Tag Archives: Ulster Canal

An Bord Pleanála

Big it up for An Bord Pleanála, which has turned down the proposal that a giant alien spaceship be allowed to land near the Blessington Street Basin, just off the Broadstone Line of the Royal Canal. The Irish Times and the Sunday Business Post have both used an artist’s impression of the ghastly object, which is intended to be a children’s hospital, but I can’t find who owns the image so I can’t ask for permission to use it.

If only we had a similar body assessing other investment proposals like those for, say, the Clones Canal. The proponents of both projects argue in similar ways: we have a report, we have experts, it’s time to move on, shut up and give us the money. That both projects are insane — because, apart from being unaffordable, they ignore likely user experiences — is irrelevant to the proposers: their strategy is not to come up with the best (or even a reasonable) allocation of public money but to force through their projects in their currently proposed form. Only German politicians can save us (and our money) from these people; perhaps Germany would like a seventeenth (or eighteenth, after Greece) Land?

The campaign to improve Clones

Tender here. No mention of the engine shed amongst the heritage sites to be interpreted, alas. And the General description of proposed works document has a photo of the playground at O’Briensbridge in Co Clare, captioned as “Playground, Shannon Harbour, Co Offaly” even though Tom Burke’s boat is clearly visible in the background. Still, good to see that they’re not just waiting for a canal. And they intend to build a car park in the town park, which could be useful for the camper vans.

UC@NIA

The Northern Ireland Assembly mentioned the Ulster Canal twice on 20 February 2012; the Lagan was mentioned too. Nothing new, really.

Value for money

Regular readers will be aware that I think the proposed canal to Clones is a bad investment. I thought it might be useful to look for information about other Irish canal restorations to see what they cost and what the return on investment has been. I understand that there was a study of the Shannon–Erne Waterway, but I can’t find a copy on tinterweb (if anyone has one to lend, please get in touch).

I therefore asked Waterways Ireland about the restoration of the Royal Canal:

I would be grateful if you could tell me the cost of the restoration of the Royal Canal, the annual cost of running it and the revenue it generates.

The reply (for which I am, as always, grateful) said:

Restoration of the Royal Canal commenced in 1987.

€37m Capital Expenditure on the restoration project funded through (1) Operational Programme for Tourism 1994-1999 (2) National Development Programme 2000 – 2007 and (3) National Development Plan 2007-2013.

The Maintenance Cost for 2012 is €2.46m.

The revenue generated by the canal in 2011 is not available.

I didn’t really expect that there would be a meaningful figure for revenue. A full assessment of the benefits would cover far more than the (probably minimal) direct revenue; I think such an assessment should be done, but that’s not what really got my attention.

According to Waterways Ireland, the Main Line of the Royal is 146 km long and has 46 locks and many bridges, some of them newly built as part of the restoration. Harbours have been improved, slipways have been provided and service blocks have been built. And all of this was done for €37 million (I don’t know whether that’s in constant prices and, if so, at which year’s rates: I’ve asked a supplementary question).

A canal to Clones would be 13 km long and, according to WI’s final restoration plan [PDF], would have one double lock (staircase pair). Some dredging would be needed on the River Finn and a new canal 0.6 km long would have to be provided; the work at the Finn end would cost €8.5 million altogether. On the line as a whole, work would be required on up to 17 bridges, some major and some minor or private bridges. And there would be a cost for land acquisition, although the Updated Economic Appraisal put that at a mere £1,268,280, a very small portion of the total cost. And then there would be the pumps and pipes to take water from the Erne, pump it to Clones and let it flow back down; it is not clear whether WI would have to pay for the water. And the total cost of this lot would be €38m + VAT, which I am told is about €45 million altogether.

Now, even allowing for the facts that there had been some voluntary and FÁS scheme work on the Royal, that no land had to be acquired and that parts of the canal were in water, I still find it difficult to see how a 13 km canal with one double lock can cost more than a 146 km canal with 46 locks. I have asked WI for a comment, but perhaps readers — especially if any of them are engineers or accountants — would be able to help to explain the mystery. Maybe it’s something simple like a mistake in the figures or maybe I’m missing something about the nature of restorations …. Enlightenment welcome.

 

A note for a councillor

Councillor Pat Treanor is a Sinn Féin member of Monaghan County Council. According to the Clones Regeneration Partnership’s website,

Cllr Treanor referred to the recent economic appraisals carried out by Fitzpatrick Associates on behalf of the Government and made reference to the large job creation and physical regeneration that would flow from the [Clones] canal proposal.

