Friday, July 11, 2008

Eddington Report Online Forum - Roads

Here's a transcript of the entire forum.


It is estimated that road congestion costs Victoria up to $2.6 billion each year. This figure could double or triple within the next 10 – 15 years if congestion isn’t addressed.

Sir Rod Eddington has recommended a new road transport link, from the west to the east of Melbourne, which he says could provide a long-term alternative to the West Gate Bridge. He has recommended staged construction the 18 kilometre cross city connection.

141 Responses to “Roads”

  1. Jane Good responded:

    The fourth recommendation of the Eddington Report which is the East West Road Tunnel proposes the need to use the public open space of JJ Holland Parkland which is owned by the City of Melbourne as a staging construction points for the East West Tunnel.Where does the Victorian Government plan to relocate the local Kensington Flemington Junior Sports Club Inc (“KFJSC”)?
    Given in the report Community Report Services Committee dated 13 May 2008 – entitled “Sustainable use of Council’s sports grounds” which concludes:
    1.1. Melbourne City Council (“MCC”) does not have any alternatives for the local KFJSC to relocated from JJ Holland Park.
    1.2. MCC does not have the carrying capacity with its sports fields to relocate any of the clubs currently located at Holland Park (without inflicting the same situation on other clubs).
    1.3. MCC does not have any room to move regardless of any improvements in the conditions of the MCC grounds due to drought relief, ie. The current usage is modified to take the drought into account.
    1.4. Improvements in the MCC would only allow clubs to expand their training regimes. In addition, the councils which are adjacent to MCC do not have any capacity which could accommodate KFJSC.
    1.5. Given the growth this year, particularly in junior sport within the MCC municipality (which is to be encouraged) and the expected ongoing growth.
    1.6. In fact, the MCC’s biggest concern is accommodating this growth within the existing MCC assets.
    1.7. MCC received applications from 43 organisations for the 2008 winter season, including community sports clubs and associations, school and state sporting bodies. This includes seven soccer clubs who have not previously been tenants of City of Melbourne facilities.
    1.8. Additionally, the estimated number of weekly participants has risen from approximately 5,000 in winter 2007 to over 7,000 in winter 2008. Due to the limited number and condition of current sports grounds, councils are now at almost 100% capacity in relation to both competition and training.
    1.9. MCC’s historical priority has been to provide appropriate competition venues and where possible supplementary training opportunities for tenant clubs. Due to the current standard of sports grounds significant restrictions have been placed on clubs’ activities including:
    1.9.1. no pre-season training activities provided to tenant clubs on formal sports grounds;
    1.9.2. regular season training has been delayed to at least the week after a club’s first scheduled match, and in some instances to later in the season;
    1.9.3. when training has commenced significant time restrictions are being placed on clubs. Most clubs are receiving less than 50% of their requested training requirements and some clubs are receiving 25% or less;
    1.9.4. no casual sport applications are currently being accepted;
    1.9.5. Council currently has only seven sports fields (of a total of 42) available for training activities during the winter season catering for 43 sports clubs and over 7,000 weekly participants;
    1.9.6. MCC’s active Melbourne strategy recognises that community level sport plays an integral role in encouraging participation and promoting health and wellbeing within the community;
    1.9.7. Recreation needs assessments in Carlton, North Melbourne and East Melbourne have identified community sport as an important component of local recreation requirements ;

  2. NaiF responded:

    With so many disused and industrial sites on the opposite side of the railway to Holland Park the government is putting itself in a very precarious position by trying to use public land for such a project!

    The road tunnel itself will be a moot point I believe as the ROI data on such a project is ridiculously low. It will COST Victorians millions of dollars not only in tolls but in paying back private investors as they fail to make money on such a poorly researched proposal.

  3. NaiF responded:

    With the cost of petrol tipped to reach $8 a lite by 2018 there will be much more reliance on alternative forms of transport - massive road infrastructure projects are so 20th century thinking. The government needs to move with the times and have a serious FUTURE vision for the state if it wants to be taken seriously.

  4. millfordj responded:

    A road tunnel for private cars in place of train tracks for public transpor, at the expense of a couple of parks in an urban area, no thanks.

  5. robhudson responded:

    If Holland Park was used as a construction point then discussions would need to be held with the Melbourne City Council and local community groups on an appropriate relocation of the Flemington Junior Sports Club. Holland Park would be completely reinstated after construction was completed.

  6. Cory responded:

    If you build roads, they will fill. That has been evidenced time, and time again in Melbourne, and in many other cities.

    The ONLY way to reduce traffic is to provide people with a viable alternative. And that’s public transport…. and, long-term, reducing the amount of commuting required, by more (affordable) high density accommodation near the city, and more job opportunities in suburban areas. This requires a drastic change in thinking from the current Government, and for them to take up more of the recommendations from the 2020 report. (Which, incidentally, was measured on Triple Bottom Line, not just finances).

    But, the first and most obvious reason not to build the East-West Link car tunnel is the return on investment. Of all the recommendations from the Eddington Report, it is the one that has the lowest need, and will provide the lowest return, and yet, costs the most (financially, environmentally and socially). And, seeing how in today’s papers, the CSIRO think that petrol will reach $8 a litre just in time for the tunnel’s opening, I know where I’d like $8B better spent…. Public Transport.

  7. Victoria responded:

    Environment Victoria strongly opposes this proposal. Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions from transport have increased by 27% since 1990. Considering the government’s own commitment to reduce emissions, this proposal is at odds with current government policy. The increase in car travel that will be induced by this road will lead to an increase in emissions that is totally incongruous with government objectives.

    Further, it is well understood that more roads lead to more cars, and more cars to more congestion. This report was commissioned with a key focus to cut congestion, yet never before has building a new road in Melbourne reduced congestion.

    This proposal comes at a time when petrol prices are at an all time high, with no prospect of a significant or long term reduction. In the 3 months since the report was released oil has increased by US$26 per barrel and in Melbourne petrol has increased by 27cents per litre. This almost 20% rise in 3 months is almost as much as that noted in the report over the preceding 3 years. Low income families in areas with poor public transport are suffering significant financial stress from their increased petrol costs. To put $9 billion into a new road tunnel that will lead to more traffic and increased greenhouse gas emissions would be scandalous. Such money should be used to provide adequate public transport alternatives for all Melbournians.

