Why is there a protest over the East West Link?
Why? Seems to me that every weekend protest notches up the compo payout for the rich landowners around the proposed development. The greens in particular seem to be the instigators and that beggars comprehension. ? I don't understand..... how does this weekends protest do anything other than up the taxpayer price for an infra need that is long overdue? Sure, public transport needs to be a priority, but in the end, what about moving freight? They can't catch a train or bus. ???? BW
On 29/06/2014 3:39 PM, Brent Wallis wrote:
Why?
Quite simple, the government won't listen to the people, what choice do people have if they wish to express their views? This is a road project that *should* not go ahead, it is all VIC LNP propaganda that /makes/ it seem like a good idea. No more toll roads, give us the real NBN ..... the road to the future for most -- keep more cars off the road with more people able to telecommute effectively with a proper road to the future. Cheers A.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 15:39:19 Brent Wallis wrote:
Why? Seems to me that every weekend protest notches up the compo payout for the rich landowners around the proposed development.
If the government is even slightly competent the compensation won't be affected. If you have evidence of such incompetence then please share it.
The greens in particular seem to be the instigators and that beggars comprehension.
As usual you want to criticise the Greens for no good reason.
Sure, public transport needs to be a priority, but in the end, what about moving freight? They can't catch a train or bus. ????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarGoTram Apart from the obvious example of freight trains there are also cargo trams. The above Wikipedia page has information on one of them, I've read about cargo trams in other cities as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Melbourne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RACE_(container) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Standard_Pallets Melbourne trams are 2.65m (8 feet 7.5 inches) wide. There shouldn't be any difficulty in designing a cargo tram for transporting 20 foot long intermodal containers (which are 8 feet wide) and RACE containers (which are about the same size). It also shouldn't be difficult to design a tram that contains Australian standard pallets and carries a small forklift truck for taking the pallets off the tram (the way some trucks carry small forklifts). http://www.nvfnorden.org/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=261 The most immediate benefit for existing trucks of greater public transport would be decreased traffic on the roads. One train at peak hour replaces 1000 cars. But really we need to get cargo trams running. The wear on the roads is not linearly determined by the weight carried by the axle, it's an exponential relationship to somewhere between the 2nd and 6th power. The above paper has more information on this, they conclude that 4th power is a reasonable number to use for assessment. So a truck axle that carries 8 tons will do road damage equivalent to about 28,000 car axles! -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker wrote:
There shouldn't be any difficulty in designing a cargo tram for transporting 20 foot long intermodal containers (which are 8 feet wide) and RACE containers (which are about the same size).
That'll take a while (i.e. years, maybe decades), especially if it's continuously filibustered by vested interests (e.g. linfox). It'd be better to reuse existing solutions as much as possible. (In the same way it'd have been better to tweak oyster or octopus than design myki from scratch.)
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:25:42 Trent W. Buck wrote:
Russell Coker wrote:
There shouldn't be any difficulty in designing a cargo tram for transporting 20 foot long intermodal containers (which are 8 feet wide) and RACE containers (which are about the same size).
That'll take a while (i.e. years, maybe decades), especially if it's continuously filibustered by vested interests (e.g. linfox). It'd be better to reuse existing solutions as much as possible.
Designing a new model of car takes a lot of time and effort because there is no separate chassis. The skin of the car forms a large part of the structural strength. Getting the appearance, aerodynamics, and strength right in a new shape isn't easy. Trams are relatively slow (theoretical top speed for trams is ~80Km/h) so aerodynamics isn't a big issue and they don't need to pass the crash tests that cars have to pass (I bet they don't even do a rollover test on trams). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combino#Technical_specifications The above URL mentions the way that the body work is bolted on to the frame on one tram. Designing a cargo tram for intermodal containers wouldn't take the 2-3 years that it takes to design a new car.
(In the same way it'd have been better to tweak oyster or octopus than design myki from scratch.)
