Hi Folks,

Just my 2cents worth regarding "why no light rail (or heavy rail)
along the Eastlink reservation?" Well is one possible answer is
because it would be attractive to commuters and therefore
dilute/diminish profits from a tollway?

So we end up with a "Catch 22" to get roads built we need
public/private partnership because Govt's (note plural which refers
to all levels and most persuasions) view the cycle in election terms
and wont invest in something that would pay off in the long term
(i.e. while someone else is in office). Private won't want to be
involved in infrastructure if profits can't be maximised.

Result: Zero Sum Game (short term relief at a $ cost and an
perpetuation of the problem)

This is just my personal (and possibly naive & very simplistic)
thought.

Cheers
David

--- In vicbugchat@yahoogroups.com, "Graham B" <am7plus@...> wrote:
>
> Even that stance has it's critics, see the comments section of the
site.
> However, it is a reasoned approach, and looking at all solutions.
> For example, why no light rail (or heavy rail) along the Eastlink
> reservation? If so many people want to travel that way, surely
another
> option would be useful?
>
> Oh yeah, Doncaster railway, I remember!
>
> If so many people don't want to travel that way, why build the road
at
> all? As in Oregon, there are lots of other projects needing money,
even
> in road terms, without considering the rest of society!
>
> Graham B
>
>
> >Hi All,
> >
> >So here's an example from Oregon in the US, of a bike advocacy
taking a
> >much stronger stance on a freeway project.
> >
> >http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2008/06/09/bta-crc-deis-lpa-
position/
> >
> >The project in question is replacement freeway bridge over a major
river,
> >so a span similar in size to the Westgate, maybe longer. Being a
> >replacement there is a lot of discussion about how much larger it
should
> >be than the existing bridge.
> >
> >The bike advocacy in question (the Bicycle Transportation
Alliance...not
> >the outfit in WA) has offered conditional support, including these
> >conditions:
> >-study an option with only 2 lane expansion alongside the proposed
4-6
> >lane expansion
> >-ensure bike and ped facilities are included
> >-ensure that the project not rob funds from other regional
transportation
> >projects
> >
> >In my opinion, Bicycle Victoria could stand to learn a few things
from
> >this kind of stance. It's quite possible to contribute and comment
> >positively but critically to road infrastructure projects as a
bicycle
> >advocacy, without being a lapdog for freeway proponents or 100%
opposed
> >(and therefore ignored). So for those BV folk on this list,
please read,
> >learn, and try to incorporate, as best you can in your role.
> >
> >http://www.bv.com.au/great-rides/41340/
> >
> >peace,
> >-Alex
>