04.30.08
Love Affair With Bad Planning
This is the ST column from two weeks ago – forgot to post..
It’s almost as if newspaper editors have a template for planning stories. Here’s the latest one. In Lahinch, Co. Clare permission has been granted for 114 housing units in the seaside village. An interesting angle is that the line-up of objectors includes an order of nuns who are worried about the anti-social consequences of more houses, or rather, more people. A careful reading of the reports leaves one completely uninformed on the merits of the development. It’s just the usual line up: greedy developers, NIMBY protestors and an incompetent council.
Is this the only planning story in Ireland? Are all councillors muck savages who rezone land for their developer mates? Are residents anything other than concerned about new development? Are officials either guilty of appalling decisions or martyred bureaucrats forced to act against their consciences by the moronic, but unfortunately democratically elected, representatives of the people?
Bad planning has left people without basic services while good planning that wasn’t followed up by necessary investment has turned some areas into ghettos. No one disputes that, but I am tired of the stereotypes. There must be more to planning than this cast of caricatures.
Let’s take the councillors. I know for a fact that there are councillors who have neither proposed land for rezoning nor voted in its favour unless its been approved by planning officials. Well, there’s a least one anyway; my excellent father whose been a councillor for over 40 years. All land rezoned residential in our home village of Enfield was proposed by officials, not councillors. While development has placed typical pressure on infrastructure, from water to public transport, most neutral observers would acknowledge that the village has grown at what’s called a “sustainable” rate.
The local population has increased dramatically but so has the population of the whole country. The 1991 census recorded 3.5 million people living in the country. By 2006 that was just over 4.2 million. We had to squeeze those 700,000 people in somewhere. Where were they supposed to live? In shoeboxes on the M50 hardshoulder? Alright, a lot did move into shoebox apartments not too far from the M50, but more are experiencing the joy of a 3 bed semi-d on the outskirts of our towns and cities.
Those houses had to be built and councillors and officials had to legislate for their construction. That might have discommoded the incumbents who believed a quiet street and a view was a fundamental human right, but the needs of the many outweighed the fortress mentality of the few. I suppose local authorities could have ordered our emigrants not to come home as they did in their tens of thousands in the 1990′s. If they told the immigrants to sod off and instituted a one-child policy, then yes, we could have avoided building housing developments. But this is not China and if our population increases, then we have to accommodate it.
Despite my bias in favour of councillors, I am willing to acknowledge that there have been occasional outbreaks of rezoning psychosis amongst our elected representatives. One of the more creative efforts was in Monaghan, where last year councillors voted to zone enough land to house an additional 100,000 people even though the county’s population was only 55,800. When it was pointed out to them at a Council meeting that one parcel of land near Ballybay was actually underwater, helpful suggestions regarding Venice and the potential to build on stilts were made. Thankfully, our system of local government was reformed in 2000 to protect us from the worst excesses of those we elect.
Under Section 31 of the 2000 Planning Act the Minister for the Environment has the power to direct councils to ignore councillor’s rezoning votes. Last July, John Gormley directed Monaghan County Council to scrap the zoning, carrying out threats made by his predecessor Dick Roche.
This Ministerial power has been used in two other cases. In 2006 Roche intervened in Laois where councillors wanted to provide enough houses for the entire population of the midlands. The other case was more interesting. In 2004, then Minister Martin Cullen ordered Dun Laoighre-Rathdown Council to zone land for housing. Its councillors had refused to do so in the face of opposition from the NIMBYs. Cullen said Dun Laoighre Rathdown was failing in its duty to provide sufficient housing and over-ruled opposition to development.
Still, one could argue that two cases of Ministerial prohibition on excess housing isn’t much. What about all the unserviced housing estates, holiday home madness and environmentally destructive ribbon development? Councillors are an easy target. What part do planners play in this game?
