Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Our roads are falling apart
Options
Comments
-
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".
In 1971, 50% of the population of the state lived in rural areas. That's now down to 37.5% and should current trends persist will fall to 30% by 2040, about a generation from now.
Apart from that, millions of people have left rural Ireland over the past couple of hundred years (even outside of the Famine period) to live in towns and cities either in Ireland or elsewhere.
The idea that rural Ireland represents the 'true Ireland' or that 'real Irish' people prefer to live in rural areas is pernicious nonsense.
Irish people, like the majority of people around the world (over 50% of the world's population now live in urban areas, this is set to increase to 70% by 2050), mainly live in urban areas.
The ever-shrinking minority of Irish people that choose to live in rural areas cannot expect their lifestyle choices to be subsidised by the majority forever.
Only people whose occupations compel them to live in rural areas should be exempt from extra charges that partially offset the extra costs of providing infrastructure and services to rural areas.0 -
So the proposition here is than any declining minority should be levied with any marginal costs that they have relative to the population at large. This might be a welcome change to the pandering to minorities that characterises much of public policy, nut as I said above I suspect that those posting here are not proposing this, only that their least favourite minorities be attacked.
Once again, what does the cultural genocide of minorities have to do with the transport forum?0 -
oh i can except it. i just don't care as i pay taxes and i pay enough taxes to get what i get. i won't be paying any more i can tell you that right now.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".marmurr1916 wrote: »The idea that rural Ireland represents the 'true Ireland' or that 'real Irish' people prefer to live in rural areas is pernicious nonsense.
i don't think anyone suggested that all irish people do prefer to live in rural areas. however i live where i live and if i do move it will be on my terms. i won't be paying any extra charges or taxes for my entitlements. i pay enoughmarmurr1916 wrote: »The ever-shrinking minority of Irish people that choose to live in rural areas cannot expect their lifestyle choices to be subsidised by the majority forever.
the ever shrinking minority will not be screwed just to suit some supposed majority nonsense. we rightly won't be paying more, i certainly won't. i pay what i pay and i will get my services and thats it. and any attempt to make things difficult for me will be made an election issue when the boys come calling, or if needs be i will do jail for non payment of such charges.marmurr1916 wrote: »Only people whose occupations compel them to live in rural areas should be exempt from extra charges that partially offset the extra costs of providing infrastructure and services to rural areas.
no, all will be exempt from being screwed on the basis of some punitive nonsense by the deluded who want to bully people and who want social engineering. rural people pay the costs for their services and they pay enough and will be paying no more. there will be no extra charges (well at least not for me)ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
marmurr1916 wrote: »In 1971, 50% of the population of the state lived in rural areas. That's now down to 37.5% and should current trends persist will fall to 30% by 2040, about a generation from now.
Since the boom went bust the building of estates practically stopped, but the building of one-offs continued apace. I think I read recently that 100% of planning permission granted in a single quarter in Galway was to one-offs.end of the road wrote: »oh i can except it. i just don't care as i pay taxes and i pay enough taxes to get what i get.
Can you expand on that, as it could be a contradiction?0 -
end of the road wrote: »rural people pay the costs for their services and they pay enough and will be paying no more. there will be no extra charges (well at least not for me)
Meanwhile back in the real world there is talk of reforming the property tax to more truly reflect the cost of running an area. This wasn't brought in originally as it was seen as being politically too difficult.
As for the original topic, roads, I think someone mentioned handing over ownership to single occupancy cul de sacs entirely to the occupant. This could be expanded to multiple (low) occupancy in time. Basically each local authority needs to divest itself of roads which serve little purpose and focus its resources on roads which serve a minimum level.0 -
Advertisement
-
Meanwhile back in the real world there is talk of reforming the property tax to more truly reflect the cost of running an area. This wasn't brought in originally as it was seen as being politically too difficult.
The problem with the property tax is that it is unclear whether it is intended to be service charge or a wealth tax. The present system of relating it to property value ensures the lowest payments where property is less expensive, where costs of service may be higher. I think the property tax might usefully have two components, a service charge which might be lower in the cities, and a wealth tax element to dissuade property price rises which might be higher in the city.As for the original topic, roads, I think someone mentioned handing over ownership to single occupancy cul de sacs entirely to the occupant. This could be expanded to multiple (low) occupancy in time. Basically each local authority needs to divest itself of roads which serve little purpose and focus its resources on roads which serve a minimum level.
