Our roads are falling apart

anothernight

n97 mini wrote: »

When people have to pay for roads, it's the only comparison that's relevant. For every 1km a citizen has to pay for in the UK, an Irish citizen has to pay for 6km.

I don't consider roads (or indeed, infrastructure in general) a non-essential expense because the country doesn't have the option to not have roads in populated areas. Since the topography of the country and the population distribution can be different, your comparison makes little sense in my opinion.

Again, I'm not actually disagreeing with you that Ireland has too many roads! I just think your metric is flawed. It's like saying that Spain has too many solar panels just because Ireland doesn't, while ignoring the fact that solar energy works better in a sunny country.

The UK has a population of 64.1 million. According to the department for transport, there are 395619.9 km of all roads in the UK. That's 6171.9 km per million people. Ireland has a population of 4.595 million and a road network of 98000km as per the article (I could only find figures that were slightly smaller than that, but I'll go with the article). That's 21327.5 km per million people, or around 3.5 times the ratio for the UK. Incidentally, the ratio for Spain is 14246, so the Irish network is just under 1.5 times as big by your metric. 14489 for France, so still less than 1.5 times. Conversely, the Irish network is 16 times bigger, using your metric, than that of Monaco. And only half as big as the network in Iceland!

Of course, none of those figures take into account how much space there is between each city, how rural the countries in question are, whether there are any mountains to get around, rivers and lakes, etc., how densely populated the country is, whether there are other public transport options to encourage people to depend less on car transport, risk of freeze-thaw deterioration, materials used, etc etc. The metrics I proposed don't address some of those factors either (specifically, the ones that cause faster deterioration of the roads), but at least they cover the very basic fact that you can't just do away with roads that are needed to connect populated areas, only those that are redundant.

I can't say that Ireland has too many roads because I'm not familiar enough with the network outside of county Dublin, but remembering how badly designed some roads in Dublin are (and having seen the weird and wonderful ideas of some transport engineers in Dublin), it really wouldn't surprise me if the network isn't at all optimised for its purpose.

PS: Sorry for the overly long post... I clearly need to get a life.

StudentDad

As someone said it isn't just about roads. It's also about decent, cheap public transport. It doesn't exist. A few years ago I considered commuting a few miles by train to a prospective job. You'd think in a modern country this would be possible. Nope. The journey by train would have been roughly an hour one way and the same in reverse. Was it in any way doable? Not a hope! I would have been forced by economics to take the car. So long as the car is given precedence over everything else, our roads are going to be god awful. I remember a relative of mine a good few years ago now (a man who had lived most of his life abroad) actually laughing at some of the designs of "motorway" in Ireland.

So long as we have an "ach sure it'll do" and a "better slap a few more tolls on that road" and my favourite "better build another crap road" instead of doing it properly or offering an alternative to the car, our road network will continue to be god awful.

SD

marmurr1916

There are about 98,000 km of public roads in Ireland. Most of the roads in very poor condition are local roads which carry a small percentage of all traffic. Ireland has too many kilometres of public roads for its population. As a start, it would be great if all rural cul-de-sacs were declared to be no longer public roads, followed by local roads with only a handful of houses on them. Many of the local tertiary roads would not be public roads in other European states - they would be private roads with full responsibility for maintenance falling on those who own properties along those roads.

For many other local roads, county councils should charge an annual maintenance fee to residents and businesses along the roads. It would help reduce the demand for one-off rural houses which has led to such a high proportion of Ireland's population living in dispersed patterns in rural areas, a grossly inefficient and environmentally unfriendly form of population distribution that costs the state billions every year through the extra costs of providing infrastructure and services to people who choose to live in the countryside even when there is no necessity for them to do so.

Almost 35% of Irish postal addresses are for addresses in rural townlands, yet less than 10% of the poplulation are involved in occupations that require them to live in the countryside.

About 25% of Ireland's population live in the countryside by choice, not out of necessity.

For example, my sister and her husband live in the countryside in Co. Cork, even though she works in Cork city and he works as an electrician, servicing fire and security systems throughout Munster.

