Our roads are falling apart

magicbastarder

take a spin up the R257 north out of bunbeg on google street view. the imagery is from 2009, so it's gotten worse since then probably.

marmurr1916

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.

The figures show that the total amount of state spending in Dublin is less than the total amount of taxes paid in Dublin.

The figures show the opposite for almost everywhere else in the country (Cork city and Limerick city excepted) and every single rural area has more state money spent on it than is paid in taxes.

marmurr1916

magicbastarder wrote: »

take a spin up the R257 north out of bunbeg on google street view. the imagery is from 2009, so it's gotten worse since then probably.

The amount of semi-suburban sprawl in Co. Donegal (or in almost any rural part of Ireland) is absolutely shocking compared to Scotland. If you want to see unspoilt rural landscapes, Ireland is not the best country to visit. There's not quite a bungalow in every field but there's hardly a boreen or any other road that's free from relatively recently built houses.

Ireland has become a country where there is an increasingly unclear distinction between rural and suburban. Even small villages of several hundred people will be surrounded in almost every direction with one-off housing. The radius of development grows larger as the settlement grows larger - you get one-off semi-suburban housing up to 20km or more from the centre of Galway.

This type of semi-suburban development seems perfectly normal to most Irish people but is a real shock to anyone visiting Ireland from countries where rural housing is subject to much greater planning constraints.

Look at a satellite image of any rural area surrounding a town in Ireland and compare it to a satellite image of the rural area surrounding a town of similar size in Scotland - the difference in rural settlement patterns is striking.

Irish_rat

There is too many local roads to look after in this country that is the big problem. Repaving small boreens for farmers and one off housing.

National primary and secondary should be the priority.

Regional routes triaged in terms of importance and repairs needed. No slapping the tarmac on potholes but digging it up and putting down a new Road from Base Layer up

marmurr1916

magicbastarder wrote: »

take a spin up the R257 north out of bunbeg on google street view. the imagery is from 2009, so it's gotten worse since then probably.

Ullapool on Scotland's north-west coast.



Only a tiny number of houses outside of the main village.

Bunbeg on Ireland's north-west coast.



An unplanned sprawl.

Charles Babbage

marmurr1916 wrote: »

The figures show that the total amount of state spending in Dublin is less than the total amount of taxes paid in Dublin.

The figures show the opposite for almost everywhere else in the country (Cork city and Limerick city excepted) and every single rural area has more state money spent on it than is paid in taxes.

I'm sure there is a figure that shows districts in Dublin where the taxation is less than the expenditure. Why are these not required to pay their own way? In the new fangled Eircode speak, its OK for D10 to get money from everyone else but not H18? In an Ireland which is increasingly urbanised why has it now suddenly become necessary to attack what remains of traditional settlement?

Why has a thread in Boards.ie transport become focussed on megalomaniac social engineering proposals instead of questions such as whether road expenditure is wisely spent or at an appropriate level?

marmurr1916

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I'm sure there is a figure that shows districts in Dublin where the taxation is less than the expenditure. Why are these not required to pay their own way? In the new fangled Eircode speak, its OK for D10 to get money from everyone else but not H18? In an Ireland which is increasingly urbanised why has it now suddenly become necessary to attack what remains of traditional settlement?

Why has a thread in Boards.ie transport become focussed on megalomaniac social engineering proposals instead of questions such as whether road expenditure is wisely spent or at an appropriate level?

I didn't suggest all counties should pay their own way. I said people who choose to live in rural areas where there's no necessity for them to do so should pay extra towards the more expensive cost of providing them with infrastructure and services.

If you'd like to pick holes in that suggestion feel free, but please don't claim that I made suggestions that I clearly didn't.

Providing information to posters who claim that rural areas in general subsidise council houses in Dublin doesn't imply that I'm against transfers.

I'm all for providing support to less well-off people and less well-off areas.

But I don't see why people who live by choice in rural areas when they don't need to should be subsidised by people who may be less well-off than them but living in villages, towns or cities in a more sustainable manner.

A proposal that some people pay extra money for services and infrastructure if they choose not to live in or very near the closest village or town is not a form of 'megalomaniac social engineering'.

A bit less hyperbolics, a bit more response to what's actually been suggested might be in order.

