Our roads are falling apart

murphaph

n97 mini wrote: »

Here's a map from the Irish Times....

"property tax surplus" is hilarious. As if the urban areas generating the lion's share of Ireland's wealth are swimming in infrastructure and the money is surplus to requirements in those places.

Some on here don't want to believe the gravy train might come to an end. That's understandable I suppose but as people in urban Ireland become more aware of where their taxes actually go, things may start to change.

fly_agaric

John_Rambo wrote: »

Are there people being driven out of parts of the country now?

ha, I think the edicts of the new Palish dictator called Anto Ceaucescu (who also wastes all the virtuous one-off dwellers taxes on Cheese and Onion Crisps, Courvoisier and Sky Sports) are responsible. Or it could be just the whole rural->urban migration trend thing the whole world has been caught up in since industrial revolution kicked off next door.

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote: »

ha, I think the edicts of the new Palish dictator called Anto Ceaucescu (who also wastes all the virtuous one-off dwellers taxes on Cheese and Onion Crisps, Courvoisier and Sky Sports) are responsible. Or it could be just the whole rural->urban migration trend thing the whole world has been caught up in since industrial revolution kicked off next door.

It's correct the think that Ireland bucked the urban migration trend for a couple of decades, but only because the planning rules* here enabled such a trend to occur.


*I include the lack of construction of suitable urban housing within the borders of the cities as well as a virtual free for all in the countryside.

end of the road

murphaph wrote: »

"as people in urban Ireland become more aware of where their taxes actually go

they are more aware then you give them credit for. however they also realize like we all do that our taxes will be spent on things we don't like or use along with what we do like and use. so nobody loses sleep over it as there is no point.

murphaph

Deleted User wrote: »

It's correct the think that Ireland bucked the urban migration trend for a couple of decades, but only because the planning rules* here enabled such a trend to occur.


*I include the lack of construction of suitable urban housing within the borders of the cities as well as a virtual free for all in the countryside.

Yeah and even though it is possible to build in the countryside while it's banned in other western European countries including GB, urbanisation has still continued in Ireland, because the cities provide the employment and opportunities.

Some here believe that the urban dwellers all fully appreciate the massive cross subsidy they are making towards the one off dwellers and that they somehow endorse it. The reality is most haven't put 2 and 2 together and realised that the missing infrastructure in the cities (compare Dublin to even Glasgow and rail based public transport is just diabolical, never mind Munich etc.) is a direct result of money flowing out of the cities to support one off living, yet we folks on here moaning that urban Ireland isn't sending them even more money to fix their private roads in public ownership! When that reality starts to hit home, the introduction of congestion charging of vehicles entering the cities from outside will become politically easy IMO. There will also be a more general reluctance to continue the subsidies while urban infrastructure simply isn't delivered to the increasing urban populations.

n97 mini

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah and even though it is possible to build in the countryside while it's banned in other western European countries including GB, urbanisation has still continued in Ireland, because the cities provide the employment and opportunities.

Some here believe that the urban dwellers all fully appreciate the massive cross subsidy they are making towards the one off dwellers and that they somehow endorse it. The reality is most haven't put 2 and 2 together and realised that the missing infrastructure in the cities (compare Dublin to even Glasgow and rail based public transport is just diabolical, never mind Munich etc.) is a direct result of money flowing out of the cities to support one off living, yet we folks on here moaning that urban Ireland isn't sending them even more money to fix their private roads in public ownership! When that reality starts to hit home, the introduction of congestion charging of vehicles entering the cities from outside will become politically easy IMO. There will also be a more general reluctance to continue the subsidies while urban infrastructure simply isn't delivered to the increasing urban populations.

I couldn't agree more. It galls me that money flows out of urban areas where it could provide really excellent infrastructures and services to rural areas where it goes on such low level stuff such as pothole filling. If it went on significant infrastructure in other areas I wouldn't mind so much.

Irish Steve

So, if we have to make choices about a flood prevention scheme that will cost .5 million to protect 10 houses, or .5 million to protect 500 houses, or spend .5 million on medical services to support 10,000 people, or .5 million to provide services to 100,000 people, or .5 million to provide a new fire engine to cover 25,000 people, or .5 million to cover 250,000 people?