There is no need for them to live in the countryside, they live there by choice.

If people want to live in the countryside by choice, in a grossly inefficient and environmentally unfriendly manner they should pay for it rather than the cost being borne by the entire population.

Only rural dwellers who can demonstrate that their occupations require them to live in the countryside should be exempt from paying extra for roads and other services. Everyone else, those who choose to live in the countryside, should pay extra rather than pushing the cost onto people who have chosen to live in more responsible, efficient and environmentally friendly locations.

eezipc

marmurr1916 wrote: »

There are about 98,000 km of public roads in Ireland. Most of the roads in very poor condition are local roads which carry a small percentage of all traffic. Ireland has too many kilometres of public roads for its population. As a start, it would be great if all rural cul-de-sacs were declared to be no longer public roads, followed by local roads with only a handful of houses on them. Many of the local tertiary roads would not be public roads in other European states - they would be private roads with full responsibility for maintenance falling on those who own properties along those roads.

For many other local roads, county councils should charge an annual maintenance fee to residents and businesses along the roads. It would help reduce the demand for one-off rural houses which has led to such a high proportion of Ireland's population living in dispersed patterns in rural areas, a grossly inefficient and environmentally unfriendly form of population distribution that costs the state billions every year through the extra costs of providing infrastructure and services to people who choose to live in the countryside even when there is no necessity for them to do so.

Almost 35% of Irish postal addresses are for addresses in rural townlands, yet less than 10% of the poplulation are involved in occupations that require them to live in the countryside.

About 25% of Ireland's population live in the countryside by choice, not out of necessity.

For example, my sister and her husband live in the countryside in Co. Cork, even though she works in Cork city and he works as an electrician, servicing fire and security systems throughout Munster.

There is no need for them to live in the countryside, they live there by choice.

If people want to live in the countryside by choice, in a grossly inefficient and environmentally unfriendly manner they should pay for it rather than the cost being borne by the entire population.

Only rural dwellers who can demonstrate that their occupations require them to live in the countryside should be exempt from paying extra for roads and other services. Everyone else, those who choose to live in the countryside, should pay extra rather than pushing the cost onto people who have chosen to live in more responsible, efficient and environmentally friendly locations.

You have got the whole thing backwards my friend. Most people who live in the country don't want to work in the city. They work in the city because they have no choice. So maybe people who live in the country should be compensated for having to drive to the cities for work....

kaizersoze

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The country has too many roads for its size, too many one off houses that are not sustainable with the tiny property tax collected to maintain them.

True or not, there's no point debating that now. The roads are there and need to be maintained. I doubt there will be any of them shut down to bring us into line.

Sam Kade

marmurr1916 wrote: »

There are about 98,000 km of public roads in Ireland. Most of the roads in very poor condition are local roads which carry a small percentage of all traffic. Ireland has too many kilometres of public roads for its population. As a start, it would be great if all rural cul-de-sacs were declared to be no longer public roads, followed by local roads with only a handful of houses on them. Many of the local tertiary roads would not be public roads in other European states - they would be private roads with full responsibility for maintenance falling on those who own properties along those roads.

For many other local roads, county councils should charge an annual maintenance fee to residents and businesses along the roads. It would help reduce the demand for one-off rural houses which has led to such a high proportion of Ireland's population living in dispersed patterns in rural areas, a grossly inefficient and environmentally unfriendly form of population distribution that costs the state billions every year through the extra costs of providing infrastructure and services to people who choose to live in the countryside even when there is no necessity for them to do so.

Almost 35% of Irish postal addresses are for addresses in rural townlands, yet less than 10% of the poplulation are involved in occupations that require them to live in the countryside.

About 25% of Ireland's population live in the countryside by choice, not out of necessity.

For example, my sister and her husband live in the countryside in Co. Cork, even though she works in Cork city and he works as an electrician, servicing fire and security systems throughout Munster.

There is no need for them to live in the countryside, they live there by choice.

