Opinion Roe 8 discussion thread

Roe 8?

  • Yes

    Votes: 64 61.0%

  • No

    Votes: 25 23.8%

  • Don't care

    Votes: 16 15.2%
  • Total voters
    105

Remove this Banner Ad

Ressies runner said:
I have posted this on the betting page just thought i would post here as well as it ties into Roe 8

Couple of thoughts before the election this Saturday.
Incumbents Liberals are heading into the election being massive underdogs.
Labour $1.20
Liberal $4.20

Colins stank is destroying the state with record debt, controversial projects, and an ever increasing jobless rate

The liberals own polling is showing a 14% swing against them.

3 years in a row they have put up land tax meaning a lot of there traditional wealthy liberal voting areas like nedlands and cottesloe have felt the pinch and this could really hurt them.

Up until recently i was convinced there was no way they could win the election. That was until Pauline Hansons one nation party done a preference deal with the liberals.

This election i believe comes down to these preferences.
How big of a swing will one nation get?
Will it counter the swing against the libs?

Current bet market swing to One Nation lower house
Under 7.5% ------ $5
7.5%- 9.99% -------$2.5
10%- 12.49%-------$3
12.5%-14.99%---- $6

I believe one nation has a lot more voters then what many realise, and i think quite a few agree with her policy's. A bit like America with Trump

So a couple of bets i think could be value
My bets in brackets
Liberals win +5.5 $1.83 -- ($20)
Straight win $4.20 -- ($15)
Majority win $ 34.00 -- ($10)
One nation upper house seats total
3-4 $3.00 -- ($10)
4-5 $3.00 -- ($20)
SFFP to win a lower house seat $11($20)

On a side note colin has to go so im voting against him.

Can you imagine the melts in this thread if the libs do win this weekend wow.
Click to expand...

The thing is, the ALP need to take back such a large number of seats. The swing, while great, needs to be uniform and that is very rare. So unless there is a landslide swing, McGowan is still pretty unlikely to become premier.

You are right about One Nation: it will get a larger vote than most people hope for. Dealing with the ONP may have sucked Barnett's air and made it difficult for him to present a message, but it is quite likely to enable him to cling to power. I don't see the Liberals being underdogs at all.

I find it difficult to swing my votes, and have only done so a couple of times. Each time was when the sitting government had grown stale and dodgy. Democracies need governments to change every few terms.
 
Clems Knee said:
The thing is, the ALP need to take back such a large number of seats. The swing, while great, needs to be uniform and that is very rare. So unless there is a landslide swing, McGowan is still pretty unlikely to become premier.

You are right about One Nation: it will get a larger vote than most people hope for. Dealing with the ONP may have sucked Barnett's air and made it difficult for him to present a message, but it is quite likely to enable him to cling to power. I don't see the Liberals being underdogs at all.

I find it difficult to swing my votes, and have only done so a couple of times. Each time was when the sitting government had grown stale and dodgy. Democracies need governments to change every few terms.
Click to expand...
They won by majority last election that $34 is a big payday if you think nothing will change
 

Log in to remove this ad.

E Shed said:
A Senate inquiry into environmental breaches of the Perth freight link project has recommended works immediately cease until Western Australia’s environment minister, Albert Jacob, can confirm environmental conditions on the project are being met.

It follows reports that the project’s construction and fauna management plans were not being complied with; that endangered bandicoots were being killed by bulldozers; and that clearing of native vegetation was occurring outside of designated clearing areas.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-project-should-be-halted-senate-inquiry-says
Click to expand...
those accusations are by the environmentalists though (not saying not valid) and is shite if it happening. It was my understanding the gov after EPA got another assement that was comprise of csrio scientists http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-09/state-government-appoints-new-panel-to-assess-roe-8/7395592
 
And to talk about Roe 8 in isolation from Roe 9 and what I assume will be called Roe 10 is deceitful. Which is what the
You are anti-development of an outer harbour? Do you want to destroy WAs economy, just to point score? And people say the Greens are crazy. Again, big ships routinely enter Cockburn Sound for grain shipments.

The quality of posting ( even by Eagles fans) was pretty good on this thread until you came along. Seriously, **** off.
Click to expand...
Please don't bring our AFL team into this what is this a footy forum or something??

