What infrastructure project would you vote for?

Select to expand quote

Tonz said..

stupid said..

ratz said..

TonyAbbott said..
Nuclear waste dumb that takes overseas waste, we charge massive amounts upfront and massive ongoing fees too.

Enough nuclear power plants with uranium sourced locally providing free power to all homes and Australian owned businesses. Funded by the nuclear waste money.

stop making sense tony....

And then what? Once we all get a healthy green glow and bucket loads of stuff that stays very bad for anything alive for a very long time .we flush it down the toilet and say well that's that then?
It seems short sighted to me. I'm dumb maybe not ???
Seems dumb.

If you had any idea how much and what chemicals are pumped into mines and mine sites you wouldnt blink an eye.
When you have a constant procession of road trains from Adelaide 24/7 carrying chemicals for these mines

Tony Ablett makes sense

So .... because we have something that is happening that is soo bad.we should have more because it was okay then,
it should be ok now! Yes?

Select to expand quote

Pugwash said..

stupid said..

ratz said..

TonyAbbott said..
Nuclear waste dumb that takes overseas waste, we charge massive amounts upfront and massive ongoing fees too.

Enough nuclear power plants with uranium sourced locally providing free power to all homes and Australian owned businesses. Funded by the nuclear waste money.

stop making sense tony....

And then what? Once we all get a healthy green glow and bucket loads of stuff that stays very bad for anything alive for a very long time .we flush it down the toilet and say well that's that then?
It seems short sighted to me. I'm dumb maybe not ???
Seems dumb.

Coz the fuel will be worth big $$ for reprocessing and use in fusion reactors.

Show me how .

I like the idea of burying all the overhead power lines, big cause of fires, when the insulators start arcing over.

Select to expand quote

stupid said..
So we have gone off track .
Inferstroction ( or however it is spelt )
why are we limited to a view of ground level, and its limits?
the money spent to maintain roads is astounding.
the wheel is a now a form of transport that is prone to standing still in large numbers and polluting on mass.
i believe the next leap is being held back because once an individual realises the freedom they have from a vertical take off vehicle they may not won't to pay taxes any more.
.or maybe I am wrong.?
Its just speculation!

Careful you are starting to sound like Macro

Select to expand quote

bazz61 said..
Bulldoze Parliment building Canberra ...
Its not needed , States can run themselves .

on a more serious note , the GREAT Central Highway seal it , for those that don't know it its a graded track that passes from Western QLD , through Alice NT , and arrives at Laverton WA .

No it doesn't, its STARTS at Laverton WA through NT Alice then ends at Winton, Western QLD
But a good idea none the less

Nuclear power stations and desalination plants.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
Bradfield scheme

LOL. It's not surprising a Tony would name a scheme that is scientifically flawed and financially unfeasible.

A think the scheme is "absolute crap".

Anything where a discounted benefit cost analysis showing a benefit cost ratio greater than 1.5 has actually been done (importantly, including a price for carbon at $30 per tonne).

On that basis, this list (mostly roads) would probably change - see:
www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/infrastructure-priority-list

Projects like rail would be more attractive/ sensible with a carbon price.

Take MetroNet to Ellenbrook in Perth, for example. Currently the assessment (www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/projects/metronet-morley-ellenbrook-line-project) states:
''The Morley-Ellenbrook Line would connect Ellenbrook to the Perth CBD through Bayswater Station, linking to the Midland and Forrestfield-Airport lines.
The proponent's estimated benefit-cost ratio (BCR) for the project is 1.1 with a net present value (NPV) of $208 million when using a 7% real discount rate.
The proponent has selected a heavy rail option, although the options assessment process found that a bus rapid transit option could deliver a slightly higher BCR. The proponent's preference for a rail solution is due to cost, scope, user preference and system capacity. In particular, the bus rapid transit option could reach capacity by 2026. Drawing on the evidence provided in the options assessment, Infrastructure Australia considers that a heavy rail solution may be required in the future to support longer term growth within the corridor...
Infrastructure Australia identified several areas in the project's economic analysis which may slightly overstate its benefits, including travel time value parameters not sufficiently supported by local evidence, and a high growth rate for long-term benefits.''

As it stands, with the carbon future excluded, the politics supporting MetroNet are clearly overriding the economics.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

TonyAbbott said..
Bradfield scheme

LOL. It's not surprising a Tony would name a scheme that is scientifically flawed and financially unfeasible.

A think the scheme is "absolute crap".

Would be far cheaper to clone bono and have each bono stand in front of a wind turbine and tell it about what is right, what is proper and what is correct... We could call it the bono infinity energy renewable propgram or BIERP... which is also the sound we could play over the top of any profanities the bonos mutter...