If people want to live in the countryside by choice, in a grossly inefficient and environmentally unfriendly manner they should pay for it rather than the cost being borne by the entire population.

Only rural dwellers who can demonstrate that their occupations require them to live in the countryside should be exempt from paying extra for roads and other services. Everyone else, those who choose to live in the countryside, should pay extra rather than pushing the cost onto people who have chosen to live in more responsible, efficient and environmentally friendly locations.

Nonsense, take farmers for instance they need to live near their work but don't let that get in the way of your generalisation :mad:

newacc2015

eezipc wrote: »

You have got the whole thing backwards my friend. Most people who live in the country don't want to work in the city. They work in the city because they have no choice. So maybe people who live in the country should be compensated for having to drive to the cities for work....

Or maybe they could give up their high paying jobs in the city which required 4 years of undergrad and a masters to work for a poor wage as a farmer or retail in the local shop. I sure they can find a job close to them like that. But not they will choose the higher paid job in a city

I hate this argument of people moaning about having to move to a big city like Dublin for work from their glorified village in the west as "there is no work". Im sorry but how many towns in Ireland or anywhere else in the world can support several Doctors, Dentists, Solicitors, Accountants etc like these people think they should? If you are choose to become a Doctor or a Dentist, you need to realise from the start that the chances of you working where you are from are extremely limited.

I have German/American friends who are highly educated and come from small towns. They knew they had no choice but to move to a large city for employment. Yet Irish people just cant seem to understand that a village cant support everyone.

Eugene Norman

Sam Kade wrote: »

Nonsense, take farmers for instance they need to live near their work but don't let that get in the way of your generalisation :mad:

He said 25% live in the countryside by choice. As in they work in a city or town and don't live in a city or town (or even a village). Now if you do the maths you can exclude farmers and more and still be left with 25%

Atlantic Dawn

kaizersoze wrote: »

True or not, there's no point debating that now. The roads are there and need to be maintained. I doubt there will be any of them shut down to bring us into line.

Property taxes should be based on a flat square meter size whether your living in D4 or down the country for a start.

murphaph

Just some food for thought...
We are building a house on a site on the outskirts of Berlin. The site is within an urban area. Building a dwelling outside an urban area is illegal in Germany and has been for decades. The previous owners of our site had to pay just under 25k to the local commune when the road fronting their property was rehabilitated (new foundations, new drainage, new footpaths and lighting etc.). All the neighbours got similar bills.

This is the way it goes here, those living along the road pay for its maintenance. People who live in apartments in cities are not expected to fund the cost of building and maintaining local roads that serve no other purpose than providing access to single family homes. I think this is fair, even though I will be one of those paying directly for "my road" in the years to come.

Eugene Norman

StudentDad wrote: »

As someone said it isn't just about roads. It's also about decent, cheap public transport. It doesn't exist. A few years ago I considered commuting a few miles by train to a prospective job. You'd think in a modern country this would be possible. Nope. The journey by train would have been roughly an hour one way and the same in reverse. Was it in any way doable? Not a hope! I would have been forced by economics to take the car. So long as the car is given precedence over everything else, our roads are going to be god awful. I remember a relative of mine a good few years ago now (a man who had lived most of his life abroad) actually laughing at some of the designs of "motorway" in Ireland.

So long as we have an "ach sure it'll do" and a "better slap a few more tolls on that road" and my favourite "better build another crap road" instead of doing it properly or offering an alternative to the car, our road network will continue to be god awful.

SD

The guy who lived abroad was an expert on motorways because he lived abroad? Motorways in Ireland are fine. Better than many. Newer than most. And I've lived abroad.

Also your argument doesn't make sense. The roads aren't bad because we don't spend money on trains, that makes no sense. We should invest in both good main roads and good public transport. Unfortunately we did the former during the boom, not the latter.

fly_agaric

Sam Kade wrote: »

Nonsense, take farmers for instance they need to live near their work but don't let that get in the way of your generalisation :mad:

Yep farmers need to live there but there's alot more than just them living in effectively the middle of nowhere and commuting to some job in a city, a town or a village.

