Rail Link - Melbourne Airport.
Don't forget that other magnificent piece of planning, the new QLD trains, Annastacia Btfsplk's crowning glory.
Buy new trains to our Gummint's specification, but don't bother checking if they are the right size or if they work or not, then discover that they are totally wrong and need huge amounts of money to rectify.
Then start wailing that there are not enough train drivers, and that it takes 2 YEARS to "train" a driver, and they are only allowed to train people already working for the QLD Rail, and that no other already-qualified people are allowed to be hired, because the unions won't allow it.
Then use a diesel loco to drag the new trains into the fixing house, because nobody is qualified to drive the stupid things to get them fixed.
And then question why people wonder WTF is going on.
Buy new trains to our Gummint's specification, but don't bother checking if they are the right size or if they work or not, then discover that they are totally wrong and need huge amounts of money to rectify.
Then start wailing that there are not enough train drivers, and that it takes 2 YEARS to "train" a driver, and they are only allowed to train people already working for the QLD Rail, and that no other already-qualified people are allowed to be hired, because the unions won't allow it.
Then use a diesel loco to drag the new trains into the fixing house, because nobody is qualified to drive the stupid things to get them fixed.
And then question why people wonder WTF is going on.
need huge amounts of money to rectify
A major toilet cubicle design flaw in the State Government's $4.4 billion New Generation Rollingstock trains means the carriages will be transported to Maryborough from India to be fixed.
In what is mounting as a farcical situation for the heavily delayed train building contract with Canadian manufacturer Bombardier, southeast Queensland public transport company TransLink has confirmed all 75 trains under the contract will be built in India and shipped to the state with the identified design flaw.
37 trains, which will still be built with problem toilet cubicles, are yet to enter production under the project.
The faulty trains will then be split into individual cars and driven by truck to Maryborough, where the toilets will be modified to meet disability access standards.
It follows a $155 million deal with local manufacturer Downer EDI to fix the trains was announced by the Labor Government two weeks before the 2017 state election.
The patch-up funding was trumpeted as a boon for local jobs in the must-win seat of Maryborough.
But it was never revealed until now that faulty trains would continue to be built under the plan.
Mr Saunders said the good news was the required work would bring "substantive" jobs back to the job-starved town of Maryborough.
In what is mounting as a farcical situation for the heavily delayed train building contract with Canadian manufacturer Bombardier, southeast Queensland public transport company TransLink has confirmed all 75 trains under the contract will be built in India and shipped to the state with the identified design flaw.
37 trains, which will still be built with problem toilet cubicles, are yet to enter production under the project.
The faulty trains will then be split into individual cars and driven by truck to Maryborough, where the toilets will be modified to meet disability access standards.
It follows a $155 million deal with local manufacturer Downer EDI to fix the trains was announced by the Labor Government two weeks before the 2017 state election.
The patch-up funding was trumpeted as a boon for local jobs in the must-win seat of Maryborough.
But it was never revealed until now that faulty trains would continue to be built under the plan.
Mr Saunders said the good news was the required work would bring "substantive" jobs back to the job-starved town of Maryborough.
To top it off, Bombardier indicated that they would modify the trains at a cost of $ZERO.
Someone has mates at Downer EDI perhaps? Doesn’t this sort of thing to tender? Zero dollars is pretty hard to beat I would have thought.
Net Overseas Migration running at 3-4 Times traditionally ‘average levels’ , with the bulk of said migrants crowding into already overcrowded and under-supported Capital cities, considers no such thing.
Infrastructure cannot keep up, wage growth is depressed, public services are further overcrowded the Environment has to support far denser concentrations of people; I can go on.
Even the infrastructure that ultimately is built comes up short, as it is Years later than required. Then ultimately we pay through the nose for it to be built (for various reasons that are mostly related to the above), then pay through the nose to use it once it’s finished!
If the impact on people and the Environment were a consideration, far more manageable levels of population growth should be the starting point.
Australia’s migrant intake will be substantially down this financial year – possibly 25,000 below the 190,000 planned figure – led by reductions in the number of skilled and sponsored working visas.
The migration program has been at 190,000 since 2012-13 but dropped to 183,000 last financial year and will fall further again this year.
