Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin (Cork South Central) complained that there was not enough northsouthery:

[…] We have had good relations since the Good Friday Agreement and there have been good initiatives under the various North-South bodies and agencies that were subsequently established, from InterTradeIreland to the Food Safety Promotion Board and from Tourism Ireland to Waterways Ireland. In the early days, these had concrete, substantive, project-based achievements that delivered considerable momentum. Nothing of that calibre is in evidence currently.

With the British Government and the Northern Executive, will the Taoiseach commit to examining the North-South agenda seriously, in particular the review of North-South bodies, which has been waiting for some time to be signed off on? What are the conclusions of the review and what is the Government’s response to an additional North-South agency?

Taoiseach Enda Kenny (FG, Mayo) replied:

There was no conclusion at the meeting on Friday about additional bodies. Clearly, there were a number of issues outstanding in regard to some of the existing bodies. For instance, the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, committed to working with his counterpart in respect of the continued planning of the Erne Canal, which has been an issue for a very long time. There is no funding for it now, but there is no reason to believe one cannot put in place a strategy and a plan to open it. It would have enormous implications for tourism.

For “Erne” read “Ulster”: the NSMC decided not to extend Waterways Ireland’s remit so Ireland’s most insane current canal proposal is not on WI’s things-to-do list. The Ulster Canal is only rhe second most insane current canal proposal, although there is a new competitor entering the field.

 

Northsouthery latest

The joint communiqué issued after the June 2012 plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council is available on the NSMC website. The waterways bits:

5. The Council noted the Progress Report prepared by the NSMC Joint Secretaries on the work of the North South Bodies and in the other NSMC areas for co-operation and welcomed the following key developments: […] preparation by Waterways Ireland of options for advancing the Ulster Canal project […].

I have asked Waterways Ireland for a copy of the options document ….

ST. ANDREWS AGREEMENT REVIEW

10. Ministers endorsed the following recommendations concerning North South Bodies:

Waterways Ireland

  • sponsor departments to consider options around the setting up of a Board that would deliver the benefits of improved accountability and governance for Waterways Ireland but comprising less than twelve members and to present proposals for consideration at a future NSMC Inland Waterways meeting;
  • sponsor departments to implement as appropriate, through changes to the legislation or other administrative means, a de minimis provision for dealing with Waterways Ireland disposal of a waterway or part of a waterway;
  • sponsor departments to review the current provisions in relation to Waterways Ireland’s commercial activities to ensure that these are adequate and to report to a future NSMC Inland Waterways meeting; and
  • taking account of the current economic and fiscal circumstances, no further action is taken at this time to extend the remit of Waterways Ireland.

So the Newry and Portadown folk will be disappointed and those on the Lagan will be relieved. WI will get a bit more freedom in property and commercial operations but will have a Board (whose relationship with the sponsor departments will be interesting).

The communiqué also says:

11. Ministers noted that work is progressing on a review of the Financial Memoranda of the North/South Bodies with the aim of having the review completed by end-December 2012. In relation to shared services, it was noted that work has commenced on exploring the potential for providing efficiency savings within the North/South Bodies with a view to a report to the NSMC in Autumn 2012.

That will be nice, though the southern government seems to have ignored the provisions of the existing memorandum in its proposal (which ran aground in the property crash) to grab some of WI’s assets to pay for the canal to Clones.

Finally, the communiqué says:

12. The Council noted that the First Minister, deputy first Minister, Taoiseach and Tánaiste will reflect and consult on Terms of Reference 2 and 3 with a view to decisions being taken at the November 2012 Plenary meeting.

That’s about another part of the St Andrews Agreement Review. The report that made the four recommendations discussed earlier was a report on the first of three terms of reference; the other two have not yet been tackled. They are:

2. To examine objectively the case for additional bodies and areas of co-operation within the NSMC where mutual benefit would be derived; and
3. To input into the work on the identification of a suitable substitute for the proposed Lights Agency of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission.