This dispersed way of living is an Irish societal and political choice and it's a big (and semi-hidden) cost. it makes providing not just good roads and public transportation but all the services of the 20th and 21st centuries (which people naturally expect!) very dear.

It makes development of the country in general harder too (dispersed people = no critical mass for employment, services etc).

Sam Kade

Eugene Norman wrote: »

He said 25% live in the countryside by choice. As in they work in a city or town and don't live in a city or town (or even a village). Now if you do the maths you can exclude farmers and more and still be left with 25%

My bad, my fingers went ahead of my brain.

Sam Kade

fly_agaric wrote: »

Yep farmers need to live there but there's alot more than just them living in effectively the middle of nowhere and commuting to some job in a city, a town or a village.

This dispersed way of living is an Irish societal and political choice and it's a big (and semi-hidden) cost. it makes providing not just good roads and public transportation but all the services of the 20th and 21st centuries (which people naturally expect!) very dear.

It makes development of the country in general harder too (dispersed people = no critical mass for employment, services etc).

It doesn't exist in Ireland as you wouldn't need to go very far to come across civilisation Maybe the out back in Australia but you won't find it here.

murphaph

The reality is that only farmers really need to live in dwellings outside village boundaries. The vet, schoolteacher etc. can all live inside the local village boundaries. Even farmers can live inside village boundaries in many cases (cereal farmers for sure, farmers with animals to tend to possibly less so, but many still could. Even dairy herds can be milked automatically these days with no need for the farmer to be up at all hours of the morning to do it manually).

A tiny tiny fraction of those living in dwellings outside village boundaries actually need to do so, much much less than 25% IMO. It's a lifestyle choice, end of story. It is also not a traditional Irish settlement pattern. It started with cheap oil and more readily available private motor cars. It's sad to see how so many once thriving rural towns and villages have had the life literally sucked out of them as people move to one off properties a few km from them and then sure it's just as handy to shop in Tescos as you have to drive everywhere anyway. Then they wonder why the local town is dead.

Cookie_Monster

Why do all roads need to be paved? 34% of roads in NZ are unpaved, mainly just gravel or compacted dirt.
Would save a lot of maintenance costs on rarely used roads in the middle of nowhere.

Del2005

StudentDad wrote: »

As someone said it isn't just about roads. It's also about decent, cheap public transport. It doesn't exist. A few years ago I considered commuting a few miles by train to a prospective job. You'd think in a modern country this would be possible. Nope. The journey by train would have been roughly an hour one way and the same in reverse. Was it in any way doable? Not a hope! I would have been forced by economics to take the car. So long as the car is given precedence over everything else, our roads are going to be god awful. I remember a relative of mine a good few years ago now (a man who had lived most of his life abroad) actually laughing at some of the designs of "motorway" in Ireland.

So long as we have an "ach sure it'll do" and a "better slap a few more tolls on that road" and my favourite "better build another crap road" instead of doing it properly or offering an alternative to the car, our road network will continue to be god awful.

SD

We can't do public transport because everyone lives to far away from each other it isn't cost effective. There's nowhere to build train lines to and due to the low density buses have to make too many stops so people don't use them.

If the government had stuck to the national spatial strategy we could have had decent population centres to link with rail but instead they scuppered it by decentralising departments to their local village.

Charles Babbage

murphaph wrote: »

A tiny tiny fraction of those living in dwellings outside village boundaries actually need to do so, much much less than 25% IMO. It's a lifestyle choice, end of story. It is also not a traditional Irish settlement pattern. It started with cheap oil and more readily available private motor cars. It's sad to see how so many once thriving rural towns and villages have had the life literally sucked out of them as people move to one off properties a few km from them and then sure it's just as handy to shop in Tescos as you have to drive everywhere anyway. Then they wonder why the local town is dead.

This is a gross simplification, Irish population has always been dispersed. What proportion of townlands in Ireland have higher population now than in the 19th century?