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Hardcarve1 said..
1 Gas fired power stations, cheapest power we can do and integrate solar and wind into the system.
2 Scrap the NBN and put fiber to ever house and business.
3 Build more dams and whatever other water storage or water catchment systems are viable.
4 Hi speed rail between east coast majors. Trains can run to the second and are not weather dependent and will open up corridors of development between the cities.

Yep. But we should ensure all those natural gas plants can go 100% hydrogen in the future, powered from hydrogen produced from renewable energy systems integrated into the grid. Nationalise the energy grid again and shut down those coal plants as the new gas plants come online.

We don't need to scrap the NBN, just pull out those ghastly nodes with a billion dollars of copper that idiot Abbott put in and run fibre to the premises.

Agree we need more dams, but only if they actually catch water!

I think high speed rail is a great idea but the airline industry won't have a bar of it and that's the roadblock.

I think high speed rail would actually be better targetted towards greenfields sites. Why build all that infrastructure from Sydney to Melbourne when planes do a good job of it?

Why not create a satellite city out of Melbourne, along the path to Sydney, but run the link just from Melb to there? That way people can populate that area, but still commute to Melb if they need to for work. A 30min commute time could put you out 100Kms, or maybe 150Kms at 45mins?

Do the same for Sydney over the great dividing range, and push some of the growth out that way?

Maybe later, you could link them up, but in the short term there is no demand for such a link between Sydney and Melbourne, so why not leave that to planes?

I think the only value in any of these type of links are if the land is cheap at the destination, and the land on the corridor is also cheap enough.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..I think high speed rail would actually be better targetted towards greenfields sites. Why build all that infrastructure from Sydney to Melbourne when planes do a good job of it? Why not create a satellite city out of Melbourne, along the path to Sydney, but run the link just from Melb to there?

holy guacamole said..

Hardcarve1 said..
1 Gas fired power stations, cheapest power we can do and integrate solar and wind into the system.
2 Scrap the NBN and put fiber to ever house and business.
3 Build more dams and whatever other water storage or water catchment systems are viable.
4 Hi speed rail between east coast majors. Trains can run to the second and are not weather dependent and will open up corridors of development between the cities.

Yep. But we should ensure all those natural gas plants can go 100% hydrogen in the future, powered from hydrogen produced from renewable energy systems integrated into the grid. Nationalise the energy grid again and shut down those coal plants as the new gas plants come online.

We don't need to scrap the NBN, just pull out those ghastly nodes with a billion dollars of copper that idiot Abbott put in and run fibre to the premises.

Agree we need more dams, but only if they actually catch water!

I think high speed rail is a great idea but the airline industry won't have a bar of it and that's the roadblock.

I agree. Planes do a good job of it but at what cost to the consumer? Japan and France does a pretty good job of rail travel too.

I thought a large part of the feasibility of high speed rail is connecting regional cities better to the majors and possibly creating entirely new regional cities, including Canberra, Wagga, Albury, Wangaratta etc.

Air travel doesn't do any of that and I suspect the airlines will do anything to protect one of the most lucrative domestic routes in the world.

Select to expand quote

Pugwash said something..

Bing......got trolled again by the red one. He must have notifications set up with active alerts or is hitting refresh every five seconds.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

holy guacamole said..

Hardcarve1 said..
1 Gas fired power stations, cheapest power we can do and integrate solar and wind into the system.
2 Scrap the NBN and put fiber to ever house and business.
3 Build more dams and whatever other water storage or water catchment systems are viable.
4 Hi speed rail between east coast majors. Trains can run to the second and are not weather dependent and will open up corridors of development between the cities.

Yep. But we should ensure all those natural gas plants can go 100% hydrogen in the future, powered from hydrogen produced from renewable energy systems integrated into the grid. Nationalise the energy grid again and shut down those coal plants as the new gas plants come online.

We don't need to scrap the NBN, just pull out those ghastly nodes with a billion dollars of copper that idiot Abbott put in and run fibre to the premises.

Agree we need more dams, but only if they actually catch water!

I think high speed rail is a great idea but the airline industry won't have a bar of it and that's the roadblock.

I think high speed rail would actually be better targetted towards greenfields sites. Why build all that infrastructure from Sydney to Melbourne when planes do a good job of it?

Why not create a satellite city out of Melbourne, along the path to Sydney, but run the link just from Melb to there? That way people can populate that area, but still commute to Melb if they need to for work. A 30min commute time could put you out 100Kms, or maybe 150Kms at 45mins?

Do the same for Sydney over the great dividing range, and push some of the growth out that way?

Maybe later, you could link them up, but in the short term there is no demand for such a link between Sydney and Melbourne, so why not leave that to planes?

I think the only value in any of these type of links are if the land is cheap at the destination, and the land on the corridor is also cheap enough.

That doesn't solve the commuting time problem for anybody but a small group of people who happen to work close to the terminal in the city. How many trains are you going to run along this new expensive railway? Current frequency from Sydney to Wollongong is hourly. 8 car rains carry 2000 pax. Some passengers get on/off at intermediate stops, so say 1500 commuters from Woll. and further south are commuting. Maybe 3000 if you say some are early or late to their offices.
You can't run a fast train through the bends and tunnels along that line, so you have to build a new one. Close to the city the track gets congested, so the trains run at about bicycle speed during peak periods. Where are you going to build the new tracks to avoid that?
It all costs a lot of money and subsidises a small number of people who could, in many cases, being office workers, do much of their job from home.

Select to expand quote

Pugwash said..

holy guacamole said..

Pugwash said something..

Bing......got trolled again by the red one. He must have notifications set up with active alerts or is hitting refresh every five seconds.

Errr, OK... you do realise you made this post 2 minutes after mine... I understand 2 minutes can seem like a really long wait when you're frothin on punchin out a post... but, alas, it's just 2 minutes...

I wish the gods would let you back in the other side, bro... we miss you...

I dont understand. You mentioned this Bono person and HG replies... must have misread it or something?

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

FormulaNova said..

holy guacamole said..

Hardcarve1 said..
1 Gas fired power stations, cheapest power we can do and integrate solar and wind into the system.
2 Scrap the NBN and put fiber to ever house and business.
3 Build more dams and whatever other water storage or water catchment systems are viable.
4 Hi speed rail between east coast majors. Trains can run to the second and are not weather dependent and will open up corridors of development between the cities.

Yep. But we should ensure all those natural gas plants can go 100% hydrogen in the future, powered from hydrogen produced from renewable energy systems integrated into the grid. Nationalise the energy grid again and shut down those coal plants as the new gas plants come online.

We don't need to scrap the NBN, just pull out those ghastly nodes with a billion dollars of copper that idiot Abbott put in and run fibre to the premises.

Agree we need more dams, but only if they actually catch water!

I think high speed rail is a great idea but the airline industry won't have a bar of it and that's the roadblock.

I think high speed rail would actually be better targetted towards greenfields sites. Why build all that infrastructure from Sydney to Melbourne when planes do a good job of it?

Why not create a satellite city out of Melbourne, along the path to Sydney, but run the link just from Melb to there? That way people can populate that area, but still commute to Melb if they need to for work. A 30min commute time could put you out 100Kms, or maybe 150Kms at 45mins?

Do the same for Sydney over the great dividing range, and push some of the growth out that way?

Maybe later, you could link them up, but in the short term there is no demand for such a link between Sydney and Melbourne, so why not leave that to planes?

I think the only value in any of these type of links are if the land is cheap at the destination, and the land on the corridor is also cheap enough.

That doesn't solve the commuting time problem for anybody but a small group of people who happen to work close to the terminal in the city. How many trains are you going to run along this new expensive railway? Current frequency from Sydney to Wollongong is hourly. 8 car rains carry 2000 pax. Some passengers get on/off at intermediate stops, so say 1500 commuters from Woll. and further south are commuting. Maybe 3000 if you say some are early or late to their offices.
You can't run a fast train through the bends and tunnels along that line, so you have to build a new one. Close to the city the track gets congested, so the trains run at about bicycle speed during peak periods. Where are you going to build the new tracks to avoid that?
It all costs a lot of money and subsidises a small number of people who could, in many cases, being office workers, do much of their job from home.

No, I envisage something that is point to point only. People always want to add stops, which then makes it a fast slow train. I think it should be from a central hub and then to another central hub. Unlike Sydney where they want to stop at interim stations.

Wollongong is too close to justify this, and what do you get? Just the same people that are already commuting get a quicker ride. I am suggesting that you put it where there is currently no-one.

The idea is that it is for creating a new city at some point, but allowing some jobs to be done in the major city.

Yes, I agree with you with a lot of points. It doesn't really achieve much, which is why it has been dragged out and ignored for a long time.

I have only caught a fast train once, and that was from Madrid to some city to the south. It was pretty impressive though in that it got up to speed quickly and was very comfortable. The city at the end of it was a small town really, just for tourism, but it is somehow justified. Maybe it was easier in Madrid to get the rail line access?

They use fast trains to get to enough places around the country, and I wonder if its justified by the cost or if it loses money? I certainly enjoyed it and would happily travel that way again.