Article: Government to outline €39.4bn capital plan

BluntGuy

johnnyc wrote: »

Look that idea that Dublin deserves all the money is wrong in my opinion. The other cities and towns across the west of Ireland should getter more investment to counter the congestion that Dublin has, even with a metro it will not be enough to solve there problems. I am not bashing Dublin it's a great place but for the betterment of the whole country cities like Galway deserve a luas and counties deserve proper road and broadband to attract industry

Dublin isn't getting all the money though, the DART Underground and Metro North projects which the government hope to build are derived from proposals stretching back for 20, 30 + years. Whether or not they get built and whether or not they are part of the correct solution to Dublin's transport woes is up for debate, but whether Dublin needs significant investment to bring its transport network up to scratch is not. Attempting to depopulate Dublin is not a solution.

That said, I am not against developing regions, but it's not just enough to say, "the money should be spent in places other than Dublin". The money has to be focussed. Cork City, Galway and Limerick should be the three key focusses of the development in the South-West corridor. If they are given the appropriate investment to grow, then the region as a whole grows. Galway does not have the size and density to support a Luas, but an excellent bus network should definitely be developed. Similarly in Limerick and Cork, in the latter we should be seriously considering BRT.

However, my feeling is that "regional development" to many people (not suggesting anyone in this forum of course), is that my town/village/hamlet/hovel etc. is the centre of investment. People want mega-investment on their doorstep without realising the overall detrimental impact this has on their region. These will typically be the same people who complain whenever Dublin, Cork or any other town in Ireland gets anything.

Priorities should be Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick, Waterford with a selection of major inland towns like Athlone and Clonmel and then other major centres such as Sligo and Kilkenny. Individual towns and villages such receive investment appropriate to their size and function. The current system is a free-for-all money grab with whoever shouts loudest winning the prize. People need to face the facts, that we don't have enough money for everyone's pet projects.

D.L.R.

johnnyc wrote: »

The other cities and towns across the west of Ireland should getter more investment to counter the congestion that Dublin has

But that wouldn't counter Dublin's congestion. Major cities in Europe and the US deal with congestion by building infrastructure, not by treating city growth as somehow 'wrong' and needing to be reversed. That's completely stupid.

invinciblePRSTV

BluntGuy wrote: »

Priorities should be Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick, Waterford with a selection of major inland towns like Athlone and Clonmel and then other major centres such as Sligo and Kilkenny. Individual towns and villages such receive investment appropriate to their size and function. The current system is a free-for-all money grab with whoever shouts loudest winning the prize. People need to face the facts, that we don't have enough money for everyone's pet projects.

We have what you propose already in place BG and thats the National Spatial Strategy, the primary failing of the NSS and your suggestion is that having multiple centres to concentrate infrastructure in a tiny country like Ireland means spreading scarce resources far too thinly to make any real impact.

As long as we delude ourselves into thinking that all the minor cities & towns deserve an equal share of the pie the more likely it is they will all continue to stagnate and the GDA agglomeration will continue to grow.

Wild Bill

DWCommuter wrote: »

Dempsey is either full of **** or just thick.

Not an either/or. I'd reckon both!

Wild Bill

KevR wrote: »

Isn't it a self-appointed environmentalist from Dublin who is dragging the Galway Bypass through the courts with his legal challenges? :P

I blame him specifically though, I don't hold it against the general Dublin population.

Glad you don't 'cos it was a Galway man (or man with Galway address) who was at the heart of the Glen of the Downs; Kildare bypass and several other third party objections to roads around Dublin 10 years ago.

But I don't blame the people of the West for that either .

BluntGuy

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

We have what you propose already in place BG and thats the National Spatial Strategy, the primary failing of the NSS and your suggestion is that having multiple centres to concentrate infrastructure in a tiny country like Ireland means spreading scarce resources far too thinly to make any real impact.

The main problem with the national spacial strategy is that it hasn't even been vaguely acted upon, and it nor the government never took focussing resources seriously. Bullsh*ttery such as "gateway" and "hub" etc. mean nothing.

Dublin, and then Cork must be the prime focus of our investments, but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge the contribution and potential of other cities and large towns. I absolutely agree with your point about spreading resouces too thin. But when I said "individual towns and villages should receive investment appropriate to their size and function" I meant exactly that. Instead of opening two swimming pools for example in small towns in a region, why not open a larger, better-quality swimming pool in a larger town in a region. That is the kind of simple, logical thinking I am talking about. That is the sort of focussing of resources we need.

Please don't misunderstand me, we do not need 10 + national major urban centres. But that doesn't mean that at the lower-end of the investment scale resources shouldn't be focussed. It is only right that say, Athlone should be the focus of mid-scale investment in that particular core area, and then Galway the focus of larger-scale investments in the overall region. We can't just say "invest in the cities", we have to look at the overall picture and the different kind of investments involved.

Many towns have a part to play in our overall national economy and society, I think what's lacking in many cases is a recognition of how big or small that part is. Cork City for example has a large part to play and that must be recognised with large investment which it is not at the moment. On the other side of the scale many small towns have an inflated sense of self-importance and need to be brought to reality. The disproportionate investment has to stop.

Sponge Bob

BluntGuy wrote: »

Dublin, and then Cork must be the prime focus of our investments, but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge the contribution and potential of other cities and large towns. I absolutely agree with your point about spreading resouces too thin. But when I said "individual towns and villages should receive investment appropriate to their size and function" I meant exactly that. Instead of opening two swimming pools for example in small towns in a region, why not open a larger, better-quality swimming pool in a larger town in a region. That is the kind of simple, logical thinking I am talking about. That is the sort of focussing of resources we need.

Please don't misunderstand me, we do not need 10 + national major urban centres. But that doesn't mean that at the lower-end of the investment scale resources shouldn't be focussed. It is only right that say, Athlone should be the focus of mid-scale investment in that particular core area, and then Galway the focus of larger-scale investments in the overall region. We can't just say "invest in the cities", we have to look at the overall picture and the different kind of investments involved.

