Stuff split from the Extra Nenagh Trains thread

bk

end of the road wrote: »

hike up road tax so much with exemptions for trucks and emergency vehicles?

This has to be one of the most outrageous things I've ever heard.

Why? What economic or social benefit would we gain from this?

What do the vast majority of people who live nowhere near a train line do?

Madness, how can any person justify this? Why? Just why would you do this?

end of the road wrote: »

you think people would sit on a bus traveling at 80 mph if they could get a train that travels at 100 to 125 mph?

Well many would, if the price of the ticket was a lot less. In the past many choose the bus to Cork which took 4 hours 30 mins over a 3 hour train ride as it was a quarter of the price.

But the thing is there are no trains in Ireland going 100 to 125mph. And it would cost a billion to get them up to this speed. What is the economic or social justification for spending what little money we have on rail in this way?

Would it not benefit us more to use the same money to run a fibre optic cable to every home in Ireland (1 billion would get you to 80% of homes, the rest could be covered by LTE) or building more schools/hospitals or building DART underground or Metro North.

I'm not anti rail, I think rail makes lots of sense in certain places, like mass transit around large cities (DART, LUAS, etc.), but we have to be realistic about it. Rail is a very expensive and inflexible system. It only makes sense in certain narrow scenarios, we have to be very careful when and how to deploy rail. We don't want anymore white elephants like the WRC. What a total waste.

n97 mini

bk wrote: »

Would it not benefit us more to use the same money to run a fibre optic cable to every home in Ireland

No, as most of it would be spent on getting fibre to rural one-offs

bk wrote: »

or building more schools/hospitals

We need less of both but to a higher standard.

bk wrote: »

or building DART underground or Metro North.

Now you're talking!

bk

n97 mini wrote: »

No, as most of it would be spent on getting fibre to rural one-offs

That is why I said:

1 billion would get you to 80% of homes, the rest could be covered by LTE

1 billion would get you to 80% of homes, which would be all cities, towns and villages, excluding rural one-offs.

You would need about 1.6 to 2 billion to get 100% of homes. But that would be unnecessary IMO. Instead you just have the fibre running along the main roads (already paid for by the first 80%) and run LTE (wireless 4G technology) or fixed wireless to cover the last mile in rural areas.

The rural one off's wouldn't get quite fibre speeds, but they would still get excellent, 50mb/s + speeds.

The first billion will have to be done anyway. We just can't leave Ireland to continue slide further and further behind this most vital industry. The majority of jobs remaining and being created in Ireland are in IT.

This is far, FAR more important then knocking 30 minutes off the train to Cork.

Fibre is to the 21st century what rail was to the 19th century.

Rail has it's part to play (i.e. mass transit) but it's glory days have been and gone. It is no longer a national, economic and social priority.

n97 mini

bk wrote: »

This is far, FAR more important then knocking 30 minutes off the train to Cork.

I do agree, but I think the state has no role in paying towards the costs of providing internet access to private houses, whereas it does have a role in providing public transport infrastructural, i.e. rail.

TBH I don't see a rosy future for rail in Ireland outside of urban commuter lines where the population densities clearly exist.

bk

n97 mini wrote: »

I do agree, but I think the state has no role in paying towards the costs of providing internet access to private houses, whereas it does have a role in providing public transport infrastructural, i.e. rail.

I would disagree with that. Unfortunately private companies simply aren't going to make such a massive investment.

UPC have done a good job and invested lots in deploying fibre to the most valuable urban areas, but they won't expand outside that. Eircom are literally bankrupt, so don't expect anything from them.

Laying fibre to every home does actually have a good return on investment and will not only pay for itself over time but would actually make money. The problem is it takes 30 years to do so and private companies aren't geared to do that sort of investment. They are all geared towards the next financial quarter and year.

Such long term infrastructural investments is where governments do a good job.

