Melbourne Publiic Transport Infrastructure

[tigergollywog]

Its o.k encouraging immigration, opening our borders more, and slackening off on visas...but the result is what we have now.

Until the infrastructures are capable of handling a bulging and continually growing population, then you need to limit population growth until the infrastructure catches up.
And its not just transport....the same goes for food, water, electricity, housing, employment, medical care, education, etc, etc, etc.

Extraordinary Livsy. So its the 100K a year wogs who are filling up the trains and eating all our food, filling up our houses and using all our electricity in peak hour, filling the classrooms and taking up all the doctors time (Ever notice how 7/10 the doc who stitches up your kid is indian or chinese Livsy?).

Do the wealthy white south africans with the big gold ring count in your reckoning Livs, or should we give up our seat on the tram for them?

An extrardinary effort at *smile* planning logic AND a white Austraya plug in the one go. GOLD.

 

[Rosy]

Whats your realistic idea then to the situation if you disagree with slowing the population growing?

More interested to know how you think population growth could be limited and whether you think the PPS is contradictory to slowing population growth?

 

[Liverpool]

Extraordinary Livsy. So its the 100K a year wogs who are filling up the trains and eating all our food, filling up our houses and using all our electricity in peak hour, filling the classrooms and taking up all the doctors time (Ever notice how 7/10 the doc who stitches up your kid is indian or chinese Livsy?).

Do the wealthy white south africans with the big gold ring count in your reckoning Livs, or should we give up our seat on the tram for them?

An extrardinary effort at *smile* planning logic AND a white Austraya plug in the one go. GOLD.

So I do not have to re-type or even cut/paste the same, just read my last post that was directed at Knighters as its sufficient enough response for your post as well.

You may not like my idea but it is a logical, realistic, and controllable one.

All I hear from people like you and Knighters are condemnation without offering any realistic offering yourselves or we hear simplistic answers such as "the Government need to spend more" or "the Government need to do something, if not we'll vote them out" :doh

Looking forward to what you and Knighters come up with as a realistic alternative to my "slowing population growth" one ....tipping we'll get :tumbleweed

 

[KnightersRevenge]

So I do not have to re-type or even cut/paste the same, just read my last post that was directed at Knighters as its sufficient enough response for your post as well.

You may not like my idea but it is a logical, realistic, and controllable one.

All I hear from people like you and Knighters are condemnation without offering any realistic offering yourselves or we hear simplistic answers such as "the Government need to spend more" or "the Government need to do something, if not we'll vote them out" :doh

Looking forward to what you and Knighters come up with as a realistic alternative to my "slowing population growth" one ....tipping we'll get :tumbleweed

The reason I said I don't consider it party political is because I have been critical of both sides so I was confused by you bringing it up. I don't accept your logic that it is better to limit immigration than to have governments do their job and deliver infrastructure that meets the needs of the population they already have and are likely to have. That is a free kick to a state administration (conveniently one whose political ideology you support) and handballs it to the federal government (conveniently one you oppose) and attempts to frame it as an "immigration" issue when it is obviously a "failure of infrastructure planning and delivery by successive state governments" issue. The issue being discussed is Infrastructure it even says it in the title of the thread, there is a thread called Overpopulation if you want to discuss that do it over there.

 

[Liverpool]

The reason I said I don't consider it party political is because I have been critical of both sides so I was confused by you bringing it up. I don't accept your logic that it is better to limit immigration than to have governments do their job and deliver infrastructure that meets the needs of the population they already have and are likely to have. That is a free kick to a state administration (conveniently one whose political ideology you support) and handballs it to the federal government (conveniently one you oppose) and attempts to frame it as an "immigration" issue when it is obviously a "failure of infrastructure planning and delivery by successive state governments" issue. The issue being discussed is Infrastructure it even says it in the title of the thread, there is a thread called Overpopulation if you want to discuss that do it over there.

Yes, this is the infrastructure thread and I've put forward a valid and realistic solution to try and help ease the infrastructure problems being discussed here.
If my suggestion crosses with another thread, so be it, but while you may disagree or condemn my opinion, I am seeing a lack of alternatives from yourself regarding the issues of our transport infrastructure and how to ease the growing congestion it is suffering from.

You complain about Governments not taking responsibility and that they should be doing their job to deliver us the infrastructure we need......you will get no argument for me on this. I agree with you.
But complaining about what the Government have done (or haven't done over 30+ years) isn't going to solve anything, is it?

So if our population is growing quicker than our infrastructure is growing, what do you suggest we do about it then???
I'm all ears!

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Yes, this is the infrastructure thread and I've put forward a valid and realistic solution to try and help ease the infrastructure problems being discussed here.
If my suggestion crosses with another thread, so be it, but while you may disagree or condemn my opinion, I am seeing a lack of alternatives from yourself regarding the issues of our transport infrastructure and how to ease the growing congestion it is suffering from.

You complain about Governments not taking responsibility and that they should be doing their job to deliver us the infrastructure we need......you will get no argument for me on this. I agree with you.
But complaining about what the Government have done (or haven't done over 30+ years) isn't going to solve anything, is it?

So if our population is growing quicker than our infrastructure is growing, what do you suggest we do about it then???
I'm all ears!

Get on with it Livers. That is my suggestion. They are failing in their duty, the solution isn't to let them off the hook, it is to force them to admit their failure and push them to correct it. That is democracy in action. Aussies aren't a revolutionary lot IMO. We don't protest much and we get walked on because of it. If you think the best way to get things done is by ignoring the issue then I'm surprised and disappointed Livers. If you had a worker who wasn't pulling his weight would your solution be to ask his colleagues to do his job and continue to let him slack off, or to face the issue head on? That seems to be what you are suggesting here.