There is no reason why Irish roads cannot be maintained appropriately, other than an unwillingness to spend money and a preference to spend money on other things. Despite the dispersed population ranted about here, Ireland has never spent as much on roads as other places, leading to an accumulation of needed repairs.

murphaph

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This is a gross simplification, Irish population has always been dispersed. What proportion of townlands in Ireland have higher population now than in the 19th century?

Irish people lived in the country, but they lived in small clusters. One off homes are a modern phenomenon.

Charles Babbage

murphaph wrote: »

Irish people lived in the country, but they lived in small clusters. One off homes are a modern phenomenon.

Granted, and it would be better if this was still the case. However, this has little enough effect on the amount of road.

tabbey

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Why do all roads need to be paved? 34% of roads in NZ are unpaved, mainly just gravel or compacted dirt.
.

I think you mean UNSEALED.

StudentDad

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The guy who lived abroad was an expert on motorways because he lived abroad? Motorways in Ireland are fine. Better than many. Newer than most. And I've lived abroad.

Also your argument doesn't make sense. The roads aren't bad because we don't spend money on trains, that makes no sense. We should invest in both good main roads and good public transport. Unfortunately we did the former during the boom, not the latter.

This country is by accident or design, overly reliant on the car. As regards our new motorways; they're not the best. Access and egress ramps too bloody short, in places down right dangerous. There are parts of the country where public transport is either non existent or unfit for purpose. What's the result? Lousy infrastructure and a population literally forced into using cars because there is no bloody alternative. So year on year we get more cars on creaking infrastructure and what happens? We get lip service in terms of public transport. I live in an urban area. Public transport? You've got to be kidding. I can get a bus to the airport, on the far side of the country. Can I get a bus to the other side of town? No. Can I get the train to the next town? Sure, if I'm lucky and can take trains at 'special' times to avail of 'nice' prices. Otherwise? Forget it, once again I'm stuck back with the car.

It's not just here, all over the country there are towns and villages that fall into a public transport black hole. Retired? Free travel pass? Any good to you? No! The nearest access point to public transport is 6-10 or whatever miles away, by car! lol

So yes we have some new motorways in the country, yippee! Useful if you live near them, but then if you use 'em there's a toll.

So, no public transport worth talking about forcing people into cars who have to deal with seriously dodgy roads in most of the country and some new motorways that are vanity projects in some respects that we have to pay extra for the privilege of using.

Wow. Forgive me if I'm not entirely thrilled.

SD

smurgen

A lot of the roads in cork city centre are an absolute joke.it's funny how the RSA keep banging on about drink driving but you rarely hear then bang on about the condition of our roads.

John_Rambo

As pointed out, the one off housing phenomenon has had a very negative effect on the country. It's particularly bad for communities, bad for health, bad for the environment and the cost to service these houses is sucking up money that needs to be spent on public transport and infrastructure in villages, towns and cities.

If it weren't for our political system we'd do well to let go of the subsidy apron strings and let the one off dwellers pay for their roads and services and tax them to the hilt. Farmers are the only ones that need to live in one off houses.

Charles Babbage

One off houses are a function of a dysfunctional system that does not bring a reasonable market in houses in villages into place. If local authories ensured that there were always a small number of sites in villages available at reasonable cost then a lot of people would be happy to avail of that.

John_Rambo wrote: »

If it weren't for our political system we'd do well to let go of the subsidy apron strings and let the one off dwellers pay for their roads and services and tax them to the hilt. Farmers are the only ones that need to live in one off houses.

Should everyone pay for the cost of their own services, or just people who live in the country? People who live in the country might be happy to pay for these things if they did not have to subsidise council houses in central Dublin, for instance.

John_Rambo

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Should everyone pay for the cost of their own services, or just people who live in the country? People who live in the country might be happy to pay for these things if they did not have to subsidise council houses in central Dublin, for instance.

