I can't see that link. Is there a more legitimate link available?
Opinion Roe 8 discussion thread
- Thread starter TheInjuryFactory
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Given the same thing is occurring in High Wycombe and the media and general public largely don't give a s**t. I reckon that's rubbish.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wes...s/news-story/688b55f3e850fb4ea89cd0719408b9af
Don't get me wrong, the cleaning process of the dangerous materials is a legitimate concern, and I think a thorough plan and assessment should be provided to the public (I don't know if one has). However, I don't think it's a valid reason to can the project. Asbestos is decommissioned and disposed of regularly, every day in Perth - the NBN has required a significant amount and that's literally on residential lawns - the key is to make sure it's done safely.
Well as I said, I am simply stating what the concerns are for the couple of people I know who are actively protesting the development.
Sounds like the residents in High Wycombe are saying the same kind of thing as those protesting Roe 8, so I'm not sure how you can say my assertion is rubbish.
Obviously Roe 8 is a more complex issue given the sheer size of the development. Ludlam has come out and lambasted the government over their short-sighted corrupt economics for one...
"Leightons/CIMIC make $700,000 in donations to the Liberal Party and hey presto, they get billions in construction contracts funded by the federal government."
Please note, I am not a Greens supporter or a Labor supporter or a Liberal supporter - but on this issue, Scott is right IMO.
The Fremantle port will be at capacity within a decade even including the outer harbor. The development should be more long-term focused and head toward Kwinana where the capacity will be much larger and support the WA economy well into the next century.
There are just so many reasons why this project is the wrong thing to be doing. Environmentally, economically, politically.
This is where I disagree. Development decisions should take into account the short, medium, and long term.
This development is also not mutually exclusive with an outer harbour. We can still do both. Fremantle harbour will still be in operation when an outer harbour is built and there will still be a need to service the area, otherwise it is a massive waste of resources.
FWIW, I'm a swing voter. Not affiliated with any party in the slightest.
I agree that even if another port is built, say, at Kwinana, the Freo port will still need to be serviced. The costs and benefits of this particular plan is where I see the problem, but to be honest, if they had decided to decontaminate the area from asbestos properly, I wouldn't even be posting in this thread.
As much as I despise when the police force is used as a bouncer service for the corrupt government (which if you hear stories from these protests they have been), the police officers should not be subjected to the asbestos dust - their union decided against wearing protective equipment because it would become a difficult public relations issue (ie. they'd be admitting the site is contaminated).
Better to let the police officers be put at risk.
It is government corruption and censorship that leads to mass ignorance that pisses me off more than anything else. Though I digress here, it is the same reason I am perpetually annoyed to hear authoritative organisations such as the Heart Foundation espouse the benefits of cheap polyunsaturated oils and margarines rather than saturated fats. An erroneous message based upon faulty science (sorry, couldn't help myself - that message needs to be heard).
That's an opinion you're entitled to hold, and you may very well be correct in many cases. I find it odd that people who are aware of the asbestos problem are down there every day protesting
I'm certainly going nowhere near it.
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/r...ernment-documents-reveal-20170223-gujhzg.html
8.5 billion dollars for Roe 9. That is about $4000 per man, woman and child that Barnett wants us to pay. If you support this hare-brained scheme you are a bloody idiot. Time to boot these corrupt bastards.
Edit: and it still won't get the trucks to the docks. The cost of a new bridge or a tunnel under the Swan would be at least that much again.
8.5 billion dollars for Roe 9. That is about $4000 per man, woman and child that Barnett wants us to pay. If you support this hare-brained scheme you are a bloody idiot. Time to boot these corrupt bastards.
Edit: and it still won't get the trucks to the docks. The cost of a new bridge or a tunnel under the Swan would be at least that much again.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #334
It will also stop WA from having it's construction industry collapse, Roe 9 is the next northern Gas level project scale.
Just how does that effect the rest? Eight people lose their job every time someone in construction does. That's the flow on effect.
So the cost is high, the cost to not is also high and that is before anybody is hurt on Leach Hwy.
Now is the time to invest in infrastructure.
Just how does that effect the rest? Eight people lose their job every time someone in construction does. That's the flow on effect.
So the cost is high, the cost to not is also high and that is before anybody is hurt on Leach Hwy.
Now is the time to invest in infrastructure.
No it won't. That's bulltish. Having a bankrupt state government will stop WA from having a construction industry. The cost will damage all industries in this state. It is ridiculously high for what it provides.
