Hi David & all,

In relation to a zero sum game result, no doubt the Lane Cove Tunnel in
Sydney has provided a interesting example for people to research.

Low traffic forces Lane Cove Tunnel's backers to write off millions
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/low-traffic-forces-lane-cove-tunnels-backers\
-to-write-off-millions/2008/03/18/1205602385127.html

http://www.tunnelboycott.com

Election terms are a major obstacle in implementing policy or
infrastructure as here in Australia, as political parties and the public
do have this recurring tendency to react to short term issues rather
than plan for long term results, hence the rise of PPP's (Public Private
Partnerships) and the usual election time porkbarrelling.

Also many people may remember numerous protests in Melbourne against
freeway developments, such as CAFE in the late 1970's and more recently
the Coalition for Better Cities against the (then) proposed Scoresby
Bypass (now EastLink) development. A problem which Alex mentioned was
that protests, if 100% opposed to whatever development, tend to get
ignored by the powers that be. You only have to have a read of todays
news to see yet another example of that process:

Legal battle bankrupts desal opponents
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/13/2273720.htm

In the case of the CTC a few years ago, it was a potentially good but
problematic campaign that would of effectively turned a inner city
council into a lobbying group against the state government, in which the
government would of probably bought in the administrators faster than we
all could collectively blink. Which in turn, if it had happened, could
of created a more problematic and messy situation for all stakeholders
with no positive results. We now face the situation that Eastlink has
been built, with a feared direct result that even more traffic chaos for
the inner suburbs.

From a personal perspective, campaigning against issues that concern us
is a vital and necessary part of living in a civil society, although
it's painful to observe that some protests repetitively make mistakes
early on, like inadventantly developing a fragmented or subjective
stance without drawing in a lot more energy and networking from their
local communties.

Sadly it's a classic divide and conquer situation that governments and
businesses take advantage of, and one that we all should allow ourselves
to learn from so we can more effectively advocate on behalf of our
communities.

cheers,

Chris




David wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto:vicbugchat%40yahoogroups.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-
> <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/
> <http://www.bv.com.au/great-rides/41340/>
> > >
> > >peace,
> > >-Alex
> >
>
>


--


Yarra Bicycle Users Group
PO Box 253
Clifton Hill VIC 3068
http://www.yarrabug.org
______________________________________
Abbotsford, Alphington, Burnley, Carlton North,
Clifton Hill, Cremorne, Collingwood, Fairfield,
Fitzroy, Fitzroy North, Princes Hill, Richmond
______________________________________