Clem I honesty think that the port is on a dreamers budget. Whilst it is the best option, we still need something in the interim before we get the other ducks in row (like I outlined earlier) to make the cost of that project viable.
 
WCE1987 said:
Please don't bring our AFL team into this what is this a footy forum or something??

Clem I honesty think that the port is on a dreamers budget. Whilst it is the best option, we still need something in the interim before we get the other ducks in row (like I outlined earlier) to make the cost of that project viable.
Click to expand...
I don't think I would have spoken to you like that. We may not agree, but the tone has been civil.

The thing about the port, though, is that is a long term solution. The Roe Highway extensions are short term only. Short term solutions should not cost 10 billion dollars or more. I am more against Roe 9 and Roe 10 than Roe 8, but without the later extensions, Roe 8 is a waste of over a billion dollars.
If you want an interim fix, insist that the existing rail lines be used, and limit the truck useage. Still much cheaper.

Linking privatising the port with federal funding is another part of the Abbott ideology which stinks. Who benefits, and why? Not the people of Western Australia, that's for sure.
 
Last edited:
Clems Knee said:
I don't think I would have spoken to you like that. We may not agree, but the tone has been civil.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah I know what just more jokenly mentioned it cos you mentioned eagles.

On a side not if you haven't already I suggest watching "utopia' its on Netflix (original abc) you will see a lot of the hilarity in the parrales this project is drawing .
 
WCE1987 said:
Clem I also thought the benefit was of finishing the roe projects was that it would draw on linking to the " northlink project"and "gateway project " as it would more efficiently run freight into Perths various business parks.
http://www.warta.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/0715-Perth-Freight-Link.pdf

How would we get rail to all these business parks ?
Click to expand...

The link you provided gives no information regarding Business parks. It's a brochure by (I assume) the road transport lobby.
"Trucks" and "efficiently" should never be in the same sentence btw, unless the word "not" is between them.
 
Clems Knee said:
The link you provided gives no information regarding Business parks. It's a brochure by (I assume) the road transport lobby.
"Trucks" and "efficiently" should never be in the same sentence btw, unless the word "not" is between them.
Click to expand...
The link was just to show the connection of the roe project to the existing projects northlink and gateway link projects (these are explained at depth on main roads) that brouchure was just a shorter summary.

There is business parks in Balcatta, Malaga, Joondalup, Wanagara, Waneroo, Osborne Park, Belmont, Kewdale, Midland, Forrestfield, Canningvale, Bibralake, High Wychombe, Oconnor, Maddington, Bassendean, Welshpool, Cloverdale, Perth Airport, Bentley , Victoria Park, Guildford, Hazlemere, Jandakot, Burswood etc
""
"Rail cannot be a substitute for most road transport to and from Fremantle Port. Rail’s present contribution is to carry about 12 per cent of containers to and from the port. All governments for years have done their best to increase this, but it has been impossible despite large subsidies and innovative rail management."

The reason is simple: rail cannot serve the many dispersed locations needing pick-ups and deliveries.""

Fred Affleck (retired chairman, WA Freight and Logistics Council)
https://thewest.com.au/opinion/letters/facts-are-needed-in-the-roe-8-discussion-ng-b88353729z

All these parks are designed to take trucks. Using rail won't want take out trucks, it will just move the problem to another location
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

WCE1987 said:
The link was just to show the connection of the roe project to the existing projects northlink and gateway link projects (these are explained at depth on main roads) that brouchure was just a shorter summary.

There is business parks in Balcatta, Malaga, Joondalup, Wanagara, Waneroo, Osborne Park, Belmont, Kewdale, Midland, Forrestfield, Canningvale, Bibralake, High Wychombe, Oconnor, Maddington, Bassendean, Welshpool, Cloverdale, Perth Airport, Bentley , Victoria Park, Guildford, Hazlemere, Jandakot, Burswood etc
""
"Rail cannot be a substitute for most road transport to and from Fremantle Port. Rail’s present contribution is to carry about 12 per cent of containers to and from the port. All governments for years have done their best to increase this, but it has been impossible despite large subsidies and innovative rail management."

