Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Road Development and NIMBYism...

  • 15-06-2011 12:52pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭


    First of all, I want the set the record straight regarding the Rathbride issue in Kildare:

    When I said "the Rathbride case smells of NIMBYism", I was merely saying that what I was hearing in relation to Rathbride gave me good reason to suspect NIMBYism - after all, there are several cases of where resident groups clubbed together and got planned roads cancelled even though it seemed clear that the road was planned well before people chose to buy/rent their houses in the vicinity. In the case of Rathbride, one poster informed me (if I understood correctly) that the Kildare County Council deviated from the original road plan and re-routed the road through the Rathbride Abbey estate - now that's a different story if true.

    Now to the main topic:

    Do bad planning practices forced by NIMBYism have a future? Does our planning system need a complete overhaul? Is it time that people (officials, elected representatives, lobbyists and members of the general public) recognize the cars are a fact of life and that they have to go somewhere? If so, how do we accommodate and regulate car use in a manner the is conducive to Social, Environmental and Economic needs?

    I for one recognize the need for cars as well as public transport and other sustainable modes such as walking and cycling. Cars are a fact of life and should be accommodated along with public transport after the needs of people and society are first considered. That means that new urban areas should be planned with a network of proper through roads with the areas between (traffic cells) largely dominated by social activity (shared space maybe). Many urban areas (even new large urban areas) are very badly laid out - frequently with access via a network of tiny roads (Barons Hall area of Balbriggan for example) - this IMO is totally unacceptable - such practice seems to go against even natural law never mind the needs of modern daily life. Look at trees, river systems, even a large leaf and what does one notice? There is a main artery joined by smaller arteries. Urban areas should be the same - one or two proper main roads in any one town/suburb (4 or 6 lanes) feeding into a hierarchy of smaller roads. I was looking at Shannon through google streetview and was very impressed - it seems very natural (a lot of trees etc), while at the same time very modern with all the wide roads. Blanchardstown's road system (though not perfect) is another reasonable example of a clear road hierarchy.

    Now that the economy is a mess and that there's virtually no building, there is a good opportunity to reform the planning system now - property values have fallen like a stone and are continuing to fall. I would cease the current practice of land zoning and establish a new National Town Planning and Development Authority which among other things would ensure that services such as Roads, Transport Facilities, Schools, Clinics, Playgrounds etc are in place before any houses are occupied - NIMBYism in the local sense would not exist in many new urban areas then. Roads would already be in place and that would be that!!!

    As for many existing urban areas, regeneration over time might be the only option - many housing estates would probably become totally outmoded over the next couple of decades. With proper planning of new urban areas, older urban areas (1960's - 2000's) might become less attractive thereby allowing more scope for gradual demolition - if regeneration takes hold, not only might we be able to build proper access roads, but also more rail/luas routes in areas of high population - now wouldn't that be exciting!!! :D

    I would also cease the notion that "people shouldn't be driving their cars" and replace it with "while the car is a great invention and plays a vital role in people's daily lives, other modes of transport should be improved to a level of reliability that encourages people to switch from unsustainable forms of car use". Car use is good for many things but for commuting into town for example. I myself only drive as far as the local train station and ride the rest of the way (nearly 50km) to work - train is best for work! On the other hand, because I can now drive, I can access places such as country and forest parks (places I love) with ease - especially with all the new roads! I can also visit people with ease. Regard local travel, if it weren't for bloody aggressive dogs, I'd probably walk down to my local village or clinic instead of using the car. Walking and cycling should be considered for short journeys under 3km - especially by those who are well able. Cyclists who are above school going age and don't already pay for having a car should have to make a relatively small contribution towards to upkeep of local roads and cycle tracks - it's only fair!

    PS: I've changed around a few words in the above text for clarification!
    Tagged:


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    Hi folks,

    I'm giving this thread just one bump. If the subject here is of no interest, I'll just let it go. I would admit that roads are just one aspect of what I'd like to see done with future urban development in Ireland - such aspirations with not only cover physical aspects, but also social, recreational, economic, environmental, cultural and historic aspects. I for one would not like to see our old towns destroyed, but I seriously don't think that many urban areas built since the 1960's would warrant preservation - especially when there is no proper infrastructure in place. Many housing estates are soulless and monotonous and would be a nice convenient reason (for me anyway :D) to have them gradually demolished (as they become outmoded) over the next few decades in order to make way for proper road, rail and recreational infrastructure which in turn would service properly planned replacement residential development.