This is true in general. However regional competencies should be injected into the mix as well.

If investment were concentrated on Dublin and Cork one would see a focus on particular skillsets in those towns. This would lead to an obsession with Financial services .... ie Dublin and Pharmaceuticals ....ie Cork. That is because they have been particularly successful industries in those towns/areas.

However one could then lose sight of the fact that the most successful pharma operation in Ireland is in Westport Co Mayo and that the most successful indigenous industrial 'schmart' sector is in Galway (Biomedical).

All of this is headwreckingly complicated for politicians who are distributed nationally, many in areas with nothing of any merit, and also for the dept of Finance which is generally Dublin obsessed and which gets very pissed off at outbreaks of success in the regions...and most particularly accidental ones or unplanned ones

Biomedical foreign investment was only located in Galway, initially, because the electricity supply was way to crap for pharma. Then the locals went and made a success of it

Wild Bill

It is very easy to blame the politicians. In Ireland, thanks to democracy, they are a very representative of the views and priorities and ethos of the people who elect them - us.

And just reading this thread and it's passionate rationalization of parochial interests it is pretty clear that any politician who doesn't reflect that is a dead politician walking.

There is probably no "solution" to this "problem" - some wise American has observed that all politics is local.

On a purely functional basis the NSS is a heap of merd. We can all see that - even the politicians who invented it. But just try taking my county/town/village out of the loop and see what happens!

BluntGuy

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/29081

Speaking of politicians:

Bias against the west of Ireland and favouritism towards the east is evident in the Government’s decision to “indefinitely suspend” work on the final completion of the Western Rail corridor.

This is the view of Labour party president and Galway West TD Michael D Higgins who said the suspension of works was “very disappointing”.
“It shows a clear bias favouring infrastructural development in the eastern part of the country over the west,” he said. “The Government’s revised spending plan continues brutal cuts in rural areas while spending plans for Dublin and its surrounding area appear to be protected.”

Dep Higgins said the evidence of bias towards the east is shown by the fact that the Western Rail Corridor between Claremorris and Tuam is to be suspended while the Metro North project in Dublin, “a far more expensive venture”, is to go ahead.

“All of Ireland is suffering in the current recession,” said Dep Higgins, “but yet again, under the Fianna Fáil-Green government, some parts of the country are more equal than others, and the west of Ireland is to be the poor relation again.”

Wild Bill

And how long would Dep Higgins remain a TD if he welcomed the decision to abandon the railway from nowhere to nowhere?

transylman

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

We have what you propose already in place BG and thats the National Spatial Strategy, the primary failing of the NSS and your suggestion is that having multiple centres to concentrate infrastructure in a tiny country like Ireland means spreading scarce resources far too thinly to make any real impact.

As long as we delude ourselves into thinking that all the minor cities & towns deserve an equal share of the pie the more likely it is they will all continue to stagnate and the GDA agglomeration will continue to grow.

+1
What the government should have done was set up a small number of regional hubs which could have been targeted for development in the form of motorway connections to dublin as well as the other regional hubs, good road connections to sorrounding towns within 50 miles, high quality broadband infrastructure, relocation of some government departments, along with added incentives for development in these areas. The best option would probably have been to target Cork, Limerick and Galway.

What the government came up with was pointless, the end result of which may be that no alternative regional center will develop, leading to large areas of the country dying off as rural depopulation continues.

fresca

There has been some interesting & quite polarised views on this thread in relation to government spending on infrastructure. I welcome this.

Perhaps we are asking the wrong question though?

Personally, I don't believe that the debate should be reduced to "spend money in dublin and ignore the rest".

Maybe the question should be: Is it in the best interest of Ireland to promote a sprawling metropolis on the eastern seaboard which continues to (correctly) require significant investment in infrastructure, which, given the finite infrastructure budget, is at the expense of infrastructure in other areas?

As a nation, since the foundation of the state, rightly or wrongly, we have prioritised our capital city. Are we not imbalanced by this? By imbalanced I mean the size of our capital city is 4 times the size of the second city (Cork). In Germany, Hamburg is approx half the size of Berlin. In Holland, Amsterdamn is approx 10% larger than Rotterdam.
Of course, in France, Paris is almost 11 times larger than Lyon!! (the same debate rages in france).

Just a thought...;)

CerebralCortex

fresca wrote: »

There has been some interesting & quite polarised views on this thread in relation to government spending on infrastructure. I welcome this.

Perhaps we are asking the wrong question though?

Personally, I don't believe that the debate should be reduced to "spend money in dublin and ignore the rest".

Maybe the question should be: Is it in the best interest of Ireland to promote a sprawling metropolis on the eastern seaboard which continues to (correctly) require significant investment in infrastructure, which, given the finite infrastructure budget, is at the expense of infrastructure in other areas?

As a nation, since the foundation of the state, rightly or wrongly, we have prioritised our capital city. Are we not imbalanced by this? By imbalanced I mean the size of our capital city is 4 times the size of the second city (Cork). In Germany, Hamburg is approx half the size of Berlin. In Holland, Amsterdamn is approx 10% larger than Rotterdam.
Of course, in France, Paris is almost 11 times larger than Lyon!! (the same debate rages in france).

Just a thought...;)

It seems people outside of Dublin are reluctant to live in cities and maybe this is a throw back to the fact that the population living outside Dublin mainly lived of agriculture. Now people don't work on the land but still want to live there, commuting in and out of places like Galway when they'd probably be better off living in the city altogether. I think this is why Dublin dwarves the other regional cities. Developers during the boom didn't helped because they were probably in tune with or part of the way life, of living were you grew up. Thus patheticly small regional cities.

Zebra3

fresca wrote: »

In Germany, Hamburg is approx half the size of Berlin.

