08.27.06
I may be a one-off, but you can’t call me an environmental hazard
I’m all in favour of one-off houses in the country. Of course I live in one, so this may colour my opinion.
The conventional wisdom is that building one-off houses in the country is a bad thing. Land is scarce. Local authority services such as water supply and refuse collection are too expensive to extend along ribbon development. Bungalow blight ruins the appearance of the countryside. Septic tanks attached to one-off houses pollute the ground water. And people living in the middle of nowhere have to drive everywhere, and that causes pollution and traffic jams.
But when I needed a home, one thing became clear pretty quickly. I couldn’t afford to buy a house in keeping with my delusions of grandeur, so I was going to have to build one.
Fortunately I was able to pass the crucial “local need” test in Enfield, Co Meath. My family was firmly embedded in the local community and I was able to tell Meath county council I could work from home and there would be no commuting.
This “local need” test is a hurdle that those seeking refuge from astronomical house prices in Dublin generally fail to clear. The tests were put in place because the environmental impact of a one-off house is thought to be so detrimental that only those with an absolute need and a moral right should be allowed to possess these dastardly dwellings.
Knowing I wouldn’t have a problem with such a test, I must admit I didn’t question it too closely. I accepted the logic land was in short supply and the demand for it was enormous, so a pecking order had to be established. It seemed more fair that those with a local need should be satisfied ahead of blow-ins. So I sympathised with my over-mortgaged peers in Dublin and built the dream home.
Then, like everything else in life when you experience something instead of just pontificating about it, your perspective changes.
One by one the reasons trotted out as to why my one-off house was officially designated an environmental hazard were dismantled. For example, there really isn’t any such thing as a septic tank. We have “waste-water treatment systems” that don’t cause water pollution and require us to be environmentally friendly. My one-off house has a well and we treat the water with a filter system. We also pay a company to collect our rubbish. We did pay the council a princely sum as a contribution to maintain our road — but it hasn’t been touched. We have no public lighting and don’t expect any. The land was ours and when I last looked there seemed to be plenty of it. The local authority provides us with nothing.
So how can anyone tell me that one-off houses in the country place too much pressure on the infrastructure? What infrastructure? I pay the same taxes as the infrastructurally maintained urbanites, but get precious little in return. Their urban local authorities collect huge rates from businesses that fund libraries and playgrounds, services of which we can only dream.
Yet the “local need” condition is now being extended to villages. In Wicklow and in Meath’s draft development plan, developers building houses in villages are being forced to set some aside for buyers who satisfy a “local need” policy. What this says to me is that locals-only policies are not about the environment but social engineering.
Councils realise that when you build houses, you are building communities. They believe that if they can control who gets the houses they can control how the community will evolve and function. Planners reckon that if they put enough locals into local housing, then those houses will be occupied during the day by citizens who will involve themselves in the community. Keep out the blow-ins, they believe, and we will prevent the development of dormitory towns to which people come just to sleep.
This policy, however noble its aims, is wrong. In a free-market economy it is ludicrous to tell people where they can buy a house. If councils decided housing policy on the basis of race or religion, there would be uproar. So why should they be allowed to decide it on the basis of origin? Imagine if they operated that policy in Dublin and only a certain portion of houses on the south side could be bought by north siders?
It’s unfair to think that origin will govern behaviour. Blow-in Dubliners do settle in rural towns, and who says locals won’t get jobs in the city and drive in every day? If the goal of the councils is to get people to do things other than sleep in their local village, there is only one way to keep them there: work. They should concentrate their energies on pulling employment into rural towns instead of pushing the people out. Businesses won’t come unless there is infrastructure, and councils can’t pay for infrastructure without businesses to pay rates.
The solution therefore is obvious, if a bit more expensive than making life miserable for house buyers in Meath and Wicklow.
Council funding will have to be reorganised so they can invest in infrastructure that will encourage the establishment of businesses in rural areas. That means adequate water and sewerage facilities, roads and reliable telecommunications. You may not believe it, but outside Dublin none of these are reliably available.
If they build it, the employers will come. Then the people can build and buy as many houses as they want.