If you deliberately post claims again that I've made suggestions which I clearly haven't made, I will put you on ignore.

I have no time for people who lie and distort.

end of the road

murphaph wrote: »

Indeed. Not a _single_ contributor has suggested anybody be forcibly moved anywhere, yet infamous dictators are brought into the discussion. It beggars belief.

The most anyone (me included) has called for is a banning of further one off development of the countryside, something several western European countries did decades ago...but Ireland is different of course and all those countries are wrong and one off rural housing as practiced in Ireland is right.

I would then like to see a gradual introduction of passing the true cost of roads maintenance on to the residents who benefit from it. Perhaps an amnesty for all existing home owners, with the start of the charges being triggered by a property sale.This would devalue one off housing stock for sure, but this would be correct as the stock is only worth the currently inflated price because everyone else picks up the tab for the provided infrastructure, an unfair situation to begin with.

However, I accept that planning was so lax, that a scale, gradually tapering up to 100% of the true costs over several decades would be more appropriate than a short sharp shock to current owners of such properties.

well, if i'm around when such is ever introduced, you can prepare a jail cell for me as i won't be paying it. i all ready pay enough via the various taxes.

marmurr1916 wrote: »

If you chose to live in a location which results in extra harm to the environment and costs more money to provide services and infrastructure to than alternative locations, you shouldn't get other people to subsidise your lifestyle choices.

that isn't happening. these people pay taxes which cover their life style choices.

marmurr1916 wrote: »

Why should people who live more sustainably have to pay higher taxes and higher bills than they would otherwise have to pay because somebody prefers to live in a house in the countryside rather than one in a small village?

again, that isn't happening. if everyone relocated from the countryside, we would all still be paying the same taxes.

marmurr1916 wrote: »

Whatever other posters may have said, I haven't called for the full cost of public services and utilities to be charged to users. I have called for choose to live in areas where the cost of providing those services and utilities is significantly higher to pay extra contributions towards them.

This could be done through a mixture of higher LPT charges for houses in rural areas, higher rates for commercial premises in rural areas, and special contributions to councils for road maintenance etc.

In return, the roads and other infrastructure will be maintained to legally mandated minimum standards. If the minimum standards aren't met, people get a refund of the extra LPT (or rates) and special contributions plus 10% - an incentive for councils to meet the minimum standards and not just use the extra money as a cash cow.

i'm not paying any more then i do to live where i live. i pay enough. i'm not paying higher property tax for you when the reality is you will be paying the same regardless. do you honestly think if the likes of me pay more you will get a reduction? no you won't. i pay enough

anothernight

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Why has a thread in Boards.ie transport become focussed on megalomaniac social engineering proposals instead of questions such as whether road expenditure is wisely spent or at an appropriate level?

Ignoring the hyperbole...

Because roads are part of infrastructure, and infrastructure requirements are very closely linked to population patterns. Low population density makes it much more difficult to design, implement and maintain efficient infrastructure networks, not just for roads but also for public transport, internet access, etc.

A few people in the thread seem to be taking this very personally though!

Charles Babbage

You have the guy living in a rural area living in a modernised version of his grandfather's house, paid for without assistance from anyone else. The you have have the guy living in a hotel in Dublin on the back of the taxpayer. Which one is the problem?

Del2005

Charles Babbage wrote: »

You have the guy living in a rural area living in a modernised version of his grandfather's house, paid for without assistance from anyone else. The you have have the guy living in a hotel in Dublin on the back of the taxpayer. Which one is the problem?

My grandfather's both raised their families in 2 room hovels, when my parents where teenagers they built a small 3 bedroom cottage, the least amount of people living in each cottage was 6 and they were living and working the farm.

In the area where my parents are from there are now huge houses some with 3 people most with 2 and most don't even have all the rooms finished. Yet the homes their grandparents lived in are all abandoned and going to ruin. A few are still farming but most are either driving miles for work or not working and their kids are bored out of their heads because there are no other children nearby to play with.

There are also a lot of both new mcmansions and other old houses which are essentially abandoned and these have been picked clean of all metal because no one lives close by to keep an eye on them. If they had been in a village people would have noticed the strange vehicle parked outside for several hours and the Gardaí could patrol in a few minutes, instead the Gardaí have to try and patrol 000s of km of road to try to protect people and property.

murphaph

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I'm sure there is a figure that shows districts in Dublin where the taxation is less than the expenditure. Why are these not required to pay their own way? In the new fangled Eircode speak, its OK for D10 to get money from everyone else but not H18? In an Ireland which is increasingly urbanised why has it now suddenly become necessary to attack what remains of traditional settlement?