Not a good example considering the situation Germany was in from 1945-1990.

markpb

fresca wrote: »

There has been some interesting & quite polarised views on this thread in relation to government spending on infrastructure. I welcome this.

I think your post is just as polarised even if you try to hide it

Maybe the question should be: Is it in the best interest of Ireland to promote a sprawling metropolis on the eastern seaboard which continues to (correctly) require significant investment in infrastructure, which, given the finite infrastructure budget, is at the expense of infrastructure in other areas? As a nation, since the foundation of the state, rightly or wrongly, we have prioritised our capital city.

It would be more accurate to say that people think that Dublin has been prioritised but that's simply not true. For the last few decades, we've had an abundance of policies all aimed at de-prioritising Dublin. The IDA has offered huge grants to foreign companies to set up outside Dublin, we've built airports everywhere people wanted them, we've tried to decentralise government departments (badly), we've offered grants for businesses setting up in Gaeltach areas, we've forced planes to land in Shannon long after it wasn't technically required, we stunted Dublin airports runway so larger freight planes can only land in Shannon and a whole host of other things. Not to mention that on a per capita basis, Dublin receives less general taxation than the rest of the country.

People don't see any of that - they see a few hundred million spent on a Luas line and say that Dublin gets all the money. They see new businesses opening up in Dublin and complain that the "Dublin" government puts all the jobs there, ignoring that those companies, and not the government, chose Dublin. They complain about poor broadband but live ten miles from the nearest exchange. Likewise, they complain about bad roads but want to live in the countryside away from main roads thereby requiring more road construction and maintenance and a larger utility network. They complain about closing small hospitals but don't want to leave in a town or city where the hospitals are. The list is endless.

BluntGuy hit the nail on the head

my feeling is that "regional development" to many people (not suggesting anyone in this forum of course), is that my town/village/hamlet/hovel etc. is the centre of investment. People want mega-investment on their doorstep.

fresca

A few points here...

- even though I live in Kerry, I welcome the announcement of the infrastructure to be built in Dublin. Nowhere have I claimed that dublin "gets all the money"
- i have no expectation that we in Kerry shall EVER have infrastructure as per Dublin ... clearly it's not needed/required and would be a complete waste of money
- polarised? i think not. my question was not in fact about the infrastructure spend but about whether we as a NATION want to pursue an obvious imbalance where the capital city is 4 times large than the 2nd city
- in a previous post i have made mention of my local hospital - KGH - and it's downgrading. i live about 15km from same. do you think it right that i should have to travel 110km to CUH for treatment, a journey that can take up to 3 hours due to the poor state of the N22? or, as you suggested below that i should re-locate purely to be closer?

again, please don't let this thread descend into a "dublin v's the rest of the country" debate, because i don't think that this will benefit any of us. we are, after all, "all in this together".

markpb wrote: »

I think your post is just as polarised even if you try to hide it



It would be more accurate to say that people think that Dublin has been prioritised but that's simply not true. For the last few decades, we've had an abundance of policies all aimed at de-prioritising Dublin. The IDA has offered huge grants to foreign companies to set up outside Dublin, we've built airports everywhere people wanted them, we've tried to decentralise government departments (badly), we've offered grants for businesses setting up in Gaeltach areas, we've forced planes to land in Shannon long after it wasn't technically required, we stunted Dublin airports runway so larger freight planes can only land in Shannon and a whole host of other things. Not to mention that on a per capita basis, Dublin receives less general taxation than the rest of the country.

People don't see any of that - they see a few hundred million spent on a Luas line and say that Dublin gets all the money. They see new businesses opening up in Dublin and complain that the "Dublin" government puts all the jobs there, ignoring that those companies, and not the government, chose Dublin. They complain about poor broadband but live ten miles from the nearest exchange. Likewise, they complain about bad roads but want to live in the countryside away from main roads thereby requiring more road construction and maintenance and a larger utility network. They complain about closing small hospitals but don't want to leave in a town or city where the hospitals are. The list is endless.

BluntGuy hit the nail on the head

CerebralCortex

fresca wrote: »

A few points here...

- even though I live in Kerry, I welcome the announcement of the infrastructure to be built in Dublin. Nowhere have I claimed that dublin "gets all the money"
- i have no expectation that we in Kerry shall EVER have infrastructure as per Dublin ... clearly it's not needed/required and would be a complete waste of money
- polarised? i think not. my question was not in fact about the infrastructure spend but about whether we as a NATION want to pursue an obvious imbalance where the capital city is 4 times large than the 2nd city
- in a previous post i have made mention of my local hospital - KGH - and it's downgrading. i live about 15km from same. do you think it right that i should have to travel 110km to CUH for treatment, a journey that can take up to 3 hours due to the poor state of the N22? or, as you suggested below that i should re-locate purely to be closer?

again, please don't let this thread descend into a "dublin v's the rest of the country" debate, because i don't think that this will benefit any of us. we are, after all, "all in this together".

I know it may be a personal question, but why did you chose to live in Kerry?

markpb

fresca wrote: »

- in a previous post i have made mention of my local hospital - KGH - and it's downgrading. i live about 15km from same. do you think it right that i should have to travel 110km to CUH for treatment, a journey that can take up to 3 hours due to the poor state of the N22? or, as you suggested below that i should re-locate purely to be closer?

My point is that we, as a society, have made a collective decision that living in low density, dispersed settlements is acceptable. If one person lives in the countryside, it's not a problem. If everyone lives in the countryside, it's not viable to provide state services any more. This isn't a Dublin vs the rest argument - it's a responsible citizen argument.

fresca

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I know it may be a personal question, but why did you chose to live in Kerry?

born here. lived & worked in a few different countries. moved back when my parents got older. daily commute = 70km round trip.

CerebralCortex

fresca wrote: »

born here. lived & worked in a few different countries. moved back when my parents got older. daily commute = 70km round trip.