The idea would be for the government to create a company that would own all the fiber in Ireland. Government owned fibre would be transferred into it. UPC, Eircom, Vodafone, BT, etc. would also transfer their fibre into it and get a percentage ownership of the company based on how much fibre they enter. The government would always control 51% of the company.

This company would then manage all the fibre and all the companies could share and use each others fibre. This company could then also look for loans (from the government directly, or outside market) to build out the FTTH network.

This is the only practical way I see us getting FTTH in any sort of reasonable time frame. If we leave it to bankrupt Eircom, it will take another 20 years before they even start thinking about FTTH.

n97 mini wrote: »

TBH I don't see a rosy future for rail in Ireland outside of urban commuter lines where the population densities clearly exist.

I agree.

n97 mini

bk wrote: »

Such long term infrastructural investments is where governments do a good job.

Maybe if it was the Korean Govt, but not our's. We'd have another quango full of unionised low achievers run by layers of talentless management on huge salaries contracting out the bulk of the work to contractors who price fix in carparks, and the company belonging to the brother of a Kerry TD would end up getting all the work anyway. The company would end up getting sold off because it's inefficient and unmanageable and would end up getting hammered by the competition using an alternate technology that's not yet widely available that no-one noticed at the time as they relied on wikipedia for all their official information.

end of the road

if the government were to invest in fiberoctic broadband it should be to everyone, the people in rural one off housing do pay tax to believe it or not. could understand the privates not doing such a thing but theirs no excuse for government not to. we should have invested in rail during the good times and brought it up to a speed faster then the bus or car could ever do. the only reason why rail mightn't have a future is because IE haven't a clue and drive away their customers because of stupid ryanair style charges and high prices for a bad service, their not and will never be ryanair. as far as i'm concerned rail is a vital alternative to car and bus and should be kept and invested in, nothing and nobody will change my mind on that. even if we did close down the railways outside the main commuter areas the schools and hospitals won't be built and fiberoctic broadband won't happen, most lightly the money will end up bailing out the banks.

bk

end of the road wrote: »

if the government were to invest in fiberoctic broadband it should be to everyone, the people in rural one off housing do pay tax to believe it or not.

Sure in an ideal world. In the real world where do you get the money to do everyone?

Getting fibre deep in Ireland and covering the last mile with LTE or VDSL2+ is a very reasonable compromise for rural houses. It would still give them BB around 50mb/s, which would realistically be about 50 times what they currently receive.

Yes they pay taxes too, but not enough to cover the higher costs of delivering services to them. Perhaps if they were willing to pay line rental at a price double of urban areas, then it might be feasible.

It is ironic, but it is all these one off rural houses and low population density and exactly this sort of attitude, that makes rail such a bad proposition in Ireland.

If we had less people living in one off houses in rural areas and more living in towns and villages like in continental Europe (90% live in urban, towns and villages in France versus just 60%in Ireland), then it would be a lot easier and more feasible to deliver both fibre broadband and trains to these people.

end of the road

bk wrote: »

Sure in an ideal world. In the real world where do you get the money to do everyone?

where do we get the money to bail out banks? where do we get the money for anything?

bk wrote: »

Getting fibre deep in Ireland and covering the last mile with LTE or VDSL2+ is a very reasonable compromise for rural houses. It would still give them BB around 50mb/s, which would realistically be about 50 times what they currently receive.

no it isn't a reasonable compromise, their should be no compromise at all. if the government is going to spend money on something like this it should be for everybody or nobody. the government and the planners allowed these one off houses to be built and now they have to put up with it shut up and pay for it.

bk wrote: »

Yes they pay taxes too, but not enough to cover the higher costs of delivering services to them. Perhaps if they were willing to pay line rental at a price double of urban areas, then it might be feasible.

are you having a laugh? pay double what someone in an urban area pays for services? why if i lived in a one off house should i pay double for a service because of where i live when the council could have said no to my one off house in the first place. really? you know how much tax these people pay? thought not.