The review was agreed upon five years ago, so speed doesn’t seem to be of great importance in these matters.

Government stimulus

According to the Irish Times:

Ahead of the summit later this month, Government departments have been told to draw up lists of capital projects with potential to create thousands of jobs for which funding would be sought if EU leaders agree on the package at the meeting to be held a week before polling day here.

Will DAHG be able to resist the temptation of suggesting the Clones canal? I’m sure that, since it discovered the project was going to cost almost one third more than it had originally believed, it has had teams of economists busily reassessing its, er, viability (and I’m expecting a visit from the easter bunny at any moment) so it will have its “business case” ready.

Still, there’s a slightly more cheering take on the matter here, where Michael Taft suggests that the government won’t be able to get much money for “stimulus”. I like the idea of using project bonds for the Clones Canal, though it might be hard to show that it qualified as “key strategic EU infrastructure in transport, energy and broadband” despite the Irish state’s delusions.

Skew arch bridges

The IHAI AGM at the weekend, in Newtownabbey Borough Council’s splendidly restored Mossley Mill,  included a tour of the premises and its museum. Then Professor Adrian Long of Queen’s University Belfast gave a short talk about the FlexiArch bridge, which his team have been developing since the 1990s.

Professor Adrian Long with a wooden model of the FlexiArch bridge

He said that their work started by asking why nobody built arched bridges any more; they developed a system that used pre-cast voussoirs (the wedge-shaped blocks) linked by a polymeric flexible membrane. The voussoirs for any bridge are cast to give the correct taper for the span and rise required for that bridge.

Arch rings arrive on site stowed flat on the back of a truck; when they are lifted off, they fall into the correct shape and are lowered into position on previously-installed footings. Each arch ring is 1m wide; several of them can be placed side by side to give whatever width is required. The end walls are added and the structure is filled and given the appropriate surface (eg tarmac).

FlexiArch is manufactured by Macrete of Toomebridge (beside Lough Neagh); their website shows several examples of installation including one at a name familiar on Irish waterways. There is a brochure [PDF] and there is a video showing the installation of a 15-metre bridge.

Wooden model as a skew arch

No, I haven’t any shares in it. I just thought it was interesting, for three reasons: first, the speed of construction is very impressive; second, there is a link to Lough Neagh; third, it might encourage the construction of more skew arch bridges over canals.

 

Prothero

This site includes several extracts from F E Prothero’s 1896 and 1898 accounts of small-boat trips on Irish waterways. This short page shows what I know about Mr Prothero; I would welcome further information.

A waterway for everyone in the audience

My attention has been drawn to this Dáil written question by Joan Burton TD (Dublin West, Labour) and the answer by Éamon Ó Cuív TD (Minister, Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs; Galway West, Fianna Fail).

The layout on the kildarestreet site is not perfect, so I reproduce some of the list here:

The following are the details requested by the Deputy in respect of non-navigable stretches of canals that are within the control of Waterways Ireland and are being or could be restored:

Grand Canal

  • Kilbeggan Branch (8.2 miles long) in Co. Offaly and Co. Westmeath
  • Part of Naas & Corbally Branch (Corbally Extension) (4.4 miles long) in Co. Kildare
  • Barrow Line Part of Mountmellick Branch (0.25 miles long) in Co. Kildare (remaining 11 miles filled in).

Royal Canal

  • Part of Royal Canal (11 miles long) in Co. Longford, currently under restoration
  • Longford Branch (3 miles long) in Co. Longford.

The Royal Canal main line is currently under restoration and the remaining work necessary to return it to full navigation between Dublin and the Shannon is due for completion in 2010.

Ulster Canal

  • 46 miles long in Co. Cavan, Co. Monaghan, Co. Fermanagh and Co. Armagh.

Approval has been given to Waterways Ireland to restore the stretch between Lough Erne and Clones. Present indications are that this stretch could be re-opened by 2013.