Bernard Goldbach said,
August 27, 2006 at 3:27 pm
I grew up rural, still live in county not borough lands, and think it costs more to service the needs of those who do not walk to services. Having said that, I know Dubs who won’t walk to work.
It costs more to power a home in a rural area. It costs more to service that home’s rubbish collection. It costs more to transport that elderly pensioner to community activities or to serve an elderly patient with call-in nursing services. It costs other consumers more to provide telephone services over cables that criss-cross lands in search of single bungalows nestled far off main roads.
As a taxpayer, I’ll pay those costs because I believe everyone deserves their choices. However, I’m a little disappointed when those carving out spaces to live in one-off arrangements then object to the placement of wind turbines or wireless towers to serve community interests. I’m also humoured by the pretentious attitude that extends from ornate spike-topped gates and the over-zealous planting of trees and shrubs that have no native roots.
May we all be lucky enough to earn a living close to where we enjoy living.
BTW, we’re only a few years away from country-wide Wimax or 3G coverage that will deliver broadband pleasures to every pasture in the land. And what’s wrong with everything other than a national road or a motorway having green grass growing through its centreline?
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
August 27, 2006 at 7:07 pm
People should be able to buy houses wherever they want, but if some rural areas are getting populated with “blow-ins” who don’t contribute to the areas- while there are many locals who cannot afford to buy local houses- that should be taken into account in County Development Plans.
Some houses that are getting built ruin the landscape of the countryside. I read an article in Irish paper ‘Foinse’ a couple of weeks ago about a holiday home that is getting built in Gaoth Dobhair right beside a local family’s house and is blocking out their view of the sea. I watched a programme about an English family building a mansion in Spain a while ago as well. The house was huge (no problem with that) but its architectural design was totally alien to the traditional style of the local houses- I believe it was some American style.
The Govt. have have not been joining up their National Development Plan with their National Spatial Plan. Everyone agrees with what you say about rural areas having the right infrastructure, social services and business growth, of course, but the Govt. is a thundering disgrace and I cannot forsee any change until we get a new Govt.
Sarah said,
August 27, 2006 at 7:17 pm
hi Bernie
On ESB and Eircom we had to pay extra to get new lines installed – and under the terms of the planning permission (which I think are reasonable) we had to put all lines underground (more expense getting those sunk). The types of trees we can plant are also specified in the planning (all broadleaf Irish native) while others are specifically prohibited (the lleylandi of course). The planting of a whitethorn hedge in the first season after PP was granted was another condition. We had to submit a detailed landscaping plant. Although I have to say no one’s checked it yet but anyway. Rubbish collection in Meath has been private for over 15 years and we pay the market cost.
Darren’s points re ugly houses are fair, but again these are very simply solved by planning. Isn’t this what planning officials are for? Rejecting bad house designs and finishes? Not engaging in a little social game of who gets what.
We have wooden sash windows and pebble dash and a house design that is very traditional. In fact, we could’ve put the house much further back from the road where it would have been out of sight but the planners insist that all houses are the same distance from the road.
You’re right about the NDP and NSP. They made a bolox of it.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
August 27, 2006 at 8:02 pm
“On ESB and Eircom we had to pay extra to get new lines installed – and under the terms of the planning permission (which I think are reasonable) we had to put all lines underground (more expense getting those sunk). The types of trees we can plant are also specified in the planning (all broadleaf Irish native) while others are specifically prohibited (the lleylandi of course). The planting of a whitethorn hedge in the first season after PP was granted was another condition. We had to submit a detailed landscaping plant. Although I have to say no one’s checked it yet but anyway. Rubbish collection in Meath has been private for over 15 years and we pay the market cost.”
God I never heard about these conditions before!!!
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
August 27, 2006 at 8:08 pm
I aim to buy a house up in Gaoth Dobhair some time and live up there. If I can get a job in Letterkenny I’m off… you can’t beat it!!!
http://www.donegalcottageholidays.com/bunbeg/bunbeg.jpg
An Bun Beag/Bun Beg, Gaoth Dobhair
Sarah said,
August 27, 2006 at 11:07 pm
Those conditions, I believe, are standard in Meath. Actually one problem with planning is the lack of consistency. For example Kildare is much more lax about the local need thing, although they did have a planner there for years who had an obsession with roof tiles (they had to be a particular colour). Offaly will let you build anything. You want to see some of the houses over near Edenderry. Monuments to vulgarity and ugliness.