Of course the majority of these cul de sac roads came into public ownership in comparatively recent years.0 -
Motor tax, or any other tax paid by motorists, never funded the roads. Well it was supposed to years ago when it was called road tax to fund local councils, but now it goes into the big pool and gets squandered on stuff like hospitals and schools.
This is incorrect.
All motor tax goes into Local Govt Fund LGF.
The LGF makes payments to the councils.
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/LocalGovernment/Administration/FileDownLoad,39429,en.pdf0 -
It's a service charge, as it goes to the local authority, although some of it is transferred to other local authorities.Charles Babbage wrote: »The problem with the property tax is that it is unclear whether it is intended to be service charge or a wealth tax.Charles Babbage wrote: »Of course the majority of these cul de sac roads came into public ownership in comparatively recent years.
Needs to be undone.0 -
It's a service charge, as it goes to the local authority, although some of it is transferred to other local authorities.
A service charge would be relative to the cost of providing the service. It's not. It's relative to the value of the property, which suggests it's a wealth tax. Hence the comment about lack of clarity, I imagine.0 -
Fundamentally we have far too many roads for the population. It's requires unnecessary upkeep and encourages one off housing and unplanned sprawl0
-
Advertisement
-
Thank you GM228, that is frankly bizarre, given the extraordinary sums collected in from the 'motorist'. The motor tax, the fuel excise and VRT.
I have a certain sympathy with this, even though the motor tax is nothing to do with the roads. But the problem is that people in Ireland simply drive too much. The roads and streets are full of cars going short journeys with one person in each car.
As a result, Irish people are getting fatter and the road surfaces are getting thinner.
People should, in the main, be able to cycle any journey of 3km or under - that takes 15 to 20 minutes. Most journeys are under that. And if we had a decent public transport system, an awful lot of people simply wouldn't bother to have cars.
(Don't rush to say "But I…" - I'm talking about the majority of journeys, not all. And there are exceptions - mothers driving with multiple small children, people who have to work in several different places in a day, people who are disabled. But they are the exception, not the majority, and could be catered for within a sane system.)
The roads in the cities are disgraceful, and don't talk about FixMyStreet and the like - from my own experience they're only to make people shut up.The budget for infrastructure was slashed when the tiger calved and its coming home to roost now.
I want to propose this as the Mixed Metaphor of the Week. Burst out laughing at it :pac:0 -
:pac:Qualitymark wrote: »I have a certain sympathy with this, even though the motor tax is nothing to do with the roads. But the problem is that people in Ireland simply drive too much. The roads and streets are full of cars going short journeys with one person in each car.
As a result, Irish people are getting fatter and the road surfaces are getting thinner.
People should, in the main, be able to cycle any journey of 3km or under - that takes 15 to 20 minutes. Most journeys are under that. And if we had a decent public transport system, an awful lot of people simply wouldn't bother to have cars.
(Don't rush to say "But I…" - I'm talking about the majority of journeys, not all. And there are exceptions - mothers driving with multiple small children, people who have to work in several different places in a day, people who are disabled. But they are the exception, not the majority, and could be catered for within a sane system.)
The roads in the cities are disgraceful, and don't talk about FixMyStreet and the like - from my own experience they're only to make people shut up.
I want to propose this as the Mixed Metaphor of the Week. Burst out laughing at it :pac:
There are several middle eastern countries desperately in need of a " strong man" dictatorial style of government. I suggest you apply to several
The rest of us can get on with having some " choice "0 -
One point that should be remembered is the fact that the vast majority of one-offs were built along existing roads, the local road network was already quite extensive.Fundamentally we have far too many roads for the population. It's requires unnecessary upkeep and encourages one off housing and unplanned sprawl
The main difference is the volume of traffic is huge relative to that of similar country roads in other countries.
As for solving the issues, it would take a generation or two of rural depopulation before we have a similar rural/urban(towns, villages or clusters of houses) pattern of housing.