The reason is simple: rail cannot serve the many dispersed locations needing pick-ups and deliveries.""

Fred Affleck (retired chairman, WA Freight and Logistics Council)
https://thewest.com.au/opinion/letters/facts-are-needed-in-the-roe-8-discussion-ng-b88353729z

All these parks are designed to take trucks. Using rail won't want take out trucks, it will just move the problem to another location
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. Fred Affleck's claim that all governments had done their best to increase the load from 12% isn't really true though, is it?

Freight trucks don't pay their way at the moment. Trucks are responsible for most road damage because of the weight of the loads they carry. Trucks are also responsible for a disproportionate level of road trauma.
Because road freight doesn't pay for its costs, road freight has an unfair competitive advantage over rail freight. All road users suffer as a result.

http://infrastructureaustralia.gov....bmissions/aip/files/Freight_on_Rail_Group.pdf
This submission by private rail companies to Infrastructure Australia addresses the issue, quoting the independent audit report by Infrastructure Australia

“Current arrangements for the funding of land transport are deeply flawed and represent the most significant opportunity for public policy reform in Australia’s infrastructure sectors.”

Making heavy road users pay for the damage they cause will make rail more competitive, and more economic. By reducing indirect funding of roads (ie taxpayer subsidies of private road freight) and replacing it with a heavy user pays model, the likelihood is that more rail freight will be used, and Main Roads won't need to rebuild their roads as often.

As far as all the business parks that you've quoted, I don't see how that furthers the argument for the Roe extensions. Very few of those parks are serviced directly by Roe Highway. Trucks would go from a few major rail depots to the south and east of Fremantle.
 
Clems Knee said:
As far as all the business parks that you've quoted, I don't see how that furthers the argument for the Roe extensions. Very few of those parks are serviced directly by Roe Highway. Trucks would go from a few major rail depots to the south and east of Fremantle.
Click to expand...

Thanks for link, I can see the argument for rail. Separate issue but those Heavy freight charges seem an interesting way to look at it, but I don't like its chances from both sides as private enterprise would smash Libs over it, and unions would smash Labor.

I know that those parks especial north and east intersect through to Roe via Reid, Tonkin and Great Eastern. I thought the idea behind finishing Roe is to make it a straight shot to the port/container terminals.
What would be a the point in upgrading the rail in Freo if the long term is to transition to Cockburn? At least if you upgrade roads once freight moves the road is still there for public use, was my thinking.
 
Last edited:
WCE1987 said:
Thanks for link, I can see the argument for rail. Separate issue but those Heavy freight charges seem an interesting way to look at it, but I don't like its chances from both sides as private enterprise would smash Libs over it, and unions would smash Labor.

I know that those parks especial north and east intersect through to Roe via Reid, Tonkin and Great Eastern. I thought the idea behind finishing Roe is to make it a straight shot to the port.
What would be a the point in upgrading the rail in Freo if the long term is to transition to Cockburn? At least if you upgrade roads once freight moves the road is still there for public use, was my thinking.
Click to expand...

The problem is the cost - $10 billion for a road that is no longer useful? The whole idea of tunnelling under White Gum Valley and East Fremantle is ridiculous.

The rail line could take an increase in freight use without upgrading (for now). That's the thing about railways - they can take a lot of weight.
 
Clems Knee said:
The problem is the cost - $10 billion for a road that is no longer useful? The whole idea of tunnelling under White Gum Valley and East Fremantle is ridiculous.
The rail line could take an increase in freight use without upgrading (for now). That's the thing about railways - they can take a lot of weight.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't change that there is various un-pack locations like I listed before that are using the port. http://www.fremantleports.com.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/Fremantle Port Container Movement Study 2012.pdf (good overview of freight movements from freo)

Your right trains can handle more weight, but your taking it off a boat to then pack it onto a train, to then take it of a train, to place it onto a truck, to take it to unpack location. VS off a boat onto a truck straight to unpack which you have to agree is still a form of efficiency.

That 10 billion was from a preliminary report based on a much different tunnel which I mentioned has since been altered, there is also reports about planning with no tunnel (cheaper) but would of more impact on housing. Could we shelve that number for now as it as no basis so doesn't really assist the conversation.

