Letter in today's Meath Chronicle:-

Unconvinced on funding for Navan rail line

Dear sir - Your recent report on the Navan rail line avoiding government cuts, while interesting, unfortunately does not reveal a huge amount about the government's intentions on this vital project. Indeed a less charitable approach might say the real story was missed entirely. You correctly point out that the first phase to Dunboyne is confirmed and will go ahead. However this has not been in dispute, at least in recent times. An Bord Pleanala granted a rail order in February to Irish Rail thus giving the project the green light and this phase would not reach this stage if funding was not available.

However, subsequent progress beyond Pace is far from certain. Indeed I would argue, contrary to government spin, that such a link is less rather than more, certain after the budget. There is no funding earmarked for the project beyond its inclusion in Transport 21, this document is merely a list of promises and has no standing in terms of planning and budgets. Alarmingly, the Book of Estimates actually shows a seven per cent cut in relation to the Department of Transport's public transport public investment programme!

This is the only real news in the budget about this or any other project. How can such promises be taken seriously when the budget needed to fund them is being cut and all there is to show to date are feasibility studies which are about 10 steps short of actual commencement work in this area? No application for a rail order has been made for the project and funding is scarce, these are the only certainties we know. The Government have made several promises on this and other matters. All commentators agree that several transport infrastructure projects are in doubt in the current climate. Would it not be better for the minister and the government to be straight with people about this?

I would suggest, unfortunately, that we can only be certain that a rail line will extend beyond Pace when we see the sod being turned and no sooner and the Government should start being up front about the massive cuts they are implementing in public transport projects.

Yours,

Michael McLoughlin,

Labour Party,

Dunboyne.

The saga continues. You have to wonder if route A was selected in the knowledge that it would be challenged and thereby allowing further delays. From today's Meath Chronicle:-

'Go west' rail option conflicts with council
by John Donohoe

The recent decision by the Minister for Transport, Noel Dempsey, to select the route west of Dunshaughlin for the Dunboyne to Navan rail route, route A, conflicted with the choice of Meath County Council, which preferred the route B option east of Dunshaughlin.

In his response to an Iarnrod Eireann submission to the Draft Local Area Plan for Dunshaughlin, Meath County Manager Tom Dowling said that the policy approach in the railway company's submission would "support the council's preferred route B as it will generate a greater catchment, given its proximity to existing and proposed residential areas and to lands that are serviced within the compact urban form".

Also supporting route B was Menolly Developments, the Seamus Ross-owned development company which owns a substantial bank of land at Bonestown. The summary of the company's submission on the draft plan states that the approach of creating a compact urban form by the appropriate siting of the rail line is welcomed.

The submission enclosed results of a survey confirming that route B is the best option for the rail line in terms of better planning.

The submission also seeks the rezoning of additional lands to the north of the development area boundary for employment and amenity/recreational use (10-12 acres) on the basis of their proximity to the town centre and the proposed rail station on route B.

Menolly said that a report by The Railway Consultancy Limited maintains that significant savings can be made to route B by reducing the number of road crossings; route B would also generate greater patronage and would generate greater development levies. Menolly said that, in the event that route B does not proceed, the council should reconsider the policy of not zoning any additional lands for residential use.

The manager's response was that it is not sustainable to zone additional lands in the event that the rail project is not advanced.

In a response on a submission from Maplewood Developments, Mr Dowling said that the council is fully supportive of option B and, in this regard, it is not proposed to change the draft plan.

Castlethorn Developments welcomed the support for the eastern route for the rail line in the interests of compactness but noted it is more expensive as it involves numerous road crossings, and pointed out that route A is located close to the national road network which would better facilitate passenger drop-off and a park and ride facility. Castlethorn, owners of the Killeen Castle gold development, has a large development site on the Drumree Road.

Irish Rail recently submitted the feasibility study on phase two of the Navan rail line to the Department of Transport. The study examined two possible routes in detail - option A, which runs along the original railway alignment, and option B, which is a new route to the east of Dunshaughlin.

On the basis of the detailed analysis carried out by Irish Rail, the preferred option which has emerged is option A. The feasibility study concluded that option A is preferable for a number of reasons: it was the preferred option from the public consultation carried out by Irish Rail - with over 80 per cent indicating a preference; it has a shorter journey time to Dublin of 59 minutes as opposed to 62 minutes for option B; it provides a better economic rate of return for the State's investment, and it can be provided at significantly lower cost.

It is understood that option B would have cost in the region of €100 million extra due to the number of crossings of the M3 motorway which would be required and link roads that would be necessary.