The real cost of putting water, sewerage services, electricity, phones, broadband and mobile phone services into rural areas are orders of magnitude more than those same services into urban areas.

The cost of providing rural schools to serve 60 children is significantly higher than a school that serves 600.

The list is a lot longer than this, but these are just a few of the sorts of issues that are relevant to the urban/rural divide.

There are also major problems with urban housing.

People want space in their gardens, not a pocket handkerchief that is only just big enough to put up a rotary clothes line.
They want to be able to listen to their own television, not have to listen to their TV, and the neighbour's TV as well because the sound barriers between the houses are so badly specified and built that they don't work properly.
They want to be able to park their vehicle, or vehicles close to the house, not at the other end of the estate, or in a dark and possibly dangerous underground car park that is so small and tight it's only suitable for a mini.
They want to be free from "maintenance charges" for things like communal grass areas that are raised by "management companies" that do very little to maintain and manage the estates.

Then there are the issues with public transport. In a lot of cases, there is NO public transport to the areas that people want it to go to, at the times that they need it to go there, so the only viable alternative is to use a car.
They want roads that are designed by people who know what they are doing, and that are fit for purpose. The M50 is the biggest mess I've seen in over 50 years of travelling, both in terms of bad design and bad operation, and there are a lot of other roads that are little better.
They want to be able to live in their houses without fear of things like flooding, there are way too many people who's lives have been and are being blighted by bad planning, and corruption that led to even worse decisions, and they only found out when it was too late to do anything about it.

Having said all of that, nothing is going to change any time soon in this country, as the political system has been so carefully structured that it matters not which party is in power, the real power rests with the civil servants and the "golden circle", who will so whatever it takes to ensure that their very comfortable and protected lifestyle is not compromised.

Then of course there's the very real "entitlement" culture that has been so evident in the last few pages of this thread.

I think this thread should probably be renamed, "Our Culture and society is falling apart" might be more appropriate, as that is the unfortunate reality that we're still (even after the wake up call of austerity) not actually really facing up to.

Charles Babbage

The data on the property tax is all very interesting. But as I stated above the property tax is not so much a service charge as a wealth tax on expensive property, and with this model the places with expensive property will always subsidise those with less expensive property. While there may be an element of services being more expensive in Wexford than Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown, under present models the latter will have to pay more than the former as they are wealthier. As many politicians think wealthy people paying more is appropriate and others wish to discourage expensive property, and all politicians like a lack of clarity as it allows them rant, so I wouldn't hold my breath about getting a change.

n97 mini

It's curious that for the purposes of evaluating your wealth tied up in your home that only the first acre counts. Another let-off to rural dwellers.

Charles Babbage

n97 mini wrote: »

It's curious that for the purposes of evaluating your wealth tied up in your home that only the first acre counts. Another let-off to rural dwellers.

Only the small minority with big gardens.

jackofalltrades

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The data on the property tax is all very interesting. But as I stated above the property tax is not so much a service charge as a wealth tax on expensive property, and with this model the places with expensive property will always subsidise those with less expensive property. While there may be an element of services being more expensive in Wexford than Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown, under present models the latter will have to pay more than the former as they are wealthier. As many politicians think wealthy people paying more is appropriate and others wish to discourage expensive property, and all politicians like a lack of clarity as it allows them rant, so I wouldn't hold my breath about getting a change.

You seem to be conflating house value with levels of wealth, which is incorrect.
People living in towns and cities have to pay more for their houses, usually with longer and more expensive mortgages.
Who do you think is richer, this person in Wexford or this person in Dun Laoghaire?

Our current property tax is heavily weighted against urban people in favour of rural people.

Only the small minority with big gardens.

The size of the group is irrelevant, if there's a property tax they should be paying more.

Charles Babbage

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Our current property tax is heavily weighted against urban people in favour of rural people.

That's what I said too.

The size of the group is irrelevant, if there's a property tax they should be paying more.