bk wrote: »

It is ironic, but it is all these one off rural houses and low population density and exactly this sort of attitude, that makes rail such a bad proposition in Ireland.

and who allowed it to happen? you? me? didn't think so.

bk wrote: »

If we had less people living in one off houses in rural areas and more living in towns and villages like in continental Europe (90% live in urban, towns and villages in France versus just 60%in Ireland), then it would be a lot easier and more feasible to deliver both fibre broadband and trains to these people.

well we don't so deal with it. the government, the councils and the planners allowed this situation to happen so now they have to just put up shut up deal with and pay for it. again the people in rural areas pay tax so should not have to pay any extra for government services as it was the government, planners and councils who allowed one off housing to happen in the first place and of course the councils could have said no but they didn't.

n97 mini

end of the road wrote: »

the government and the planners allowed these one off houses to be built

And they shouldn't have, but the last time they tried put the brakes on one-offs there was huge political back lash from the rural lobby. Some ministers, notably Eamonn O Cuiv used it to score points.

end of the road wrote: »

and now they have to put up with it shut up and pay for it.

That's the problem. They don't pay for anything, the tax payer does.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

That's the problem. They don't pay for anything, the tax payer does.

but the government decides who and where the money goes to, and technically they pay tax as well (yes i know some have been caught for non payment but anyway) . the tax payer has no say in who or where their tax goes.

dowlingm

I thought we had all learned from the failure to burn the bondholders that being beholden to past stupid decisions of others was a recipe for disaster?

One off houses can have water and power. Everything else - pay up. There is no human right to broadband.

end of the road

dowlingm wrote: »

One off houses can have water and power. Everything else - pay up. There is no human right to broadband.

why should they? someone in a rural area should not be expected to pay more for their service then someone in an urban area who pays the same tax as the person in a rural area. end of. the council could have said no to the one off house, the government could have legislated to stop it and they didn't and thats the end of it. time to face up to the fact ireland screwed up and voting in every treaty to bring us closer to being the united states of europe won't save us either.

rainbowdash

Everybody in a rural area already pays extra for electricity -FACT!

mikemac1

dowlingm wrote: »

One off houses can have water

Very good of you

Many of them have been paying for water already through group schemes or their own well
Listening to the townies whining about water charges

And paying taxes for the sewage systems in towns
These don't exist in one off houses, you pay for it yourself

As for power, you pay a connection fee to ESB Networks. 2,000 euro to go about 50 metres in my case. There was a line on the main road already, nothing had to be built, all they did was bring it in
If they need to go across fields they'll charge you even more

rainbowdash

mikemac1 wrote: »

Very good of you

Many of them have been paying for water already through group schemes or their own well
Listening to the townies whining about water chargers

And paying taxes for the sewage systems in towns
These don't exist in off houses, you pay for it yourself

As for power, you pay a connection fee to ESB Networks. 2,000 euro to go about 50 metres in my case. There was a line on the main road already, nothing had to be built, all they did was bring it in
If they need to go across fields they'll charge you even more

You also pay around €10-11 per month of an extra standing charge, thats about €130 extra every year forever.

foggy_lad

rainbowdash wrote: »

Everybody in a rural area already pays extra for electricity -FACT!

It costs a lot more per property to provide all the services to one-off/out of the way/up the mountains houses, people who built/bought these houses are aware of this and accept it or have not done their homework and should move back into the town!

so just like people must pay more for gas, esb, phone, broadband etc they should also pay more for school buses, trains and other services which would be cheaper to provide in a built up area.

end of the road

foggy_lad wrote: »

so just like people must pay more for gas, esb, phone, broadband etc they should also pay more for school buses, trains and other services which would be cheaper to provide in a built up area.

no they shouldn't, they pay enough all ready and are being screwed. and apparently the afternoon limerick dublin train will be diverted via nenagh for july and august.

noelfirl

Without wanting to add to the dragging off topic, it would be wonderful if the cost of one off housing could be rationalised down to water, power and sewage, an argument that could then be dismissed based upon the house owners paying for much of those things themselves. But it can't be rationalised down to just that.