    Regards!


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,069 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    If cyclists have to pay road tax, will drivers also have to pay road tax?

    If cyclists pay tax for cycle paths, will everybody also have to pay for footpaths?

    Are more roads really the answer?

    Why are cars so great?

    Who are you to say cars are not good for all journeys?

    Where did you get the 3km cap on short cycling journeys?

    Is cycling and walking really so great? You don't sound convinced?

    Is everything you talk about really the fault of Nimbys?

    Who would have any interest in redoing so many estates? Who will pay for it? To what end?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    monument wrote: »
    If cyclists have to pay road tax, will drivers also have to pay road tax?

    I would only expect cyclists who are not already paying for the roads through owning a car to make a small reasonable contribution towards the upkeep of the local roads and cycle paths - this to me is only fair - I would be talking about €100 per year which I think is reasonable. Cyclists who also own cars are already paying through the nose for the roads, so it simply wouldn't be fair to double tax them. Of course motorists would continue to pay their road tax.
    monument wrote: »
    If cyclists pay tax for cycle paths, will everybody also have to pay for footpaths?

    The straight answer is no! Walking is a human right and as humans always walked to get around, to tax people for walking would be like taxing people for the air they breath. Footpaths are provided to allow humans (who are already displaced by land ownership) to exercise was is completely natural to them - walking!

    monument wrote: »
    Are more roads really the answer?

    It's not really a question of more roads - it's much more a question of the quality and appropriateness of roads. Today, many urban roads are totally inadequate for all modes of transport - even walking. The needs of traffic today is so diverse that many urban roads simply can't cope. The most obvious evidence of this is how poorly served many bus routes are. Many urban roads such as the Navan Road in Dublin is simply too small with it's 3 tight traffic lanes and cycle lanes - take a guess how the local council plans to "improve" this road? Well, there's going to be 4 tight traffic lanes (2 for general traffic and 2 for buses etc) and no cycle lanes - yes, the width of the road will remain the same with cyclists using the bus lanes instead. The road will only be widened for the odd right turn lane. Why can't they simply upgrade the parallel Blackhorse road to accommodate NB traffic and let the Navan Road take SB traffic - very little demolition would be require there.

    Also, some through roads are so narrow that the footpaths are a disgrace and that there's no comfort for pedestrians, let alone cyclists. On top of that, some roads in Dublin are widened at the expense of either footpaths, trees or green margins - take the Malahide Road from Donnycarney to Artane - the lanes (though 4 instead of three) still seem tight for buses - IMO, buses need lane widths of at least 3.5m while cars would get by with 3.25m - cycle lanes should be 1.5m. Also, road improvements should have enough land for trees as well as compatibility for future LUAS routes (including enough room to put in stations).
    monument wrote: »
    Why are cars so great?

    Of course the car is a great invention - just look at the mobility it gives people. I would know because I just got my driving test last January and motoring has been a life changing experience for me. I can now go to places I love at will (country and forest parks for example - try reaching those using public transport), as well as visiting people at much greater ease.
    monument wrote: »
    Who are you to say cars are not good for all journeys?

    Well that's just my opinion - I feel that commuting all the way into our city centres by car is just not working - it's simply impractical, even if the urban roads were vastly improved. The best way IMO is to drive to the local station/bus stop and continue the commute from there - that is what I do. I never attempted to get to work completely by car, nor do I plan to unless I was going on to visit somebody. Of course, the public transport must be good enough in order to persuade people to use it - it has to be frequent enough and reliable - people should not be forced from their cars - by my experience, if public transport is good enough, people will use it!
    monument wrote: »
    Where did you get the 3km cap on short cycling journeys?

    That's just a rough suggestion on my part, and I'm not suggesting any sort of cap - if cyclists want to travel 300km, what's the problem (apart from stamina of course :D)?
    monument wrote: »
    Is cycling and walking really so great? You don't sound convinced?