Darren Mac an PhrÃora said,
August 27, 2006 at 11:53 pm
That’s no way to speak about Olwyn’s Enright’s territory!!!
I use to live in Mullingar myself. If I don’t live in Gaoth Dobhair, around Mullingar will be next on my list. Do you know what the story is there?
simon said,
August 28, 2006 at 12:19 am
planning is not standardises anywhere. Clare North Tipp Limerick all different
Mark Waters said,
August 28, 2006 at 9:27 am
“Council funding will have to be reorganised so they can invest in infrastructure that will encourage the establishment of businesses in rural areas. That means adequate water and sewerage facilities, roads and reliable telecommunications. You may not believe it, but outside Dublin none of these are reliably available.”
One-off housing, because it is randomly dispersed and low density by definition, makes it unfeasible to invest in the infrastruture to support it and difficult to find a focal point to encourage the establishment of businesses.
The motivation behind the restriction of one-off housing is to encourage clustered development with enough critical mass to make infrastrucutre development and the location of industry feasible.
I agree with you on the discriminatory locals-only policy. I understand this policy was introduced to take the heat off local representatives when they went knocking on doors at election time. Also agree on the council funding issue (abolition of domestic rates was a disastrous decision), and of course the inconsistency of planning policy, not only between different local authorities but even between different planners in the same authority is a major bug bear.
In general, I think people should be allowed to build anywhere they want as long as they don’t complain about the lack of jobs or infrastructure in their area (which in fairness you don’t, or at least you accept it as part of the deal). However, it would be nice if people were educated and encouraged to build developments that would enhance and sustain their quality of life rather than having to compromise so much just to survive.
By the way, I’m curious about how your commuting situation. Is it typical for your area that people work from home or within a short distance or is it very quiet during the working day?
Sarah said,
August 28, 2006 at 10:46 am
First on the infrastructure. You want to live up around Ashbourne and Dunshaughlin where there is a permanent water crisis. These are major towns that theoretically have the critical mass and the water system is disastrous. Meath County Council buys water from Drogheda and it barely keeps them ticking over. Once a pump breaks or a pipe leaks, which happens frequently, there is NO water in those big towns. The businesses go mental and the locals go mad. MCC get frequent complaints from businesses that they would discourage other businesses from setting up. Then you’ve got that whole M3 saga. MCC at this stage couldn’t care less if the M3 went right through the Hill of Tara – they need that road. Their senior management people often bring Foreign Investment guys on tours to try and get them to establish businesses and once the potential investors experience the crap roads and hear of the water problems (never mind no telecommunications) they bolt. So, I am not talking about pissy little group water schemes for one-off houses. I am talking about water supply to major towns. MCC will say that they can’t afford to invest in new water systems because they are broke. They have a low rate paying base. So they will actually do things like grant planning permission to new housing developments so they can collect development levies from the builders – even tho they haven’t a hope of providing proper facilities. The Department of the Environment need to cough up.
On the commuting thing, most people do commute. However I am not completely without company – but its very class structured. There are a few odd farmers knocking around. If I go down to the village the poorer class women and children will be knocking around (especially the young unmarrieds). Anyone middle class is working and their children are in creches. (I wrote about this before – should look that up). And there are plenty who do work locally too, but obviously that means their houses are empty. I see Grace, the postwoman most days. And some pensioners. And Jimmy, the street sweeper.
tom said,
August 28, 2006 at 11:37 am
“I see Grace, the postwoman most days. And some pensioners. And Jimmy, the street sweeper.”
I’m guessing that was deliberately funny, but it is also the real argument against one-off housing – the social argument. Speaking solely for myself, I couldn’t handle living somewhere that meant getting in the car to visit a person, pub or shop. Surely a sense of community is better served by living in proper villages, towns or even cities?
I think development in Ireland is disastrous, another good reason for nationalising the land.