Follow the money. Liberal Party benefactors will be the prime beneficiaries, as always.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #336
Objection, speculation.
The prime beneficiaries will be the thousands of regular people who get to stay employed, unless the unions negotiate another deal where the unions get paid a bonus for agreeing to lesser payment terms like Bill Shorten signed off on.
Building economic infrastructure pays for itself in time.
Not getting into too much debt is why we are arguing over royalties instead of the WA government owning the gas refineries up north. We chose to take $60 billion in royalties over twenty years for not having to spend $60 billion building the plants, a $120 billion dollar turn around! Until you remember the ten times the number returning.
Building a road isn't even a risk, you just lay the path for future economic actions to pass over it more effectively and business all around gets to prosper, paying more tax and more cash back.
- Jan 14, 2008
- 14,827
- 31,828
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
How about the dollars and employment are used on a rail system that would ease congestion, pollution and benefit the population instead of private enterprise. The Coalitions aversion to using and building a rail network is something thats hard to follow and just plain stupid. They fought to derail the Mandurah line and closed down the Perth to Freo line.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #338
The rail system that they will have to pay to keep running for twenty years before it can start to break even on operational costs let alone the construction costs?
The government subsidise public transport by 70%. May as well write everyone in Ellenbrook a cheque for $30,000 to go with that $100,000 they saved buying out in the sticks, at least it won't cost everyone else decades for their choice to do it.
They need to stop servicing the sprawl, it enables the spread and will create a system too large to maintain. We need more people living closer.
Your judgement is clouded by your job.
It's fine to subsidise the trucking industry to the tune of tens of billions of dollars because they don't pay their real cost, but then you whinge that the rail industry should pay for itself. Your figure of 70% is simply not accurate. Factor in the cost of road widening, the cost of road trauma and the cost to the environment and you will get a much more comparable result. It not in the best interests of road industries (trucking and MRD bureaucracies) to be honest with their figures.
For every person who uses public transport, that's essentially one less person driving a vehicle. And to complain about urban sprawl and not provide infrastructure is disingenuous. The infrastructure should have been provided by the big land developers as a condition of building.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #340
It was very clear what the people were buying. The infrastructure is already built, we don't need to build Los Angeles with a tenth of the population.
Why would the developers pay to build the government a rail line when by the time the money has been made the next government is trying to buy 30,000 votes by having everyone else subsidise the lifestyle choice.
- Jan 14, 2008
- 14,827
- 31,828
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Where did you get that figure from, the truck owners handbook. The cost of constantly repairing roads after heavy transport have wrecked them must be astronomical.
The cost to the environment of tonnes of pollution being pumped into the atmosphere by trucks cars and buses . How do you measure the cost of cleaning up that mess. By the way how long will it take to recoup the construction cost of this highway and tunnel. The taxpayer is subsidising the road and will be paying it of for ever . Your cost arguments re the rail link dont hold water.
If that is true, and again the figures you present dishonestly neglect to factor in the money saved in roadworks, hospital and environmental costs, then it is still $7,213,000,000 less than the cost of Roe 9. If the trucking industry paid the real cost of their little detour, every one of them would be bankrupt.
$8 billion dollars for one section of that road. I can't believe that you or anyone can defend that.
- Jan 14, 2008
- 14,827
- 31,828
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
So who does Roe 8 assist apart from the transport companies. . A few suburbs South of the river. It does nothing for those North of the river. You talk as though this road will be built with out taxpayer dollars. Its going to cost billions and subsidised by tax dollars with out any way to recoup the dollars. At least the rail would eventually pay for its self. How do the taxpayers recoup those Roe 8 costs. Its not like private enterprise are putting their hands in their pockets. The toll dollars are going into private enterprise.
- Jan 14, 2008
- 14,827
- 31,828
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Dean Nalder ,your trust his figures.
How about cleaning up the pollution, factor that in and road transport is way more expensive.
- Jan 14, 2008
- 14,827
- 31,828
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
The price of a clean environment for future generations can't be calculated. Rail is clean, road transport is dirty, dirty dirty.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #350
It would be in his interest to show minimised costs to make his budgeting look better.Dean Nalder ,your trust his figures.
How about cleaning up the pollution, factor that in and road transport is way more expensive.
We don't have enough renewable energy sources to claim any electrically powered system is clean, just because it has all it's emissions somewhere else. Those coal plants spew out more radiation than a nuclear power plant.