Such a change will only come about when the cost of living in the sticks becomes too much for people to bear. We currently live in an era of cheap & plentiful motor fuel that has enabled people to live far away from work and be able to afford to commute hundreds of kilometres a week. When fuel prices rise again (and they will), some people will find it cheaper to move closer to work than to fill the car.
Plus the lack of local employment in many parts of the country, the era of one-offs in the country is coming to an end.
This won't solve the issue of too many kilometres of road to maintain, it just means that fewer will complain about their poor condition.0 -
:pac:
There are several middle eastern countries desperately in need of a " strong man" dictatorial style of government. I suggest you apply to several
The rest of us can get on with having some " choice "
The only trouble with your "choice" to drive around as single people in cars, using up our fossil fuels, choking the world with emissions, fuelling climate change and costing us a fortune to mend the roads for you, is that your choice is killing us.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »One point that should be remembered is the fact that the vast majority of one-offs were built along existing roads, the local road network was already quite extensive.
The main difference is the volume of traffic is huge relative to that of similar country roads in other countries.
As for solving the issues, it would take a generation or two of rural depopulation before we have a similar rural/urban(towns, villages or clusters of houses) pattern of housing.
Such a change will only come about when the cost of living in the sticks becomes too much for people to bear. We currently live in an era of cheap & plentiful motor fuel that has enabled people to live far away from work and be able to afford to commute hundreds of kilometres a week. When fuel prices rise again (and they will), some people will find it cheaper to move closer to work than to fill the car.
Plus the lack of local employment in many parts of the country, the era of one-offs in the country is coming to an end.
This won't solve the issue of too many kilometres of road to maintain, it just means that fewer will complain about their poor condition.
To sggest that the decline of personal motoring ability , will lead to such a solution is to engage in wishful thinking
We are already, in western society close to peak oil demand furthermore the world is awash with oil and will be for a considerable future
Then we have alternative forms of personal transport , specially far cheaper to run electric vehicles
Hence your solution will never come to pass.
In fact I suspect with the continuing application of poor urban planning in the greater Dublin area , coupled with high prices , there will be more pressure to settle in rural areas then ever before. The rise of the long distance commuter continues in Ireland.
The solution will not be facilitated by wishful thinking on oil.0 -
A service charge would be relative to the cost of providing the service. It's not. It's relative to the value of the property, which suggests it's a wealth tax. Hence the comment about lack of clarity, I imagine.
Not disputing how it's derived, and it's debatable that one's home is reckonable wealth as you can't just cash it in and go homeless.0 -
We have less than 30 years of oil left. Other countries are now switching to cities that are largely cyclable with good public transport systems.
Even in Ireland motoring is becoming far too expensive to be sensible unless you're unfortunate enough to be stuck in commuter-belt hell or you need to drive professionally. Take out a pen and paper and do a few calculations: how much is your car insurance, NCT, car tax, petrol, new parts like tyres, and maintenance for the last year?
And for the sake of health, we need to get out of our cars. Irish people are getting too fat, with bad effects on blood pressure, heart disease, cancer levels, diabetes, etc.0 -
Qualitymark wrote: »We have less than 30 years of oil left. Other countries are now switching to cities that are largely cyclable with good public transport systems.
Even in Ireland motoring is becoming far too expensive to be sensible unless you're unfortunate enough to be stuck in commuter-belt hell or you need to drive professionally. Take out a pen and paper and do a few calculations: how much is your car insurance, NCT, car tax, petrol, new parts like tyres, and maintenance for the last year?
And for the sake of health, we need to get out of our cars. Irish people are getting too fat, with bad effects on blood pressure, heart disease, cancer levels, diabetes, etc.
Wow, it's like a rerun of the 70s. ( well have no oil by 2000, well howed that work out for ya )
Motoring remains the transport of choice in this country and it remains affordable as the huge number of cars attests to. Motoring s as much a lifestyle /status decision as one based on euros and cents.