Whoa! Is it worth it?

fresca

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Whoa! Is it worth it?

now i have to say, i've never been asked that one before!

because of the professional field i work in, i have a choice of 2 employers in kerry. it just worked out this way....

i recognise that if i lived in cork, limerick, galway or dublin i would have more employment choice.

Wild Bill

To some extent all this heated debate is probably pointless, in the sense that Dublin and Cork and maybe one or two others will keep growing faster than rural Ireland (and parts of real rural will lose population unless they are close enough to a city to become commuter places)- regardless of any Government policy. It is happening across the globe.

The question is whether Dublin needs a European scale to compete with the main cities of Europe. Nearly every study done on the topic suggests it does.
Just as folk in Castlebar resent Galway growing at it's "expense" - so does Galway resent Dublin. (Cork gets a free pass on the resentment issue 'cos the Government is located in Dublin).

If we were really serious about creating a second major centre to develop scale we'd be directing virtually all infrastructural development outside the GDA to Cork (and only Cork).

We'd have a plan to get Cork's (the City) population to half a million by 2020.

That would benefit both Dublin and Ireland in the medium term. But it ain't gonna happen - so Dublin will grow as it does and Cork will grow more slowly than it could. :cool:

invinciblePRSTV

BluntGuy wrote: »

The main problem with the national spacial strategy is that it hasn't even been vaguely acted upon, and it nor the government never took focussing resources seriously. Bullsh*ttery such as "gateway" and "hub" etc. mean nothing..

Although i agree with your sentiment BG i think it's fair to say the NSS has been a roaring success, at least for those who drafted it and those who benefited from it. FF pols aren't stupid and neither are the people who voted for them, these people were never concerned with developing the regions in a sustained manner, really they were concerned with ensuring every "city" & practically every town got a NSS designation which would prove handy when arguing for a big ticket project. It's just good simple electoral politics.

Examine the arguments of those who are arch defenders of every greenfield motorway to small urban area X or Bypass of small town/Village Y, how could we not spend a billion on a motorway or 100s of million on a Railway line or bypass when their town hs been designated a 'Hub' or a 'Gateway'?

BluntGuy wrote: »

Dublin, and then Cork must be the prime focus of our investments, but that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge the contribution and potential of other cities and large towns. I absolutely agree with your point about spreading resouces too thin..

Agreed but as mentioned, try selling the idea on the doorsteps of Sligo or Waterford that spending should only focused in the 2 main urban areas of the state?

BluntGuy wrote: »

Many towns have a part to play in our overall national economy and society, I think what's lacking in many cases is a recognition of how big or small that part is. Cork City for example has a large part to play and that must be recognised with large investment which it is not at the moment. On the other side of the scale many small towns have an inflated sense of self-importance and need to be brought to reality. The disproportionate investment has to stop.

The Cork urban area is still tiny compared to Dublin or any major international city, tbh i think long term all trends suggest it'll be the Belfast-Dublin corridor which will see the majority of future population and economic growth whilst the other provincial cities stagnate population wise and economically. I think there is a decent argument to be made that if we were to try and develop an economic and population type counter balance to Dublin then Cork is best placed to do it, but again try telling people in the other provincial cities that without the idea either being shot down or "us too" sentiment attached to it.

fresca wrote: »

- in a previous post i have made mention of my local hospital - KGH - and it's downgrading. i live about 15km from same. do you think it right that i should have to travel 110km to CUH for treatment, a journey that can take up to 3 hours due to the poor state of the N22? or, as you suggested below that i should re-locate purely to be closer?

2 points:

Firstly on the N22, like you Fresca i'd love to see a full Dual Carriageway between Ballincollig - Kerry, but let's be realistic, it makes no sense to spend the guts of a billion on a road designed to carry 55k cars a day for a route that would be lucky to have a daily PAX of 10 -15k cars along it's length at most. And if the money were there why should it go on the N22 when there are practically dozens of schemes on the NRAs to do list between 'Hubs' & 'Gateways' with similar or greater traffic levels?

Secondly on KGH, it's a taboo subject to suggest that regional hospitals should be downgraded and facilities should be concentrated in the major urban areas but again let's look at the facts, there's 140k people dispersed throughout the entire Kerry region which KGH covers, the same number of people live within a 10km radius of the CUH with a further 150k living in a 20km radius, Rural areas can't expect to have the same level of services that large urban areas have, it's awful i know but it's not financially viable to deliver such a high level of services to relatively remote areas when these can be concentrated in the places where most of the people actually live.

Wild Bill

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

I think there is a decent argument to be made that if we were to try and develop an economic and population type counter balance to Dublin then Cork is best placed to do it.

What we need is an alternative centre for growth and investment in order to keep both places sharp and competitive.

"Counter balance" is the wrong phrase - too negative. There is nothing to "counter-balance"; despite all the tosh about the East sinking under the weight of population Dublin is a small low-density City compared to those on the other side of the Irish Sea. What we need is a second pole of growth to provide some synergy - certainly not to curtail the growth of Dublin - which is a the policy of the 'beggar my neighbour' begrudgery.

And it won't work! :cool:

invinciblePRSTV

Wild Bill wrote: »

"Counter balance" is the wrong phrase - too negative. There is nothing to "counter-balance"; despite all the tosh about the East sinking under the weight of population Dublin is a small low-density City compared to those on the other side of the Irish Sea. What we need is a second pole of growth to provide some synergy - certainly not to curtail the growth of Dublin - which is a the policy of the 'beggar my neighbour' begrudgery.

And it won't work! :cool:

I didn't mean it like that and i think you read far too much into one phrase, i'm certainly not suggesting trying to stifle economic or population growth in the GDA. thanks for replying anyway though .

Nice zombie edit as well btw:cool:.

Wild Bill

Point taken - but you are not the first to use the term - it is common coinage. I just think that in many people's minds a counter balance (of the negative sort) is exactly what they have in mind!

What is a Zombie edit????????????