Sarah said,
August 28, 2006 at 11:53 am
but the housing estates are empty Tom. Its nothing to do with one-off houses. People have to work. That’s why the houses are empty. It doesn’t matter where they are. Rural Ireland’s sense of community was just fine when most people lived outside the village. The sense of community has nothing to do with people living in 3-bed semi-d’s and hardly know their own neighbours. My little road with our pensioners (cos there are no pensioners in the estates – its all young people) and farmers working during the day has more life than the estates.
tom said,
August 28, 2006 at 12:14 pm
In addition to nationalising the land I would also make it illegal for co-habiting couples to have more than one job between them or more than one house between them.
House prices would plummet and we could collectively get off the ridiculous treadmill we seem to have fashioned for ourselves.
These measures would have no effect on international competitiveness.
Mark Waters said,
August 28, 2006 at 12:52 pm
So if MCC have that much trouble trying to maintain infrastructure in areas where economies of scale apply then what hope have they in maintaining areas of low-density, widely dispersed population? Unless you’re suggesting that one-off housing has some inherent attribute that makes it cheaper to maintain its infrastructure. I don’t see how this can be.
I hear this a lot as a defence for one-off housing (i.e. the planned developments are messed up too so we may as well go our own way) and I have some sympathy for the argument. However, I don’t think it is the solution. I think if high density development is done right it does increase the potential and sustainability of communities. The evidence can be seen all over the world. I think that no matter how well one-off housing is done it will always have limits to the numbers of people it can sustain and the quality of life they can expect.
By the way when I speak of populations of critical mass I am thinking in the order of 100,000 or more. We in Ireland seem to have no concept of a functioning urban society. We think of big cities as scary places full of isolated people and crime epidemics. It’s understandable I suppose given that our history is mostly rural and agriculture based. The idea of a functioning urban society is a nettle we need to grasp if we’re going to go anywhere as a country. The land won’t sustain us. We’ve learnt that lesson already.
Sarah said,
August 28, 2006 at 1:35 pm
but Mark, I’ve already made the point that we just built our own infrastructure. The council don’t have to provide us with anything! We’re a load of their backs! We have our own well and sewerage. The town people are jealous of us!
Tom, my mother has blamed the guards and the teachers for house prices. She saw it 20 years ago..they were marrying each other and both working and could get bigger mortgages and the single income people couldn’t compete. Then the Irish Permanent started lending people more money. (My parents were involved with the EBS..the EBS would frequently turn down people for loans as they had failed financial stress tests..the same people would always end up with a loan from the Permanent…) The rot started then…
Mark Waters said,
August 28, 2006 at 1:57 pm
But can all the businesses complaining about water problems in Dunshaughlin and Ashbourne come and draw from your well? Your situation is fine for a small population but as I said before, it has its limits. If all the jealous people from town moved out beside you and tried to do the same thing as you I don’t think they would be jealous for too long.
Sarah said,
August 28, 2006 at 2:43 pm
but Mark that’s not the point.
The point is that one-off houses do NOT pose an infrastructural burden to Meath Co. Council, as many people presume. Furthermore, in towns and villages where development has been focused Meath Co. Council have managed things so badly that they are not able to provide adequate infrastructure. Just look at the problems up in Bettystown with no schools.. http://dominichannigan.blogspot.com/
This problem is due entirely to bad management on the part of the council and the department of education who don’t want to know…
Daniel K. said,
August 28, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Sarah, part of the problem of the discussion of one-off housing is that it is too general. One-off housing encompasses a lot of housing types and like most things the specific location and the nature of the house have a lot to do with whether or not the house in question should get planning or not.
It sounds like you have a house up boreen, as opposed to on a main road. And you’re largely self-sufficient in terms of services. That is very different to an elderly couple building a ranchero house on the ring of Kerry, and looking for the state to send a home-help and district nurse out to them on a regular basis.
As for the department of the environment need to cough the money for infrastructure, where is that money going come from, which spending do you suggest we cut or what revenue source do we tap? I’m not disagreeing with you, just that the department doesn’t have money of its own.