In 1970 the rate was 13.27 migrants per 1,000 people, 1980 was 3.31, 2000 was 4.07, 2005 was 5.85, 2010 was 10.6 and 2015 was 7.95.
Agreed a problem is most of the immigrants tend to go to Sydney and Melbourne and that needs to be addressed.
Australia actually needs more migration not less, it is a simple numbers thing!
By 2030 we will not need a train, we will just get either a google, Uber or Amazon drone to take us to the airport using our monthly subscription drone service.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think most in here know this place is rudderless ship when t comes to major decisions & infrastructure, trouble is Australia COULD be a great country but it never will, well not in the foreseeable future anyway. We have a fairly stable climate (despite all the numbnuts who subscribe to climate change), huge open spaces, we are pretty much left alone from the major world issues, we are resource rich but we are seriously corrupt at all levels, we plebs at the bottom of the food chain haven't got a chance neither has future generations! Still we made our bed now we must lie in it!
Self centred, totally useless politicians combined with corporate greed are both killing this country.
A few years ago I got a lift with a friend into the centre of Minneapolis - a city comparable to Adelaide. She said
she doesnt usually drive to saver parking fees. She pad $5 for all day undercover parking in the city centre, When
I got home a sent here a picture of parking fees at one Melbourne under cover - first hour $56.
The I took the 45 minute train ride to the airport - $1.75. This ****hole is just ruined by greed.
A few years ago I got a lift with a friend into the centre of Minneapolis - a city comparable to Adelaide. She said
she doesnt usually drive to saver parking fees. She pad $5 for all day undercover parking in the city centre, When
I got home a sent here a picture of parking fees at one Melbourne under cover - first hour $56.
The I took the 45 minute train ride to the airport - $1.75. This ****hole is just ruined by greed.
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You really should be factual - Last years migration level is lower than other years.
Australia’s migrant intake will be substantially down this financial year – possibly 25,000 below the 190,000 planned figure – led by reductions in the number of skilled and sponsored working visas.
The migration program has been at 190,000 since 2012-13 but dropped to 183,000 last financial year and will fall further again this year.
In 1970 the rate was 13.27 migrants per 1,000 people, 1980 was 3.31, 2000 was 4.07, 2005 was 5.85, 2010 was 10.6 and 2015 was 7.95.
Agreed a problem is most of the immigrants tend to go to Sydney and Melbourne and that needs to be addressed.
Australia actually needs more migration not less, it is a simple numbers thing!
By 2030 we will not need a train, we will just get either a google, Uber or Amazon drone to take us to the airport using our monthly subscription drone service.
Australia’s migrant intake will be substantially down this financial year – possibly 25,000 below the 190,000 planned figure – led by reductions in the number of skilled and sponsored working visas.
The migration program has been at 190,000 since 2012-13 but dropped to 183,000 last financial year and will fall further again this year.
In 1970 the rate was 13.27 migrants per 1,000 people, 1980 was 3.31, 2000 was 4.07, 2005 was 5.85, 2010 was 10.6 and 2015 was 7.95.
Agreed a problem is most of the immigrants tend to go to Sydney and Melbourne and that needs to be addressed.
Australia actually needs more migration not less, it is a simple numbers thing!
By 2030 we will not need a train, we will just get either a google, Uber or Amazon drone to take us to the airport using our monthly subscription drone service.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]
The increase has boosted those GDP figures nicely, and the made the federal budget look much better than it otherwise would have. Shame about Housing prices, the cost/quality of now much more crowded public services schools/hospitals/public transport, wage growth, the time it took you to get from A to B, general quality of life, etc...
There is no basis for you assertion the ‘Australia needs more immigration, not less’. Oh wait , ‘aging population’, yeah? A far more moderate, carefully managed migration program focusing on The quality of migrants rather than large quantities, will be just as effective as filling skills shortages. We are able to train and employ our own citizens ahead of almost all of the occupations on the ‘skilled’ Migration list , which much of the time is merely an excuse to keep wage growth flat and not have to spend on training your own workforce (Qantaslink anybody?)