    For shorter journeys, I feel that walking and cycling would be a practical alternative (of course, weather permitting and being able enough) if the journey does not involve carrying large loads. It would be healthier for us all and is the way I'd prefer to travel locally if the conditions for pedestrians/cyclists were not so dangerous (dogs, loitering, speeding traffic etc). Of course, that is my choice and everybody is entitled to make a choice based on his/her thinking. The only way to achieve the said conditions (for smarter travel locally) is for everyone of us to take responsibility which is what I certainly do when driving a car - I always try to stick to the speed limits even if other motorists are pushing me from behind (which I hate). If I forget that I passed a speed limit sign, I would be disgusted with myself which I feel is the way it should be for every motorist.
    monument wrote: »
    Is everything you talk about really the fault of Nimbys?

    No mate, it's the current planning system which often leads to or allows the development of NIMBYism. The current planning system is rotten IMO with obscene amounts of money made by developers and speculators in the recent past. In return what does society get? It gets a patchwork of urban development, frequently with little or no services, which devours so much of our countryside in many localities (even if the percentage of urban coverage for the whole of Ireland is small). If there was a proper town planning and development authority for the country, then one would hope that a SDZ (strategic development zone) approach would be made where all services such as roads, schools, primary care centres, neighbourhood centres, playgrounds etc would be in place before residents more in. Public transport provision should be immediate upon residents arriving.
    monument wrote: »
    Who would have any interest in redoing so many estates? Who will pay for it? To what end?

    Where there is a will, there is a way!

    The renewal of current housing stock would be very gradual - it's not like the bulldozers would arrive to flatten an entire suburb some Monday morning. If the Irish economy does improve and there's some recovery in the property market (to a sustainable level), there would hopefully be some scope to gradually redevelop old estates which would increase urban density while at the same time, improve community, energy efficiency and especially communal facilities such as playgrounds etc. Redevelopment policies could also provide much more for local employment which would start a shift from long distance commuting thereby saving on energy use. So would people go for such a new concept - well at present, certainly not - but...

    The collective social conscience of the future is likely to weigh more in favour of the environment (as us humans depend on it) and hopefully other things will shift like the perception of individualism and how it really serves us (I certainly don't think individualism has served us well). Today, we as people live like islands and that is simply not sustainable - that's why we have massive failures in our society - economic injustice, crime, apathy, excessive litigation, excessive workload etc. Current development patterns would not be conducive with greater environmental awareness, greater social cohesion, social equity and sustainable lifestyles etc.

    With each redevelopment, space can be left aside to improve the roads in the way I mentioned above. Roads would then be able to properly accommodate (in equal measure) pedestrians (through proper footpaths with no dishes like Griffith Avenue), cyclists (again with no dishes), buses (with adequate lane widths), general traffic and even trams if necessary. Also, trees and grassed areas (including meadow grass) would be equally necessary in order to create a pleasant environment and help to protect our bio-diversity.

    I know that all of the above is a very new thinking, but in order for us to maintain our standards of living, we must all change our ways for environmental, social and economic reasons - simple as that!


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,069 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    I would only expect cyclists who are not already paying for the roads through owning a car to make a small reasonable contribution towards the upkeep of the local roads and cycle paths - this to me is only fair - I would be talking about €100 per year which I think is reasonable. Cyclists who also own cars are already paying through the nose for the roads, so it simply wouldn't be fair to double tax them. Of course motorists would continue to pay their road tax.

    I don’t think you’re thinking about this enough…

    Why should cyclists be the only group of people who pay road and path tax? That seems highly unfair to me.

    Why would the government tax cyclists when it currently has tax incentives aimed at getting more people cycling?

    Why would you tax something that has a benefit to tax payer, has a benefit to the health service, which takes pressure off public transport and off congestion, which reduces emissions used, which reduces noise pollution, which frees up people’s money to be spent on the local economy rather than imports?

    What’s €100 based on? Isn’t that more than the motor tax for electric motor cycle band and around as much as motor tax for other motorcycles? A bicycle does not have a motor, you might as well tax a person for walking and running too!

    Would the admin and enforcement cost more than it’s worth?

    How do cyclists prove they have paid or not?

    Do tourists have to pay? How do you prove you’re a tourist?

    Do teenagers have to pay? If not, will they have to carry around ID while cycling?

    Even with adults, do you propose that weekend and a few times a year cyclists pay as much 5-day-a-week cyclists? Would any payment and registration system be off putting to those who just cycle the odd time?


    Of course motorists would continue to pay their road tax.

    Motorists don’t pay road tax, not cent of it. There’s no such thing as road tax.

    Motorists pay motor tax. Which is based on “engine capacity or CO2 emissions for private cars, weight for goods vehicles.”

    The straight answer is no! Walking is a human right and as humans always walked to get around, to tax people for walking would be like taxing people for the air they breath. Footpaths are provided to allow humans (who are already displaced by land ownership) to exercise was is completely natural to them - walking!

    And you want to tax cyclists after 200 years or 130+ years since the popularisation of the design of what we know to be the bicycle now in the Safety Bicycle. As above, there’s quite a few reasons why bicycles have not being taxed already.

    It's not really a question of more roads - it's much more a question of the quality and appropriateness of roads. Today, many urban roads are totally inadequate for all modes of transport - even walking. The needs of traffic today is so diverse that many urban roads simply can't cope. The most obvious evidence of this is how poorly served many bus routes are. Many urban roads such as the Navan Road in Dublin is simply too small with it's 3 tight traffic lanes and cycle lanes - take a guess how the local council plans to "improve" this road? Well, there's going to be 4 tight traffic lanes (2 for general traffic and 2 for buses etc) and no cycle lanes - yes, the width of the road will remain the same with cyclists using the bus lanes instead. The road will only be widened for the odd right turn lane. Why can't they simply upgrade the parallel Blackhorse road to accommodate NB traffic and let the Navan Road take SB traffic - very little demolition would be require there.

    Also, some through roads are so narrow that the footpaths are a disgrace and that there's no comfort for pedestrians, let alone cyclists. On top of that, some roads in Dublin are widened at the expense of either footpaths, trees or green margins - take the Malahide Road from Donnycarney to Artane - the lanes (though 4 instead of three) still seem tight for buses - IMO, buses need lane widths of at least 3.5m while cars would get by with 3.25m - cycle lanes should be 1.5m. Also, road improvements should have enough land for trees as well as compatibility for future LUAS routes (including enough room to put in stations).

    I know about the planned ‘improvements’ from the now scraped QBN office and agree with you on the Navan Road, what they are doing will cause a lot of conflict with people cycling and buses. Trying to squeeze that much in is silliness.

    Most of the bus routes should be rerouted vie the park. Use the main avenue, some buses to Castleknock go straight on but most go out the Ashtown Gate (make it bus only and widen the road between it and the roundabout).

    Of course the car is a great invention - just look at the mobility it gives people. I would know because I just got my driving test last January and motoring has been a life changing experience for me. I can now go to places I love at will (country and forest parks for example - try reaching those using public transport), as well as visiting people at much greater ease.

    You can reach the country with public transport or it plus walking or cycling. Or just cycling alone and many people with just walking alone. Overall the car has caused more problems than it has solved.

    Well that's just my opinion - I feel that commuting all the way into our city centres by car is just not working - it's simply impractical, even if the urban roads were vastly improved. The best way IMO is to drive to the local station/bus stop and continue the commute from there - that is what I do. I never attempted to get to work completely by car, nor do I plan to unless I was going on to visit somebody. Of course, the public transport must be good enough in order to persuade people to use it - it has to be frequent enough and reliable - people should not be forced from their cars - by my experience, if public transport is good enough, people will use it!

    Why not have people cycling to their local bus or train stations?

    That's just a rough suggestion on my part, and I'm not suggesting any sort of cap - if cyclists want to travel 300km, what's the problem (apart from stamina of course :D)?