Insofar as this increases the value of the property it could be included.

Any a lot of this discussion is no help to the issue at hand
Road expenditure in Ireland was cut by 40% and is low by international standards, despite our geography which requires a somewhat higher expenditure. Most of the reason why there is a problem is that not enough is being spent in total.

murphaph

When you have to spread the butter so thinly you're always going to be playing catch up. Irish freeze thaw in winter also really doesn't help roads maintenance at all.

Charles Babbage

murphaph wrote: »

When you have to spread the butter so thinly you're always going to be playing catch up. Irish freeze thaw in winter also really doesn't help roads maintenance at all.

If you are spreading the butter thinly, then using less butter and complaining about the weather doesn't really help.

murphaph

We're talking about the difference between potholes being filled and opening up 2 months later or 4 months later. It's all nonsense. Too many roads carrying motorised traffic per capita in public control for the population to sustain. Something has to give. If spending isn't cut on all these boreens then something else will be cut to make the books halfway balance.

Geuze

One-off rural hosing should be banned, except for full-time farmers.

One-off houses in rural villages should be actively encouraged.

By that I mean villages with maybe 500-1,500 people, a school, PO, shop, pub etc.

Give planning for one-off houses within 1km of village centres, but not beyond that.

Charles Babbage

Geuze wrote: »

One-off rural hosing should be banned, except for full-time farmers.

One-off houses in rural villages should be actively encouraged.

.

Fine. But Ireland already has a dispersed population needing roads, the present population needs the roads not those who will live there in the future.

tigerboon

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Fine. But Ireland already has a dispersed population needing roads, the present population needs the roads not those who will live there in the future.

Maybe in some cases it's the roads and infrastructure that don't have the population to pay for them. Take Leitrim for example, farming needs a certain amount of roads, power, phones etc, the wind farms need access, forestry needs access. Most of the profit made off these activities is going out of the county. The heavy plant and trucks cause a lot of damage to roads. Leitrim does not have a high population so will need to be subsidised in order to maintain infrastructure which is of benefit to the country as a whole. On the other hand, going by the map a few pages back, a county like Louth with a couple of the biggest population centres in the country and not much one off housing needs to be subsidised. Why's that?

Macy0161

Really not sure I see one-off housing as the route cause of either damage to the roads, or the cause for most of the roads either. Farmers need access to farms, moving animals, feed etc.; quarries and forestry need road access to and from sites. Not to mention those coming out of the city to enjoy (or give out about) the countryside.

Also, when does a one-off house become a cluster (as is the traditional pattern in Ireland) or vica versa? How much of the ribbon development is due to the lack of water (both supply and waste) compared to other countries? And is it all a cost, or are there benefits? Such as family support networks reducing costs to the state in terms of care services?

murphaph

We can make up all the excuses we like. One off development outside owns and villages is banned in other civilised countries for the same reasons it should be banned in Ireland.

galwaycyclist

Macy0161 wrote: »

Really not sure I see one-off housing as the route cause of either damage to the roads, or the cause for most of the roads either. Farmers need access to farms, moving animals, feed etc.; quarries and forestry need road access to and from sites. Not to mention those coming out of the city to enjoy (or give out about) the countryside.

Also, when does a one-off house become a cluster (as is the traditional pattern in Ireland) or vica versa? How much of the ribbon development is due to the lack of water (both supply and waste) compared to other countries? And is it all a cost, or are there benefits? Such as family support networks reducing costs to the state in terms of care services?

As an observation in the old days when a group of rural houses grew up in a cluster it was a cluster of families that lived and worked in that place. Now it is a cluster of people who live in that place and must drive, or be driven, long distances to access work and education.

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

As an observation in the old days when a group of rural houses grew up in a cluster it was a cluster of families that lived and worked in that place. Now it is a cluster of people who live in that place and must drive, or be driven, long distances to access work and education.

The thing with the old days was the fact that back then, you walked everywhere only the well off had personal transport (horse & carriage), you had to live within walking distance of where you worked which usually was the family farm.