One difference between software engineering and mechanical engineering is the issue of testing. Testing a vehicle for various types of crash etc is a lot simpler than trying to test a good sub-set of the huge number of input conditions that a large and complex software system experiences. There's nothing at all new about transporting intermodal containers by train. There is no great difference between trams and trains as the various light- rail projects demonstrate. One could consider a tram designed for transporting 20 foot containers to be a "tweak" of existing train designs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-class_Melbourne_tram The E class tram is 110 feet 9 inches long in 3 sections of unequal length and the width is 8 feet 8 inches. The track probably has sufficient load gauge for a tram that can carry a 40 foot intermodal container (which is only 8 feet wide). -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 29/06/14 15:39, Brent Wallis wrote:
Why? Seems to me that every weekend protest notches up the compo payout for the rich landowners around the proposed development. The greens in particular seem to be the instigators and that beggars comprehension.
? I don't understand..... how does this weekends protest do anything other than up the taxpayer price for an infra need that is long overdue?
Sure, public transport needs to be a priority, but in the end, what about moving freight? They can't catch a train or bus. ????
From my observation of the eastern side of town, freight is a furphy - it mostly runs south of the city or up north at the ring road where there is a great hunk of warehousing. I use the Eastern to Chandler Hwy when I do Grandparent Duty and the bulk of the traffic is cars and tradies. If a new cross town road is needed, linking the eastern end of the ring road the Eastlink would tick more boxes in that respect. My main beef about the current plans are that they aren't plans - just something that came up at a long lunch and is being railroaded through before the Libs get rolled. As in all these things, follow the money.
Brent Wallis wrote:
Sure, public transport needs to be a priority, but in the end, what about moving freight? They can't catch a train or bus.
Er, excluding last-mile, what's wrong with rail freight? If your answer is "there are no rail lines", then using that as an argument why we should build roads, not rails, seems a bit circular.
Hi All, There are still protests going on because: (a) The organisers are thinking tactically, not strategically. (b) The organisers don't know when to give up. This horse is well and truly dead. They've got no hope of turning around something this far advanced. (Labor has even said it will honour any contracts signed by the Lib Government on this, if they win.) (c) The organisers may be attempting to maintain negative impacts on the Libs, thus ensuring the lead that Labor has in the upcoming election does not slide back. (Self-defeating, actually. This will pull the Greens and the micro parties out of influence, as Labor won't need their votes with an outright majority.) (d) The intel the organisers have isn't sophisticated enough to identify the UPCOMING issues that are still "winnable", be it a Labor or Liberal initiative. (e.g. "We can't go ahead with an airport railway, as we've got to give these big tax cuts and incentives to (major donors)." (e) The organisers are expending more energy on making their active membership and supporters happy, than focusing on what will most effectively impress the most important voters. Sure, public opinion seems against it. (Only 43% for it. But details of the Age survey were not disclosed.) What do the swing voters living in the marginal seats think? They're the only ones who really matter to the pollies. And one needs to show me the methodology of a survey before I'll put much faith in it. Besides: Protests, particularly if they inconvenience people, are excellent at =backfiring= on the organisers. (Excellent at turning the "undecideds" against the protest.) That's why, in the vast majority of instances in contemporary Western countries, protests are the tool of the losing side. e.g. The Vietnam War was called off in the USA in SPITE of the protests, NOT because of them. First-year introductory Public Relations case study material. Carl Turney Bayswater On 29/06/14 15:39, Brent Wallis wrote:
Why? Seems to me that every weekend protest notches up the compo payout for the rich landowners around the proposed development. The greens in particular seem to be the instigators and that beggars comprehension.
? I don't understand..... how does this weekends protest do anything other than up the taxpayer price for an infra need that is long overdue?
Sure, public transport needs to be a priority, but in the end, what about moving freight? They can't catch a train or bus. ????
BW
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:00:07 Carl Turney wrote:
There are still protests going on because:
(a) The organisers are thinking tactically, not strategically.
(b) The organisers don't know when to give up. This horse is well and truly dead. They've got no hope of turning around something this far advanced. (Labor has even said it will honour any contracts signed by the Lib Government on this, if they win.)
If people gave up so easily then the correct strategy for the government would be to surprise people with unpopular projects that are already signed and do whatever they like. To keep on protesting raises the cost for the government when they do things that voters don't like and gives them an incentive to adopt policies that will win votes. It makes the system more democratic. Of course as Tony Abbott has shown, even when projects have all the contracts signed it's possible to just shut them down the way the Liberal party stopped NBN development. Tony Abbott has also led a new development in lying to the voters, he seems to have broken every election promise in an epic way. I think we should take political promises with a grain of salt. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-pro... However it's been proven that protest is more effective than most people realise.