As far as I know, the most recent Fitzpatrick study was published in 2007. It said (Ch 10):

In terms of formal quantified economic appraisal, all restoration options involve significant net costs over benefits.

In other words, the Clones canal is a waste of money.

Clones folk might like to have a large wodge of public money spent in their area; Waterways Ireland might like to be able to keep engineers in employment. But neither of those wishes should weigh with those charged with the care of the state’s finances. If proposals like this are seriously considered by Irish government departments, then the sooner Angela Merkel appoints an official to run the place, the better.

Perhaps, though, a household tax in Monaghan could be used to pay for this, er, investment?

 

Unrealistic expectations

1818

It has not been shown that sobriety increased in Co Leitrim after the canal to Lough Allen was built.

1845

The waterway, completed in 1859, closed in the 1860s. It is not clear that any Killaloe slates ever reached Ulster by the waterway.

2007

The Clones canal today, a united Ireland tomorrow?

 

Show me the money

The Clones dudes have got Jimmy Deenihan to say that the canal to Clones is a great idea.

They haven’t got him to fund it. Or to say where money is to be found (perhaps the Monaghan gold mines?)

Is it kind to keep these chaps hanging on in this way? I blame the department. I begin to suspect that its northsouthery section fears that it will never gain fame and fortune from Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch (whatever about its companion, Foras na Gaeilge) and is reluctant to kill off its chance of getting its photo in the papers at the ceremonial turning of a sod. Brendan Howlin might usefully direct his department‘s attention to the matter.

Waterways Ireland salary reductions

Annex E of the Waterways Ireland Corporate Plan 2011–2013 [PDF] ssets out the Efficiency Savings Delivery Plan:

This Delivery Plan describes the measures Waterways Ireland will implement to achieve its target savings for 2011–2013.

Efficiency Programme

The Body will realise total efficiencies of £5,229,000/€6,377,000 from 2011-2013 as shown in the Total Efficiency Table below. […]

One problem for WI is that it expects to have to increase its pension costs by €1,175,000 over the three years, which means that WI actually has to save about €7.5 million over three years. It is showing a “Reduction in Capital Spend” of €3,102,ooo over the three years, plus reductions in Admin of €1,637,000 and in Resource of €2,813,000.

Here is how WI intends to achieve the Admin savings (€1,637,000 over three years):

Increase control in administration including negotiation of reductions in rates for Back Office Managed Services, new mobile phone contract and overtime control.

And the Resource savings (€2,813,000 over three years):

Controls over maintenance costs including lockkeepers agreement, salary reductions in Ireland and overtime control.

That looks as if most of the Resource savings are going to come from the wages bill; that in turn suggests that other costs have already been cut. The Resource reductions are allocated to waterways. In descending order of size the total figures for the three-year period are:

  • Grand Canal €910,000
  • Shannon Navigation €662,000
  • Royal Canal €503,000
  • Barrow Navigation €387,000
  • Shannon–Erne Waterway €232,000
  • Erne System €70,000
  • Lower Bann €69,000

 

 

A slight delay

Keeping up with Waterways Ireland’s corporate publications is a bit of a chore: there doesn’t seem to be any system allowing interested citizens to sign up for alerts, so you have to troll on over to the relevant web page and check for new stuff (I’ll see whether Page2RSS works).

Anyway, I don’t know when the WI Corporate Plan 2011–2013 [PDF] was uploaded, so it may be that everybody has already read it, although it wasn’t approved until October 2011:

This Corporate Plan 2011 – 2013 was approved by the North/South Ministerial Council on 12th October 2011 subject to budgetary considerations by the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Naturally, I had a look for mentions of the Ulster Canal. It’s still there in Business Objective 2, which includes this:

Progress restoration of the Ulster canal from Upper Lough Erne to Clones.

But what isn’t there is any money (other than small change). Annex B shows these amounts of expenditure:

  • 2011: €390,000
  • 2012: €140,000
  • 2013: €390,000

With an expected total cost of €45,000,000, it seems that there won’t be much progress in the next few years.

Thank goodness.

 

 

 

Prothero on the Armagh Blackwater and the Ulster Canal

Another extract from F E Prothero and W A Clark eds A New Oarsman’s Guide to the Rivers and Canals of Great Britain and Ireland: Cruising Club Manual, George Philip & Son, London 1896. The lack of detail suggests to me that Prothero did not travel this route himself.