  8. NaiF responded:

    I think the government should also take note that the formerly safe seat of Melbourne is now a Labour/Greens marginal electorate - this represents a HUGE shift in the thinking and voting behaviour of the constituents of this area. The clear message to the government is that this city desperately wants strongly believes in sustainability - this means clean modes of transpot, reduction in greenhouse gasses and environmentally responsible projects. More road infrastructure DOES NOT meet these criteria.

  9. AliceG responded:

    Could the government please explain in detail how the East West Road Tunnel plan meets with the government policy of reducing carbon emissions? (The overwhelming evidence is that increasing the number of roads increases the number of cars on the road.)

    Given that the Government of Victoria has a policy to reduce carbon emissions could the government also explain how this great sum of money would not be better spent on increasing public transport frequency and efficiency.

  10. NaiF responded:

    Rob, MCC has already put forward their complete OPPOSITION to this project - not to mention that they will not allow the use of parkland for any of these. The local community groups also oppose this project.

  11. geoff4real responded:

    The City of Melbourne has confirmed that they have no available sporting ovals to support the relocation for the 5-8 years of relocation.This means that virtually a whole generation of children will miss out on sporting activities

  12. christinefoster responded:

    Living in the South East, I am looking at any options that will make it easier for my husband to travel to work as a driver from Dandenong to Melton. Currently he has to either go along on the Monash or now that Eastlink is open (thank heavens for that) along the eastern. He tells me that the longest time it takes is from Hoddle Street to the Tulla.

  13. Jane Good responded:

    Dear Rob

    With respect my question was clear and to the point what are the alternatives given Melbourne City Council has no alternatives.I have provided you with detailed statistics from the MCC itself.The Eddington report recommends that JJ Holland Park be used for 5 to 8 years as a staging/construction site and for the proposal that the East West road tunnel’s western portal would be at Holland Park.The Engineering Design and Costing Report for the East West Needs Study (p.75, Section 4.8.4 South Kensington to Maribyrnong River) states “In the concept design, it has been assumed that generally this section would be in an open cutting with vertical retained sides as this provides an opportunity for the tunnel to daylight and would enhance the driver experience”.So there will not even be reinstatement .My question must be answered in clear and precise terms.What alternatives?

  14. NaiF responded:

    Not to mention that KCCC (Kensington Community Childcare Cooperative) is situated within the park.

    o It would be impossible to continue operating a childcare centre adjacent to a major construction site, which will propagate air pollution from the disturbance of asbestos contaminated soil and dust, noise pollution, and traffic woes.
    o Noise and air pollution from a tunnel portal in or near JJ Holland Park would also spell an end to KCCC’s operation.
    o The population in Kensington has significantly risen and is set to increase dramatically as the current Kensington baby boom continues. This will place even greater demand on the childcare centre in future years.
    o KCCC is the major childcare centre in Kensington and currently has services over 120 families with a waiting list of over 450 children.
    o Recognising the lack of childcare facilities in this growing suburb, Melbourne City Council has already begun expansion works on the centre to increase it from a 60 place centre to a 100 place centre, which will service approximately 200 families. The expansion is due for completion in October 2008.

  15. dettershank responded:

    The current proposals for a cross city tunnel and a major traffic interchange on Dynon Road has the potential to profoundly adversely effect Kensington and West Melbourne residents.

    Minister Pallas has advised that in terms of process there is to be an issues paper produced in August and a “business and community round table” thereafter, however the community will not see a preferred government proposal until there is a formal announcement in November/December.

    There is no proposal for this preferred option to be subject to consultation.

    Why won’t the government allow a preferred option to be the subject of public consultation and feedback?

    Why won’t you

  16. NaiF responded:

    So, hundreds of children should forego their park for 10 years to enable trucks to drive across the city more quickly? With the cost of petrol increasing not only will there be fewer cars on the road for them to worry about, trucks will probably no longer be a viable mode of goods distribution.

  17. NaiF responded:

    Rob, what do you propose with a newly expanded childcare centre next to a construction zone with contaminated soil? Where would these 200 children go? This is the ONLY childcare centre of any decent size in Kensington.

  18. christinefoster responded:

    I am sorry, but as a working mum, and with my husband also working as a driver, I think we need to consider all options. I don’t want to see your kids not having a park, but I also want my kids to see their dad.

  19. Jane Good responded:

    In fact it is thousands of children and their families.
    The following clubs are based at the Pavilion at JJ Holland Park: Level of Use Membership
    Flemington Junior Football Club Community 200
    Kensington Junior Cricket Club Community 120
    Flemington Colts Cricket Club Community 52
    Kensington City Soccer Club Community 130
    AFL Victoria Girls competition (Junior) Community 450
    North Melbourne Cricket Club District 52
    Indonesian Students Soccer Association Community 155
    There is the enormous park use across the winter sports season by the football clubs which contribute over 1800 individual visitations by the sporting clubs. In summer there are around 600 individual visitations by sporting clubs.
    These figures do not take into account opposition teams which would add on up to 200-300 individuals using the park each week or parents, siblings, partners and friends who come to matches and training each week. These visitations could see the visitations by individuals associated with sport being played in the park by another 25-30%.

  20. millfordj responded:

    The report was junk. It was a case of here is the answer so go and tell us this is the solution.

    Where is the comprehensive transport plan for Melbourne?

  21. NaiF responded:

    There are also thousands of working families in the inner city who do not have access to any amenities - the removal of a park, childcare centre and recreation facilities will affect many more families than those who need to drive across the city. As stated previously, trucks will probably be a non-viable form of goods distribution in the future, maybe truck drivers should be thinking ahead and retraining as train drivers?

  22. tonycanavan responded:

    @Jane Good
    Your interpretation of the Engineering report is incorrect. JJ Holland Park would be fully reinstated after construction. There will NOT be a tunnel portal in the park, nor an open slot for traffic. This would occur further south-west in the port area.
    As for the 5 to 8 year occupation, that would not be the way it would happen. A cut and cover tunnelling operation and park restoratiion should be achievable within 2 years. During this time, alternative facilities would need to be provided. Rob Hudson has already commented on that. Construction would not impact on the community activity centre.

  23. millfordj responded:

    great so we get to drive the port to see that do we.

  24. Jane Good responded:

    Dear Christine

    I am a working mum too .But on Sunday morning the coach of the under 12s Altona North football team told me that he was a truck driver but he did not want to drive through JJ Holland Park.I thought that was an interesting perspective.