And (perhaps because the economy was so successful) we could have waterways everywhere:

It is intended, subject to availability of resources, to carry out feasibility studies and preliminary designs in relation to the Longford Branch, the Kilbeggan Branch and the Corbally Extension, along with extensions to Annagh Upper near Dowra on the Shannon Navigation and to Lough Oughter on the Erne System with a view to possible re-opening. Consideration will also be given to the carrying out of preliminary analysis and assessment of the Mountmellick Branch, as well as the Boyne Navigation (which is primarily a river navigation) and the extension towards Mohill on the Rinn River, as future possibilities for restoration.

“The Irish economy entered severe recession in 2008,” according to Wikipedia’s useful summary of the financial crisis, but Craggy Island (nach maireann, comme on dit) still hoped to drag Ireland into the Canal Age.

 

 

How much Dáil time …

… is wasted in asking and answering questions over and over again? I’d have thought that Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin TD (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) would have realised that the government has discovered neither oil nor a crock of gold and that there is no money for a canal to Clones. The task of finding some is to be delegated to an “inter-agency group”, poor dears. I’d have thought it might be better to give the job to people with experience of unconventional fund-raising; there must be some such people around.

Hey, Brendan …

… once you’ve recruited the staff for your new government economic and evaluation service, could you send a few of them round to the DAHG to examine the Clones Canal proposal?

The NI Assembly discusses waterways

The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure,  Carál Ní Chuilín [Sinn Féin], reported to the NI Assembly yesterday on the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) inland waterways meeting held in Enniskillen on 14 February 2012, which I reported on here. The minister’s statement didn’t add anything to what the NSMC minutes [PDF] said, but some interesting points came up in the discussion afterwards.

Disposals

[Karen] McKevitt [SDLP, South Down]: One of the four specific recommendations considered at the meeting was a change to the legislation for the disposal of a waterway or part of a waterway by Waterways Ireland. Why does Waterways Ireland need that power? Does it have any plans to make such disposals?

Ms Ní Chuilín: We want to give Waterways Ireland the authority to dispose of small areas of land without needing approval from both Departments. That provision will be de minimis and will cover the disposal of land that is worth less than £25,000. It will also allow for good practice and good governance, and will ensure that there is a clear understanding of what Waterways Ireland can and cannot do. The creation of such a provision has been raised before and we said that we would bring it forward. Therefore, this is progress and, through it, we are providing clarity.

This is sensible: WI shouldn’t have to bother ministers about such minor disposals.

The Clones Canal

Perhaps the penny is beginning to drop. Mr McCarthy [Kieran McCarthy, Alliance Party, Strangford] said:

I thank the Minister for her statement. The Minister said that the next NSMC waterways meeting will set out “options for advancing the Ulster Canal project.” Is there any hint that that project may be curtailed or that less will be done than was formerly envisaged?

The minister’s answer:

[…] Some time ago, the Irish Government made a statement that their budget for developing some of the capital works that they had committed to was under threat. The Ulster canal was mentioned in that statement.

At previous NSMC waterways meetings, we agreed to progress that project as much as possible. One of the first stages of the programme of work was to seek leave for planning permission, and that has happened. The project will be kept under constant review at each stage, and the Ulster canal project is firmly at the top of the agenda of NSMC waterways meetings and other meetings that I have with Minister Deenihan. Any progress on that project will be reported at the next NSMC waterways meeting in June.

The minister has shifted the focus to the planning application as the mark of progress. She did not tell Mr McCarthy that there is no money in Waterways Ireland’s budget for any substantive construction work before 2014.

Tom Elliott [Ulster Unionist Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone] asked about costings for the whole of the Ulster Canal:

[…] She mentioned the Ulster canal and, in particular, the Clones to upper Lough Erne portion of that canal. Will she give us details of the costings of the entire Ulster canal project and, in particular, the Clones to upper Lough Erne portion, for which planning permission has now been sought? Have those costings been reviewed recently?