They don't, not for a second. Dublin pays for itself and the rest of the country. Rural Ireland could never pay for their own services, they'll always need to be subsidised by the cities.

murphaph

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Should everyone pay for the cost of their own services, or just people who live in the country? People who live in the country might be happy to pay for these things if they did not have to subsidise council houses in central Dublin, for instance.

As the poster above correctly notes, there is no subsidy flowing from rural to urban areas, quite the opposite. Lifestyle choices that are of no benefit to wider society should be paid for in full by those making those choices. If the true cost of infrastructure provision to one off properties was actually levied, very few would get built.

Charles Babbage

murphaph wrote: »

As the poster above correctly notes, there is no subsidy flowing from rural to urban areas, quite the opposite. Lifestyle choices that are of no benefit to wider society should be paid for in full by those making those choices. If the true cost of infrastructure provision to one off properties was actually levied, very few would get built.

This is a strong statement. I can see advantages in this, no need to support smoker's health bills, pay welfare to the uneducated or support immigrants from Syria. I suspect though that people making statement about rural dwellers have no problems about subsidising other lifestyles that may be more expensive than the average, including their own. And the calculations about infrastructure cost are not simple, the cost of one extra lane on the M50 would probably maintain all the roads in Ireland for a decade.

murphaph

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This is a strong statement. I can see advantages in this, no need to support smoker's health bills, pay welfare to the uneducated or support immigrants from Syria. I suspect though that people making statement about rural dwellers have no problems about subsidising other lifestyles that may be more expensive than the average, including their own. And the calculations about infrastructure cost are not simple, the cost of one extra lane on the M50 would probably maintain all the roads in Ireland for a decade.

Hmmm, equating fleeing persecution by a dictator to building a one off house. OK. Anyway, smokers quite possibly cost society less than non smokers as they die younger so don't get years of pension payments. Non smokers live longer and die of other things requiring years of treatment too, eg Alzheimer's. People may have a poor education because their parents didn't bother, hardly fair to take it out on them for that. What is certain is that building a one off home will definitely be more expensive to provide services to.

PCeeeee

marmurr1916 wrote: »

There are about 98,000 km of public roads in Ireland. Most of the roads in very poor condition are local roads which carry a small percentage of all traffic. Ireland has too many kilometres of public roads for its population. As a start, it would be great if all rural cul-de-sacs were declared to be no longer public roads, followed by local roads with only a handful of houses on them. Many of the local tertiary roads would not be public roads in other European states - they would be private roads with full responsibility for maintenance falling on those who own properties along those roads.

For many other local roads, county councils should charge an annual maintenance fee to residents and businesses along the roads. It would help reduce the demand for one-off rural houses which has led to such a high proportion of Ireland's population living in dispersed patterns in rural areas, a grossly inefficient and environmentally unfriendly form of population distribution that costs the state billions every year through the extra costs of providing infrastructure and services to people who choose to live in the countryside even when there is no necessity for them to do so.

Almost 35% of Irish postal addresses are for addresses in rural townlands, yet less than 10% of the poplulation are involved in occupations that require them to live in the countryside.

About 25% of Ireland's population live in the countryside by choice, not out of necessity.

For example, my sister and her husband live in the countryside in Co. Cork, even though she works in Cork city and he works as an electrician, servicing fire and security systems throughout Munster.

There is no need for them to live in the countryside, they live there by choice.

If people want to live in the countryside by choice, in a grossly inefficient and environmentally unfriendly manner they should pay for it rather than the cost being borne by the entire population.

Only rural dwellers who can demonstrate that their occupations require them to live in the countryside should be exempt from paying extra for roads and other services. Everyone else, those who choose to live in the countryside, should pay extra rather than pushing the cost onto people who have chosen to live in more responsible, efficient and environmentally friendly locations.

Good Lord. What are you proposing? A mass relocation of those who can't pay to the cities. Removing them from their homes, their communities, their families? These people are from the countryside by and large. Born and raised there. They are people not some inconvenient units to be moved around because their way of live is now deemed too expensive.

Also how far would you propose that an individual be allowed to commute to work? Should there be a cutoff point?