What about the costs associated with provision of other services? The rural road network? Two-room schoolhouses (and the subsidy associated with rural school bus transport)? Ultra-local clinical/health/social care services? Job dispersion?

Rural living would be a lot more sustainable if people had to at least build near an existing nucleated settlement like in Britain, there's SFA reason why houses should be allowed to be built as far away from everyone and everything else possible, and no Dick Roche's favourite historical population dispersal argument doesn't really cut mustard either.

bk

mikemac1 wrote: »

As for power, you pay a connection fee to ESB Networks. 2,000 euro to go about 50 metres in my case.

Exactly and a similar scheme could be put in place for people in rural areas who wanted a fibre line.

Or free if they are willing to go with LTE, fixed wireless or VDSL2+.

foggy_lad

end of the road wrote: »

no they shouldn't, they pay enough all ready and are being screwed. and apparently the afternoon limerick dublin train will be diverted via nenagh for july and august.

There is nothing stopping them sinking a well for water and buying a generator for power if they want to live out in the wilds! Nobody forced them to live out in the sticks it ws their choice and extra costs come with that choice!

end of the road

foggy_lad wrote: »

There is nothing stopping them sinking a well for water and buying a generator for power if they want to live out in the wilds!

its not the wilds and thats the end of it. most people sink a well anyway, wouldn't drink water from the mains god knows whats in it.

foggy_lad wrote: »

extra costs come with that choice!

to be connected to vital services maybe but not after that. you pay the same as everyone else once connected, thats how it should be, otherwise its screwing people on the basis of where they live. of course the government could have stoped all these one off houses but they didn't so we'l all have to put up with it.

foggy_lad

end of the road wrote: »

its not the wilds and thats the end of it. most people sink a well anyway, wouldn't drink water from the mains god knows whats in it.

to be connected to vital services maybe but not after that. you pay the same as everyone else once connected, thats how it should be, otherwise its screwing people on the basis of where they live. of course the government could have stoped all these one off houses but they didn't so we'l all have to put up with it.

it costs a lot more to maintain miles and miles of phone line or esb cables or water/sewage pipes as well as costing a lot more to find any faults as miles and miles of line have to be checked.

If people want to live out in the sticks they should be prepared to "go it alone" as far as services go! next they will be looking for a hospital with 10 bay accident and emergency unit in Ballygetuptheyard With it's own air ambulance, all paid for by everyone else!

Cookie_Monster

end of the road wrote: »

hike up road tax so much with exemptions for trucks and emergency vehicles?

bk wrote: »

This has to be one of the most outrageous things I've ever heard.

It's a great idea. let's see, how about a 1,000,000 times increase?

0 x 1,000,000= 0

Solves all our problems!

paraletic

mikemac1 wrote: »

I've never been to Carlow but google tells me ye have three hospitals
Sacred Heart, Carlow District and St Dympas
Why does a town that size have three hospitals?

And Carlow IT, tens of millions invested in that for a small town
Your neighbors in the marble city have no IT
I thought you wanted the urban areas to get the resources?

Ennis is a bigger town then Carlow, lost emergency services to Limerick Regional, it's over 100km from West Clare to Limerick and you laugh and call that area the sticks while you have three hospitals

Yeah Carlow has 3

http://findaddress.citizensinformation.ie/service_finder/query.py?category=Hospitals&county=Carlow

(the other one is a type of nursing home)

But Clare has 4

http://findaddress.citizensinformation.ie/service_finder/query.py?category=Hospitals&county=Clare

Sorry but I couldn't let that go.


This site might be interesting to some it shows population on a map and population in towns:

http://www.populationlabs.com/Ireland_Population.asp[url][/url]

parsi

Folk living somewhat off the beaten track are often unable to avail of services available to others.

