Just what Melbourne needs... another toll road

balthazarr · 11-10-2008, 10:39 AM

http://www.theage.com.au/national/la...5.html?page=-1

'A NEW tollway proposal in Sir Rod Eddington's transport plan for Melbourne has split the Victorian Labor Party's transport policy committee.

The committee's secretary has resigned in disgust at a decision to endorse all 20 recommendations in Sir Rod's report to the State Government, including a new multibillion-dollar road tunnel linking the city's east and west.'

I'm not really sure whether the tunnel is a good idea, or not. But I do know that yet another toll road is not what Melbourne needs. Look at Eastlink - I don't know the exact traffic projections, but surely the 5 cars that use it is less than what they were hoping for?

Given the division in the committee, it might be a good time to voice your opinion to your local MP.

xurbanx · 11-10-2008, 02:29 PM

Sounds good, will they build this under the Bay now? Aren't two tunnels enough? =/

drew`SEVNT5 · 11-10-2008, 06:17 PM

I think there needs to be 2 more toll rds in Melbourne...

Tunnel from Eastern Fwy to Tulla Fwy.
Freeway/Tunnel from Metro Ring Rd to Eastlink/Eastern Fwy

rodderz · 11-10-2008, 06:23 PM

A freeway linking the Greensborough Bypass to the eastern freeway through Diamond Creek, Eltham etc has been on the cards for over 20 years. They set aside land for it, but some of it a few years back got sold for housing after the green wedge protests.

Last I heard a tunnel was being talked about, but it will cost a huge amount.... a lot more than citylink and eastlink. Plenty of hills and hard rock to go through!

Buzz Box · 11-10-2008, 08:41 PM

I still love that we call it the "ring road" but its not a ring lol

It just annonys me you have to drive through the city for everything and everywhere

bigev · 11-10-2008, 10:47 PM

If you're not happy with a toll road:

A) Don't use it
B) Vote fot the opposition

'Nuff said.

balthazarr · 11-10-2008, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigev

If you're not happy with a toll road:

A) Don't use it
B) Vote fot the opposition

'Nuff said.

Wasn't it the current opposition that gave us Citylink?

As to not using it... it depends what they do to existing roads to 'encourage' motorists onto the toll road.

Nostalgia · 11-10-2008, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigev

If you're not happy with a toll road:

A) Don't use it
B) Vote fot the opposition

'Nuff said.

I refuse to drive on toll roads, maybe i should just vote fot the opposition !

:

ltd · 12-10-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzz Box

I still love that we call it the "ring road" but its not a ring lol

It just annonys me you have to drive through the city for everything and everywhere

It's called a ring road because between its plethora of point to point speed cameras and varying speed zone signs, they surely "ring" you with fines.

omn1potent · 12-10-2008, 11:08 AM

I would gladly have “another toll road”, than the current trend of converting existing roads into bicycle lanes (having you noticed 2/3 lane roads have been converted to 1 lane plus bicycle lanes), creating congestion by stealth, bloody left wing mongrels. What other ways to get rid of the car, now that they are becoming Green?

Wretched · 12-10-2008, 07:05 PM

Toll roads aren't too bad if they're brand new unlike some of city link and priced good.
Eastlink isn't doing too bad, I pass it at least twice a day and there are many cars that use it. Of course they're not going to get the amount of people prior to the tolls.

nuthin' fancy · 18-10-2008, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buzz Box

I still love that we call it the "ring road" but its not a ring lol

It just annonys me you have to drive through the city for everything and everywhere

It's a split ring.

If they build 'em, I'll pay to drive on 'em when I need 'em (which is not every day). If they lose money, the greedy capitalists lose out (boo hoo). If they make money, fine and either way we get the roads far earlier than if we wait for the Government to provide 'em.

What I don't understand is that when a Government carries a sound financial rating ('AAA') and can then borrow money cheaper that a private company, why doesn't the Government borrow money to do it?

Eastlink cost $3b but when it was proposed by the Liberals that it would cost $8b or $10b to buy the owners out of their contract, hasn't the Government just allowed the transfer of $5b - $7b of value (i.e. our money) to the private sector?