(c) The organisers may be attempting to maintain negative impacts on the Libs, thus ensuring the lead that Labor has in the upcoming election does not slide back. (Self-defeating, actually. This will pull the Greens and the micro parties out of influence, as Labor won't need their votes with an outright majority.)
Generally people don't turn up to protests for such reasons. It's all about issues.
Besides: Protests, particularly if they inconvenience people, are excellent at =backfiring= on the organisers. (Excellent at turning the "undecideds" against the protest.) That's why, in the vast majority of instances in contemporary Western countries, protests are the tool of the losing side.
e.g. The Vietnam War was called off in the USA in SPITE of the protests, NOT because of them. First-year introductory Public Relations case study material.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-pro... Wrong. Without the protests the Vietnam war would probably have involved the use of nuclear weapons, while that's grossly stupid with the involvement of the USSR the whole war was stupid enough that it wouldn't be inconceivable. Generally courses don't teach about their failings. I've never heard of a CS course teaching about how bad computer projects made things worse than the manual systems they replaced. I don't expect PR courses to teach about how you can't always manipulate people. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On Mon, June 30, 2014 12:46 pm, Russell Coker wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:00:07 Carl Turney wrote:
e.g. The Vietnam War was called off in the USA in SPITE of the protests, NOT because of them. First-year introductory Public Relations case study material. Wrong. Without the protests the Vietnam war would probably have involved the use of nuclear weapons, while that's grossly stupid with the involvement of the USSR the whole war was stupid enough that it wouldn't be inconceivable.
Generally courses don't teach about their failings. I've never heard of a CS course teaching about how bad computer projects made things worse than the manual systems they replaced. I don't expect PR courses to teach about how you can't always manipulate people.
Getting a little tangential to the subject heading, one of the remarkable things about the Vietnam war was how the intelligence agencies were reasonably well aware of the situation on the ground (c.f., The Pentagon Papers), but politicians continued to lie about the real situation. "Lie" in this context (as Hannah Arendt's essay "Lying in Politics: Reflections on the Pentagon Papers") means, "politicians engaging in public relations". Rather than provide the truth about the situation, the politicians seem to had deluded themselves into thinking that if local morale was altered to believe that they were winning the war, then the war would be won in Vietnam too. They were existing in a "defactualized world". We may recall, in a similar manner, the notorious Auckland blackouts, beautifully illustrated in Paul Fenwick's "An Illustrated History of Failure". The real problem was the electricity grid was carrying 150 MW of load on four main cables that could manage 110 MW. Network engineers had been aware of the problem for some time and even in the 1980s recommendations were made to make contingent upgrades. But management decided against informing the public of the need to engage in load reduction as it was deemed that this would cause bad publicity. So then a cable failed, increasing the load to 150MW on 85MW; then another to 150MW on 65MW and still nothing was done. Not surprisingly all cables eventually failed and when confronted with the reality of the situation, the electricity company's official response - contrary to the truth which they knew - was that El Nino was to blame. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Lev Lafayette wrote:
On Mon, June 30, 2014 12:46 pm, Russell Coker wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:00:07 Carl Turney wrote: Getting a little tangential to the subject heading,
Well I would just say digressing, (to I am also prone) ; but we all have different attitudes to geometry; seem to remember some 'curious ' soul; who found an image of a tangent to a circle, absolutely hilarious !
.................snip the politicians seem to had deluded themselves into thinking that if local morale was altered to believe that they were winning the war, then the war would be won in Vietnam too. They were existing in a "defactualized world".
For some reason we don't seem to recognise that 'lies' as intentional untruths; are really quite a small subset of the untruths, that humans regularly utter. For some reason lying is considered extremely evil; whilst unknowingly telling untruths merely unfortunate; even though it is often far from clear ,which is the case ! Obviously sometimes we can be sure our politicians know they are telling lies; but an assumption that they " are existing in a defactualized world" seems fairly safe, and those not post-modern; simply deluded ? regards Rohan McLeod
On Mon, June 30, 2014 4:43 pm, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Obviously sometimes we can be sure our politicians know they are telling lies; but an assumption that they " are existing in a defactualized world" seems fairly safe, and those not post-modern; simply deluded ?