DWCommuter

BluntGuy wrote: »

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/29081

Speaking of politicians:

What a tired and worn out argument from the same politician that located the Irish Film Board in GALWAY - Far from Ardmore Studios, RTE, Filmbase, The Irish Film Centre etc etc, along with the biggest population centre and the national film school.

Surely the comments of a sad and old politician that has discarded vision in favour of parish pump politics. He's be better off writing a poem about it all and submitting it to the Galway Advertiser.

murphaph

fresca wrote: »

Maybe the question should be: Is it in the best interest of Ireland to promote a sprawling metropolis

No, but building a tight urban rapid transit system will do the exact opposite, it will encourage more people to live in higher densities, to be near to the better quality transport links (already clearly visible on both Luas lines tbh).

fresca wrote: »

As a nation, since the foundation of the state, rightly or wrongly, we have prioritised our capital city.

Nonsense, absolute and total nonsense. What did Dublin get by way of Infrastructure from 1921 to around 1990 (M50 opening)?? Quite the contrary: Dublin had it's once mighty tram network destroyed by CIE twats (mostly ex GSR men) and a Dail dominated by rural politicians.

fresca wrote: »

Are we not imbalanced by this? By imbalanced I mean the size of our capital city is 4 times the size of the second city (Cork). In Germany, Hamburg is approx half the size of Berlin. In Holland, Amsterdamn is approx 10% larger than Rotterdam.

Why pick countries with populations much larger than ours? Why not pick countries like Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland where their capitals do in fact have much larger popluations than their next in lines.

Germany is a terrible example...80 million people live here, there are ample numbers to provide the critical mass for numerous world cities. Ireland has a population to provide the critical mass for perhaps 2...but more likel just 1, like the nordic countries.

A better example would be to pick a state within Germany (it's a federal republic after all), say Brandenburg or Bavaria and look at population trends within that state..I can tell you from experience that it's perfectly normal for people from Brandenburg or Bavaria (about the size of Ireland!) to move to Berlin or Munich to study, work and LIVE! People in Ireland still cling to the notion that it should be perfectly possible to be born, live, work and die within a 5 mile radius and if not it must be the government's fault!

Amtmann

murphaph wrote: »

I can tell you from experience that it's perfectly normal for people from Brandenburg or Bavaria (about the size of Ireland!) to move to Berlin or Munich to study, work and LIVE! People in Ireland still cling to the notion that it should be perfectly possible to be born, live, work and die within a 5 mile radius and if not it must be the government's fault!

While I basically agree with you RE Munich Murphaph, I just want to point out that Bavaria also has:

Wuerzburg (pop. 134,000)
Schweinfurt (pop. 53,000)
Bamberg (pop. 70,000)
Erlangen (pop. 106,000)
Bayreuth (pop. 76,000)
Nuremberg (pop. 504,000)
Augsburg (pop. 264,000)
Ingolstadt (pop. 124,000).

Therefore while most Bavarians do leave their little towns and villages, they don't HAVE to go to Munich. They have lots of choice within Bavaria: they've got Wuerzburg in the northwest, a choice of Bamberg, Nuremberg and Erlangen close to the centre, and a choice between Augsburg, Ingolstadt and Munich in the south. I certainly think it's possible to have three large cities in Ireland (not only Dublin), but the one-off blight needs to be outlawed, and either Limerick or Galway (and certainly Waterford) would need to be sacrificed in order that the chosen cities (Cork plus Limerick OR Galway) could grow. A little ruthless rationalsiation is required, but so long as people retain an allegiance to the county system and their local parish pump, that won't happen.
As an aside, I was castigated recently for suggesting that Tipperary Town is a bit of a hole. I was told I had "no sense of place" and that decentralisation would save Tipp. "On the contrary," I said, "it's precisely because I do have a sense of place that I think Tipp is a hole". (For 'hole' read economically AND culturally stagnant). I've lived in several cities in Ireland and abroad; yer man had only ever lived in a village called Monard (on the N24). His world was small. His world was Tipp. Galway, Cork, Limerick and Dublin were foreign places to him. So I happen to think we've a long way to go as a nation, and that we'll probably never get there.

Wild Bill

murphaph wrote: »

People in Ireland still cling to the notion that it should be perfectly possible to be born, live, work and die within a 5 mile radius and if not it must be the government's fault!

...and to have the same standard of living, level of services, be as close to a hospital, a train station, a police station...etcetera....etcetera as someone who takes the ups and downs of city living. :cool:

CerebralCortex

Furet wrote: »

While I basically agree with you RE Munich Murphaph, I just want to point out that Bavaria also has:

Wuerzburg (pop. 134,000)
Schweinfurt (pop. 53,000)
Bamberg (pop. 70,000)
Erlangen (pop. 106,000)
Bayreuth (pop. 76,000)
Nuremberg (pop. 504,000)
Augsburg (pop. 264,000)
Ingolstadt (pop. 124,000).

Therefore while most Bavarians do leave their little towns and villages, they don't HAVE to go to Munich. They have lots of choice within Bavaria: they've got Wuerzburg in the northwest, a choice of Bamberg, Nuremberg and Erlangen close to the centre, and a choice between Augsburg, Ingolstadt and Munich in the south.

Yes you make a good point but it's worth bearing that Bavaria has a population of 12000000 in an area smaller than Ireland! I think underpopulation is a significant problem for Ireland too.

Furet wrote: »

I certainly think it's possible to have three large cities in Ireland (not only Dublin), but the one-off blight needs to be outlawed, and either Limerick or Galway (and certainly Waterford) would need to be sacrificed in order that the chosen cities (Cork plus Limerick OR Galway) could grow. A little ruthless rationalsiation is required, but so long as people retain an allegiance to the county system and their local parish pump, that won't happen.
As an aside, I was castigated recently for suggesting that Tipperary Town is a bit of a hole. I was told I had "no sense of place" and that decentralisation would save Tipp. "On the contrary," I said, "it's precisely because I do have a sense of place that I think Tipp is a hole". (For 'hole' read economically AND culturally stagnant). I've lived in several cities in Ireland and abroad; yer man had only ever lived in a village called Monard (on the N24). His world was small. His world was Tipp. Galway, Cork, Limerick and Dublin were foreign places to him. So I happen to think we've a long way to go as a nation, and that we'll probably never get there.