  25. Lohardjo responded:

    In my opinion, there is a need to solve the congestion problem in Melbourne. Since the petrol price keep going up and this will have a great impact in Victoria economy. People will spend more on fuel rather than grocery. Fixing a public transport system is just a temporary solution and a lot of people still need another alternative to travel for work or their own needs such as car. Government proposal to built a new road infrastructures to solve the congestion problem is a good idea and I think its a long term solution for Victorian. We dont want to end up like other countries who has congestion problems and then after that they tried to find the solutions to solve it. It will be too late and has wasted so much money for the government and people who live there. I think the government has think outside the square in tackling this problem. I understand lots of money will be spend on building new roads but we have to see the long term benefits of that and I am sure the money that we spend are not much compare to benefit that we will receive in the future. Try to imagine if we don’t built the west gate bridge decades ago you can see how much the impact to us and victorian economy and why are we still question things that we already can see the benefit in the future.

  26. peterc150 responded:

    The Eddington report assumed that road traffic would increase, therefore we need more road tunnels. However, this is circular logic - as more road tunnels and freeways do generate more traffic. Just look at Citylink - which was supposed to “solve Melbourne’s transport problems” - and has done the opposite.

    It is estimated that road congestion costs Victoria up to $2.6 billion each year. This figure could double or triple within the next 10 – 15 years if congestion isn’t addressed.

    Also, Eddington did not consider the greenhouse gas emissions associated with transport modes. Cars generate about 8 times the emissions per passenger kilometer compared to trains. Just saying that “we may transition to hybrid cars” is really not good enough.

    We need to aim for shifting up to 50% of routine car trips to public transport (rail is best) or cycling (or both).

    Over 50 major road projects have been built over the last 5 decades, but no signficant new train line has been built in Melbourne since the Glen Waverley line in 1930.

    It is time for this imbalance to be fixed.

    And congestion from car trips affects freight and goods movement. Shifting both to rail addresses this, and reduces carbon emissions.

  27. Jane Good responded:

    Dear Tony

    Thank you for the clarification.I ask the question again what are the alternatives?

  28. geoff4real responded:

    Tony Wasn’t JJ holland Park to be used as a construction site? If so would construction only last for two years?

  29. AliceG responded:

    @ tonycanavan

    Please explain the alternative arrangements for the park in detail. The Melbourne City Council’s response to sporting clubs has been that there is no alternative site available.

  30. Alex_H responded:

    Any new state roads should be financied purely by private investors. Let drivers pay for the roads through tolls. Thus the cost of road use will properly reflect the costs construction and environmental impact.

    When the majority of state roads are toll roads, you will find that public transport becomes more attractive to communtors. I am not talking about a punative tax, I am asking for road use to reflect its cost.

    Note that by making state roads privately operated, the maintainence costs to the government will be lessened. Thus the government will be able to rely less on its nefarious revenue raising methods that include gambling taxes and business destroying land-taxes.

  31. peterc150 responded:

    The other problem with roads is that they are very prone to disturbance. One accident creats more as people rubber neck, then the route is closed or halted for hourts. This has been a daily occurrence in Los Angeles for decades, and is now in Melbourne. Listen the radio in the morning - ‘accident on the Eastern at Bulleen Rd and cars banked back to Springvale’ etc etc.

    Trains and trains don’t suffer nearly the same degree of regular disruptions

  32. jmq responded:

    It concerns me that out of all the recommendations made in the Eddington Report (including the rail tunnel) the only one that will be adopted by the Brumby Government will be the road tunnel. I have a friend a young first homebuyer who will lilkely lose her home (near the intersection of Geelong/ Sunshine Roads)- for a road that by the time it is built will cause more economic harship than it solves. Without diversion of funds into public transport that is conveinient and affordable Melbourne will only go backwards. I live in West Footscray and if I want to work in the Eastern Suburbs - (anywhere along the eastern freeway corridor) I have no choice but to drive - build public transport FIRST- give people the option and then if its not fixed and we have the technology to overcome the issue of $8 pertol we can build a road later. If there was a train running the length of the proposed rail tunnel I would be using it.

    It saddens me that we have a great opportunity to keep Melbourne liveable but that the government has already made up its mind we are getting a road tunnel whether we want it or not.

  33. Cory responded:

    Tony Canavan - Read Page 75 of the Engineering Report. It suggests “In the concept design, it has been assumed that generally this section would be an open cutting with vertical retained sides as this provides an opportunity for the tunnel to daylight and would enhance the driver experience”.

    How should we interpret that, exactly?

  34. guffers61 responded:

    Eastlink cost $65,000,000 per km to build. This proposal works out at almost $500,000,000 per km to build and could be more than that with the enormous increases in cost of diesel. $8,000,000,000 and probably closer to $10,000,000,000 (it’s important to put in the zeros so that the cost of this is not lost in words like billions) to build a road which will end up being as congested as every other Freeway in Melbourne. The link made at the top of the page between the problem “congestion” and the solution- “freeways” is fundamentally wrong. Am I the only person to think this is absolute madness for this to be even considered?

  35. Andrew responded:

    I am a member of a group representing residents who are affected by the 50 year old Punt Road Public Acquisition Overlay. These residents include people within the 20m wide overlay on the eastern side of Punt Rd from the Yarra to St Kilda junction, as well as those directly behind this overlay and on the other side of Punt Rd.

    We have tried unsuccessfully to speak to the State Government regarding its plans for Punt Rd, particularly in the light of the recent Eddington Report and the news that a new transport blueprint is due to come out in November.
    Can the govt shed any light on whether the widening of Punt Road will form part of the discussion? Is the Govt in favour of the demolition of hundreds of homes in order to put more cars on the road?

  36. tonycanavan responded:

    Overall construction of the full tunnel project would certainly take longer than two years. My point is that the impact on JJ Holland Park should be able to be kept to 2 years.

  37. dettershank responded:


    I am also confused.

    When we met with you and the engineer, we were told that the total cosntruction and remediation period for Holland park would be 5 to 8 years.

    How this changed?

  38. NaiF responded:

    Tony, what about the Childcare Centre - how can it operate next to an open slot cutting? We are talking about contaminated soil here! Where would the 200 children go? What about the working families who rely on this centre?

    Also the park is not only used by spoting clubs but the Kensington Primary School and the Holary Rosary Primary school - these primary schools have NO sporting grounds and are also trying to cope with a boom of children in the area. They also use the park for their outdoor physical education. Tony, where will they go?