Sarah said,
August 28, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Daniel, first point quite fair. But what you’ll find is just wholescale refusal of one-off houses to young couples.
However, on the second point a little history. Local authorities are funded two ways. Rates from business and from central taxation. Rates are great if you live in an urban LA with lots of businesses. If you have a low rate base but high population – as Meath would – you are kinda screwed. Therefore you have to depend more on central taxation (this was the deal agreed when domestic rates were abolished in 1977). Now if you were stupid or simply had to bow to pressure or just managed badly, and granted planning permission for thousands of homes in URBAN centres like Ashbourne, Dunshaughlin, Trim etc and allowed homes to be built without building adequate water and sewerage facilities then you’ve got a whole lot of taxpayers who have paid their money and ain’t getting what they paid for – and I mean the basics: NO WATER etc. They can’t increase their rate base because they can’t get the businesses in so the only other option is to get more money from central taxation via the Dept of the Environment who are in charge of local authorities.
If people pay their central taxes out of which funding for local authorities is officially paid, then they are entitled to a secure water service. And as for spending cuts? Em, where would you like me to start? Electronic voting? Punchestown? The government PR staff on massive wages?
This one is a no-brainer.
Pete said,
August 29, 2006 at 12:12 am
Perhaps the solution is for the government to draw urban boundaries, and only supply services inside those areas. If people want to live outside these boundaries (ie. in the area to be officially referred to as “the bog”), they must accept the absence of services. This means: no electricity, phone, gas, post, healthcare, water, rubbish collection, fire-fighting, ambulance, etc.
Private service companies will of course be free to supply the bog-dwellers with these services if they find it commercially viable to do so.
fplogue said,
August 29, 2006 at 9:34 am
The way I see it, if people had a choice they would probably want to live in well maintained and serviced villages and towns. But when the choice is between building your own house for less money than it costs to buy a poorly constructed house in a badly designed estate, it’s a no brainer. It is a choice between living in a town wih no amenities or in the country side with no amenities. Don’t forget that in many towns and villages you sill have to drive to a shop/playground/cinema etc either because they are not there or there is no public transport worth talking about or depending on. You also mostly have to drive to work because all the towns are just full of houses and not much else.
Firstly the Local authority needs to improve towns and villages by getting traffic out, cleaning them up and providing amenities, why else would you want to live there. As we see in Laytown you can get planning permission for 1000 houses, but nobody can figure out how to build a school or to coordinate the bus and train timetables. In Julianstown which could be beautiful there are 22000 cars a day going down the main street despite a motorway being constructed beside it.
If people want to build their own house why can’t we do like in the US and open up a large space of land and sell plots and let people build within certain limits. I think there is an eco village down in Tipp that has done this. That way all the houses aren’t opening up onto the main road, you can provide the services and everyone is happy.
These are simple problems
Daniel K. said,
August 29, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Sarah, I’m not disagreeing regarding government spending on serviuces.
I was just wondering if we should look at moving the model of revenue generation so it isn’t solely based on the commercial/industrial sector at local level. Personally, I can’t see why a form of taxation based on property couldn’t be used, especially if we made it tax generation neutral such that it reduced your income tax to match. And for those elderly people who have smaller incomes it could be levied on the inheritance tax end after they are gone. Problem we have is that all our money goes to the central fund and then we have no real means to see how much our local state service providers get per head, or per acre.
Sarah said,
August 29, 2006 at 5:13 pm
I agree completely. Domestic rates should never have been abolished.
Bernard Goldbach said,
August 30, 2006 at 6:20 am
Whenever I ride JJ Kavanagh’s bus from Clonmel to Dublin, I’m amazed at where we stop and wait. On the 0540 departure from Clonmel, we often stop dead on a national road and wait for Mary to walk 300 metres from her bungalow to the bus. It’s an unlighted pick-up point. It’s not the only time we stop at a well-anointed point on our 110-minute journey. The bus provides the social transport solution to people who have built where their roots have them live. When Mary and the others want call-in nursing service, the health budget will expand because we’re committed as a nation to the concept of independent living. However, that comes at a cost and portions of the cost are tied to the remote housing situation facilitated by Irish planning laws.