The minister confirmed the figure of €45 million, reported here on 16 December 2011, for the Clones Canal, but note her inclusion of the word “currently”: there might be more increases before construction could begin in 2014. She provided no information about updated figures for any canal from Clones to Lough Neagh:

The 2006 business case indicated a capital cost of £171·5 million for the restoration of the entire canal. That included site navigation, an environmental impact assessment and project management and construction costs. The estimated costs to restore the Clones to upper Lough Erne section is currently €45 million. The construction costs for that section will be entirely funded by the Irish Government, and, when it is built, my Department will contribute ongoing operational costs that are estimated at £37,000 per annum.

If the same 29% increase were applied to the rest of the canal, the total cost would be £220.5 million, just under €350 million.

Tha Boord o Watterweys Airlann

The other discussion of interest was about the proposal to have a board for Waterways Ireland. Robin Swann [Ulster Unionist Party, North Antrim] asked:

Can the Minister provide clarification on the option to set up a board that comprises fewer than 12 members to present proposals for consideration at a future NSMC meeting on inland waterways? Would that not be the establishment of a further North/South quango to advise the North/South Ministerial Council? If that board is established, what would it discuss, who would decide its remit, and who would be on it?

The minister replied:

[…] In my statement, I said that proposals are being brought forward on the board. Waterways Ireland is the largest of the North/South bodies, yet it does not have a board. Bringing forward proposals for a board does not suggest that there are any issues. However, for the largest body not to have a board is not in keeping with good practice in governance. To that end, it will have a board. Proposals for it will be brought forward at the next NSMC meeting. I am happy to share the outcome of that meeting with Mr Swann, other members of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure and, indeed, other Members.

And Jim Allister [Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim] asked:

[…] Is that for an advisory board or a management board? Given that Waterways Ireland has been running for many years without a board, why is it now thought necessary, or is it just jobs for the boys that will add to the expense of Waterways Ireland?

The minister replied:

I am sure that the Member heard the answer that I gave to Robin Swann about setting up a board. One of the recommendations of the St Andrews review report was that a 12-person executive management board be appointed to direct Waterways Ireland’s affairs. Waterways Ireland is the biggest of the North/South bodies with no board; therefore, it is in keeping with good policy, practice and governance that options and proposals to establish a board will be brought to the next NSMC meeting.

The minister is quite right: there should be a board.

 

 

 

Clones Canal update

I’ve done a precis of developments since Novemebr 2011. There is nothing much new on the page, but it may assist new seekers after truth.

I’ve also given the overview a mild update, but without making major changes to its structure.

I’ve been making three main points about the Clones Canal proposal:

  • the expected costs are understated
  • the expected benefits are overstated
  • there is no funding available.

Just in case anyone from Clones, or from the government, is looking in, I want to point out that I have been shown to be right on two of those points so far.

First, I said that the €35 million cost figure, which was widely used by the project’s proponents, was unreliable. Waterways Ireland has recently said that the cost is now expected to be €38 million + VAT, which I gather is about €45 million. So has the government reassessed the economic case? If it has, it’s not admitting it.

Second, I said that I could not see how the Irish government was going to fund the project. I wrote:

So where is the money to come from? I’ve tried asking the public bodies that should know the answer, but they won’t tell me.

The government now admits that funding was not provided and it is clear that there will be no significant funding (ie enough to pay for construction) before 2014. Incidentally, my appeal against the refusal of information is with the Office of the Information Commissioner: I don’t believe that government should be able to keep matters of funding secret, especially if potential investors might be misled.

We have no result yet that would cast light on the expected benefits, but we do know that the boat-hire business has declined drastically in recent years. If Clones is to prosper, as I hope it will, it will need development initiatives that are easier, faster, cheaper and more effective than the proposed canal.