-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
I await a Royal Commission into corruption in the Liberal party:
http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/alcohol-lobby-link-to-dumping-health-body-20140217-32wft.html
http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/fiona-nash-dodges-spotlight-after-junk-food-furore-20140215-32sne.html
http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/alcohol-lobby-link-to-dumping-health-body-20140217-32wft.html
http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/fiona-nash-dodges-spotlight-after-junk-food-furore-20140215-32sne.html
So Abbott and the Libs wouldnt give money to SPC because they are owned by Coke, but yet they are happy to give money to the Brisbane Broncos, who just happened to be owned by News Ltd, to build a gym.
https://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/08/21/tony-abbott-coalitions-commitment-support-revitalisation-red-hill-sporting
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-21/abbott-pledges-5m-towards-brisbane-broncos-expansion/4902090
https://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/08/21/tony-abbott-coalitions-commitment-support-revitalisation-red-hill-sporting
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-21/abbott-pledges-5m-towards-brisbane-broncos-expansion/4902090
MB78 said:
Thompson is no longer a pollie so my thoughts on him are irrelevant to this thread. ;D
no, he seems like a fool, or whatever term you want to use, who deserves whatever punishment is coming.
mexican_radio said:
Then unfortunately you always think wrongly. I've probably spent years on Melbourne trains. Trains are overcrowded because of over half a century of under-investment in rail infrastucture. Ditto the "slow". More tracks with more interlinks and more duplications allowing for overlapping express services and trains that can avoid the loop all toogether would make a huge difference. There are fewer km of tracks in Melbourne than 60 years ago but we will shortly be the biggest city in the country. Mass transit is a must. Rail is a must.
ok ok. I don't know why I bother trying to contribute. Everyone has to get nasty straight away.KnightersRevenge said:
I 100% conceded that you are a seasoned and lifetime rail traveler.
mexican_radio said:
Not getting nasty MR. You made an assumption about me and I corrected it for you. Happy to have a discussion in fact I wish there was a discussion at government level on the many merits of fast efficient and surplus trains. You just can't have a large modern city without a massive a pollution and congestion problem if you don't have good public transport. The discussion usually gets hung up on the expense. Given the age of some of the network it seems obvious to me that rail infrastructure lasts a long time, some of it centuries. So the costs can be spread across a long time making it possible to undertake massive public works without all the "cost benefit" analysis/paralysis
mexican_radio said:
The evidence is 5km further down the road from Glen Waverley train station on CitiLink every morning and every evening. The tailback that starts and ends every morning and evening peak right where a massive section of the population doesn't have access to the train service. I don't have first hand experience but I bet it is repeated in the west.
mexican_radio said:
If I may offer an alternative view. Trains aren't expensive when the benefits over time are factored in. Noisy, up for debate, diesels are yes, Noiser than a main road? unreliable, I've personally never had a train never turn up, can be a bit late, overcrowded, thats life in peak hour in the big city, Uncomfortable: If your standing on a long journey maybe, a precious view IMO, unsafe ???, I think you'll find the data says they aren't. You left out one thing that they are: efficient at moving a lot of people. Also you're talking evidence and thats fair enough, but you haven't provided any.
The bottom line is that research on cities shows good train systems make good cities. Less congested, easier to get around, more interesting. Name any famously nice and interesting city and you'll find it has a good metro train system.
As for all these nasty lefties, harden up. Some people are too defensive and precious
tigersnake said:
I was going to ask about the expensive claim but suspected from past experience it would be taken the wrong way. I'm not sure if it meant expensive to run, which I wouldn't have a clue about, or expensive to travel on. On the latter if you go on personal use and factor in things like fuel, owning and maintaining a car and possibly parking the train seems like a far more economical option.
Got back from Bangkok not long ago and just loved heading around the city on, either of the two, train networks. Having said that I did prefer the 'sky train' over the underground, as you got to see heaps of the city as you went around.
Some things I noticed about the trains there were...
They were very short and could carry far far fewer people than any single one of Melbourne's trains
To help with this, they came very often and to time - if you had to wait five minutes for a train it was a shock
The trains would stop in a designed manner, so people would get on, and off, between glass panels for safety
To help with the movement of people, each 'entry point' had markings, on the platform, to show where you should stand to allow people unimpeded exit from the trains. What was even better was people 99% of the time respected this
While they could get really packed, people were always courteous.
Only tourists *coughs* wore hats when inside a train.
Oh, nearly forgot... On the sky train, they had the route map, above all doors, but instead of it just being a static map, there was a light that would show you were you were on it. This made it a whole lot easier to get around a new city
A day ticket, for anywhere in Bankers cost about $5 and a single trip, going a fair way (from Thaksin to Moi Chit), was around $1.80
Was interesting to zoom around on them, and just nice to use.
Some things I noticed about the trains there were...
They were very short and could carry far far fewer people than any single one of Melbourne's trains
To help with this, they came very often and to time - if you had to wait five minutes for a train it was a shock
The trains would stop in a designed manner, so people would get on, and off, between glass panels for safety
To help with the movement of people, each 'entry point' had markings, on the platform, to show where you should stand to allow people unimpeded exit from the trains. What was even better was people 99% of the time respected this
While they could get really packed, people were always courteous.
Only tourists *coughs* wore hats when inside a train.
Oh, nearly forgot... On the sky train, they had the route map, above all doors, but instead of it just being a static map, there was a light that would show you were you were on it. This made it a whole lot easier to get around a new city
A day ticket, for anywhere in Bankers cost about $5 and a single trip, going a fair way (from Thaksin to Moi Chit), was around $1.80
Was interesting to zoom around on them, and just nice to use.
tigersnake said:
I love trains - and agree they add something to a city. I've been fortunate to use London, Paris, Rome, NY and even New Delhi, all of which appear to be superior to our rail system.
There is a fundamental problem in Melbourne. In most of the above cases, the majority of the infrastructure was built in the 19th century, when labour was cheap, planning regs were less torturous - and engineers were smart enough to put the bulk of the system underground. The economics of building underground infrastructure today are horrendous - but I do agree with Kennett that this is a great time to fund infrastructure using debt.
The other alternative is to put on more trains on the current infrastructure. Given we have 160+ rail crossings in Vic, this approach would adversely affect road users and potentially negate any potential system benefits.
mexican_radio said:
i desperately want naphine to hold off signing the papers to the east-west road tunnel until after november so we can make the road tunnel v rail tunnel debate a major election issue. if the road tunnel wins, then the people have spoken and i will accept their decision. but i am absolutely convinced that the rail tunnel will win if given the chance.
lukeanddad said:
I understand the arguement in relation to the cost of upgrading the system but the problem is the longer we wait the more expensive it gets. It is inevitable that a city this size will have to tackle this eventually so the time is always now. Grade separation (turning level crossings into flyovers) is a massive task but would improve everyones journey and allow for more trains on the current infrastructure.