Why has a thread in Boards.ie transport become focussed on megalomaniac social engineering proposals instead of questions such as whether road expenditure is wisely spent or at an appropriate level?

It's called looking for the root cause of the problem. The development we have seen in Ireland is absolutely not traditional. Vast numbers of the people living in one off housing actually grew up in housing estates! In my family my mother and her 9 siblings grew up in a council estate in County Kildare in the 40's and 50's. 3 of her siblings live in a rural one off house now. It's a new fangled thing that started in the 60's with the improving economy. Small clustered settlements were the traditional way we lived.

Charles Babbage

murphaph wrote: »

It's called looking for the root cause of the problem. The development we have seen in Ireland is absolutely not traditional. Vast numbers of the people living in one off housing actually grew up in housing estates! In my family my mother and her 9 siblings grew up in a council estate in County Kildare in the 40's and 50's. 3 of her siblings live in a rural one off house now. It's a new fangled thing that started in the 60's with the improving economy. Small clustered settlements were the traditional way we lived.

This is a simplification and a Pale perspective on things, where the Anglos had big farms and their workers lived in villages. The real Ireland exists beyond the Pale. Of course, as always, the imported values of the Pale are expected to rule the entire country.

murphaph

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This is a simplification and a Pale perspective on things, where the Anglos had big farms and their workers lived in villages. The real Ireland exists beyond the Pale. Of course, as always, the imported values of the Pale are expected to rule the entire country.

So now that I mention Kildare we are back to the Pale versus everyone else rather than Dublin versus everyone else. The Irish had big farms too before the penal laws forced subdivision upon them.

Anyway...defending rural one off housing on the basis that the penal laws resulted in small Irish farms is farcical in this day and age. If you can't look at the Donegal images and recognise the problem then we are too far apart to ever come to a concencus on this issue.

Charles Babbage

murphaph wrote: »

Anyway...defending rural one off housing on the basis that the penal laws resulted in small Irish farms is farcical in this day and age. If you can't look at the Donegal images and recognise the problem then we are too far apart to ever come to a concencus on this issue.

I'm not defending Irish planning, quite the reverse. I am not arguing for McMansions, ribbon development in Kildare or anything of the sort. But this is not a planning thread, it is about roads and many of the points here have no particular relevance to the expenditure on roads. It is clear that many here wish to withdraw the public road network from many citizens. I do not agree that particular law-abiding Irish indigenous citizens should be targeted by the State because of their location when a variety of other thoroughly anti social cultures are promoted by the State at great expense.

murphaph

end of the road wrote: »

again, that isn't happening. if everyone relocated from the countryside, we would all still be paying the same taxes.

Nobody is proposing a relocation but let's just entertain the idea for a moment. If all one-off dwellers relocated the few kms to the nearest village or town, keeping their large sites and houses but being prepared to live on closer proximity to others, then a huge chunk of the road network could simply be abandoned to be used by farmers for access. The savings to the state would be enormous. Schools could merge and provide decent facilities for pupils and staff at lower cost to the state. The ESB and Eir could abandon and remove the eyesore overhead supply lines, saving vast sums in foregone maintenance (the storms would cause little disruption of supply as in urban areas all this stuff can be cost effectively undergrounded). Everyone would have access to high speed internet at low cost, further enhancing job opportunities in rural areas (remember, a village in a rural area is still rural. Rural does not automatically mean "one-off" as so many posters here seem to think).

So yeah, we'd probably continue paying the same taxes but the money freed up from supporting one off development would be vast and would result in better services for all. It won't and can't happen though. The houses have a legal right to exist as the planning mistakes have already been made, but we can gradually start to levy the true cost or something approaching it on these one off properties so people think twice about living in them.

murphaph

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I'm not defending Irish planning, quite the reverse. I am not arguing for McMansions, ribbon development in Kildare or anything of the sort. But this is not a planning thread, it is about roads and many of the points here have no particular relevance to the expenditure on roads. It is clear that many here wish to withdraw the public road network from many citizens. I do not agree that particular law-abiding Irish indigenous citizens should be targeted by the State because of their location when a variety of other thoroughly anti social cultures are promoted by the State at great expense.