  39. Meg responded:

    Has anyone looked at the “community impact” to turning the inner west into a thorougfare for road traffic?
    By proposing a road tunnel exit point in Footscray/West Footscray the arterial roads such as Geelong Road will turn into car parks as traffic try to access the tunnel entrance.
    This is not just a parkland issues but a people issue - 150,000 cars per day potentially using the road tunnel - concerns around air pollution, noise pollution, and the division of communities such as Footscray and West Footscray.

    Why is there not a voice for Footscray and West Footscray being heard.

    Why not complete the City Ring Road Project, why not improve the access points between the Western Ring Road and existing freeways in the “outer suburbs”? Why develop a “new” major road via Sunshine Rd through the inner west out to the Western Ring Rd.
    Don’t destroy the inner west with concrete and pollution?

  40. millfordj responded:

    we know that roads are not the solution to congestion. American and European cities will tell us that. roads and cars create the congestion, pollution, noise. is there a reason we want to add to it without analysis of alternatives?

  41. Cory responded:

    Lohardjo - Can you explain how funding Public Transport infrastructure, which moves large masses of people, is a more short-term solution than building another road, which allows (largely) single occupant vehicles to quickly choke the freeway?

    The Eastern Freeway used to flow. As did the SouthEastern. As did the Tullarmarine. None of them do, any more.

    And yet, the trains keep moving. (Overcrowded, but they keep moving people - the overcrowding is why it needs funding).

  42. NaiF responded:

    Tony - 2 years in the life of a child is a VERY long time! Shall we be compensated for our loss of amenity?

    In light of the obesity crisis as identified by the government, any plan to reduce space available for sporting activities, especially those facilities utilised by children and adolescents is just adding to this crisis and makes the government’s response to this crisis appear to be lip service at best.

    The proposed use of parkland (Royal Park, and in particular J.J. Holland Park) for the construction of the tunnel, and the possibility of the destruction of this parkland for open road culverts to “enhance the driver experience” is obscene, and should never have been suggested.

  43. guffers61 responded:

    Tony- have you read the report? Holland Park will be out of action for a period of 5-8 years and possilbly longer. Despite the insulting use of the word temporary- this is a entire childhood for a child who is 5 when works start.

  44. peterc150 responded:

    The other issue is basic mathematics - it is clear that there are too many cars on Melbournes’ freeways and that people are spending hours in slow or halted traffic. Journeys that should take 20 minutes take over an hour.

    By comparison, trains operate much more efficiently and shift a lot more people. Lynne Kosky said in media release this year

    “The Government had just ordered 18 new six-carriage trains that would carry 14,500 more people during peak times — “equivalent to more than 12,000 cars and more than six freeway lanes of capacity”.

    So do we want more six lane freeways, or train lines that are much cheaper and have much less impact on the environment. Train lines increase Melbourne’s liveability, while freeways decrease it.

    More details are here:

  45. tonycanavan responded:

    @Jane Good
    Regarding alternatives for relocation, then I refer you to Rob Hudson’s earlier comment. For example, the construction of temporary facilities nearby should be considered. We need to be creative to ensure community impacts (right along the route) are minimised.

  46. AliceG responded:

    It is disturbing that the responses from Government in this forum have been confined to ‘local’ issues, and not the serious policy and environmental impact issues for the entire state/country/world.

    This is a MAJOR project that has MAJOR implications. By making it an issue about a few parks the Government is reducing the issue to a local one.

    Please respond to earlier questions on carbon emissions policies and the overall government response to public transport needs.

  47. NaiF responded:

    Meg, surely you must have realised by now that the government doesn’t actually care about the Western suburbs! Many residents in the area don’t speak English as a first language and probably don’t fully understand what the impact on them will be. I’m sure the government hasn’t been proactively approached their community groups to provide an explanation either.

  48. Cory responded:

    Meg, you are correct. A quote I’ve taken to heart, of late.

    “The tollways provide the fastest trip between two bottlenecks”.

    Wherever the tunnel does end in the Footscray area, the traffic wil increase markedly. And, seeing how the majority of Eastern Freeway users aren’t headed West, or North on the Tullamarine for that matter, but instead, into the CBD, it means that the roads that lead back to the city will be choked the most. Dynon Rd, Footscray Rd, Lloyd St - Arden St. They’ll all become (more of) a carpark.

  49. robhudson responded:

    In relation to Holland Park it is important to make the point that no decisions have been made, and that before any decision is made to use Holland Park as a construction staging point there would be extensive consultation with the community.

    That is why we are holding this forum , to hear your views and take into account the concerns that you have. I would encourage you to also make a formal submission before they close on 15th. July.

  50. NaiF responded:

    AliceG - absolutely agree! The local issues are important but I would like the Tony to explain how a road tunnel with emission stacks is in line with any of their policies.

    The Government has promised to reduce Greenhouse emissions by 60% by 2030. I think that in the current environmental crises, the last thing any government should be doing is encouraging people to drive more. Indeed, a car-filled tunnel goes against the State Government’s own greenhouse gas and sustainability policies and targets.

  51. NaiF responded:

    Tony, Rob - still no response on the Childcare centre? I’m waiting….

  52. Andrew responded:

    The Govt has had a road widening reservation on Punt Rd for over 50 years! As a resident of Punt Rd I can’t improve my home because Vicroads says it will only compensate to the unimproved value if it compulsorily acquires the propoerty. They won’t action the reservation because to bulldoze hundreds of beautiful homes just to build Hoddle Highway in this day and age would be a travesty. It would cost over $1billion for 2.5km that would become just as congested as before through induced traffic. We ‘re not talking about a road to expanding areas, we’re talking St Kilda to Richmond -there’s no more expansion possible!!

    The bottlenecks like the three intersecting “priority” tramline roads of High st, Commercial Rd and Toorak, Heritage listed Hoddle Bridge, the 40km school zones along virtually the whole stretch of road would make it impossible to cut traffic times. It’s not workable and even the Govt has admitted it but Vicroads won’t let it go, even after 50 years!! PREMIER BRUMBY, LIFT THE RESERVATION NOW AND LET US GET ON WITH OUR LIVES LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IN MELBOURNE!!!

  53. millfordj responded:

    The decision is about do we want to inefficiently move people with cars or do we want to efficiently move people with trains/trains/buses?

  54. NaiF responded:

    Rob, I have made a submission but can you guarantee that it will be read and not just placed on the “No Pile”? I put a lot of time and effort into researching my response. I would like to think that you would give the courtesy of actually reading it with an open mind.