Thumbs up for the rest of your post. I'd estimate 3 large cities for Ireland too, Galway is light-years ahead of Limerick, but I'd prefer to see Limerick get attention.

Amtmann

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Yes you make a good point but it's worth bearing that Bavaria has a population of 12000000 in an area smaller than Ireland! I think underpopulation is a significant problem for Ireland too.

Agreed - I just wanted to point out that Munich doesn't function as an all-encompassing city in Bavaria, and that other large cities ( particularly Nuremberg and Augsburg) exist. Proportionally, I think you could come up with a similar scale for the Republic, given some stringent, long-term planning.

CerebralCortex

Furet wrote: »

Agreed - I just wanted to point out that Munich doesn't function as an all-encompassing city in Bavaria, and that other large cities ( particularly Nuremberg and Augsburg) exist. Proportionally, I think you could come up with a similar scale for the Republic, given some stringent, long-term planning.

Yes of course, and I'd love to see it happen too.

spacetweek

Furet wrote: »

Agreed - I just wanted to point out that Munich doesn't function as an all-encompassing city in Bavaria, and that other large cities ( particularly Nuremberg and Augsburg) exist. Proportionally, I think you could come up with a similar scale for the Republic, given some stringent, long-term planning.

According to Wiki, Munich is a metro area of 5 million. Nuremburg is the second largest with 504,000. Sounds like a large central city is dominating - just like Ireland.

There's nothing really wrong with having a top-light hierarchy like we do. One big capital with small (1/4 the size) regional cities. It's the case in all countries with a similar population to us - the Baltic States, Scandinavia, etc. Then a slew of large towns of 50-100k each. In the case of Ireland, we have the big capital, but Cork, Limerick and Galway are smaller than they should be, and there aren't enough towns in the 50-100k range and far too many in the 10-30 range.

spacetweek

fresca wrote:

- in a previous post i have made mention of my local hospital - KGH - and it's downgrading. i live about 15km from same. do you think it right that i should have to travel 110km to CUH for treatment, a journey that can take up to 3 hours due to the poor state of the N22? or, as you suggested below that i should re-locate purely to be closer?

No, you shouldn't have to go all the way to Cork. There's another reason why your hospital is getting downgraded.

It's because no town in Kerry is large enough to have the critical mass to pull the hospital in. And this, in turn, is because every town in Kerry expects to grow at the same rate and get the same services. Since the former can happen but not the latter, everyone ends up losing. It's like this all across Ireland - the term is "weak urban structure."

If, on the other hand, Tralee grew to 50k+ at the expense of the rest of the county's towns, it could keep that hospital. But this won't ever happen because the other towns would cry foul.

That said, you probably need a new N22 anyway, but that's addressing the symptom rather than the underlying problem. You could drive all that way, but what you want is for your own county to have a strong enough urban structure (i.e., one large central town) that it can hold onto infrastructure like this under its own steam.

tharlear

Long time reader, first time poster.
My opinion /observation from living overseas and travelling home to Ireland 2 to 4 times a year for the last 10 years

It is only in the last 2 years that construction of major projects (motorway/ HCDC) outside of Leinster have been completed with the exception of
M7 limerick southern road 9km may 2004
M8 Fermoy Waterglasshill 17.5 km Oct 2006
There are a few stretches of N roads in Mayo that PeeWee Flynn had built when he had the purse strings and 3 houses.
There maybe other HCDC I have never driven.

Dublin +40Km is approx 40% of the population and will continue to grow (approx 1m in the 1970 to approx 1.6m 2010)
Cork, Galway, Limerick, Waterford cities have also seen large growth,
Galway approx 25K 1970 to 80K 2010, however the Galway county population has not changed as much as the Dublin County %. Urban center will draw people in
The key is to develop a road system that gives access to the nation as a whole. We do not need a motorway in every corner of the country. A skeleton of motorways over the total island will allow for regional development. The argument then becomes the priority each motorway gets. The development over the last 10 years of the motorways, would on the face of it make sense. Start in Dublin and build out to the regions.

The M1, M2, M3, M/N4 M/N7 and M/N11 were until recently 2008 (approx 12 years into the plastic tiger years, now dead) commuter roads for the Greater Dublin Area. It is only in the last 3 years that they actually got to the regions. Limerick, Cork and Waterford still missing the final links as of today. Belfast connected yesterday but by way of a merry go round at hillsbourough

Outside of the major inter urban motorways to Dublin, is there investment in the country’s road system?

Now with the major inter urbans to Dublin almost complete the Celtic tiger has shot itself in the foot and has died.
The money for roads is being cut off and anyone not connected already can forget about it until the next boom.

Along the major interurban and within areas with access to them we will see some growth in the future. If Waterford, Cork, limerick Galway are connected we will see some development on this corridor.

Population will go to where the jobs are.
Industry will go to where the taxes are low, serviced land is cheap, and there is access to educated workers. Low valve assembly work goes to China, etc. Building the motorway system creates access to lower populated areas. Promote towns not sprawl. Dublin at present is just not high density and with the above commuter motorways will sprawl even further if the future. Dedicated green zone between cities, towns and villages like Holland would help prevent sprawl. Try getting an urban TD to vote for green belts containing sprawl

Building an outer Dublin concentrates the development. Building a nation motorways system allows other population centers to develop.

Again my opinion is that development was rightly east coast biased but they should tied to think outside the pale.

The numbering system alone shows how Dublin centric the thinking is.
Proof that it’s not designed as a national system, the M7/M8 and M7/M9 interchanges. You can only go to or come from Dublin unless you use R roads.