When councillors zone land for residential use, there is no obligation on planners to grant permission to build houses. Planners can refuse permission especially if there is no infrastructure, services or if there is more suitable land yet to be developed. A refusal of planning permission creates no liability for the council. Councillors can do their worst but officials still stand between them and the best interests of the people. If they have consistently granted permission in accordance with zoning, then we have to accept that one of three possibilities operates in each case.
If councillors corruptly rezone land, then planners grant permission corruptly too. I have no doubt that this is the case from time to time. As councillors trail in and out of the Mahon Tribunal it would be naive to believe that past planning travesties took place without the collusion of officials. George Redmond was caught, but you can bet there are more.
We should also consider that rezoning and subsequent development is often correct. In that case we need to get over the knee jerk reaction that zoning equates to either malevolence or incompetence.
The final possibility is that bad development, however misguided, is not the product of an inherently corrupt process, but rather the democratic will of the people. The core function of a planner is to implement the development plans which have been voted on, openly, by those whom the public elects. They might have the executive power to prevent disaster but they must also accept that councillors are accountable to the people, while officials are not. If the people consistently elect pro-development councillors, then why the headlines and complaints when development goes ahead?
People have a terrible habit of wanting what’s bad for them. Our love affair with bad planning may well be just one of those self-destructive instincts. But in that case, the story is about our unlimited desire for development, and not how the antics of a small group are thwarting the fervent wish of the majority to limit housing.
If that’s the case, isn’t it time to change the template on planning stories?
FPL said,
April 30, 2008 at 9:35 pm
This is analysis is way too simplified, it assumes that suburban sprawl is the only way of accommodating population growth. This is not the case. It is now almost universally accepted that compact high density urban settlements are optimal and not low denisity car dependent sprawl.
Secondly due to peak oil and global warming it is now essential to plan the built environment to minimize oil dependence. This is not happening. Building swathes of housing estates in Meath and Kildare is entirely unsustainable whatever way you look at population growth or not.
Our councillors are legally obliged to have to sustainable planning decisions and they haven’t.
The Crewser said,
April 30, 2008 at 10:26 pm
FPL you are quite correct in your analysis. The problem is that Irish people do not want to live in high rise apartment blocks such as those you will find in the larger European Cities. There is a certain stigma attaching to that type of residential accomodation and it will never be accepted here by the majority of people. Its fine for younger folk who are happy to go clubbing and socialising in the heart of the city but for couples settling down and planning a family its a non starter.Sure its sustainable in terms of public transport and other services but there is no point in pursuing it if most people are against it. I’m afraid its back to the drawing board for the Planners and proponents of skyscrapers in the larger Urban areas.
Dan Sullivan said,
May 1, 2008 at 11:57 am
Crewser, you sort of acknowledge the problem with development in Ireland in that it has tended to be of the one size fits all with the vast bulk of it being 3/4 semis. Just looking at Dublin but this is true of the whole country, If we had taken a longer term view say 20 years ago and allowed more and larger apartments closer to the main transport routes and the city centre itself in Dublin for those young people at that stage in their lives when they want to be close to the action then we would have had more houses (because fewer of those young people would be renting them) available in the suburban areas for families who need a garden and lots of green space. Instead, we only got around to building apartments that were pokey and suited to those who travel home to the country at the week rather than those who want to live in the cities and we did this long after the model of 3/4 people renting suburban housing and commuting had been established.
FPL said,
May 2, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I might add that high density is not high rise and you do not find high rise appartment blocks in many European cities. The Ballymun towers were high rise but extremely low density.
Also what everyone wants is a concept. Why do people want it, have they been persuaded in anyway either through social conditioning or advertising.
I also don’t buy the everyone is against it argument. Everyone is against Health Care policy, everyone is against the use of Shannon by the US military but it is still full steam ahead with those.
Also the absurdity of pursuing unsustainable planning patterns purely due to popularity has to be classed as absurd. Sounds very FF
The Crewser said,
May 3, 2008 at 8:17 pm
You don’t really get it FPL. Irish people do not want to live in high density inner city apartment blocks. Thats why so many are now lying idle, half built, being converted into hotels etc. You cant force folk into that style of abode against their will. How do you propose to do it. ?
Enf said,
May 4, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Crewser. You and your mates should be well able to force people.
FPL said,
May 5, 2008 at 11:57 am
And the reason why there are so many half finshed and empty three bed semis around the country is precisely what?
The Crewser said,
May 5, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Thats just it FPL there are very few empty and half finished three bed semis around the country. What I am referring to are new Apartment Developments of the type you prefer (high density, medium rise) They are now being converted into Hotels where that is feasible due to the fact that Irish people do not like that type of dwelling.
Enf said,
May 5, 2008 at 6:01 pm
And Crewser you have the inside line on what Irish people want? Champion of Democracy again.
An ocean of badly built semi-detatched estates is not good design. Why not (God forbid) look at what other countries do with their populations.
Or would you rather take a lash at me and accuse me of condoning Enda Kennys treatment of the alleged Anne Devitt situation which is what you usually trot out when you have no answers.
We are a low density, low population country. We couldn’t plan our way out of a paper bag. Corruption and planning for the boys is the order of the day.
The Crewser said,
May 5, 2008 at 9:44 pm
You are one in a million Enf but you dont know a lot about politics or planning for that matter. Irish people do like living in high density complexes. How difficult can that be for you to understand.
Enf said,
May 6, 2008 at 3:25 pm
How come you haven’t had a lash at George Bush for not highlighting the Devvitt case in Congress, or maybe Gordon Browne should make it first order of business. And lets not stop there lets say that it should be passed as a motion in the UN condemning FG corruption.
Bollocks that I don’t know about “politics or planning” Why should they be intertwined in the first place?
Where is the evidence that Irish people don’t like living in high density complexes? Where is the MORI poll that you quote. What statistics from the CSO do you quoteth from?
And don’t trot the auld shite out that Ballymun was a “failed social experiment”. Throwing a large amount of families out from the city centre to flats in a field in the sticks is not planning. That was just getting rid of a problem.
It is easier to build a brand new estate in a field in Carlow, Meath or Kildare than build on a brownfield site in Dublin because every man and his dog will object and object and object again to every single brick in the development. Nimbyism not a desire to live in a paper thin box in a rural field is what holds back higher density developments.
Irish people have had bad experiences with tenements and the disaster that Ballymun was but we are entitled to a choice. Possibly your mates in FF could bring in public transport or is that still too British for you? When they took over we had trams all over the city centre and we had and still have the WORLDS FIRST commuter rail line.
Blandly proclaiming that “Irish people do not like living in high density complexes” is what would come from having a simplistic “world” view. This world extending only to the utterances of the Dear Leader and the “ideas” of the Fianna Fail party, the masters and saviours of the known universe.
I use the words world and ideas in their most limited and narrowminded forms and realise that probably neither exist in the world of the Crewser.
We should all go back to one off thatched cottages and sit around a turf fire and wistfully recall the glory days of Dev and how Fianna Fail saved the day.
The Crewser said,
May 6, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I said that you didnt know anything about planning Enf. I rest my case (see above)
Enf said,
May 6, 2008 at 3:55 pm
What case. You have offered nothing apart from hyperbole and makey up statements like “Irish people don’t like”
Show some evidence.
Enf said,
May 6, 2008 at 3:58 pm
And where are these hotels? Specifics please.
Rob Hickey said,
May 6, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Take a chill pill Enf and maybe use spellchecker.
Crewser loves this sort of thing. Have you not realised how he works yet? He (she?) makes a “point” thats grounded on nothing. People read it, dissagree and ask for evidence and Crewser ignores the request and blathers on about how bad FG/Lab/Others are on a totally unrelated topic.
He exists to annoy and he is very annoying.
Enf said,
May 6, 2008 at 4:53 pm
to Rob Hickey,
Sure its good sport to let him have it. An anonymous blog ranter that speaks for the Irish People.
And “dissagree” is spelt disagree.
Zara said,
May 6, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“And “dissagree” is spelt disagree”
Haha Enf, that made me laugh
Rob Hickey said,
May 6, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Maybe I was trying to say “dissagree”…
The Crewser said,
May 6, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Enf, I think the evidence is clear. The many thousands who commute to Dublin daily from places as far distant as Athlone, Tullamore, Thurles, Mullingar, Wicklow and Carlow might be some indication for you that people will go to any lengths rather than live in high density apartment blocks in Dublin City. Most of these people have young families and most have moved out of Dublin deliberately to avoid such abodes as you and FPL prescribe and are proponents of. You may not be aware of it but the much hyped Gasometer apartment development is now to become a hotel.
Enf said,
May 6, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Thats bollocks. One hotel is all you have to back up your tirade with?
So you are saying that the city is so bad that people (in general so we can’t tie it down) won’t live in the city. You are saying that people endure up to 5 hours of commuting to avoid the city. If this was the case D4 would be a wasteland.
What happens when petrol doubles or trebles in price? Will people be content to live in breezy semi-d or bungalow bliss then?
Your “point” is weak. It holds no water but as Bertie proved no position is too tenuous to hold onto.
Enf said,
May 6, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Nope dissagree isn’t a word.
The Crewser said,
May 6, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Take it from me Enf there is merit in my argument. When petrol doubles or trebles in price this or that will happen. The car will be modified to run on an alternative fuel. The prototypes are already there. The commuters will use “public transport”. That should please you and FPL. You guys love public transport. The sophisticated Irish public will do what they always do. Make a choice, just like in politics. And they will not accept high density apartment living. Anything but. Emigration to Enfield, Summerhill, Rathmolyon but not high density apartment blocks in Dublin City.
Enf said,
May 6, 2008 at 11:37 pm
So its an argument now. I thought it was fact.
“The car will be modified to run on alternative fuels” BMW have been trying Hydrogen since the mid 80′s. There is still no sign of it being ready for production. And if it is produced it could be 20 years before you can get it everywhere. Nothing has the calorific value of oil. We will have to drive less. There is no other oil. No miracles. No second chances. Unless bullshit is the fuel you are talking about and that seems to fuel you quite well.
“You guys love public transport” what a put down! The rest of Europe has public transport and the narrow minded stigma you allude to does not exist there. Public transport makes sense. Driving alone makes no sense if the journey is the same as a lot of other people to the same places. Sophisticated people all over the world use and take public transport. Ireland is behind the third world in public transport terms. We had the best in the world but it was dug up. I still don’t know why.
This is just another manifestation of the Pale hatred of ‘true Irishmen” and the neglect of any coherent planning or thought about how a city works or what it takes to make a city work. I live in the pale and I have a car. I hate the fact that to do anything or go anywhere I have to drive. If I was in France I could take a train. In Ireland we cannot connect our INTERNATIONAL airport to a train line. In its stread we strung an electric train along the coast between two fishing villages.
So what you are saying is that “sophisticated” Irish people want to live in centre-less and service-less dormitory towns and face a hellish commute into the city they don’t want to live in. It makes no sense but then none of your backbiting, hyper-conservative, narrow minded utterances do.
Emigration is leaving the country. Migration is moving from one place to another in the same country.
The Crewser said,
May 7, 2008 at 5:46 pm
I was taking “bloggers licence” Enf, and I was expecting a lesson in english which was duly posted. That was about the most substantial part of you latest contribution. You neatly avoided referring to the choice which people are making by deciding to travel hundreds of miles daily to avoid taking up the option of high density city living which you are advocating here. Even the FG folk agree with me but obviously they could not be seen to say so. And by the way when it comes to the bullshit, you are cream of the crop (crap)
Enf said,
May 7, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Blah blah blah FG
Blah Blah Blah.
High density living suits the rich of Paris, London and New York. Why does Dublin have to be different. If the capital is so shit why not move it somewhere else?
What is wrong with building upwards? Is there a special Irish limit on the sky? Why are we so afraid of high rise?
Blah blah blah Devitt Blah Blah Blah Crewser lashes out.
Blah blah Enda blah blah blah blah.
The Crewser said,
May 8, 2008 at 12:17 am
You know that I am totally right on this Enf. You just dont have the grace to accept it. But you will in time.
Enf said,
May 8, 2008 at 8:59 am
Ok. Provide public transport and tell me what happens when oil hits 200 and 300 dollars a barrel.
The Crewser said,
May 8, 2008 at 4:47 pm
By and large I am pro public transport, but high rise buildings are not acceptable. When oil hits the level you suggest there will be a tremedous incentive to find alternatives. There will be many but few will be viable. Nevertheless we will survive without oil when the day arrives when it is too expensve or too scarce.
Enf said,
May 8, 2008 at 4:55 pm
So….highrise is unacceptable? How high exactly? I have to go upstairs later… is that acceptable? What are the disadvantages of highrise? Is it Religious or is it based on any kind of logic?
Nothing bar Nuclear power has the calorific value of oil. Also replacing the infrastructure of the millions of engines and systems that run on oil will take decades to replace.
How exactly will we survive when oil is too scarce? How do we make or transport food without fuel or fertilizer. Both come from oil. We have only a weeks supply of food in reserve in this country.
The Crewser said,
May 10, 2008 at 8:45 am
Enf, especially for you I have gone to the trouble of researching some recent developments in respect of reducing dependency on oil and gas. This is one from the US but it could apply anywhere and it is a conversion of the existing internal combustion engine. The link is attached.
http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/?hop=2062offers
Enf said,
May 10, 2008 at 11:28 am
ROFL (in convulsions)
Andrew Lawlor said,
May 10, 2008 at 4:30 pm
We’re on a train to nowhere………come on inside!
http://andrewlawlor.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/irelands-disappearing-rail-network/
Enf said,
May 10, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Maybe Crewser can install his water powered engines on the trains to nowhere.
Hang on, isn’t water powered STEAM powered.
Yippee. Another thing for Fianna Fail to ban. Water.
The Crewser said,
May 10, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Hold on Enf dont you produce a lot of methane too. Thats an idea.
The Crewser said,
May 10, 2008 at 5:43 pm
And Andrew I’m quite sure that you know about your very own Michael Ring’s efforts to re-open hundred of kilometres of loss making lines in the West of Ireland. These lines were closed because they were loss making routes. Independent reports were commissioned to verify this. Are you suggesting that hundreds of millions of Euro should be invested again in something which will produce the same result. A number of lines do need re-opening such as Navan – Dublin and I understand that this will happen. Only those routes which are viable and necessary should be brought back into service.
Enf said,
May 10, 2008 at 6:08 pm
How are these lines loss making before they are opened?
If you are talking about loss making money pits the “performance” of Aer Lingus over the past 30 years should have had it killed off years ago.
The Crewser said,
May 10, 2008 at 6:19 pm
It stands to reason that the travelling public who voted with their feet originally would do the same today. In fact the re-opened lines would be infinitely bigger loss makers now due to the fact that car numbers have increaed by a factor of 10 at least.
Additionally the towns served have not grown in population in the way that Navan, Dunboyne and Blanchardstown have.
Aer Lingus is not a good comparison, it always had great potential but was totally controlled by the Unions. As a result there were too many perks etc.
Thats all changed now and it is a profitable Airline as a result.
Enf said,
May 10, 2008 at 6:52 pm
1. We have to live with what we are “given”. And if you are so anti Dublin why would you oppose the West being opened up?
2. Aer Lingus was hobbled by government from day 1.
3. You say people want to live far from the city and commute and the towns you mention are all in one tiny part of Meath close to Dublin?
Either you want to be a bog trotter or you don’t.
Andrew Lawlor said,
May 11, 2008 at 9:15 am
Crewser, the whole point about public transport is that is is not a commercial enterprise. If you begin a public transport project with the question ‘will it make a profit?’ you will never build a railway or a bus corridoor or even an airport. Does the London Underground, probably the best metro system in the world, make a profit or is it subsidised by the state? Is Luas a profit making enterprise? Not if you take into account the billions spent building it which were written off by the state before the system was handed over to Connex. The western rail cporidoor might not return a profit but it might stimulate economic activity in the west and maybe it might improve the lives of several tens of thousand people living west of the Shannon. One of the fastest growing population centres in recent years has been around Cavan, Monaghan and North Math yet this area has no rail network whatsoever. Is it any coincidence that Donegal, which has the highest unemployment rate of any county has almost zero public transport? Infrastructure is vital to economic development and building more roads just moves the traffic jam.
The Crewser said,
May 11, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Your comments are so off the wall Andrew that they really do not merit a response. There is not the slightest possibilty of new and expensive rail lines in rural Ireland stimulating economic activity. All of the industrial operations in the west and North West who depended on the railways abandoned that idea many years ago for a number of reasons. The slowness factor. Double Handling and Insurance. The preferred choice for industrialists both home grown and foregin is road transport. You can canvas their views youself if you do not believe me.
It takes a long time to get produce to Dublin by rail from Mayo, Sligo, Leitrim, Roscommon or other rural locations. The material must be brought to and from the Stations by road (double handling), it is often damaged (expensive insurance claims) There are major delays also and the whole process is totally unreliable. There is simply no way around this.
Wasting billions of Euro on rail lines which will be unviable and loss makers from day one would be totally crazy.
Crocodile said,
May 11, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Crewser is right about this one. Rail freight doesn’t work. With people, it’s another story. The whole thing about people using public transport if it was available is a red herring. I live on a main commuter bus corridor and have a choice of half-empty buses every morning. If I have to wait 5 minutes I’m passed by a hundred cars, each containing one person.
We can turn Dublin into more of a public transport culture, but it takes two things: more public transport, and effective disincentives to bringing cars into the city. First job for our directly elected mayor will be to emulate Ken Livngstone and introduce an effective congestion charge. We’re too selfish to do the right thing without a bit of benevolent coercion.
Enf said,
May 11, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Crocodile. You are speaking through your arse. How exactly does “rail freight not work”? Where is the evidence to make such a broad sweeping statement?
Rail freight does not happen in Ireland because the lines have been dug up or allowed fall into disrepair during the period of self flagellation and enforced poverty brought in after independence.
The ports are hardly served at all by trains in spite of the fact that most of them have rail links.
If you go to Foynes in Limerick you will see the remains of a freight car from the 1930′s with a line going from there to Limerick city. In Dublin the Point FREIGHT terminal was turned into a theatre. That shows how much freight has moved by rail from there.
In Ireland we are brilliant at bluffing grand schemes but when it actually comes to doing anything we make a haimes of it and are robbed blind because we don’t know what we want and settle for anything at all.
The prices of things in the shops here are high partly because each load has to go with its own truck and driver around the country. A train can carry forty loads and a truck can carry only one. How is this difficult? And how can anyone say that moving freight by rail “doesn’t work”?
We really need to move on from the inbred half-baked ideas of the past and maybe grow up a bit as a country and stop fighting ideological wars in our heads and pull together as one nation. One modern nation.
The Crewser said,
May 12, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Enf you are quite wrong about this and Crocodile is correct in his analysis.
Major employers and respected companies such as Guinness closed their accounts with the railway operators in the 60′s and 70′s for the reasons I outlined earlier. Smaller companies who were operating on small margins never used the railways for moving their products. There is not the slightest chance in the current climate of international competitiveness that companies and industrialists would return to using a service which involves truck haulage at both ends not to mention cranes, gantries and lots of staff. Moving procuts by road makes sense from an economic point of view. The facts prove it. History proves it.
Enf said,
May 12, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Bollocks.
Coca Cola had to get on their hands and knees to get a train link to Ballina. They were refused point blank twice.
The Crewser said,
May 12, 2008 at 8:49 pm
The Ballina Branch line has remained open although it has been a loss maker for years and Coca Cola use it currently.They did not need to beg anyone, unless they wanted the old Killala line re-opened. Asahi wanted that re-opened but after 10 or 15 years they pissed off back to Japan. What a waste of money relaying that track would have been. Money invested in road infrastructure is wisely spent.
Enf said,
May 12, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Crewser I am convinced you are on crack.
Coca-Cola begged on bended knee. I can assure you of that.
I cannot for the life of me understand your opposition to rail. You are talking out your backside on that one. If I didn’t actually work in the freight business I would bow down to your superior knowledge but I do and I won’t.
The Crewser said,
May 12, 2008 at 9:22 pm
What are you saying here Enf. The Ballina Branch has never closed since its original construction in the 1800′s. Which line are you talking about.
Enf said,
May 12, 2008 at 9:24 pm
The line needs a thing called a train on it. This is what they begged for.
Enf said,
May 12, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I think we should go back to basics and bring the ass and cart back.
The Crewser said,
May 12, 2008 at 9:35 pm
There has been no cessation of either passenger trains or freight trains on that line since it was opened. I am not against rail atal but I recognise that business people, by and large for the reasons I stated earlier abandoned rail as a method of getting their raw materials and bringing their finished product to market. They voted with their feet and I understand the reasons why they did so. We must be practical and responsible about these things.
Enf said,
May 12, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Ok.. You are right. Good on ya.
Now doesn’t that make you feel better.
The Crewser said,
May 12, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Not really, its just another debate. No one is fully right or wrong. There is a need for critical mass of population to sustain rail travel in any country. You were right about that in terms of Cities and large towns. Its a difficult area to get right in this country. In the words of Ali G : Respect
Crocodile said,
May 12, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Maybe I said, enf, that rail freight doesn’t work, but I suppose I meant that it hasn’t worked, in Ireland. I’m old enough to have worked in a wholesale business in a small country town in the days when a lot of our deliveries came by rail. It was disastrously unreliable and inefficient : weather-affected, unpunctual, literally every consignment pilfered. I may be – as you so elegantly put it – talking out of my arse, but it’s an arse that was given many a pain in formative years by Irish rail freight.
Enf said,
May 12, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Before Independence we had a comprehensive rail network. I just wonder what the “reasoning” behind removing so much track was.
Were we destined to be poor forever? It seems that we wanted to be that way. Turn away from the worldly wants and inwards.
Paddy Matthews said,
May 13, 2008 at 1:04 am
Before Independence we had a comprehensive rail network. I just wonder what the “reasoning” behind removing so much track was.
Were we destined to be poor forever? It seems that we wanted to be that way. Turn away from the worldly wants and inwards.
I think you’ll find that cutting back on rail services was a trend that went way beyond this state. Take a look at the skeletal rail network that remains in the non-independent Northern Ireland or at the actions of Dr. Beeching in Britain.
The Crewser said,
May 13, 2008 at 3:53 pm
In an ideal world rail freight could be reintroduced in this country and it would take a lot of HGV’s off the road making them safer not to mention the benefits for the environment. But I fear that such a day will never come. Its hard to see Dunnes Stores or Tesco abandoning their fleet of trucks in favour of the rail. Crocodile has summed up the difficulties quite concisely, the pilferage, inefficiency, delays etc. I can add a few more. The traders not collecting their products and materials at the stations, the breakages in transit and at either end, the endless insurance claims. The problem with rail transport in Ireland is cost. There are manned level crossings every mile or two along the tracks requiring the payment of two or in some cases three salaries per week. It would be the equivalent of having a toll every 5 miles on the National Primary roads. Automatic level crossings have been tried in a limited number of cases but there are enginerring difficulties with many locations which rule out such crossings. Lorry transport is so much more efficient that it is difficult to see it being replaced in the forseeable future.
enf said,
May 13, 2008 at 4:01 pm
The rail freight terminal that was proposed was rezoned and turned into the Liffey Valley Shopping Centre.
Says a lot.