  55. Andrew responded:

    For more info on the Punt Road planning blight, go to

  56. Cory responded:

    Good Point AliceG

    So Tony… how does building another road reduce our carbon footprint?

  57. guffers61 responded:

    Tony- there are no alternatives to Holland Park nearby. Check your Google Map. The authors of the Eddington Report looked at the Google Map and thought it made sense to join the green dots- Royal Park, Debney Park, Holland Park, Newells Paddock and build a freeway. Parks are soft targets. This Government has no right to take away something which has inter generational impact. The Government has a responsibilty to preserve and enhance areas of public parkland. What will Melbourne (renouned for parks and “Garden State”) look like in 20-30 years if we keep using parkland for roads.

  58. dettershank responded:


    Are you really suggesting that this is serious consultation?

    As posted previously, the governement is not proposing to put a preferred option, ie one that specifies an actual route and entry/exit points - before the community until it has made it’s decision. (I quote Tim Pallas with Bronwyn Pike present).

    We might all draw a little comfort if the govenrment was actually committed to a robust consultation process but that is not what we are seeing.

  59. tonycanavan responded:

    To further clarify, under the proposal in the report, there is no impact on JJ Holland Park once construction is complete. All traffic is under the ground - not in the park. There will no need for any truck driver to “drive through the park”.
    The period of time the park is affected DURING construction is a function of the construction methodology used. As I said earlier, it is quite achievable to cut and cover and restore within two years.

  60. robhudson responded:

    Inn relation to the comments about greenhouse gas emissions, it should be noted that the Brumby Government has committed itself to a target of reducing our emissions by 60% by 2050.

    Obviously the Government will be making decisions about transport priorities taking into consideration the need for the transport sector to make its contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a carbon constrained future and making Victoria more environmentally responsible.

  61. AliceG responded:

    If Tony and Rob are not in a position to answer the bigger questions, perhaps it is time to ask our Premier who is hosting this forum to log in and respond. There is still an hour and a half… we are all here and waiting.

  62. Brendan responded:

    By building new roads you not only meet existing demand, but also in fact generate new demand. “Official acknowledgement that freeways do not relieve traffic congestion is found in numerous places. For example, in April 2005 VicRoads told a planning panel examining new road construction in central Geelong that the $400 million Geelong Bypass will not, as popularly supposed, relieve traffic congestion on major roads like Latrobe Terrace. Supporting the proposed removal of a heritage overlay to allow a left turn slip lane to be built, VicRoads submitted that there is likely to be a reduction in traffic volumes of up to 17% in Latrobe Terrace…. immediately on completion of the Geelong Bypass. However, the natural growth of traffic (approx 2% per year), as well as a redistribution of traffic from other north/south routes, is expected to result in traffic volumes…. returning to their pre-Bypass volumes in a relatively short period of time”

  63. guffers61 responded:


    Sounds like you are already working out your process for dealing with “the Holland Park issue”. Will the submissions actually make any difference or is this an exercise in window dressing?

  64. millfordj responded:

    if we have a local park, we don’t need a road and a car because we can walk there! so, leave the park where it is!

  65. robhudson responded:

    dettershank the forum today is part of the 15 week consultation period on the Eddington report and we will continue to take into account the communities views on this and related issues.

  66. Mr Parry responded:

    To enable growth we naturally need more carrying capacity, and that includes more roads, in the right place.

    A report like this can only be valid if it includes consideration of all of Melbourne. Huge plans to move a small amount of people in parts of inner Melbourne via an underground rail system does not address the issues of making life easier for all those mothers who ferry their children around in the outer suburbs, or the commercial driver who is grid locked on major freeway.

    Expressly being ignored is a major solution, designed 50 years ago and still only partly completed, which is the Metro Ring Road.
    How can this be ignored, when it will have one of the greatest benefits to traffic flow and alleviate cross city congestion?

    Tokyo as an example is in the same situation, and they are planning to complete their orbital road asap.

    Perhaps we can use the $8Bn Victorian dollars to kick start an industry to make replacement vehicles to suit contemporary and future needs, and export the technology.

  67. Andrew responded:

    Vicroads for the last few years have used the excuse of the “Smart Bus” initiative to hang onto the reservation. They and the State govt in a meeting involving MP Carlo Carli, the then Secretary for transport stated the road would never be widened for cars and trucks BUT they may want to spend the $1Billion it would take so they could run two extra lanes for a “smart bus”!!!??. A bus runs along Punt Rd currently and statistically is one of the most underutilised services in the whole of Melbourne. It would be cheaper and faster to shuttle commuters from St Kilda junction to Richmond station by helicopter. Or we could hire a fleet of Rolls Royces, that would still be cheaper!!

  68. NaiF responded:

    Rob, still waiting on a response re: the childcare centre… or are children just a hinderance to the grand plans?

  69. Lohardjo responded:

    Cory - I agree with you. The government do have to fix that problem and I am sure they do. However, not all the workplaces are close to public transport and if you have to travel from east to west or vice versa by public transport with the current system (which we have to go through Flinders st) how much time we have to waste. I would think time is more precious which we cannot buy with money. But with spending money we can save our time (practically buying the time from another way). Futhermore, what about the couriers, trucks, etc that carrying most of our needs and income to the state, they can’t use the public transport even they can please tell me how much money they will spend more. This is the need for lots of people and that is why we have to consider every single people and their needs. More and more people will come and leave in Melbourne, like it or not there will be more congestion problems and if we dont act now it will be too late.

  70. millfordj responded:

    do we have a need for an East West link because mothers are ferrying children from the Eastern suburbs to the Western suburbs?

  71. guffers61 responded:


    Have you got access to documentation not otherwise publicly available. 2 years disruption to Holland Park is not mentioned anywhere, if it is what page is it on? Holland Park is clearly designated as a staging post for both options and this takes it out of action for 5-8 years. You have not responded to Page 75 and the obscene “enhanced driver experience” paragraph. It seems you are relying on something not stated and ignoring what is stated in black and white.

  72. effnvic responded:

    Curious - reading the Eddington report, cross-city traffic looks much less significant than anticipated and “Central Melbourne will continue to be Melbourne’s and Victoria’s principal generator of jobs, business and investment growth”

    So people travel to the city not across it and the demand for cross-town traffic is nominal. Especially in contrast to immediate traffic flows within major eastern suburbs such as Dandenong (a job catchment up 75% 2006-11) and Ringwood (up 67%).

    In fact, the Eddington Report goes further to suggest that of the 100% of traffic entering the city from the east, 76% is absorbed into suburbs directly in, north, or south of the city. Not the west.