 

[Liverpool]

Get on with it Livers. That is my suggestion. They are failing in their duty, the solution isn't to let them off the hook, it is to force them to admit their failure and push them to correct it.

No, you're trying to get the current Government to admit to every previous regimes failure, which isn't going to get us anywhere.

"Get on with it" isn't a plan....we have a State Government who cannot eradicate 30 years of transport infrastructure neglect.

We can't simply turn this around and go from a system that can handle half our current population to being able to handle a forecasted population 20 years into the future.

So what is your realistic plan to do this?
"Get on with it" is so simplified that its not even a proper response, to be honest.

If you think the best way to get things done is by ignoring the issue then I'm surprised and disappointed Livers. If you had a worker who wasn't pulling his weight would your solution be to ask his colleagues to do his job and continue to let him slack off, or to face the issue head on? That seems to be what you are suggesting here.

No, I'm not ignoring the issue at all.
I've been open about a plan to try and give this Government and future Governments time to amend their mistakes.
Its called facing the issue head on and trying to come up with a solution.

If you think any Government is going to ruin the state financially and send us into a massive deficit by trying to catch up on 30 years of transport mistakes during their term, then you are deluded.
That's not ignoring the issue or not admitting to errors....thats being finacially responsible.

I think being financially responsible is only one step though....I think to allow this responsibility to make inroads, we need to look at extra initiatives.
That being "population responsible" as well...so the money we do spend on transport infrastructure is seen to be making a difference to the people we have here.

At the moment, population growth is outgrowing the inroads we are making on transport infrastructure, meaning we are falling behind instead of making up ground.

 

[tigergollywog]

...thats being finacially responsible.

we need to look at extra initiatives.
That being "population responsible" as well...so the money we do spend on transport infrastructure is seen to be making a difference to the people we have here.

:rofl

are you real Livsy? population responsible? Define? I reckon it wouldnt take much needling for you to blurt out "poor black people need not apply".

Your predictable, even entertaining, in a cruel kind of way, Livs,

 

[tigergollywog]

That being "population responsible" as well...so the money we do spend on transport infrastructure is seen to be making a difference to the people we have here.

Euphemism for "wealthy white people only. poor black people need not apply" :rofl

 

[tigertim]

What poor black people are you referring to?

 

[tigergollywog]

ask Livs. Its the cornerstone of most of his thought.

 

[Liverpool]

:rofl
are you real Livsy? population responsible? Define? I reckon it wouldnt take much needling for you to blurt out "poor black people need not apply".
Your predictable, even entertaining, in a cruel kind of way, Livs,

So Tigergollywog...please don't tell me you're playing the race card now are you? :cutelaugh

However, race has not been mentioned at all in any of my posts regarding this topic, only population responsibility to try and ease congestion and allow Government's (present and future) to make inroads regarding improvements from their investments, instead of being eternally behind the eight-ball.

The race card...the pathetic last resort of the desperate.

 

[tigergollywog]

So Tigergollywog...please don't tell me you're playing the race card now are you? :cutelaugh

However, race has not been mentioned at all in any of my posts regarding this topic, only population responsibility to try and ease congestion and allow Government's (present and future) to make inroads regarding improvements from their investments, instead of being eternally behind the eight-ball.

The race card...the pathetic last resort of the desperate.

*smile*. your turning infrastructure into population control and your idea of population control aint performing street-side vasectomies in Toorak :smash :whistle :shakehead

 

[Liverpool]

*smile*. your turning infrastructure into population control and your idea of population control aint performing street-side vasectomies in Toorak :smash :whistle :shakehead

Slowing down population growth plus still investing in infrastructure would help ease congestion, do you agree? or not?

And what ideas do YOU have that we should consider when dealing with improving transport infrastructure so passengers are comfortable and are serviced to an acceptable level now and into the future?

I'm all ears!

 

[AngryAnt]

To be fair, we don't need to refer to Livers latent racism (if such exists) to discredit his arguments. His arguments discredit themselves.

population growth is outgrowing the inroads... falling behind instead of making up ground.

Personally I think we should start building more inroads on higher ground, and transport woes begone!

 

[tigergollywog]

To be fair, we don't need to refer to Livers latent racism (if such exists) to discredit his arguments. His arguments discredit themselves.

Personally I think we should start building more inroads on higher ground, and transport woes begone!

fair enough antiman, but Livsy was the one who started talking population control on a roads and trains thread :headscratch.

there is more than a touch of the abbotts about him :brickwall

Im off to the racial tolerance thread to talk very fast trains.

 

[Ian4]

my FB update this morning:

Gillard: $3 billion over 10 years for the metro rail tunnel.

Abbott: There will be no commonwealth funds for commuter rail projects if elected prime minister.

 

[Liverpool]

my FB update this morning:

Gillard: $3 billion over 10 years for the metro rail tunnel.

Abbott: There will be no commonwealth funds for commuter rail projects if elected prime minister.

$3-billion over 10 years, eh? :cutelaugh
Well, she won't be around in 10 months and she knows it...she may as well have said $300-billion this year and at least make it sound worthwhile.

fair enough antiman, but Livsy was the one who started talking population control on a roads and trains thread :headscratch.

Its a valid theory that as yet to be bettered even though I asked:

Slowing down population growth plus still investing in infrastructure would help ease congestion, do you agree? or not?
And what ideas do YOU have that we should consider when dealing with improving transport infrastructure so passengers are comfortable and are serviced to an acceptable level now and into the future?

 

[tigergollywog]

Its a valid theory

Ive got a theory that a Bubble-o-Bill is modelled off Karl Marx's face. Thats valid.

 

[tigergollywog]

Its a valid theory

Ive got a theory that a Bubble-o-Bill is modelled off Karl Marx's face. Thats valid.