Off the rails

COMPARISONS Work being undertaken on restoring Phase 1 of the Western Rail Corridor from Limerick to Athenry at Craughwell, Co Galway in 2007. Dr John Bradley says there is ‘no apparent justification’ as to why a government commissioned report for extending the railway to Claremorris would have capital costs ‘substantially higher’ than for the line from Limerick to Athenry. 

Filleting of report on Western Rail Corridor raises serious questions

The forensic dissection by Dr John Bradley of a Government-commissioned report on the viability of the Western Rail Corridor (WRC) raises huge questions about how we make decisions in this country – and about how often the west is hamstrung by power brokers.
Dr Bradley, a leading economist, published a report on the viability of the Western Rail Corridor in recent days. This was against the backdrop of another report by consultants EY and Mott McDonald, which was published last January.
The EY report was commissioned by Iarnród Éireann and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, and sought to establish the viability of extending the Western Rail Corridor from Athenry to Claremorris.
Currently the WRC has been restored from Limerick to Athenry. The Limerick to Sligo railway ceased passenger services in the late 1970s.
Anyone unfamiliar with discussions about the viability of extending the WRC into Mayo and onto Sligo would have drawn a simple conclusion with just a cursory glance at the EY report: Such a project is a folly and State investment would not represent any sort of value for money.
As Dr Bradley states, any cost-benefit analysis that yields a cost-benefit ratio less than 1 is not considered to represent useful investment from public finances. Dr Bradley’s extensive work showed a cost benefit ratio of 1.04 – ie, a solid business case. The EY figure, by contrast, was 0.24, a result that makes the WRC seem like a dreadful waste of money.

Forensic dissection
We’ve covered the matter extensively on pages 20-21, where many of the fine details can be found. Dr Bradley’s report is a forensic dissection of the EY report and ought to lead to considerable introspection.
Now, we must declare Dr John Bradley is a columnist with this newspaper. Therefore some might accuse us of bias. However, we believe our relationship gives us insight into the integrity and aptitude of the man.
Dr Bradley is a big believer in balanced regional development, but not in a rabble rousing way. He decries parish-pump politicians and feels any investment in this region must be justified on cold, hard facts and projections.
His work is always evidence based, and he has a lifetime of expertise, making him the ideal person to carry out this type of assessment.
He is a former research professor with the ESRI and subsequently has worked as a consultant and advisor to many EU countries, to the EU itself and to such global organisations as the World Bank.
His analysis of the Economy of County Mayo (2019) is an exemplar for county and regional development strategies.
So when we saw a report from Dr Bradley on the Western Rail Corridor cross our desks at The Mayo News, we knew it would be fastidious and rigourous. And so it turned out to be.
On the back of this work, he is someone who should be extensively utilised by Government and arms of the State to stress-test and advise on all manner of aspects of regional development – if they are serious about such matters, that is.

Compelling case
Dr Bradley makes an extremely compelling case for the restoration of the Western Rail Corridor to Claremorris and onto Sligo.
In doing so, he makes ribbons of the EY/Mott McDonald report. Reading through Bradley’s work, you struggle to comprehend the scale of the errors and questionable conclusions in the earlier report.
For instance, the EY report quoted capital costs for the WRC which are over €100 million greater than the capital costs projected by Dr Bradley (€264 million versus €154 million), with no apparent justification as to why this figure would be substantially higher than capital costs for Phase 1 of the same railway. Dr Bradley had these figures scrutinised by a UK railway consultancy, which also consider the EY costs as ‘unreasonable’.
Our news pieces cover other chasms between the reports in even greater detail.  
The deficiencies in the EY report highlighted by John Bradley are alarming and require substantial answers.
More importantly, his work underscores the viability of the WRC. It does so independently of a cross-European push for greater investment in rail.
The importance of rail in a time of seismic change was made very clear by EU Commissioner for Cohesion and Reform Elisa Ferreira in March of this year.
“It is critical for rail to play an expanding role in the new economic and social landscape that is set to emerge in post-pandemic Europe. Now more than ever is the time to expand the use of rail. Now is the time to ensure that all regions have modern rail infrastructure and strong network links.”
Countries all over Europe are being urged to build and develop new rail routes as we move to a low-carbon future. Here in Ireland we have an existing rail route that is shovel- ready for restoration, at a fraction of the cost of a new line on an entirely new route. Dr Bradley’s report shows the strong business case that exists, but is the will there?
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Éamon Ryan expressed considerable support for the reopening of the railway in DΡil Éireann last September, particularly from a freight perspective – with Ballina a central cog in such plans. He talked the talk. He now has the empirical material in Dr Bradley’s report to enable him to walk the walk.
The ball is now firmly in his and the Government’s court.
Any perceived reluctance on the Minister for Transport, Taoiseach MicheΡl Martin and TΡnaiste Leo Varadkar, the leader of Fine Gael, to engage meaningfully with this report and give its conclusions serious consideration will be a shocking indictment of their attitude towards the development of the western seaboard and balanced regional development.