With all those Uber and Amazon drones you talk about coming (!), along with all the other automation we’re expection in the coming decades, where will this growing population work? Come to think of it, It’d probably support an ageing popultaion, with a highly trained sector of working people, quite well!
You can’t force people not to live in Sydney or Melbourne, so the problems there will just keep growing (and with other Capitals as well, because most migrants don’t move to regional areas), with the ABS predicting Sydney will have a population of 9 million by around 2050 or so. Can you imagine that? Wow, how livable, it’ll only take you 4 hours in traffic everyday to get to and from work, but just imagine the ‘vibrancy’!
Last edited by ExtraShot; 17th Mar 2019 at 03:59.
He's not the only one on here (or on the flight deck). Not sure if it's vested interests, or a certain type who become pilots. It's amazing we rely on science so much on a daily basis, yet so many pick and choose which science they want to believe!
The running average of Net Overseas Migration before figures were boosted by the Howard government, (and then boosted further to over 300000 one year during Rudd’s reign of incompetence), were 70000 per year. In the year to June 2018 the figure was 236733.
3101.0 - Australian Demographic Statistics, Jun 2018
The increase has boosted those GDP figures nicely, and the made the federal budget look much better than it otherwise would have. Shame about Housing prices, the cost/quality of now much more crowded public services schools/hospitals/public transport, wage growth, the time it took you to get from A to B, general quality of life, etc...
There is no basis for you assertion the ‘Australia needs more immigration, not less’. Oh wait , ‘aging population’, yeah? A far more moderate, carefully managed migration program focusing on The quality of migrants rather than large quantities, will be just as effective as filling skills shortages. We are able to train and employ our own citizens ahead of almost all of the occupations on the ‘skilled’ Migration list , which much of the time is merely an excuse to keep wage growth flat and not have to spend on training your own workforce (Qantaslink anybody?)
With all those Uber and Amazon drones you talk about coming (!), along with all the other automation we’re expection in the coming decades, where will this growing population work? Come to think of it, It’d probably support an ageing popultaion, with a highly trained sector of working people, quite well!
You can’t force people not to live in Sydney or Melbourne, so the problems there will just keep growing (and with other Capitals as well, because most migrants don’t move to regional areas), with the ABS predicting Sydney will have a population of 9 million by around 2050 or so. Can you imagine that? Wow, how livable, it’ll only take you 4 hours in traffic everyday to get to and from work, but just imaging the ‘vibrancy’!
The Rudd Government highest number of visa grants appears to be 171,318. So if you have a figure of over 300,000 that means a lot of returning residents entered Australia that year.
Last year Australia's migration planning level was unchanged at 190,000 most of this is skilled migration and includes around 54,000 in partner visas (partners and children of an Australian citizen or PR). For the first time in many years this planning level was not meet - we could not attract enough skilled worker applicants and were 25,000 short. Partner visa planning levels were meet and FYI it has around 12-24 month processing time and over $7,000 for the application. The Skilled worker visas are much cheaper and faster.
Over the years Migration Program planning numbers have fluctuated according to the priorities and economic and political considerations of the government of the day. By 1969 program planning figures had reached a high of 185 000. However, by 1975, the planned intake for the year had been reduced to 50 000. The migration intake gradually climbed again after this and by 1988 there was another peak under the Hawke Government with a planned intake of 145 000. After 1988 the Migration Program planning levels were gradually reduced, with a low of 80 000 in 1992–93.
After the Howard Government came to power in 1996, following an initial dip, there was a gradual increase in the planned migration intake, with immigration seen as being closely tied to economic growth. This upward trend was initially continued under the Rudd Government, with numbers reaching a record high of 190 300 in 2008–09. However, in 2009–10 the planned intake was reduced to 168 700, and has been kept at this level for 2010–11.The recent reductions in the Migration Program have been attributed to the impact of the global financial crisis (GFC) on the Australian economy, which led to a decline in the need for additional skilled labour.It remains to be seen what impact the ‘sustainable population’ debate taking place in the context of the 2010 election will have on future Migration Program planning levels.
Yes, the ageing population of current tax payers is a factor of migration requirements and a reason that there are age limits on the skilled worker visas. What many are not aware about the 130,000ish Skilled Worker visas granted is that they include partners and children. so the actual number of "workers is much lower than 130,000 and the children are future tax payers.
The Skilled Workers program is very flawed and yes a reason to stop wage growth, the place I work is a prime example. But there are ways that can be fixed. Labour Hire companies are far more to blame for flat wage growth.
The jobs of the future will certainly be different from the jobs we are use to now - HR grew out of nothing, I still do not see the need for them, other than a mouth of a manager that does not have the balls to say things themselves. But certainly some interesting options will arise to suck a reasonable amount of that large pool of Supa from the many retirees.
There certainly are ways to get the incoming migrants to settle in other areas, South Australia introduced one recently.
It seems I returned to Australia at that peak on the graph in your link and became a resident again. I obtained a visa for my wife, and my two children obtained citizenship by descent - sorry if that offends you.
* in addition to the 190,000 there is the 15,000 humanitarian visas granted that are not included in that number (that a resultant of fighting in wars).
So if you have a figure of over 300,000 that means a lot of returning residents entered Australia that year.
There are certainly ways to get the incoming migrants to settle in other areas
Moderation of the migration program back to historic norms would allow the States to catch up and, more or less keep up.
sorry if that offends you
https://www.dss.gov.au/settlement-se...is/saras-story
Two jobs and studying.
https://www.dss.gov.au/settlement-se...efugee-stories
Not my figures, it’s right there in the ABS data. It might include more Australians returning, but that’s part of the NOM calculation. That year we had population growth that practically added another Canberra to our total (we’re now doing that every two years ,roughly), do you see that equivalent level of infrastructure being built? No? Then that effects people’s quality of life, and usually it’s disproportionately affecting the poorer demographics that rely on the Public Transport, Public Schools and Public hospitals, etc, to a greater extent.
We have been trying this as a country for at least a Century in various forms. It doesn’t work. People are always going to migrate to Sydney and Melbourne (and other capitals) in greater numbers, exacerbating congestion issues.
Moderation of the migration program back to historic norms would allow the States to catch up and, more or less keep up.
What? Seriously?
Your data does not support 3-4 times unless you pick a selected year or a lull period not an average over time .
Why not refuse the Australians that decided to leave Australia and not contribute to the country's growth in infrastructure by paying taxes here, that right to return then?
See over the past 20 years millions of us have left Australia to make good money in other countries and not paid any taxes here - yet we expect the place to improve and grow in our absence. If you leave a house for 20 years it will be in very poor shape when you return. If you rent that house it will not be as bad but it will not be improved.
Australia has for years been renting infrastructure, Sydney and Melbourne airports are prime examples and will not be improved.
There are options to have new immigrants move to places other than Sydney and Melbourne. There are incentives such as the new SA ones and then there can be penalties ones such as employer fees for sponsorship of skilled workers on a sliding scale. Need a doctor in Exmouth fee $300 want a doctor in Sydney $4,000,000 all per year, 4 years Tr then 4 years renewable after 8 years Pr grant and they can live where they want.
You would get a few specialist doctors still going to Sydney at $4M per year but not just every doctor that wishes to live in Australia. After 8 years in Exmouth you could never live in Sydney.
The population growth of Australia is planned at 2% per year (for a long time), of course the numbers must then get bigger.
Your data does not support 3-4 times unless you pick a selected year or a lull period not an average over time
Why not refuse the Australians that decided to leave Australia and not contribute to the country's growth in infrastructure by paying taxes here, that right to return then?
Im not arguing against population growth or immigration. Merely the size of our current program, one of the largest in the OECD, for minimal gain for the majority of the population, which significantly contributes to the issues raised in this thread with this and other pieces of infrastructure that we build.
The following users liked this post:
I cant find a train service to any airport (that has a dedicated station) in a western country for less than $18 Aussie.
San Francisco $9.65
Copenhagen about US$6
Amsterdam E9.50
Last edited by tech9803; 20th Mar 2019 at 05:43. Reason: add original quote
Mk I said:
They do do they? Tell me more...
Migrants from the Middle East and North Africa are also three times more likely than European or Asian immigrants to be out of work in the first five years of settlement. And their 33 per cent jobless rate is six times higher than the national average.