It doesn't have to be either or. I don't think the state should be encouraging a certain class to reproduce either. I see our polices in this regard as being probably even a greater threat to the long term survival of the state than rural one off housing. People moving from a housing estate in D15 to live in a McMansion in Cavan (I know several having worked in D15 for a number of years) are not a demographic I see a need to financially support with roads maintenance of their (effectively) very long public driveways!

Both types of citizen are effectively leeching off the rest of us.

magicbastarder

not that it's particularly illuminating to the debate at hand, but this is a map of ireland with all roads (all transport links, by the looks of it) marked with equal weight. sent to me by a friend a while back. interesting to note how dense the network is around cork county and in northern ireland.

fly_agaric

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This is a simplification and a Pale perspective on things, where the Anglos had big farms and their workers lived in villages. The real Ireland exists beyond the Pale. Of course, as always, the imported values of the Pale are expected to rule the entire country.

why not ditch all your 20th and 21st century mod cons and go live in a replica of great-grandad's 2 room cottage with a wife and 6 kids far way from the pale if that's the "real Ireland"?

Or maybe come be with the rest of the world in the present; 2015 (edit almost 16), where unfortunately its just harder to provide things (some of which weren't even a twinkle in great-grandads eye) to dispersed people, and easier to provide them to people in cities, towns and villages (even if they be heathen foreign ideas and not your traditional Irish settlement pattern as God intended).

It's no Palish plot its just resources, time, distance, density etc.
...And given the discussion on the thread and planning in general, these alien "values of the Pale" definitely do not rule Ireland!

Charles Babbage

fly_agaric wrote: »

why not ditch all your 20th and 21st century mod cons and go live in a replica of great-grandad's 2 room cottage with a wife and 6 kids far way from the pale if that's the "real Ireland"?

Or maybe come be with the rest of the world in the present; 2015 (edit almost 16), where unfortunately its just harder to provide things (some of which weren't even a twinkle in great-grandads eye) to dispersed people, and easier to provide them to people in cities, towns and villages (even if they be heathen foreign ideas and not your traditional Irish settlement pattern as God intended).

It's no Palish plot its just resources, time, distance, density etc.
...And given the discussion on the thread and planning in general, these alien "values of the Pale" definitely do not rule Ireland!

This is organic fertiliser, Ireland could provide rural electrification 70 years ago, its ability to provide services is much greater now than then. The issue is not the ability to provide services, but Mé Fein attitudes. These attitudes prevent proper policies being put in place as there is no analysis, just prejudice and half baked rants such as we have seen here.

anothernight

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This is organic fertiliser, Ireland could provide rural electrification 70 years ago, its ability to provide services is much greater now than then. The issue is not the ability to provide services, but Mé Fein attitudes. These attitudes prevent proper policies being put in place as there is no analysis, just prejudice and half baked rants such as we have seen here.

With all due respect, you're the one who mentioned "megalomaniac social engineering proposals", Nicolae Ceaușescu and are accusing people of having a "Pale perspective". You also said that the "real Ireland exists beyond the Pale". There's a fake Ireland in Dublin now?

Talk about prejudice and half baked rants...

Charles Babbage

anothernight wrote: »

With all due respect, you're the one who mentioned "megalomaniac social engineering proposals", Nicolae Ceaușescu and are accusing people of having a "Pale perspective". You also said that the "real Ireland exists beyond the Pale". There's a fake Ireland in Dublin now?

A lot of Dublin might as well be in England, there is a reason they are called Jackeens.

Dyr

There must be a few bob in trasport funds ear marked for dublin if the culchies are out jumping up and down about the road down to the boreen not being fit for their tank sized tractors

Irish_rat

murphaph wrote: »

Just some food for thought...
Building a dwelling outside an urban area is illegal in Germany and has been for decades.

I noticed this alot when I was over there a few weeks ago. I travelled from Hamburg up north to Schwerin and Luebeck, the countryside was totally unspoilt, you wouldn't see a house in sight, only in urban areas. The same in Northern Ireland.