    Even if East-West transit were of such critical significance (and kilometers of tunnels are being proposed) why wouldn’t you complete the ring road between Donvale and Greensborough?

  73. robert responded:

    To Guffer61.You are not the only person who thinks this is madness.the definition of insanity (in this case east west tunnel)is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

  74. millfordj responded:

    p.s. this road tunnel won’t be $8billion. the Government is unable to complete a project without a blowout - even the ones we want and need.

  75. Meg responded:

    NaiF and Cory thanks for your comments - so it looks like the whole inner west community needs to get behind the poorer suburbs like Footscray and West Footscray to show unity against new road infrastructure :)

  76. Lyn responded:

    Alot of traffic is heading east-west , just go and stand on the cnr of Princess and Rathdowne Sts during peak time.
    There will always people who will drive no matter what the price of fuel. I am for the tunnel, mainly because i want the traffic off our local streets.

  77. gollan responded:

    cathy mum Glen Huntly
    With the CSIRO report on ABC radio this morning stating that petrol could rise to $8 a litre in 10 years the Eddington report’s assumptions that petrol will remain at 2006 levels is unrealistic. To assume that people will want to and be able to afford to drive as such rates is is a shakiy foundation for a new freeway. Better that we improve public transport to provide a realistic alternative for most trips and free up current road space for freight, bikes and walking.

  78. AliceG responded:

    Dear Victorian Politicians

    We do understand that BIG projects look great on a political CV.

    In years to come, BIG projects that involve a major increase in environmental degradation will be regarded as misguided idiocy, and this will reflect badly on you.

    BIG innovative and responsible projects that work well will look a great deal better on your CV. It may seem a harder road (no pun intended) but there are other cities/people/interested citizens doing the hard thinking and research that you could get ideas from.

    Thank you for your time


  79. millfordj responded:

    what was that - a lot? data please. in god we trust, for everyone else, show me the data!

  80. Andrew responded:

    Tony and Rob,

    Can you give all the long suffering residents of Punt Road an undertaking that you will meet with our group to discuss this mess of a planning blight? We met with the Govt and Vicroads a few years ago and were assured this would all be cleared up by 2008. So far absolutlely no response. After 50 years of road reservation, the government has had enough time, we deserve to get our neighbourhood back!! We’ve already been told Punt Rd won’t be widened for cars and trucks so do you expect us to believe we’ll spend $1Billion dollars, destroy hundreds of homes just to get a hundred or so more people on a bus that goes from St Kilda junction to Richmond Station??? Meet with us now to lift this disgraceful scar.

  81. NaiF responded:

    Lyn, unfortunately construction of toll roads does not reduce traffic on local streets! The day that Citylink opened was the day that congestion in Kensington and North Melbourne worsened.

  82. NaiF responded:

    People drive on local streets to avoid tolls - toll roads don’t alleviate local congestion

  83. robhudson responded:

    NaiF the strength of community feeling about the childcare centre has come through clearly in this forum and those views will be fed back into the decision making process.If the government proceeds with the eddington proposals in this area this will require careful consideration.

    However, i am not in a position to say what would happen given that the government hasn’t yet made any decisions on how and in what form it will or will not proceed with the Eddington proposals for the area.

  84. Lyn responded:

    show me the data that there is not alot of traffic that travel east-west

  85. gollan responded:

    Cathy mum Glen Huntly
    I am concerned that the road tunnel assumes there will be not be a price on carbon affecting the rates of driving. It considers only the possibilty of a carbon price of $10 in its most carbon constrained model. Yet the carbon price in Europe is around $45. If the tunnel is built I hope that the Government does not agree to spend tax payers money subsiding it when a carbon tax is likely introduced in 2010. Even with unrealsitic assumptions on carbon and oil prices and reducing greenhouse emissions by encouraging more driving the project fails to provide a positive economic benefit by its own assessment.

  86. millfordj responded:

    there is data in the report. it wasn’t significant in comparison to movement into the centre of town.

  87. AliceG responded:

    Hi Lyn,

    Re the data…

    It is in the Eddington report itself… perhaps someone could bring the page number up for Lyn if they have it handy. Also, research by Greg Barber showed that the trip that would be catered for by this tunnel is undertaken by 14,000 cars a day.

  88. loug responded:

    Lyn - The Eddington report itself states that only 10% of all traffic is East-West or West-East. The vast majority of traffic is city bound

  89. tonycanavan responded:

    Emissions from transport are set to grow substantially in the years ahead, largely due to population growth. Building a road tunnel, or not building it, makes virtually no difference to this. There are essentially four ways to do it. Change travel behaviour, switch to public transport, vehicle technology and increased vehicle occupancy. We need to do all four. But the Office of Climate Change tells us that vehicle technology changes are by far the most effective.

  90. dettershank responded:


    If there is one constructive outcome from this forum from a community view point it would be in the form an undertaking that when there is a proposed route for the tunnel that there will be formal consultation.

    As it stands we are, in the words of Paul Keating, “wrestling with a column of smoke”.

    Tim Pallas has indicated that apart from the round table there will be no further consultation until the government announces its decision.

    Assure us that this is wrong.

  91. AliceG responded:

    Lyn, you may not realise it but Eddington was commissioned with a tight brief that did NOT allow him to look at the entire transport system in Melbourne, and how we should best spend our hard earned taxes to improve it.

    Eddington was given a tight brief that included this east west tunnel. That is why it is now on the table. It doesn’t make sense, but he was paid many a dollar to recommend it, so he did.

  92. millfordj responded:

    please advise if the Government’s plan is to build a road to increase emissions and warm the earth so it is more tolerable to ride a bike to work on the road in winter.

  93. Andrew responded:

    Tony and Rob,

    There are more road issues out there than the East west Link, and we the Punt Road residents been waiting longer for resolution, 50 years to be exact. Can you pleeeease answer us?

  94. geoff4real responded:

    Are there further Victorian Government studies underway to look at an overall transport and freight strategy? Are these being done to facilitate the government decision and will they be available for public comment and input prior to the government response to the Eddington report?

  95. peterc150 responded:

    robhudson responded:

    “Inn relation to the comments about greenhouse gas emissions, it should be noted that the Brumby Government has committed itself to a target of reducing our emissions by 60% by 2050.”

    However, a 2050 target is meaningless if decisions and actions in the short and medium term don’t get us to it.