Actually as a general case , Irish people are getting healthier and older people are now a strain on pensions , social services and tax revenues., the problem is much worse in Europe. In fact in reality ,society actually needs us to die younger !!0 -
Wow, it's like a rerun of the 70s. ( well have no oil by 2000, well howed that work out for ya )
I'm sure you're more expert than these people:According to the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, there are 1.3 trillion barrels of proven oil reserve left in the world's major fields, which at present rates of consumption should last 40 years.
(I was wrong - we have 10 extra years!)0 -
The price of oil won't make any difference to one off housing. Long term we'll all be driving electric vehicles. The only fair thing to do is start charging people something more closely resembling the true cost of providing the roads to their one offs. That's it. The only question is how it's phased in. It's a pure lifestyle choice which people should be prepared to pay for.0
-
Advertisement
-
he pays for his roads via his various taxes. there is not enough evidence to state how much if at all we are helping climate change. it could simply be a natural change.Qualitymark wrote: »The only trouble with your "choice" to drive around as single people in cars, using up our fossil fuels, choking the world with emissions, fuelling climate change and costing us a fortune to mend the roads for you, is that your choice is killing us.Qualitymark wrote: »for the sake of health, we need to get out of our cars.
we will if we like. you cannot and have no right to force people to travel via whatever method you wish. the choice must remain, bullying people in this country (rightly) doesn't workQualitymark wrote: »Irish people are getting too fat, with bad effects on blood pressure, heart disease, cancer levels, diabetes, etc.
unfortunate, but peoples choice of transport must remain. no amount of "someone think of the chillder/health" type posts will change itThe only fair thing to do is start charging people something more closely resembling the true cost of providing the roads to their one offs.
no no, not fair at all. bully boy tactics. i pay enough for what i get. i don't care whether what i do pay resembles the true costs or not, but i pay tax so i will get services in return.The only question is how it's phased in. It's a pure lifestyle choice which people should be prepared to pay for.
no no, they should not be prepared to pay for their life style choices. once they pay taxes, they get the services.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
There are many groups in Ireland unwilling to pay for things, as the ranting about Irish Water shows. There is a substantial political philosophy that payment should be based on ability to pay rather than anything else, which makes a lot of commentary here unrealistic.0
-
So you want other citizens to pay for your lifestyle choices. That's what it boils down to.end of the road wrote: »no no, not fair at all. bully boy tactics. i pay enough for what i get. i don't care whether what i do pay resembles the true costs or not, but i pay tax so i will get services in return.
no no, they should not be prepared to pay for their life style choices. once they pay taxes, they get the services.0 -
How so? You phase in the charges over a long period. Existing homeowners would pay nothing. If you buy a one off property you trigger the start of payments, which increase with each sale of the property. You're talking about very long lead in times to be fair to those who built under existing rules. Under my proposals any home owner who simply stays in his existing house would not ever be billed anything extra.Charles Babbage wrote: »There are many groups in Ireland unwilling to pay for things, as the ranting about Irish Water shows. There is a substantial political philosophy that payment should be based on ability to pay rather than anything else, which makes a lot of commentary here unrealistic.
There is a precedent in the LPT which I think most agree will see increases in our lifetimes.0 -
How so? You phase in the charges over a long period. Existing homeowners would pay nothing. If you buy a one off property you trigger the start of payments, which increase with each sale of the property. You're talking about very long lead in times to be fair to those who built under existing rules. Under my proposals any home owner who simply stays in his existing house would not ever be billed anything extra.
There is a precedent in the LPT which I think most agree will see increases in our lifetimes.
LPT of course is levied on existing properties and new ones are exempt for some years.
Your scheme may have some merit, but the devil is in the detail. Otherwise you end up like England, where the young indigenous people who are part of the community (although they might commute to work), have been replaced by yuppies who can simply pay any premium arising, who not only commute but who have very limited interaction with the community.0 -
Figures that assume that all of the 1.3 trillion barrels is extracted and that consumption doesn't increase (some countries are still ramping up their consumption at a faster rate than the west is reducing). Also it is worth remembering that if the price of oil stays low, a lot of those reserves will be reclassified as resources and the reserves figure will fall.Qualitymark wrote: »According to the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, there are 1.3 trillion barrels of proven oil reserve left in the world's major fields, which at present rates of consumption should last 40 years.