For example being in an area devoid of public transport the parents of a child who needs regular visits to hospital will have to fork out the costs themselves . It must be galling for them to see other less deserving cases in the cities and small towns getting and abusing golden tickets allowing then to swan around the country whilst they scrimp to pay for petrol.

These folks don't even have the luxury of saying " I don't want to travel on a private bus".

foggy_lad

parsi wrote: »

Folk living somewhat off the beaten track are often unable to avail of services available to others.

For example being in an area devoid of public transport the parents of a child who needs regular visits to hospital will have to fork out the costs themselves . It must be galling for them to see other less deserving cases in the cities and small towns getting and abusing golden tickets allowing then to swan around the country whilst they scrimp to pay for petrol.

These folks don't even have the luxury of saying " I don't want to travel on a private bus".

Go tell your local elected representative about it! Or get one for yourself in your local pub if your feeling left out, if people are entitled to free travel they can use it as much as they want and often it can be used on private buses like jj kavanaghs in Waterford, Mathews, many of the air oach services etc. also parents of a sick child who requires regular hospital visits will often be entitled to free travel or at least one of them will if the child is.

L1011

rainbowdash wrote: »

Everybody in a rural area already pays extra for electricity -FACT!

Very little extra.

bk

MYOB wrote: »

Very little extra.

Yes, just to point out people in urban areas actually subsidise people in rural areas.

For instance a significant proportion of tax money raised in Dublin flows to rural areas in Ireland. While all tax money raised in rural areas stays there, plus they get tax money raised in Dublin.

So people living in rural areas already get far more then their fair share of the tax money.

If 100% of tax money raised in Dublin, stayed in Dublin, we would probably have Metro North and Dart Underground being built now.

Unfortunately many of Irelands infrastructural issues stem from the large percentage of one off rural living.

pigtown

Cool new thread title :-)

mikemac1

bk wrote: »

So people living in rural areas already get far more then their fair share of the tax money.

If 100% of tax money raised in Dublin, stayed in Dublin, we would probably have Metro North and Dart Underground being built now.

If Wicklow kept 100% of its resovoir water then Dublin would be in serious trouble

bk

mikemac1 wrote: »

If Wicklow kept 100% of its resovoir water then Dublin would be in serious trouble

Dublin pays for that water.

dowlingm

Are we there (Infrastructure Forum) yet? :rolleyes:

fly_agaric

noelfirl wrote: »

Dick Roche's favourite historical population dispersal argument doesn't really cut mustard either.

well, maybe it holds water if people want to live just like they did back in those halcyon "historical" times pre industrial revolution
, pre large cities, pre all ensuite bedrooms and underfloor heating systems...:)

Tragedy

parsi wrote: »

Folk living somewhat off the beaten track are often unable to avail of services available to others.

For example being in an area devoid of public transport the parents of a child who needs regular visits to hospital will have to fork out the costs themselves . It must be galling for them to see other less deserving cases in the cities and small towns getting and abusing golden tickets allowing then to swan around the country whilst they scrimp to pay for petrol.

These folks don't even have the luxury of saying " I don't want to travel on a private bus".

I don't know any parents who bring sick children on public transport unless they have absolutely no other option.

parsi

Tragedy wrote: »

parsi wrote: »

Folk living somewhat off the beaten track are often unable to avail of services available to others.

For example being in an area devoid of public transport the parents of a child who needs regular visits to hospital will have to fork out the costs themselves . It must be galling for them to see other less deserving cases in the cities and small towns getting and abusing golden tickets allowing then to swan around the country whilst they scrimp to pay for petrol.

These folks don't even have the luxury of saying " I don't want to travel on a private bus".

I don't know any parents who bring sick children on public transport unless they have absolutely no other option.