If the same criteria was applied today, the countryside would be completely depopulated as even most of the small farmers would leave as they can't earn a living on the tiny farms that most have, they would be living close to the job that pays the bulk of their income.

monument

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The range of ethnic cleansing proposals here and the lack of discussion if transport is remarkable.

Trolling will not be tolerated. Read the commuting and transport charter before posting again.

Do not reply to this post.

PS: I gave you a warning for the wrong thing, it should have been for trolling.

-- Moderator.

galwaycyclist

Deleted User wrote: »

The thing with the old days was the fact that back then, you walked everywhere only the well off had personal transport (horse & carriage), you had to live within walking distance of where you worked which usually was the family farm.

If the same criteria was applied today, the countryside would be completely depopulated as even most of the small farmers would leave as they can't earn a living on the tiny farms that most have, they would be living close to the job that pays the bulk of their income.

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".

For modern children going to school is their "work". I think it is entirely reasonable to arrange our population distribution so that children live as far as possible within walking and cycling distance of work.

In the rest of Europe small farmers live in rural villages and towns and travel out to their farms. Go through rural villages in Germany and you will find barns belonging to individual farmers with agricultural machinery, fodder etc located in the village among the other dwellings. There is no need for us to go that far but it shows that other models are established.

murphaph

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".

For modern children going to school is their "work". I think it is entirely reasonable to arrange our population distribution so that children live as far as possible within walking and cycling distance of work.

In the rest of Europe small farmers live in rural villages and towns and travel out to their farms. Go through rural villages in Germany and you will find barns belonging to individual farmers with agricultural machinery, fodder etc located in the village among the other dwellings. There is no need for us to go that far but it shows that other models are established.

^^all true, but people will not believe that an alternative vision of rural life exists. We didn't have dispersed ribbon development until the motor car came along. People simply couldn't live like that without a car. It is not a settlement pattern native to Ireland. It's suburbia in the countryside and it's a 50 year old (max) phenomenon.

We should ban all further one off development in the Irish countryside and entice people back into villages with lands zoned for one off development on the fringes of those existing villages. Living in a village should not mean having to live in an estate of identical houses. People should be able to buy a serviced site of say 500m²-2000m² in a zoned area and build their dream house on it.

With the right taxation policies, existing one off properties in unsustainable locations can over a couple of generations be removed and returned to agriculture, with a scaling back of the local road network to boot. No government will think this long term though.

end of the road

murphaph wrote: »

^^all true, but people will not believe that an alternative vision of rural life exists. We didn't have dispersed ribbon development until the motor car came along. People simply couldn't live like that without a car. It is not a settlement pattern native to Ireland. It's suburbia in the countryside and it's a 50 year old (max) phenomenon.

We should ban all further one off development in the Irish countryside and entice people back into villages with lands zoned for one off development on the fringes of those existing villages. Living in a village should not mean having to live in an estate of identical houses. People should be able to buy a serviced site of say 500m²-2000m² in a zoned area and build their dream house on it.

With the right taxation policies, existing one off properties in unsustainable locations can over a couple of generations be removed and returned to agriculture, with a scaling back of the local road network to boot. No government will think this long term though.

nor should they as its discrimination, bully boy and the people cannot afford to pay any more taxes. we pay enough taxes

xband

end of the road wrote: »

nor should they as its discrimination, bully boy and the people cannot afford to pay any more taxes. we pay enough taxes

We clearly don't as we can't maintain the road network or various other services.

end of the road

xband wrote: »

We clearly don't as we can't maintain the road network or various other services.

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

xband

We don't actually compared to most of Europe we collect less tax as a % GDP and we have a huge expectation of services being deliverered to unsustainably low density populations spread all over the place. It impacts everything from roads, to broadband, to water, to sports facilities, to public transport to sewage treatment and water contamination issues.

It's a zero sum game. You can't gave great infrastructure everywhere and expect it to cost nothing. The thinner you spread if he more expensive and duplicated it becomes.

We end up with crappy infrastructure spread thinly.

n97 mini

In today's other news the NTMA added another €3 billion onto our national debt, to help maintain roads and services.