    I was more asking where you were getting that cap from. One-way: Very easy distances by bike is viewed as anything below 5km but under 10km is still viewed as easy enough. Many people do far longer distances.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Tbh we all pay enough tax as it is be us Motorists,cyclists or Pedestrians. Perhaps if the government cut some of it's "Fat" then the funds currently raised from Taxation could be better used to provide services to taxpayers (be they motorists, cyclists or pedestrians)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    I still hold the view that if cycle tracks are to be built, they cost money in terms of both construction and maintenance. Now, "Monument" did quite rightly point out enforcement issues in relation to payment on the part of cyclists (I was just throwing out a few ideas for discussion) and the cost of administration regarding same. However, I totally disagree that it is unfair that cyclists (who do not already pay motor tax through owning a car) would have to make a small annual contribution towards to upkeep of local roads and cycle tracks. OK, €100 was just a nominal figure off the top of my head - but maybe €70 per year, aside from the enforcement issues.

    Speaking of taxation issues regarding funding, an alternative could be the financing of local cycling schemes in the same way that local sewerage schemes are financed - in the case of cyclists, voluntary contributions from interests in the local area. However, any advertizement drive to fund local cycle schemes should stress the importance of non car owning cyclists making up the lions share of such local fund raising - money raised locally would be matched with state/council funds already paid for by motorists through Tax etc. I can't see how that is unfair - honestly!

    On the issue of more taxation, the medium to long term plan (on my part) would be to significantly cut the price of new cars (apart from gas guzzlers) and to gradually phase out road tolls (as concessions expire) - there is already a system of robust road pricing in this country - it's in the form of heavy fuel taxes! Is it something like 60% that the government gets on the cost of each fill-up.

    Now, another thing I want to get off my chest is this thing that "people shouldn't be driving their cars - it's a bad thing". Just one example of how the ordinary people are being blamed for the excessive consumption of the earth's resources and the excessive pollution! :mad: If I was in Enda Kenny's shoes, I would cease all this bad press being directed at ordinary motorists who are deemed to be wrecking the environment. Instead, I would focus on the unnecessary waste and pollution on the part of industry through "built in obsolescense" and "product incompatibility" and the way in which goods are manufactured and shipped around the globe. I would like to see eco-rating systems for goods relating not only to "Energy Usage" but also "Product Durability", "Product Compatibility", "Environmental Impact of Production", "Environmental Impact of Shipment". The ratings would be based not on actual energy usage (except food products), but on energy usage against the minimum energy usage possible for a particular product. I bet that would help solve (for now) peak oil, CO2 emissions etc! ;)


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,069 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Why would the government want to tax something it is trying to promote?

    The reason the State is willing to put the funds in is because its worth it -- the health, economic, tourism, transport and environment benefits are huge.

    And please give over about "ordinary people" not having any blame. That sounds just like what happened to the housing market and the claims that it was not the ordinary people's fault, but really ordinary people were just as involved as bankers or developers. The people who pointed out the problems were crazy loons, who as Bertie said should kill them self. Drive all you like, but please don't go around thinking it's doing nothing to the environment. Please don't lie to your self like that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    monument wrote: »
    Why would the government want to tax something it is trying to promote?

    The reason the State is willing to put the funds in is because its worth it -- the health, economic, tourism, transport and environment benefits are huge.

    If the government's initiative works and the said benefits come true, then instead of initially taxing cyclists, money diverted from road projects (to pay for cycle facilities) could be reinstated as savings are made in health and extra revenue is raised from improved economic productivity in business and tourism.

    Money diverted from roads is money that belongs to the motorist as far as I'm concerned. Once reinstated, the said money should go to local and regional roads which in turn would greatly benefit motorists and cyclists through less potholes, safer roads & more wide verge strips in major road re-alignment projects. This funding would also benefit buses and facilitate greater tourism activity - there's nothing IMO as unsightly as a potholed road surface - it ruins the appearance of our towns and countryside as do some cheap traffic calming schemes. IMO, a road that is well surfaced fits in well with our scenery while a potholed or badly patched up road surface makes an area look dilapidated which isn't exactly conducive to our tourism.