I think discussions about super-rural Ireland are helpful. They form a part of the agenda at the Clonmel Impressions Festival on 19 September 2006.
I think exhibitions like these take the discussions to yet another level:
http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2006/000199.html
I hope the best of the Venice Biennale makes stops at every county council in Ireland. If not, I hope http://www.architecturefoundation.ie enjoys fair play in the press coverage.
Daniel K. said,
August 30, 2006 at 4:32 pm
And, of course, the rest of the passengers aren’t asked I’m sure if it is ok to stop and pick up Mary. It is their time that is being used by Mary at a cost to them. This is part similar to why clamping was introduced because people were forever ‘stopping for only five minutes’ and blocking loads of other people without so much as a by your leave.
Daniel K. said,
August 30, 2006 at 4:34 pm
And I prefer my word ‘R-urban-al’ to Super Rural.
Sarah said,
August 30, 2006 at 7:05 pm
hey, leave Mary alone. At least she’s getting the bus and not racing off somewhere in car to kill someone.
Bernard Goldbach said,
August 31, 2006 at 6:47 am
Oh, but there’s more. One morning, when we didn’t stop for Mary, the hubby overtook the bus on a blind bend and persuaded the driver to stop to upload the delayed passenger. Most of the bus slept through the episode. I filed it alongside my journal of memories.
Sarah said,
August 31, 2006 at 10:11 am
wow..lucky she got the bus that day
Last week I was on the bus and so was a wasp. After swerving around the road a bit while the driver swatted at the wasp he pulled over and chased the wasp around the bus. One old woman became hysterical and demanded to be let off the bus. But the driver got the wasp. The two healthy Scandinavian tourists were in stitches. It was so Irish. We resumed the journey peacefully.
Mark Waters said,
August 31, 2006 at 11:55 am
Sarah,
Just to summarise our discussion (my apologies for the probably biased editing):
I said:
“But can all the businesses complaining about water problems in Dunshaughlin and Ashbourne come and draw from your well? ”
And you said:
“but Mark that’s not the point. The point is that one-off houses do NOT pose an infrastructural burden to Meath Co. Council, as many people presume.”
But the closing point of your article is:
“Council funding will have to be reorganised so they can invest in infrastructure that will encourage the establishment of businesses in rural areas.”
That was the point that I originally commented on.
Forgive me if I have a little trouble sticking to the point. It seems to be a moving target.
Bernie Goldbach said,
August 31, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Sarah! You should fork this thread into one about bus journeys and drop hints about it at the bottom of a Sunday column. There are priceless stories to tell.
Here’s mine:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/irisheyes/173641993/
Sarah said,
August 31, 2006 at 4:25 pm
ah, the aircoach, JUST the bus you need to break down.
Well there was the time my granny got on the bus in Enfield. She was about 84 at the time and still given to heading into town to buy bread in Bewleys on a whim. After she got on the bus driver got into some involved transaction with someone trying to send a parcel to Dublin. The dealings went on and on. Eventually she STORMED off the bus, announcing in her best uppercrust accent “I don’t have time for this!” The commuters remained seated, frustrated, but said nothing.
Pete said,
September 1, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Ok, bus stories.
Ireland: I was supposed to get a train from Rosslare Harbour to Limerick. After a while, the train broke down in the middle of nowhere. Eventually, a bus arrived at the nearest road, 2 boggy fields and 3 fences away. When we finally got on board it headed off to Limerick, then after a while broke down. As we waited at the side of the road for another bus, I overheard an English accent say “God, it’s worse than India”.
Syria: At a very modern, chrome-and-glass bus station, we bought tickets for a looooong bus trip to Istanbul, and were pleased to see that the bus was a brand-spanking-new Mercedes. It’s first ever paying journey, in fact. As we waited beside it, a pickup truck arrived, with a live sheep in the back. Bus driver, bus owner, owners family etc. held a short ceremony, then slit the sheep’s throat and used their hands to spread the blood all over the front of the bus. But the sheep got it’s revenge – the bus had 6 flat tyres over the next 36 hours.