In this particular case they were lying AND deluded. They knew what the facts were but deliberately chose not to relay them, and they were deluded enough to think that this would make a difference on the ground. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Russell Coker wrote:
Generally courses don't teach about their failings. I've never heard of a CS course teaching about how bad computer projects made things worse than the manual systems they replaced.
The Therac-25 replaced hardware interlocks with software ones. It's a standard case study in CS. Plus all the shitty software that the uni forces you to use, like blackboard and echo360 -- those do an EXCELLENT job of convincing you that software makes the world worse :-P
Hi All, To paraphrase the original question... "Why is there STILL a protest over the East West Link?" Maybe it's the same psychological and sociological factors that have some modern-day folk from America's Deep South waving rebel flags and saying "the South shall rise again" -- 150 years later. Some people just don't know when to give up and move onto battles they CAN win. Carl Bayswater p.s. 7 billion humans and growing. =That's= the common and underlying cause of all the many & varied human-created environmental over-impacts. I just love seeing protesters with a few babies screaming that the cities shouldn't get bigger, or land shouldn't get cleared for farming. "But who will take care of us when we're older?" The population is doubling every 70 years. Duh!
On Fri, July 4, 2014 1:34 pm, Carl Turney wrote:
Hi All,
To paraphrase the original question...
"Why is there STILL a protest over the East West Link?"
Because it's a campaign that can be won. Because it's a process that lacks transparency. Because it's not a good solution to Melbourne's congestion issues. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 12:34:13 Carl Turney wrote:
To paraphrase the original question...
"Why is there STILL a protest over the East West Link?"
To paraphrase the original question "why are you STILL asking about this when it's been explained to you already?".
Maybe it's the same psychological and sociological factors that have some modern-day folk from America's Deep South waving rebel flags and saying "the South shall rise again" -- 150 years later.
That's totally different. The neo-confederacy movement is about the exact same things that the original confederacy was about. Oppressing non-white people. Instead of slavery there are non-white people earning lower wages, doing less desirable work, and living in the worst parts of town. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induc... The neo-confederates have been very successful in convincing people that the US civil war wasn't about slavery (the above URL is one of many showing that it was about slavery). http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/04/27/strange-fruit-lynching-in-am... http://asr.sagepub.com/content/70/4/633.abstract
Some people just don't know when to give up and move onto battles they CAN win.
While the electrion of an Afro-American president is a loss to the racist Americans, the leaders of the racist organisations have done well from it. One thing you need to keep in mind is that these people aren't just motivated by money and power. They are motivated by the perceived social status that they get from oppressing other groups. To treat black people as equals is something that they regard as a loss of status. The Tea Party pretty much control the Republican party now and that's largely due to racism, so the extreme right-wing isn't doing too badly.
p.s. 7 billion humans and growing. =That's= the common and underlying cause of all the many & varied human-created environmental over-impacts.
I just love seeing protesters with a few babies screaming that the
Last time I checked with the current level of health care in Australia on average we need 2.1 children per woman to sustain the population level, and the average birth rate was lower than that. But I doubt that you have ever seen a protester with a "few babies".
cities shouldn't get bigger, or land shouldn't get cleared for farming.
I've lived in London, Utrecht, and Amsterdam. Those cities are in many ways better than any Australian city due to the smaller urban areas. When you have multi-story apartment buildings with good public transport you can more easily get to wherever you want to go and less land is used overall. A large part of farmland is wasted. For example growing grain to feed to cattle. If we had better legislation regarding humane treatment of animals and food safety (two issues which are closely related) then meat would be more expensive. Economics would lead to the demand for meat decreasing which would decrease the need for farmland.
"But who will take care of us when we're older?" The population is doubling every 70 years. Duh!
Does anyone even say that in Australia? The way our society works is that old people use their savings and/or pension to pay for themselves. Our culture doesn't demand that people support their old relatives. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
participants (8)
-
Allan Duncan -
Andrew McGlashan -
Brent Wallis -
Carl Turney -
Lev Lafayette -
Rohan McLeod -
Russell Coker -
Trent W. Buck