Have a gawk at the bus stops outside our hospitals and you'll see children alighting from buses on their way into appointments with specialists and what have you .

n97 mini

mikemac1 wrote: »

If Wicklow kept 100% of its resovoir water then Dublin would be in serious trouble

If Dublin kept 100% of taxes raised then the rest of the country would be in serious trouble, with only one or two exceptions.

Tragedy

parsi wrote: »

Have a gawk at the bus stops outside our hospitals and you'll see children alighting from buses on their way into appointments with specialists and what have you .

I work in the countries largest children's hospital (part time admittedly).
Do you?

I think I'll take your claims with a grain of salt so!

bk

Tragedy wrote: »

I work in the countries largest children's hospital (part time admittedly).
Do you?

I think I'll take your claims with a grain of salt so!

Of course people take public transport to hospitals. Most visits to hospitals aren't emergencies. They can be to visit friends or relatives or to see specialists for non emergency check ups and treatments.

Nothing unusual about that at all.

Tragedy

bk wrote: »

Of course people take public transport to hospitals. Most visits to hospitals aren't emergencies. They can be to visit friends or relatives or to see specialists for non emergency check ups and treatments.

Nothing unusual about that at all.

I don't recall saying people don't take public transports to hospitals?
I do recall saying that parents only take sick children on public transports as a very, very last resort.

Also, you'd be surprised how incredibly few visitors take public transport - even in places with fairly decent links (e.g. Tallaght).

n97 mini

Tragedy wrote: »

Also, you'd be surprised how incredibly few visitors take public transport - even in places with fairly decent links (e.g. Tallaght).

Among lots of other reasons, I'd imagine the fear of being mugged or assaulted on the Luas Red Line are a major deterrent.

monument

Tragedy wrote: »

Also, you'd be surprised how incredibly few visitors take public transport - even in places with fairly decent links (e.g. Tallaght).

Tallaght has decent public transport links?!!

Cookie_Monster

monument wrote: »

Tallaght has decent public transport links?!!

Luas, 27, 49, 54a, 56a, 65, 75, 76, 76a, 77a, 2 nitelinks, BE.
I'd say it does...

monument

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Luas, 27, 49, 54a, 56a, 65, 75, 76, 76a, 77a, 2 nitelinks, BE.
I'd say it does...

Too many of them are low frequency and covering different areas for that list to mean anything. It looks good until you looks at the routes on a map and just how few departures per day some of those routes have.

Tragedy

monument wrote: »

Too many of them are low frequency and covering different areas for that list to mean anything. It looks good until you looks at the routes on a map and just how few departures per day some of those routes have.

49 is every 30 minutes and relatively direct. It's hard to look at the list of buses and claim Tallaght has poor transport links with a straight face, considering pretty much it's whole catchment area is served by one Dublin Bus route or another.

markpb

Tragedy wrote: »

49 is every 30 minutes and relatively direct

2 buses per hour is not frequent unless you're talking about outer suburban or intercity buses.

Tragedy

markpb wrote: »

2 buses per hour is not frequent unless you're talking about outer suburban or intercity buses.

I didn't know that almost every bus route up to ~10 years ago was infrequent enough to render them inadequate as public transport.

Quick, someone go back in time and tell Dublin Bus not to bother setting up for another 15 years!

monument

Tragedy wrote: »

markpb wrote: »

2 buses per hour is not frequent unless you're talking about outer suburban or intercity buses.

I didn't know that almost every bus route up to ~10 years ago was infrequent enough to render them inadequate as public transport.

Quick, someone go back in time and tell Dublin Bus not to bother setting up for another 15 years!

Ha -- big diffrence between "not frequent" and "inadequate" and "not to bother setting up".

If you want to know how good the public transport links are just look at the dreadful modal share it has for all trips.

parsi

Tragedy wrote: »

I work in the countries largest children's hospital (part time admittedly).
Do you?

I think I'll take your claims with a grain of salt so!

Well I assume you're too busy to be looking out at the bus stops.