We past the point of no return during the Celtic Tiger period where the countryside is blighted with houses now. Housing estates that ruined the aesthetic of stunning little Irish villages. I think the free for all planning is the worst thing FF ever allowed and they did some truly shocking things.

murphaph

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This is organic fertiliser, Ireland could provide rural electrification 70 years ago, its ability to provide services is much greater now than then. The issue is not the ability to provide services, but Mé Fein attitudes. These attitudes prevent proper policies being put in place as there is no analysis, just prejudice and half baked rants such as we have seen here.

70 years ago we didn't have all the McMansions. Far more people lived in a single dwelling so there were far fewer properties to connect. Do you think it's acceptable that people leave housing estates they've grown up on and go buy a site from a farmer and build a house on it?

murphaph

Charles Babbage wrote: »

A lot of Dublin might as well be in England, there is a reason they are called Jackeens.

Personally I'd be happy with a federal Ireland along Swiss lines. You could even move the federal capital to Athlone for all I care, so long as Greater Dublin got its own region and kept its wealth, the other regions could do whatever they wanted.

murphaph

Irish_rat wrote: »

I noticed this alot when I was over there a few weeks ago. I travelled from Hamburg up north to Schwerin and Luebeck, the countryside was totally unspoilt, you wouldn't see a house in sight, only in urban areas. The same in Northern Ireland.

We past the point of no return during the Celtic Tiger period where the countryside is blighted with houses now. Housing estates that ruined the aesthetic of stunning little Irish villages. I think the free for all planning is the worst thing FF ever allowed and they did some truly shocking things.

I agree with most of your post but Northern Ireland is almost as bad as the Republic as a blind eye was turned for the sake of peace. Great Britain is a different story with vast tracts of truly unspoilt countryside that puts us to shame given the population densities of the 2 islands. Even travelling between Manchester and Sheffield, two cities of about a million people, the countryside is unspoilt.

Charles Babbage

murphaph wrote: »

70 years ago we didn't have all the McMansions. Far more people lived in a single dwelling so there were far fewer properties to connect. Do you think it's acceptable that people leave housing estates they've grown up on and go buy a site from a farmer and build a house on it?

There is much that I don't agree with about Irish planning. But there are challenges too in refining policies which regulate who can buy which house, some people think that if people can move their town that they should have right to move in the opposite direction. It isn't easy to craft policies in this context. Which is why I would prefer carrot over sticks, i.e. regulation of the property market so that houses in urban areas did not become prohibitively expensive and ensuring that there are actual services of value there.
The problem with stick is that in general there is limit in society to the extent to which you can coerce citizens into certain policies when those citizens perceive that others with lifestyles that adversely affect them are not directed to change their behaviour.

But all of this is distraction, the point in this thread is that the situation cannot be changed in the short term. No doubt if everyone lived in giant tower blocks in Dublin connected by maglev trains we wouldn't need roads at all, but that isn't the situation. You might as well have discussion in a thread about A&E departments of the benefit of everyone having become teetotal vegetarians.

There is no way in which the extent of the road network can be reduced appreciably in our lifetimes, and the bits you could lop off would be the narrowest bits on which least is spent at present, so the savings wouldn't be substantial in any case. You may like the Kerryman think that we shouldn't start from here, but here is where we are and wishing we were elsewhere is simply diverting the thread.

end of the road

murphaph wrote: »

we can gradually start to levy the true cost or something approaching it on these one off properties so people think twice about living in them.

people won't (rightly) be thinking twice about living in such properties as its not their job to think twice about living in the property that they are entitled to buy and live in . putting such extra costs on to these people should be made as toxic as possible and should such extra costs come to fruition then people should refuse to pay. people who live in rural areas pay more then enough so they will get the services they are entitled to.

murphaph

end of the road wrote: »

people won't (rightly) be thinking twice about living in such properties as its not their job to think twice about living in the property that they are entitled to buy and live in . putting such extra costs on to these people should be made as toxic as possible and should such extra costs come to fruition then people should refuse to pay. people who live in rural areas pay more then enough so they will get the services they are entitled to.

You are simply ignoring the facts. Rural Ireland does not pay its way. It is cross subsidised by urban Ireland. Until you can at least accept that fact (and it is a fact!) then it's hard to debate anything with you!

There's that word again by the way..."entitled".