Our roads are falling apart

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Hmm "countryside completely depopulated" this feels a bit "dramatic" to me. A policy of concentrating our rural populations in rural villages, rural towns or even rural clusters is not the same thing as rural "depopulation".

Rural towns & villages are not countryside, I was referring to the lands between those rural centres that currently have large numbers of one-offs.
Those are the areas that would become depopulated if we lost access to personal transport.

galwaycyclist

Deleted User wrote: »

Rural towns & villages are not countryside, I was referring to the lands between those rural centres that currently have large numbers of one-offs.
Those are the areas that would become depopulated if we lost access to personal transport.

I disagree, the population distribution would change not the population. There is nothing stopping us from creating new villages or hamlets where none currently exist if that is the best way to deliver services.

It would also end things like social isolation for older people and end a situation where local elderly people in rural areas struggle to get to social events or even the pub.

Who is talking about "losing access" to personal transport? By changing population distribution you give people access to a range of transport options.

galwaycyclist

Deleted User wrote: »

Rural towns & villages are not countryside,

Apologies if this is unhelpful but some people don't consider "bungalow blitz" to be "countryside" either.

monument

Deleted User wrote: »

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Hmm "countryside completely depopulated" this feels a bit "dramatic" to me. A policy of concentrating our rural populations in rural villages, rural towns or even rural clusters is not the same thing as rural "depopulation".

Rural towns & villages are not countryside, I was referring to the lands between those rural centres that currently have large numbers of one-offs.
Those are the areas that would become depopulated if we lost access to personal transport.

I agree that "rural" towns are not the country side, but trying to claim villages are not? What's your idea of a village?

monument

monument wrote: »

I agree that "rural" towns are not the country side, but trying to claim villages are not? What's your idea of a village?

In the UK "countryside" is defined as land that is outside of towns, villages & hamlets (equivalent to Irish clusters), in other words, lands that development is prohibited.

John_Rambo

end of the road wrote: »

we clearly do as we can maintain the roads and deliver services, the government simply chooses not to do so or to do as little as possible. no matter how much tax we pay that wouldn't change

As easy as it is to simply point the finger at the government and demand more compo - even with the millions of €€€ coming from the cities to rural areas like yours, there's simply not enough money to deliver perfect services and maintain perfect roads. It's just not possible, let alone viable.

And it's not really fair. One group of society paying for another groups lifestyle. At some stage, probably not soon, but at some stage people living in one off houses are going to have to pay for their privileges.

monument

Deleted User wrote: »

monument wrote: »

I agree that "rural" towns are not the country side, but trying to claim villages are not? What's your idea of a village?

In the UK "countryside" is defined as land that is outside of towns, villages & hamlets (equivalent to Irish clusters), in other words, lands that development is prohibited.

I'd somewhat agree with that, but many of the people living in places like this in Ireland...

http://www.villagemagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/One_off_housing_in_Donegal.jpg

...view themselves as living in the countryside.

murphaph

monument wrote: »

I'd somewhat agree with that, but many of the people living in places like this in Ireland...

http://www.villagemagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/One_off_housing_in_Donegal.jpg

...view themselves as living in the countryside.

That's no less than vandalism.

Carawaystick

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In the UK "countryside" is defined as land that is outside of towns, villages & hamlets (equivalent to Irish clusters), in other words, lands that development is prohibited.

I don't think that's a uk rule. In parts of Armagh and Down there's as many or more one off houses as in rural Fingal

murphaph

Carawaystick wrote: »

I don't think that's a uk rule. In parts of Armagh and Down there's as many or more one off houses as in rural Fingal

It's a GB rule. NI was excluded for "politcal" reasons. NI is just as bad as the Republic for one off housing, though I think they have now really tightened up.

Carawaystick

murphaph wrote: »

It's a GB rule. NI was excluded for "politcal" reasons. NI is just as bad as the Republic for one off housing, though I think they have now really tightened up.

GB or England and Wales?
Roads are fairly crap in 6 counties too

Carawaystick

Carawaystick wrote: »

GB or England and Wales?
Roads are fairly crap in 6 counties too

Defiantly England & Wales, not 100% sure about Scotland, but from what I've seen I believe that they also follow the rules.

Schadenfreudia

ezra_pound wrote: »

Motor tax along with vrt and other motoring taxes does not come anywhere near providing funding for maintaining roads.

No?

Schadenfreudia

hognef wrote: »

Comparison with a selection of similarly-populated countries (note: paved roads only):

Country	     Paved road (km)  Pop. (mill)  Area (sq.km)  Road/1000 pop  Road/area
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ireland      96036            4.595         84421        20.9           1.14
Denmark      73929            5.614         43094        13.2           1.72
Norway       75754            5.084        385178        14.9            .20
Switzerland  71464            8.081         41285         8.8           1.73

So, if we spent a mere 50% more on roads per capita than Denmark or Norway we'd have their standard of roads?

Doesn't seem like a big gap given the collapse in infrastructural spending post 2010.

Sound more like an excuse....

Schadenfreudia

Qualitymark wrote: »

We have less than 30 years of oil left.

First heard that in 1973...which was over 40 years ago! Not gonna impact car usage...in the real world in any current life-time.

Other countries are now switching to cities that are largely cyclable with good public transport systems.

Which countries?