Please explain in simple language with images drawn on an etch-a-sketch.

Bobman · 18-10-2008, 09:56 PM

Took 2 years to build East Link, yet they won't finish the Monash-West Gate "additional lane" upgrade until 2010.

Bring on more private road constructions. At least they build it before it's due to be completed and it also means less people will be inclined to use it, which = less congestion (theoretically).

VertexZ · 18-10-2008, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nuthin' fancy

It's a split ring.

If they build 'em, I'll pay to drive on 'em when I need 'em (which is not every day). If they lose money, the greedy capitalists lose out (boo hoo). If they make money, fine and either way we get the roads far earlier than if we wait for the Government to provide 'em.

What I don't understand is that when a Government carries a sound financial rating ('AAA') and can then borrow money cheaper that a private company, why doesn't the Government borrow money to do it?

Eastlink cost $3b but when it was proposed by the Liberals that it would cost $8b or $10b to buy the owners out of their contract, hasn't the Government just allowed the transfer of $5b - $7b of value (i.e. our money) to the private sector?

Please explain in simple language with images drawn on an etch-a-sketch.

Because the costs of servicing the debt is alot!

If you borrow at say 7%, that $210m a year in interest alone, plus the repayment of capital. Not too much of an issue where there is a 1.5bn surplus, but typically surpluses are alot smaller, 2-300m, or are deficit, so from an economic perspective its alot of risk to carry over a long period.

I personally think that if they couldnt afford the whole thing, they should have just linked it up to the Monash and then done the rest at a later date (which would probably be 10-20 years, like the eastern freeway).

Funny that they couldnt afford Eastlink, but they can afford $1bn for the new public transport smartcard, which is a few years late and doesnt even work.

dom_105 · 19-10-2008, 12:03 AM

I'll put up with a toll road if it's the only option, but no tolls on existing roads.

pauljh74 · 19-10-2008, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobman

Took 2 years to build East Link, yet they won't finish the Monash-West Gate "additional lane" upgrade until 2010.

The things that really peeves me is they just finished putting in the wire rope barriers and now after they barely finished that, they're ripping them all out and relocating them. Our taxes at work

Keepleft · 19-10-2008, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauljh74

The things that really peeves me is they just finished putting in the wire rope barriers and now after they barely finished that, they're ripping them all out and relocating them. Our taxes at work

Ahh hey, its GovCo - give em a break:-)

XW_GS · 19-10-2008, 10:32 AM

Why should we the tax payers pay for the Road then pay for it again..
i avoid the tolls where i can.

South Eastern Freeway was fine then they slap gantries on existing bits, ie from Toorak Road to the city. Its not fair.

bob 351 · 19-10-2008, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Wasn't it the current opposition that gave us Citylink?

and buy now i think it would of been paid for with the amount of traffic that use's it i would hope that if was paid for that the goverment would remove the toll and put it on something else later down the track that would be a huge relieve on the general pocket's of the traveling community

balthazarr · 19-10-2008, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob 351

and buy now i think it would of been paid for with the amount of traffic that use's it i would hope that if was paid for that the goverment would remove the toll and put it on something else later down the track that would be a huge relieve on the general pocket's of the traveling community

Ah, but it's run by a private company... so it's not just about being paid for, they need to profit from it.

I actually wouldn't have a problem with the government building a road and then tolling it until it was paid for.

Bobman · 19-10-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XWGS351

Why should we the tax payers pay for the Road then pay for it again..

Well, in the case of East Link - it was funded by the private sector.

Your tax dollars are being wasted on overseas trips, banquet lunches, 5 star hotels, gas-guzzling statesmans, etc.

bob 351 · 20-10-2008, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by balthazarr

Ah, but it's run by a private company... so it's not just about being paid for, they need to profit from it.

I actually wouldn't have a problem with the government building a road and then tolling it until it was paid for.

yes it may be run by a private company but i was under the impression that our road's are funded by the taxpayer's money i.e registrations of cars and liceneces and taxes paid on petrol and so on and so on