    On the subject of wide verge strips, I would change regional road policy in that the Type 2 Single Carriageway includes same - Current Type 2 single carriageway provides for 3.0m verges, 0.5m hard strips & 7.0m carriageway - What I would suggest is 1.5m verges (same as for Type 3 single carriageway), 1.65m hard strips (clear 1.5m strip for pedestrians and cyclists etc) & 7.0m carriageway - the pavement would increase from 8.0m to 10.3m but the platform (includes verges) would decrease from 14.0m to 13.3m thereby taking less land and improving conditions for all types of traffic - as a motorist, I find roads with hard shoulders a lot safer than those without.
    monument wrote: »
    And please give over about "ordinary people" not having any blame. That sounds just like what happened to the housing market and the claims that it was not the ordinary people's fault, but really ordinary people were just as involved as bankers or developers. The people who pointed out the problems were crazy loons, who as Bertie said should kill them self. Drive all you like, but please don't go around thinking it's doing nothing to the environment. Please don't lie to your self like that.

    No mate, I won't give over about "ordinary people". Now, I'm not saying that ordinary people are blameless, but I have an objection to ordinary people being being blamed and made pay when...

    In the case of the economy:

    1) The Bankers and Policy Makers are not in jail for failing to do what they were very highly paid to do - in some cases, bankers did the opposite in order to increase the loan books as their salaries were linked to same;

    2) As you said, any opposition was shot down and I would also like to add that first time buyers were told that "if they did not buy now, they might never get on the property ladder and that money spent on rent was dead money" - are all these people to blame?;

    3) Land speculation led to a mass scarcity of land which inflated property prices and distorted competition IMO - I believe this greatly exacerbated the property frenzy by giving a false perception of value. Has anything changed in the ethos of the planning system or property industry? No!

    In the case of motorists:

    Have to go now, I'll be back to fill this section in!


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,069 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    That explains a lot -- you think that roads pay their own way?

    They don't, we're still paying for the big motorway projects out of general tax funding. In the last 10 years or so, the spending on motorway and other road building, repairs, resurfacing, cleaning, policing, the cost of deaths, the health costs of motoring, cost of congestion, etc has come no where near the tax taken in from motorists.

    Anyway, all tax from motorists go into general taxation.

    You're pulling your own leg if you think motorists have paid for roads.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    monument wrote: »
    That explains a lot -- you think that roads pay their own way?

    They don't, we're still paying for the big motorway projects out of general tax funding. In the last 10 years or so, the spending on motorway and other road building, repairs, resurfacing, cleaning, policing, the cost of deaths, the health costs of motoring, cost of congestion, etc has come no where near the tax taken in from motorists.

    Anyway, all tax from motorists go into general taxation.

    You're pulling your own leg if you think motorists have paid for roads.

    ...and what about the social and economic benefits of new roads?

    Also, if you think we don't need cars, let me guess... hmmm... you don't have kids, nor do you know anyone with a disability (I don't have kids myself, but some of my sisters do - I also know people with physical disability), nor do you do much shopping - also, I guess you haven't tried commuting by bike or bus in the country - I have for years and I know what it's like. In fact, my sister's husband who is French tried commuting by bike and bus (from Balbriggan to Swords that is) and gave up - he couldn't believe the wind here for starters, so he gave up the cycling and tried the bus. The bus service was just too unreliable so he started driving from Balbriggan to Swords and said it made a huge difference. He also said that he was aware of the impacts of car travel and tried to use alternative means but that it was just too difficult. As you know by now, I commute by car and train - walking and trains seems to be the only reasonable forms of "sustainable" transport in this country. Mind you, I did find that cycling in towns was far easier than cycling in the country - the buildings seem to shield cyclists from the wind.

    In short, I would have another think about being anti-car - if people didn't need cars, they wouldn't be paying through the nose for them! Instead of being anti-car, people should be coming up with more realistic concepts in the area of car production, durability, fuel economy, tax structures to encourage to use of more eco-friendly car models etc. Also, what about IT solutions for car pooling and what about more intensive development of alternative fuels - what about the electric car and putting money into improved battery technology. Last but not least, what about more investment in public transport systems such as the LUAS. Oh, there's also the planning system that led to excessive commuting distances - is anyone on for reforming same?

    Ordinary people are already paying through the nose for their cars - it's high time the authorities put their money where their mouths are and stop whinging at us like childern. They should just do what they're paid to do -

    THIER JOB!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,069 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Where about is your commute from your home to the train station?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    monument wrote: »
    That explains a lot -- you think that roads pay their own way?