I know cities that have good Public Transport systems that Dublin can only dream about (and our other cities can't even dream about) ...but where is car usage per capita declining?

Schadenfreudia

BoatMad wrote: »

transfer the obligation to those befitting directly by the existence of such roads ( the same could be said of housing estate roads too)

Which in my locality would mean 30 households paying for 70m of road!

We could choose to pave it in gold or cut the property tax to €100 per annum

At that level we'd still be able to fund the 15% rustic one-off-housing subsidy and have the road and footpaths graced with the finest granite cobble-lock....

Of course the siphoning of property tax funds is only the tip of the siphoning iceberg. Some of it even goes to fund things we use!

j8wk2feszrnpao

I love this "urban pays more than rural, so urban should get more".
Why does it have to stop there?
Perhaps D4 pays more, so they shouldn't compensate the areas of Dublin that pay less?
Or maybe there's rural town estates/streets that pays more into the pot, so they should get more services than the housing estate in the urban area that pays significantly less?

Schadenfreudia

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I love this "urban pays more than rural, so urban should get more".
Why does it have to stop there?
Perhaps D4 pays more, so they shouldn't compensate the areas of Dublin that pay less?

Already happens.

In D18 private houses pay property tax and it funds the roads, footpaths, streetlights for everybody in the DL local authority area.

Of course the fact that our less fortunate residents don't live in one-off housing in remote areas makes providing the same standard of amenities for everyone affordable.

And the lucky folk who choose and can afford to live up in Glencullen neither get nor expect the same quality of amenities.

It a trade-off.

Or maybe there's rural town estates/streets that pays more into the pot, so they should get more services than the housing estate in the urban area that pays significantly less?

Certainly there is an argument for that but I'd favour all urban areas having the same quality of services.

It comes down to number of people/m of road.

newacc2015

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I love this "urban pays more than rural, so urban should get more".
Why does it have to stop there?
Perhaps D4 pays more, so they shouldn't compensate the areas of Dublin that pay less?
Or maybe there's rural town estates/streets that pays more into the pot, so they should get more services than the housing estate in the urban area that pays significantly less?

That's how it basically works in the US for school systems. Rich areas pay higher property taxes, which funds local public schools meaning schools in Beverly highs are superior to Compton High. Wealthier areas benefit more

It is irritating how much is spent on rural roads, while Dublin needs money to fund their social housing budgets. In America local taxes raised within the county, stay within in the county and benefit only the county.

I think it is understable for a Dubliner living in an apartment who pays significantly more LPT than someone living in a mini-mansion in the middle of no where with a glorified driveway aka local road to be pissed off with how their LPT is being spent

j8wk2feszrnpao

That same Dubliner you speak of may be just as pissed off at having his LPT spent on social housing not in his area of Dublin.

As for those in rural areas, I knew plenty of people that had their own well or local private water scheme they had to pay for. And at the same time had to pay their taxes that went towards free water supply for those in urban areas. No doubt very irritating for those people.

n97 mini

munstermagic11 wrote: »

As for those in rural areas, I knew plenty of people that had their own well or local private water scheme they had to pay for.

There are grants worth thousands of euro for building or upgrading private wells and group schemes.

j8wk2feszrnpao

n97 mini wrote: »

There are grants worth thousands of euro for building or upgrading private wells and group schemes.

Good for them.

murphaph

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

So, if we spent a mere 50% more on roads per capita than Denmark or Norway we'd have their standard of roads?

Doesn't seem like a big gap given the collapse in infrastructural spending post 2010.

Sound more like an excuse....

If it's such a small amount of money then let the one off dwellers cover it themselves.

Schadenfreudia

murphaph wrote: »

If it's such a small amount of money then let the one off dwellers cover it themselves.

Small by national standards!

Having to pay to have local rural roads up to the pavement standard of your local housing estate would stretch even the richest farmer or "one-off" commuter in his mansion

My own view isn't too hard-hearted; we should provide a reasonable afford quality of infrastructure to one-off houses, new or old.

I think what angers many urban folk is when equal quality to that provided in a housing estate is demanded as a right by people who chose to live in a rustic idyll.

And these same people often won't accept things urban folk do all the time - such as high voltage cable lines, phone masts or industry nearby.

Our roads may be crumbling (in places), but at least they're not being stolen!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35312492
A senior prison official has been detained in Russia accused of stealing a 50km (31-mile) length of highway.

Police said Alexander Protopopov, acting deputy chief of Russia's prison service, oversaw the dismantling of the road in the far-northern Komi region.

He then sold off its 7,000 reinforced concrete slabs for personal profit, they added.

Officials believe the scheme cost the government more than 6m roubles ($79,000; £54,000).

The road was "dismantled and driven away" over the period of more than a year, between 2014 and 2015, the Investigative Committee said in a statement quoted by the AFP news agency.

The concrete slabs were then used by a commercial company which also sold them on for a profit, it added.

Cookie_Monster

Deleted User wrote: »

Our roads may be crumbling (in places), but at least they're not being stolen!

50km of road for £54,000. Time to get some of those Ruskie contractors over here to renew Ireland's roads.

hardCopy

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

50km of road for £54,000. Time to get some of those Ruskie contractors over here to renew Ireland's roads.

They're roads are portable too.

We could take them in during inclement weather.

hardCopy

hardCopy wrote: »

They're roads are portable too.

We could take them in during inclement weather.

Father Ted.