(I was wrong - we have 10 extra years!)
Reserves = oil that can be economically extracted.
Resources = oil that can not be economically extracted.
This also means that if the price goes really high, then that reserves figure will also rise. If this happens then only those in well paid jobs would be able to afford to commute long distances in ICE vehicles.0 -
Rethinking the disastrous planning policy in Dublin is certainly key to resolving the situation that many have to find housing a long way from the city.To sggest that the decline of personal motoring ability , will lead to such a solution is to engage in wishful thinking
We are already, in western society close to peak oil demand furthermore the world is awash with oil and will be for a considerable future
Then we have alternative forms of personal transport , specially far cheaper to run electric vehicles
Hence your solution will never come to pass.
In fact I suspect with the continuing application of poor urban planning in the greater Dublin area , coupled with high prices , there will be more pressure to settle in rural areas then ever before. The rise of the long distance commuter continues in Ireland.
The solution will not be facilitated by wishful thinking on oil.
Peak demand is really down to improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency, fuel substitution and the economic slowdown that is happening now.
As for being awash in oil, this is a short term result of the "turf war" between OPEC members (including some infighting), USA & Russia, when the dust settles the price will fly up! Large scale use of EV's will require the development of suitable batteries that use common materials, otherwise we may only have one generation of them before the world's reserves of lithium is exhausted.
I don't consider what I posted earlier as "a solution", it is a prophesy based on a future where oil remains expensive and EV's have only a limited take up due to the limited availability of lithium(hopefully there will be suitable replacement developed in the near future).
None of this of course is going to change the fact that we have a lot of road kilometres relative to the population to maintain. When money is tight in the future, many of the L roads will deteriorate more as money is only spent on the M, N & R roads (if we're lucky.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Rethinking the disastrous planning policy in Dublin is certainly key to resolving the situation that many have to find housing a long way from the city.
indeed , but the solutions are not easyPeak demand is really down to improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency, fuel substitution and the economic slowdown that is happening now.
the western world needs less oil , thats a factAs for being awash in oil, this is a short term result of the "turf war" between OPEC members (including some infighting), USA & Russia, when the dust settles the price will fly up!
The US will be independent of foreign oil within three years, currents analysis suggest that with that fact, the opening of new exploration areas , principally the arctic, helped by global warming, oil prices will certainly never recover to former highs. trends in global warming mitigation all result in lower oil consumption as well.
oil will be cheap because we dont need as much of it as before
.Large scale use of EV's will require the development of suitable batteries that use common materials, otherwise we may only have one generation of them before the world's reserves of lithium is exhausted
The exact amount of the worlds reserves of Lithium is a matter of considerable debate, ( I can link docs for you ) . But rest assured all experts agree that even with an explosive rise in demand, principally from EVs, there are known reserves with current , inefficient production methods for at least 50-80- years. In the timescale of battery development thats a long time. This does not include , better production methods, or new explorations, but is based on the output of three major minesI don't consider what I posted earlier as "a solution", it is a prophesy based on a future where oil remains expensive and EV's have only a limited take up due to the limited availability of lithium(hopefully there will be suitable replacement developed in the near future).
Given the demand for personal transport is huge, people are not going back to 19th century methods of getting around. I have no doubt that solutions will be found.
The independence brought about by the personal transport revolution will not be lost without a fight .!None of this of course is going to change the fact that we have a lot of road kilometres relative to the population to maintain. When money is tight in the future, many of the L roads will deteriorate more as money is only spent on the M, N & R roads (if we're lucky.
I actually agree, maintenance of L roads should largely be financed by those that benefit from their existence, mainly farmers, some businesses and rural one-off house dwellers. A levy ( rural tax) should be enforced to deal with this
N. M and certain R roads have national importance and should be looked after by general national taxation0 -
I actually agree, maintenance of L roads should largely be financed by those that benefit from their existence, mainly farmers, some businesses and rural one-off house dwellers. A levy ( rural tax) should be enforced to deal with this
Hopefully we'll also see such things as cycle lanes and bus routes funded by those who use them and not the rest of us, to say nothing of methadone clinics and the like.0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement