The Australasian Railway Association (ARA) has hailed the Victorian government’s planned sale of Australia’s busiest port for containerised and general cargo, the Port of Melbourne.

Following the Victorian government’s announcement that it intends to sell the long-term lease of the Port, the ARA has suggested that the income from the sale should be reinvested into vital transport infrastructure around the state and “in particular Melbourne”.

The announcement of the sale came in early March 2014 when Victorian Treasurer Michael O’Brien said that the state government is “investigating the strategic and commercial options for the future of Victoria’s state-owned ports”.

Mr O’Brien said the state government is “carefully considering” the future of Victoria’s port assets to ensure they deliver the “best return” to Victorian taxpayers.

As the sale is expected to make significant financial returns Victoria, the ARA has called upon the state government to use the proceeds of the sale to open up reinvestment opportunities into transport infrastructure “which boost economic activity”.

View the full story

i have mentioned this on another forum.  some proceeds from the sale of the port of melbourne should be directed to upgrading the ports rail links for the more efficient movement of goods to and from the port.

but Napthine has his plan for the E-W road and this is all about getting big and very big TRUCKS to and from the port of Melbourne

Is this really te plan?

Does this plan also include the development of the port of Hastings?

Why the hate for big trucks?

Why the hate for big trucks?

No hate for big trucks here, but just a hope that the notes made by all involved (including the NTC, ATA, all state and federal DOT's, etc) that the bigger and heavier trucks currently and into the future as currently planned will underpay their share of the road damage they cause by up to 40%. This is even noted as the NTC pushes for extra axle loadings on the heavier trucks and is considering four-axle dolly's and trailer groups to spread the load, but simply overlook (or choose to ignore) the issues created for those of us who have to design pavements and sealed surfaces to withstand the screwing of these axle groups through curves and intersections, whilst keeping the costs to an 'acceptable' level.

Having to replace older pavements at around 100mm thick with newer 500mm thick pavements to suit the bigger trucks is making our projects very expensive, and the 'value' to the majority of end users (light vehicles) is much the same as with the 100mm pavement. Having to use 270 - 360mm thick asphalt instead of 30 - 60mm thick asphalt again makes little difference to the majority of end users, but it is there to suit the vehicles which do the least to manage to cover their damage costs.

A very truthful and balanced post. The true costs of running heavy trucks on our roads is being hidden by the very people who should be arguing for better rail access for freight.

The very few transport fat cats are causing the rest of us to indulge in their delusional few of sustainable transport and better transport practices by requiring us to invest more in roads for even less return when those tonnages would be better placed on rail.

It is truly a disgrace.

A senior academic in civil engineering once told me that 80-90% of the cost of building modern freeways and highways is to make the road and bridge infrastructure capable of carrying heavy haulage trucks. So, for every million dollars spent on a new road, nine hundred thousand dollars is a free gift to the road freight industry!

It's good to see someone with legitimate reasons.

But I've still seen the main push for B-triples with existing axle loads and A-doubles.

In addition road freight is already charged on a user pays basis.