As many have noted infrastructure in Dublin is bad, and has not kept up with development in the last 30 years.

On holidays I don’t care if it takes as long to driven from M50 to Galway as it does to get to the other side of the city. I don’t know if I could put up with living with that every day.

Sponge Bob

tharlear wrote: »

Population will go to where the jobs are.

Very true. The building boom hid the fact that jobs were steadily leaving the more rural regions and smaller towns...bar construction. Once that stopped it became dead obvious. Construction is not coming back either and nor are breakfast roll selling opportunities and tile centres.

tharlear wrote: »

On holidays I don’t care if it takes as long to driven from M50 to Galway as it does to get to the other side of the city. I don’t know if I could put up with living with that every day. ]

Not quite that bad but it takes roughly half as long to cross Galway as it does to get to it from the M50 .

Amtmann

spacetweek wrote: »

According to Wiki, Munich is a metro area of 5 million. Nuremburg is the second largest with 504,000. Sounds like a large central city is dominating - just like Ireland.

That's very true Spacetweek. I wonder where Munich's metro area ends...

Nuremberg (half a million) is only 20km from Erlangen (100,000), and Bamberg is only half an hour north of Erlangen. These three cities together, plus their hinterlands, are economically very significant. I know that the main idea behind the Atlantic Corridor is to integrate Cork, Limerick and Galway as a counterweight to Dublin, but there seems to be no overarching masterplan. One is needed, I feel, to complement Dublin, not compete aggressively with it.

Sponge Bob

spacetweek wrote: »

According to Wiki, Munich is a metro area of 5 million. Nuremburg is the second largest with 504,000. Sounds like a large central city is dominating - just like Ireland.

Munich has a Dart Underground thingy for the hinterland dating back 40 years, you can get a train from 30 miles west, hop off underground, pick up a train 30 miles east same platform. Ths central heavy rail underground is getting rather stressed now and they want to build a new dart Underground along or under the original one.

So all the Munich commuter rail from out up to 30 miles is fed into the one Dart underground bore. I dont think this 'S Bahn' belt has 5 million, it has HALF THAT population. 2.5m

The rest , outside the MVV belt , use overground gear like Portlaoise Dublin trains.

HOWEVER Munich also started an U Bahn network 40 years ago for the 1.25m people of the 2.5m living in the City itself and that is rather extensive nowadays, it would be a metro north grade system.

The system in Munich has been a success, it was built for the Olympics in 1972, served 2m people ( 1m around and 1m in Munich) and has been added to since.

My abiding memory of Munich ws that you would go nuts if a bus was a minute late, never mind a U Bahn or S Bahn. It is because the Dublin bus network is so bad and crappily run that Dublin will never ever achieve anything like Munich no matter how much digging they do.

gjim

fresca wrote: »

do you think it right that i should have to travel 110km to CUH for treatment, a journey that can take up to 3 hours due to the poor state of the N22?

To be brutal - yes I think it's right. Is it right that the people of Aran Mor have to travel for hours to be able to access 3rd level education? Is if right that the people of Bellmullet don't have a hospital with a specialist brain surgery unit nearby? Is right that the people of Tory have to travel for hours to get to an international airport? The answer to all these questions, in a world without infinite resources, is yes.

It is simply not reasonable to expect expensive infrastructure to be built in areas where the population density does not justify it.

Cool Mo D

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Munich has a Dart Underground thingy for the hinterland dating back 40 years, you can get a train from 30 miles west, hop off underground, pick up a train 30 miles east same platform. Ths central heavy rail underground is getting rather stressed now and they want to build a new dart Underground along or under the original one.

So all the Munich commuter rail from out up to 30 miles is fed into the one Dart underground bore. I dont think this 'S Bahn' belt has 5 million, it has HALF THAT population. 2.5m

The rest , outside the MVV belt , use overground gear like Portlaoise Dublin trains.

HOWEVER Munich also started an U Bahn network 40 years ago for the 1.25m people of the 2.5m living in the City itself and that is rather extensive nowadays, it would be a metro north grade system.

The system in Munich has been a success, it was built for the Olympics in 1972, served 2m people ( 1m around and 1m in Munich) and has been added to since.

My abiding memory of Munich ws that you would go nuts if a bus was a minute late, never mind a U Bahn or S Bahn. It is because the Dublin bus network is so bad and crappily run that Dublin will never ever achieve anything like Munich no matter how much digging they do.

One of the interesting things about Munich's metro is that it would probably have never been built if it wasn't for the Olympics. Munich was going to get a Luas-like Stadhbahn system, but plans were upgraded to a full metro, with much complaint that Munich didn't need a metro, and it was a waste of money.

Not unlike the media controversy over Metro north now.

Chris_5339762

Also a lot of the German public transport projects were done and planned while swathes of the cities were being rebuilt after the war. In effect, Germany cities are all planned cities which makes it all a little easier. Munich was one of the few destroyed cities that kept its original street-grid after the war.

Amtmann

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Also a lot of the German public transport projects were done and planned while swathes of the cities were being rebuilt after the war. In effect, Germany cities are all planned cities which makes it all a little easier. Munich was one of the few destroyed cities that kept its original street-grid after the war.

Nuremberg did too, and was rebuilt very faithfully after being 95% destroyed. It has a tram system and a metro for its 500,000 plus population. Mind you, people live in apartments, not semi-dees, so the density is quite high.