    The Eddington report states the assumption that car traffic will increase, so we need more roads to cater for it. Trouble is, as many have pointed out, if you build more roads and tunnels then you get more cars. This is a self fulfilling prophecy that has driven the transport planning and infrastructre for over 5 decades. The Eddington report is really just more of the same.

    Cars (and trucks) have about 8 times the carbon emission of rail alternatives, and 1000s time the carbon emissions of cycling alternatives. Yet we see no new rail lines, other than the tunnel, which may be good, but may not be the highest priority.

    The Goverment really needs to credibly back up its statements about “reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a carbon constrained future and making Victoria more environmentally responsible” with real actions that reduce emissions rather than increase them.

    More roads, trucks and cars = more emissions.

    As does more coal and gas power plants just announced.

  96. AliceG responded:


    I find that response on emmisions astounding. Please elaborate as to how developing and manufacturing individual cars are a more effective use of energy and reduced carbon emissions compared to manufacturing increased public transport.

  97. Andrew responded:

    Tony and Rob,

    Do the residents of Punt Rd need to wait another 50 years even for a reply?

  98. NaiF responded:

    milfordj - well the global warming casued by emissions will make the drought more prolonged so in effect there will be less rain. This will make bike bike commuting much more enjoyable.

  99. gollan responded:

    Cathy mum Glen Huntly More clearways recommended in the report and by current govt proposals concern me. Who wants to walk along the footpath with kids or ride with them on the road with heavy traffic racing at the kerb? A coffee anyone in a footpath cafe in an activity centre (so important in Melbourne 2030) with trucks rushing past your elbow? Public transport and bikes and walking can and should get better priority on the roads by traffic signals set to suit them rather than cars first. A 40kmph speed limit should be extended to all shopping centres especially those with trams like Elsternwick and Glen Huntly to make it safer to walk to the shops and public transport and encourage some cars away from key public transport routes. Why make even more space in our city for cars at the expense of pleasant tram and kid friendly streets and shopping centres?

  100. AliceG responded:

    Brilliant question geoff4real

  101. NaiF responded:

    Andrew - the brief that the Eddington report addressed was only East-West NOT a total transport solution for Melbourne. I call on the government to shelve this farce of a report and commission a TOTAL SOLUTION report for the WHOLE of Melbourne!

  102. Lyn responded:

    if the majority of traffic is heading into the CBD, what route are they taking, beacuse i want to know what route the 90 % are using to drive into the CBD.
    Why dont they use public transport ?
    I ajust saying i want the tunnel because i am sick of the traffic - what i see each day is traffic heading east- west along princess st.

  103. Cory responded:

    Lyn - Is the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the 2006 Census good enough for you?
    Look in 20680-Core Activity Need for Assistance by Method of Travel to Work - Victoria

    A quarter of all people live and work in their own municipality - so they are after local transport options.

    Of the 420,000 trips to work every morning that are between municipalities, only 14,000 are from East to West, or West to East, that could possibly use this tunnel. The vast majority actually head into the CBD.

    So, if these numbers are to be believed (and hey, it’s the ABS, so I trust them), the priority should be toward providing viable alternatives for the 420,000, instead of reaching for their car keys.

  104. tonycanavan responded:

    Rod Eddington received no payment for his work on the report.

  105. effnvic responded:

    Lyn, I’d suggest the East-West link may be more of a placebo than you’d anticipate.

    We also see bumper-to-bumper traffic exclusive of peak hour through Kensington daily.

    We live in inner suburbs around the city. There will always be traffic from motorists commuting to town and back within a 20 minute radius.

    People using these local roads are not necessarily crossing the entire East-West expanse that the Eddington Report suggests is required, so they will either back-track through our suburbs.

    People bypassing tolled motorways will still use our local roads.

    If the East-West link were cast wider around our city, the limited East-West traffic could still commute across on a motorway.

  106. AliceG responded:


    Can you please confirm that Rod Eddington is on no boards/holds shares in any companies that stand to profit from this venture?

  107. millfordj responded:

    sure he didn’t!

  108. NaiF responded:

    Tony, he didn’t get paid but he sure got a lot of publicity! What’s that worth?

  109. tonycanavan responded:

    Regarding the comments on east-west traffic demand. The report found that over 200,000 road trips occur east-west and west-east across the north of the city each day. Modelling showed the tunnel would attract about 150,000 trips each day. But they’re not all end-to-end. Often people only count trips that go all the way from end-to-end.

  110. effnvic responded:

    C’mon - seize the momentum!

  111. Cory responded:

    NaiF, they’ve already had that information. It was included in the 2020 report, which was measured on Triple-Bottom-Line.

    Of course, that didn’t give the State Government the answers they wanted, so they asked Sir Rod to right a report, and they were very specific in the questions they asked, so they DID get the right answers.

  112. NaiF responded:

    Tony, if we take away all the trips that are not end to end then surely the tunnel is an even less attractive proposition! My understanding is that there would be no city off-ramps with this tunnel. Unless of course you plan to add these in after the consultation process which is what happened with CityLink!!!

  113. Jane Good responded:


    What are your temporary alternatives? So we are clear the Melbourne City Council has said there are no alternatives temporary or otherwise to the users of JJ Holland Park,the use of euphemisms like being “creative ” is ethereal.I am beginning to feel like an extra on the series Hollowman.

  114. moderator1 responded:

    Please remember the forum rules:
    *Keep relevant to topic
    *No swearing
    *Nothing defamtory
    *Keep responses short (to improve readability)

    Comments that don’t adhere to the rules will not posted.

  115. robhudson responded:

    andrew, I will ask the Minister’s office to follow up with you directly in relation to the planning overlay on Punt Road.

  116. Cathy Sage responded:

    I hope I am wrong but your video clip of the Premier talking to Eddington strongly suggests that while the government has to consult on the plan, it is merely going through the motions, because of course the plan will have to go ahead because the transport problems of the future will overwhelm us all if we dont! I do hope you intend to seriously contemplate the wisdom of a road tunnel.

    I understand the Eddington plan proposes to use JJ Holland Park as a construction site for the east west road tunnel – and for maybe up to 5 years. The park is used extensively by children for childcare and sport, by residents to have green space, skateboarders and dog owners to walk animals.

    But this is not just a parochial issue. The idea of a road tunnel is more of the old thinking. With climate change increasingly rearing its ugly head and city link (which was supposed to alleviate car congestion) proving that the more cars there are on the road, the more congestion and “car parks” are created, Melbourne desparately needs more underground trains and public transport, including trains (NOT TRUCKS!) to carry the larger and lot more container loads likely with bay deepening, across the city.