If roe 9 (or tunnel) is the broader issue for you, why not let 8 be completed and push for a better layout/design/flow for 9?
 
Last edited:
WCE1987 said:
Still doesn't change that there is various un-pack locations like I listed before that are using the port. http://www.fremantleports.com.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/Fremantle Port Container Movement Study 2012.pdf (good overview of freight movements from freo)

Your right trains can handle more weight, but your taking it off a boat to then pack it onto a train, to then take it of a train, to place it onto a truck, to take it to unpack location. VS off a boat onto a truck straight to unpack which you have to agree is still a form of efficiency.

That 10 billion was from a preliminary report based on a much different tunnel which I mentioned has since been altered, there is also reports about planning with no tunnel (cheaper) but would of more impact on housing. Could we shelve that number for now as it as no basis so doesn't really assist the conversation.

If roe 9 (or tunnel) is the broader issue for you, why not let 8 be completed and push for a better layout/design/flow for 9?
Click to expand...

I believe the 10 billion dollar figure is a lowball estimate when Roe 10 is factored in. So I won't shelve it. I am also of the opinion that that was the unbiased figure before the spin was applied. Interesting that you are happy for Roe Highway to go through existing housing at the Fremantle end.

One of the things working against efficiency of rail is an unwillingness for the stevedoring companies to have rail loading facilities off the ship. (I got this from a post earlier in the thread so cannot verify - sorry). Again, if the trucking companies paid the real cost of their road use, the inconvenience of loading/unloading would pale compared to the efficiency of rail. There is nothing efficient about truck after truck leaving the harbour, stopping at traffic lights, moving 50 metres, stopping at traffic lights, turning right onto Stirling Highway and crossing the bridge, stop at traffic lights and so on. Each truck has its own inefficient engine.
Make them use rail. Legislate for it. Offer incentives. Make road freight pay it's real cost. Save billions.
You know it makes sense.
 
Clems Knee said:
I believe the 10 billion dollar figure is a lowball estimate when Roe 10 is factored in. So I won't shelve it. I am also of the opinion that that was the unbiased figure before the spin was applied. Interesting that you are happy for Roe Highway to go through existing housing at the Fremantle end.

One of the things working against efficiency of rail is an unwillingness for the stevedoring companies to have rail loading facilities off the ship. (I got this from a post earlier in the thread so cannot verify - sorry). Again, if the trucking companies paid the real cost of their road use, the inconvenience of loading/unloading would pale compared to the efficiency of rail. There is nothing efficient about truck after truck leaving the harbour, stopping at traffic lights, moving 50 metres, stopping at traffic lights, turning right onto Stirling Highway and crossing the bridge, stop at traffic lights and so on. Each truck has its own inefficient engine.
Make them use rail. Legislate for it. Offer incentives. Make road freight pay it's real cost. Save billions.
You know it makes sense.
Click to expand...

Spin ? It was literally an article that said the original cost was based on longer and wider tunnel. I don't think they can BS a tunnel that much because I doubt we are first state to build one of that scope.

I wasn't saying to go through housing, just that I've seen in papers there were suggestions of impacts to housing pre tunnel.

The freight charge will be extremely unlikely as mentioned labor will be pushed by unions to block it and liberals will be pushed by business to block it. We cant save by giving incentives, other parties are suggesting subsidising rail more than we already do that again is more cost.

Isn't the project including the removal of traffic lights and use of fly overs and now a tunnel to reduce the stop start you've mentioned?

IMO The trucks aren't going anywhere all we are going to do is move them from point A to B if we push on rail to an unload station. So the increase traffic just becomes another suburbs issue.

Even if this project is killed, neither party has a plan for what you would like to see. So then we're just back at square one and there is still the issue of getting to the port
 
Last edited:
WCE1987 said:
Spin ? It was literally an article that said the original cost was based on longer and wider tunnel. I don't think they can BS a tunnel that much because I doubt we are first state to build one of that scope.

I wasn't saying to go through housing, just that I've seen in papers there were suggestions of impacts to housing pre tunnel.