Chris_5339762

Nuremberg? Not a chance Absolutely disasterous reconstruction and a city that is an absolute shadow of its former self

http://www.stadtbild-deutschland.de/rubriken/staedte_und_orte/1/index.html

And the Pellerhaus, absolute farce.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellerhaus

Sponge Bob

Nurnberg is not really Bavarian, they don't even speak Bayerisch there FFS , was it not given to the Bavarians by Napoleon or something Frankly Bavaria ends at Ingolstadt in my experience

Amtmann

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Nuremberg? Not a chance Absolutely disasterous reconstruction and a city that is an absolute shadow of its former self

http://www.stadtbild-deutschland.de/rubriken/staedte_und_orte/1/index.html

And the Pellerhaus, absolute farce.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellerhaus

Considering the devestation, Chris, it was very well reconstructed and there is an excellent quality of life there, with a very good transport system.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Nurnberg is not really Bavarian, they don't even speak Bayerisch there FFS , was it not given to the Bavarians by Napoleon or something Frankly Bavaria ends at Ingolstadt in my experience

Historically is was a Free Imperial City within the Franconian Imperial Circle, but it lost that status when the Holy Roman Empire ceased to be. When that happened it was integrated into the Kingdom of Bavaria along with other Franconian cities like Wuerzburg, Bayreuth and Bamberg.

Sponge Bob

Back to Munich. The S Bahn (directly analagous to the Dart Underground but muuUUUuuch bigger) was intended to serve a population base of 2m people living around a city of 1m ( now around 2.7m and 1.3m people ) .

It took 7 years to build and has a similar length central underground section from their Connollly to Heuston ( Laim to Ostbahnhof). Our planned one has a similar tunnel but a much less ambitious overground program for a smaller population in and around the Metro area.

Noel Dempsey promised a working railway to Navan by 2004, by 2011 Navan will have waited for as long as it took Munich to design and finish and open their S Bahn and nothing will have happened north of Pace.

From the wiki

n 1965, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Free State of Bavaria, the state capital of Munich and the Deutsche Bundesbahn signed a contract on the construction of the Munich S-Bahn. The further development was most influenced by a decision made in Rome on 26 April 1966: The International Olympic Committee chose Munich over Detroit, Madrid and Montreal as the scene for the 1972 Summer Olympics. This resulted in a tight schedule: There were only six years to complete the Munich S-Bahn network.

Not only did the tunnel through the city centre have to be built, the full railway infrastructure had to be expanded. The network of suburban lines had to be changed over and modernized. A large number of stations had to be upgraded; the platforms were brought to a length of 210 m to allow for three-unit trains; the platform height was raised to 76 cm.

On 25 February 1971 the topping-out ceremony could be celebrated in the core route tunnel. In May the first S-Bahn train of the ET 420 series was put into service on the route between Pasing and Gauting. On 1 September 1971 a regular advance service was started on that route.

On 28 May 1972, the Munich S-Bahn network was finally put into service with 360 km of tracks and 101 trains of the ET 420 series.

The second 'core' Munich Dart Underground 2 will run parallel to the first but north of it and quite deep to go under the U Bahn lines. It is supposed to be started in this decade and finished in the next.

The current arrangement shows the S Bahn in Green

Chris_5339762

Furet wrote: »

Considering the devestation, Chris, it was very well reconstructed and there is an excellent quality of life there, with a very good transport system.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one Its a nice city with an excellent quality of life and great transport. The latter pisses all over any Irish city. In my opinion though it was one of the worst reconstructions (no German city did it well); but only Frankfurt and Berlin were worse. They restored the castle and a handful of historic sites but places like the Pellerhaus, Toplerhaus and a swathe of beautiful old buildings were replaced by godawful 1950s structures which themselves have had preservation orders applied. Its criminal in my book

Wild Bill

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

They restored the castle and a handful of historic sites but places like the Pellerhaus, Toplerhaus and a swathe of beautiful old buildings were replaced by godawful 1950s structures which themselves have had preservation orders applied. Its criminal in my book

Talk about OTT Chris!

The bloody place was flattened - the Germans learned the hard way (aka reality) that money doesn't grow on trees and they had a whole country to reconstruct. Golly gosh if they didn't put all the the gargoyles back in the right place :eek:!

Georgian Dublin was created by the Wide Streets Dudes and their contemporary speculative developers - by flattening medieval Dublin. If only the Georgian version was destroyed in 1945 we might have a decent transport system now.

Maybe even a city designed for 2010 rather than 1750! :cool:

BluntGuy

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/motors/2010/0804/1224276141706.html

Is there a city bias? Yes

REARVIEW: The Government’s recent plans to save billions by prioritising certain infrastructure projects, has led to accusations of a Dublin bias.
It’s not without some merit, particularly when viewed through the eyes of a rural motorist. Neither the Navan rail link nor Western Rail Corridor were mentioned in the recent spending plans to 2016, yet the Metro North and Dart underground were given the green light.

Outside Ireland’s cities, people are forced to use their cars for everyday transport, from getting children to school, commuting to work, or even popping to the shop to buy a pint of milk. Yet, in the cities, citizens have access to buses, trams and trains.

Many people outside the capital, particularly those with a family, need to have more than one car, while many city dwellers are well into their late 20s and 30s before they ever need to learn to drive.

There are obvious advantages to living outside a city and of course everybody has a degree of free choice in where they live. However, the imbalanced need for a car in rural areas must be considered when Governments decide on taxation and transport policy. Rural motorists already pay more in motor-related taxes on fuel and the like simply because they are forced to rely on cars more often, and over greater distances, than their urban counterparts.

The focus on spending billions of taxpayers’ money on public transport projects in the capital will compound this and see rural dwellers, whose general taxes help fund the same projects, essentially pay more.
Furthermore, the other suggestion, that national roads be tolled, will not greatly affect those who live in Dublin, yet it would be an outrageous and unfair to tax those who use these roads in their everyday business and who are unable to avail of an adequate public transport system.

Yet, in the cities, citizens have access to buses, trams and trains.

I like the way this is stated as though it is somehow unreasonable.

...they are forced to rely on cars more often...

Living in a city or a town with a bus service is an option for them. He is right to point out that there are obvious advantages to living in rural areas, but public transport is not one of them and nor should it expected to be. A local bus service is the most one can reasonably ask for, but that cannot be at the expense of critical projects that will serve a far greater number of people.