    Inner city residents are proof that is possible with more and more people either biking or using public transport to get to work in the city from Kensington only 4 Km out. Surely the government and city planners want MORE not LESS people to be living near their city work (which is why I understood Kensington Banks medium density housing was approved and populated), so now we do HAVE more people in this area, is the plan is to stick tunnel stacks from a road tunnel through the district??? I am really staggered that anyone could really be suggesting putting health damaging polluting stacks in a district they have actively encouraged people to inhabit in the very recent past! Apart from the pollution, we will have unacceptable noise from the works and heavy vehicle traffic, added to by an elevated truck route from Smithfield Rd-Ballarat road intersection and over the wetlands. This as well as a proposed freeway exit at Dynon Road!

    What can be the thinking? The opportunity exists to re-think (and we will all have to) your high petrol, high polluting Edington proposal and replace it with new low energy ways of getting people and goods around.

  117. NaiF responded:

    Jane - we all are!! We are subject to the whims of a government that wasn’t even voted in so that politicians can have their names on these BIG projects. The environment, the community and even party policy seems to come a distant second to these “rubber stamped” projects. I for one am not convinced that this “consultation” is real and that is it just lip service to the voters. I truly believe that the government has already made up it’s mind about the report and our voices are not really being listened to.

  118. tonycanavan responded:

    If this project goes ahead, the alternatives will have to be worked out. I’m sorry if you think you’re in an episode of The Hollowmen, but a major project on this scale has the capacity to produce alternatives that wouldn’t normally be considered by local government. That’s what I meant by being creative.

  119. millfordj responded:

    so, from the response above re the number trips from end to end - there are more exits planned from the road tunnel than those presented in the report. that is under the radar.

  120. millfordj responded:

    but a road is not creative.

  121. Cory responded:

    Perhaps the ‘creative’ part is the wonderful artworks they put on the side of the roads for us to look at (and distract us from watching the road).

  122. tonycanavan responded:

    My comments on trips not all going end-to-end is not a reference to potential city access from the tunnel.
    They are based on the exits/entries already included in the proposal.

  123. millfordj responded:

    that is good point - more roads is more injuries.

    what about the safety considerations. surely travel by rail is safer than travel by road. if we are serious about the road toll then the safety considerations should favour a choice of rails over roads.

  124. Jane Good responded:


    so we are in heated agreement there are no alternatives “worked out”.

  125. Cory responded:

    Rob, we’re still waiting for a response to dettershank’s question :

    “Tim Pallas has indicated that apart from the round table there will be no further consultation until the government announces its decision.

    Assure us that this is wrong. ”

    Being able to email our opinion before next Tuesday, and this online forum, barely rates as ‘community consultation’.

  126. guffers61 responded:


    Well said, From the responses on this forum, it appears there is no substance to the public consultation process. Admittedly, we are only hearing from high ranking bureaucrats. I would like to invite the Premier and Tim Pallas to a meeting at the Community Center in Kensington were they can experience a little of what the City of Melbourne planning committee did a few weeks ago. It is difficult for an online forum to convey the absolute outrage felt by the 1000’s of people in Kensington and surrounding suburbs about the destruction (temporary or otherwise) of Holland Park.

  127. millfordj responded:

    i believe there is an alternative of one - the wrong one.

  128. guffers61 responded:


    Will you categorically rule out additional on/off ramps between Eastern freeway and Royal Park? Mr Eddington certainly did when he handed the report over to the Premier.

  129. AliceG responded:

    The elected representatives of Melbourne, Moonee Valley and Yarra councils have all voted against this road tunnel proposal.

    These are intelligent, experienced representatives of the people who have done their research and have viable alternatives to offer.

    Of course you will read their submisssions, please do not override their thinking without a great deal of discussion and involvement of these councils. They do represent the people of Melbourne.

  130. millfordj responded:

    yes, more engagement with councils, who have demonstrated a respect of the views of constituents, would be desired.

  131. guffers61 responded:

    Good point Alice G.

    Surely the cost of this proposal is something which demands that the people of Victoria have the opportunity to vote for or against it. Victoria has never contemplated a single project which so divides the community and which is so expensive. I have had a quick look at the public transport forum and most discussion on that forum supports both the Footscray Caulfield train line, and the Tarneit link. There is also alot of support for a Doncaster train line- not recommended by Eddington. My point- there are few objections to large scale public transport infrastructure and if the Governent adopts these recommendations, they will not lose seats because of it. The road tunnel is a completely different proposal. It is highly contentious and massively expensive with an enormous impact on Holland Park and other parks in the inner north and west of Melbourne. How it fits in with Government targets on reducing carbon emissions- I will never know.

    Put it to the people. Let them have their say.

  132. Cory responded:

    Here here guffers61!

  133. Mitchell responded:

    With petrol going up indefinitely that’s going to solve some of the congestion issues as more people take up bikes and motorbikes, or just not being able to afford to get to work. As for a tunnel - what a rip off. Tax payers spending lots of cash for the gain of a few. Yay. It’s now been how many years since a train was proposed for one of the largest trip generators in the SE, Monash Uni? Bring on a real depression where we are force to change the “new freeways are the best” paradigm.

  134. robhudson responded:

    Just a quick note to let you know that this forum has five minutes to go. I will be providing an overview of today’s forum, which will be posted later this afternoon on this website.

  135. dayg responded:

    And the winner is … the road tunnel. That’s where the money and polital power lies. It’s a bit like the american gun lobby - my right and my freedom to do what satisfies me

  136. effnvic responded:

    Tony, I wanted to take a more active role in this and have had to re-shuffle work to get a few points across. I feel many couldn’t take part today with a few days notcie and limited access.

    Will there be a further, more accessible forum planned?

  137. guffers61 responded:

    sort of looks like it is a done deal people. Keep fighting.

  138. tonycanavan responded:

    Details of any future online forums will be on the Premier’s website.

  139. AliceG responded:

    I dont think so guffers 61

    Too much bad thinking involved with a road tunnel

  140. guffers61 responded:


    It’s not going to happen. It will be stopped.

  141. robhudson responded:

    Thank you to everyone who has participated in today’s online forum. Details of any future forums will be posted on the Premier’s website.

    Additional comments can be sent to the Government via the Premier’s website. Formal submissions can still be made on the Eddington Report until the 15th. July.

No comments: