Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas J Stamp
only because the planners decided on a doughnut effect planning solutiuon in Dublin and then allowed massive building of houses to take place 20-50 miles out from the city. There was no need for people who work in Dublin city centre to have to live in Portloaise, or Arklow, or Navan. Had we had proper planning and had we had a transparent and open planning process then we would have had no need for massive heavy rail projects.
One thing we could have kept were the tram systems, but thats another story.
|
The thrust of that I agree with. However, with the Dublin-centred economy we have (created by Dublin centered politicians), caused the land price rise which ruled out significant "family friendly" housing development near to the city centre. Tower blocks may be a planners' (and developers'!) dream (low land take, high density housing) but are a nightmare to live in, especially with kids. The outward movement of population is not unique to Ireland. In the UK for example, there are (thanks to 125mph services) daily commuters from Grantham and Newark, 105 and 120 miles from London respectively. Peterborough and Swindon (both about 70 miles out) are virtually outer suburban in terms of service pattern.
Whether it can ever be reversed is doubtful. I am 40 miles out, but would not want to live in Dublin even if house prices were sensible (and depsite recent drops, they are nowhere near so to my mind). Despite the whinges of the commuter, the quality of life further out in the Pale is much better overall, and I certainly would not wish to live in a flat - sorry, apartment - with people living above, both sides, and below me. Done it before - never again.
Going back to Beeching, while he is reviled by the many, he was only doing what was requested of him by the politicians of the day - the Transport Secretary at the time having previously been in charge of a major motorway builder. Sound famliar? Of course, he disposed of his holdings when made a minister, and that past had no bearing on his outlook whatsoever
The methodolgy was poor, and the statistics used of dubious quality, and some old pre-nationaisation scores being settled at officer level, but there is no denying that there were many basket case lines which should have gone.
It should also not be forgotten that most of the closures were actually authorised under the successor Labour government until the introduction of the Public Service Obligation grant in 1968, depsite their protestations before and since. The simpe rule is never, ever trust or belive any politician is doing something on principle for the common good.
LC