    They don't, we're still paying for the big motorway projects out of general tax funding. In the last 10 years or so, the spending on motorway and other road building, repairs, resurfacing, cleaning, policing, the cost of deaths, the health costs of motoring, cost of congestion, etc has come no where near the tax taken in from motorists.

    Anyway, all tax from motorists go into general taxation.

    You're pulling your own leg if you think motorists have paid for roads.

    Fallacy: the above

    Fact: the taxes taken from motorists in 2010 alone comes to over €4 billion. At an average of €500m per road (probably a bit high) we get 16 sections of motorway for 2 years of taxes on motorists.

    To put that into context, in 2009 and 2010 we the motorists of ireland were taxed enough to pay the capital costs of:
    2 sections of the N4
    4 sections of the N6
    4 Sections of the N7
    with money left over for road maintenance.

    The simple fact of the matter is that motorists are simply a cash cow to prop up the rather shambolic public service and i.m.o. with a couple of notable exceptions an overall way too generous social welfare system.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,069 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Fallacy: the above

    Fact: the taxes taken from motorists in 2010 alone comes to over €4 billion. At an average of €500m per road (probably a bit high) we get 16 sections of motorway for 2 years of taxes on motorists.

    To put that into context, in 2009 and 2010 we the motorists of ireland were taxed enough to pay the capital costs of:
    2 sections of the N4
    4 sections of the N6
    4 Sections of the N7
    with money left over for road maintenance.

    The simple fact of the matter is that motorists are simply a cash cow to prop up the rather shambolic public service and i.m.o. with a couple of notable exceptions an overall way too generous social welfare system.

    Where exactly are you getting the €4 billion figure from?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    monument wrote: »
    Where exactly are you getting the €4 billion figure from?

    A cursory analysis of department of finance figures, see the original post for the explanation of the figures and links to the documents.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,069 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    antoobrien wrote: »
    A cursory analysis of department of finance figures, see the original post for the explanation of the figures and links to the documents.

    Can you back any of that up? With respect, if not much of what you posted amounts to "I think this and that."

    Regardless, I'd also strongly agree with a pay as you go model.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    monument wrote: »
    Can you back any of that up? With respect, if not much of what you posted amounts to "I think this and that."

    Regardless, I'd also strongly agree with a pay as you go model.

    I'll tell you what, go take a half hour to take a look at the documents and make up your own mind, I have neither the time nor inclination to do it again.
    It's all publicly available information, the only bit I'm not entirely sure about is the vat total, which is a bit of a guess as the exact breakdowns are not given, so I was conservative in my estimates. I wouldn't be too surprised to find that my figures are on the low side.

    Here's the two posts that detail the analysis and have all the links.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71812787&postcount=65
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71891988&postcount=93

    Until you come back here and tell me where I'm wrong your argument that motorists don't pay their way is entirely shot.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,069 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    antoobrien wrote: »
    I'll tell you what, go take a half hour to take a look at the documents and make up your own mind, I have neither the time nor inclination to do it again.
    It's all publicly available information, the only bit I'm not entirely sure about is the vat total, which is a bit of a guess as the exact breakdowns are not given, so I was conservative in my estimates. I wouldn't be too surprised to find that my figures are on the low side.

    Here's the two posts that detail the analysis and have all the links.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71812787&postcount=65
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71891988&postcount=93

    Until you come back here and tell me where I'm wrong your argument that motorists don't pay their way is entirely shot.

    You're making loads of assumptions and guesses and making tentative links in your argument and backing up very, very little of it. Where you say you've established something it looks more like a guess with nothing to back it up or show how you estimated such.

    While on road spending, you're just looking at the national capital figure, not any of the other costs such as extra funding, resurfacing, maintenance, cleaning, salting, safety spend, costs of agencies and councils, policing, cost of clamping, and that's before you get to apparently more indirect costs like cost of injuries and deaths or the health costs from the affects of pollution on heath or things like obesity.

    Adding the tax take or the costs up takes for more than a half hour's work.


Advertisement