The freight charge will be extremely unlikely as mentioned labor will be pushed by unions to block it and liberals will be pushed by business to block it. We cant save by giving incentives, other parties are suggesting subsidising rail more than we already do that again is more cost.

Isn't the project including the removal of traffic lights and use of fly overs and now a tunnel to reduce the stop start you've mentioned?

IMO The trucks aren't going anywhere all we are going to do is move them from point A to B if we push on rail to an unload station. So the increase traffic just becomes another suburbs issue.

Even if this project is killed, neither party has a plan for what you would like to see. So then we're just back at square one and there is still the issue of getting to the port
Click to expand...

The stop start I described will continue until Roe 10 is built. That was just the trip from Patrick to the Canning Highway lights. Which will take at least 10 billion.
Which unions are going to protest the use of rail, and a decrease in costs for normal road users? Currently everyone pays more because the road freight industry is unfairly subsidised. When they pay their way, normal road users (ie taxpayers) can pay less.
The railway usage I described, which can increase threefold with no change in infrastructure, would lessen the load on Leach Highway and remove much of the need for Roe 8,9 and 10. Yes trucks would be used from there, but they are used like that outside of the Roe bypass anyway. There would be almost no increase in truckloads in other suburbs. Trains for arteries and veins. Trucks for capillaries. Save money and lives.

You may be right. If this project is killed I haven't heard what the ALPs plan is to reduce congestion on Leach Highway. Maybe we should check who they get their party donations from to predict what they will do. Works when analysing the Liberal's decisions.

And yes. Spin. Why else did it it take 2 years of FOI stalling to get the real figures released?
 
Ressies runner said:
What subsidies are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Because they don't pay their share of the cost of the roads. Currently they get to travel on the roads for the same cost as any taxpayer, but contribute a disproportionate amount to the costs involved. That's in effect a subsidy supplied by the taxpayer.

Because of this freeloading, the road freight industry gets an unfair competitive advantage over the rail freight industry.
 
Clems Knee said:
Because they don't pay their share of the cost of the roads. Currently they get to travel on the roads for the same cost as any taxpayer, but contribute a disproportionate amount to the costs involved. That's in effect a subsidy supplied by the taxpayer.

Because of this freeloading, the road freight industry gets an unfair competitive advantage over the rail freight industry.
Click to expand...
But what subsidies are you referring to? The only one i know of is the refund of the fuel excise which is a federal tax and we dont get that anyway.
 
Clems Knee said:
The stop start I described will continue until Roe 10 is built. That was just the trip from Patrick to the Canning Highway lights. Which will take at least 10 billion.
Which unions are going to protest the use of rail, and a decrease in costs for normal road users? Currently everyone pays more because the road freight industry is unfairly subsidised. When they pay their way, normal road users (ie taxpayers) can pay less.
The railway usage I described, which can increase threefold with no change in infrastructure, would lessen the load on Leach Highway and remove much of the need for Roe 8,9 and 10. Yes trucks would be used from there, but they are used like that outside of the Roe bypass anyway. There would be almost no increase in truckloads in other suburbs. Trains for arteries and veins. Trucks for capillaries. Save money and lives.
You may be right. If this project is killed I haven't heard what the ALPs plan is to reduce congestion on Leach Highway. Maybe we should check who they ge?
Click to expand...

If they move trucking to Forrestfield where the terminal is, that would than cause all trucks to converse in that area so I would imagine that would be moving it to another suburb. And they wont do it because currently it's cheaper to run trucks and flow straight into the business parks.

What unions? Transport Workers Union and CFMEU would easily reject any change. If they 'pay there way' all that would do is pass on their transportation cost increases and the consumer and end user pays more. I agree they should pay but it wont happen.

Party donations is easy to determine
Both parties get money from Unions and Business.
Business give more to Liberals due their focus on free enterprise
Unions give more to Labor due their focus on unions and more on gov being the provider
Business's then will hedge their bets based on what's happening in the market.
E.G If Labor goes we going to build metronet they will get funding from train companies, If liberals build roads they will get money from concrete companies.
Unless they can cut outside funding altogether this will always happen
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spirit Level
The Big Freo Board Booze Thread
Replies
16
Views
2K
Reynolds Number
Reynolds Number
Back
Top