Sarah said,
September 1, 2006 at 12:18 pm
coool! sheep slaughter bus story wins
Bernard Goldbach said,
September 2, 2006 at 8:39 am
Happens most evenings: the Kavanagh roadside dance in Urlingford.
With its nose pointed southbound, an Aircoach arrives from Dublin headed to Cork, stops at Urlingford for “10 minutes!” Dazed passengers from a long journey that started several days ago in Poland disembark with the rest of the pax and meander around the forecourt following Driver #1 so they know when to get back on.
With its nose pointed northbound, another Aircoach arrives from Cork at Kavanagh roadside in Urlingford with the front of the bus marked “Cork” and its driver says, “10 minute rest stop.” Groggy passengers, some from Poland, disembark with the rest of the pax and meander around the forecourt following Driver #2 so they know when to get back on.
Driver #1, based in Dublin, follows Aircoach protocols and boards the northbound bus. He dutifully counts his passengers and the number matches the annotated record card next to the steering wheel. His unaware Polish passengers take up empty seats on the bus since it has “Cork” on the front of it. The bus continues its regularly scheduled service on time and departs Urlingford for Dublin.
Driver #2, based in Cork, follows Aircoach protocols and boads the southbound bus. His Polish passengers from Cork get on the bus and find empty seats. The driver dutifully counts his passengers and the numbes match the annotated record card next to the steering wheel. The bus departs Urlingford on time for Dublin.
As I start gathering my stuff to disembark at Cashel, a Polish passenger speaking broken English asks the helpful driver when the bus will get to Dublin. A similar question is being asked 20 miles away.
I watch this happen once every six weeks.
Brian Carthy said,
March 13, 2007 at 11:17 am
Sarah
You chose to live a couple of miles outside a village rather than within a short walk of the main street. I don’t condemn you for this decision – given the same circumstances (such as the parent-child land tax break), I would have done the same and 10s of thousands of families make this choice each year in Ireland.
That said, your choice has road safety implications. Every time you want to buy a pint of milk or a newspaper or indeed go to the pub, I presume you hop in the car and drive to the village. If you choose to go into Dublin, even if you use the train, you will drive to the railway station. But you know, once you’re in the car driving to the railway station, why not just turn onto the M4 and enjoy the motorway, and soon the benefits of upgrades to the Lucan bypass, the Liffey Valley junction, the M50?
While you are surely sober and law-abiding on these journeys, every car journey through a populated area risks killing or maiming someone (most likely you or a member of your family).
As your kids grow up, you will play the role more and more of taxi driver, ferrying them everywhere. Once they reach 17 you’ll get some respite when they get their own cars.
So your family will be doing a lot of driving as a result of your housing choice which presumably brought you some benefits.It won’t just be increased driving for your family of course: any time a friend visits you there will be another car journey.
Your family’s increased mileage will necessarily increase your risk of accident. Now, should the worst happen and your family suffers a road accident, what will your reaction be? I can’t imagine that it would be to lament the fact that you could have chosen to live within walking distance of the commercial centre of your community and your local public transport links. I think rather you would look at the specifics of the accident in an attempt to find the culprit – inattention, an older driver, a poor road surface, a mechanical failure – whatever.
Its always easier to notice the mote in thy brother’s eye than the beam in thine own
Sarah said,
March 13, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Brian, most of my friends live in the city. Everyone of them is a two car house. They all drive their children to school, most of them drive to work and they all drive to the supermarket. I know one guy who lived in Ballsbridge and drove a few hundred yards to work so he could keep his parking space entitlements at work. In fact I am the only ONE car household of our general acquaintance, and actually I walk quite a lot. My husband who uses the train and bus quite a lot for his work (and yes fair enough, somoene drops him to the station) is considered a bit odd for this commitment to public transport by his city-based car driving friends.
If you want to take cars of the road there has to be a cultural shift amongst the middle classes and the government has to spend more on rail and bus instead of roads. It is not physically possible for everyone to live within walking distance of every amenity. You ever tried walking home from the shops with your potatoes and bread and milk?
As for car accidents _ I’ve made my views clear elsewhere. People should drive according to conditions instead of blaming conditions…