IT’S A TRUCKING PROBLEM
Fremantle Council is hosting a community consultation on Saturday March 2 from 3:30 – 5:30 pm
in the Fremantle Council Reception Room to discuss the current status of proposals to
upgrade the High Street/Stirling Highway intersection.
This matter affects Fremantle residents, students, workers and residents of adjacent areas.
The plan to widen the road reserve to six lanes not only affects the future of High St
and the Stirling Highway, but has implications for North Fremantle, Stock Road and
the Beeliar wetlands.
In the interests of sustainable freight transport and community health and safety,
it is important that people come along to speak and be heard at this event.
Regards,
Annolies Truman
Convenor
Fremantle Road2Rail
I hope Annolies Truman has a more creative plan than moving the noise pollution and traffic problems from her back yard to other Fremantle resident backyards. The Road2Rail first master plan had everything transported on trucks (including sheep) getting stacked onto rail and being pushed through the centre of Fremantle 24/7 without any regard for the residents who actually live in the centre of Fremantle. Unlike trucks, noisy trains can’t be taken off the road and residents just have to put up with them. Perhaps moving the rail and stock to a commercial area such as to Kwinana or sinking the line might be a good option for everyone.
I hope that Rob Harrison has something more creative to offer than this display of cynicism.
The Fremantle Road to Rail Campaign has reached out to the Fremantle Inner City Residents Association explaining that there can be no NIMBY solution to the problem of the freight to Fremantle Port. Road to Rail has worked tirelessly to generate solutions that work for everybody.
Yes, tunnel solutions have been suggested and R2R is open to them.
But sneering condescension will get us nowhere.
It’s incorrect of Rob to assert that Fremantle Road 2 Rail is in favour moving freight onto rail “without any regard for the residents who actually live in the centre of Fremantle”. R2R has done more work than anyone in the community to push for quiter rail technologies (both locomotives and wagon bogies).
It’s a simple fact that the impact of rail in terms of community amenity, greenhouse gases, road accident trauma and diesel particlate pollution is far less than transporting an equivalent volume of freight by road; no matter whose backyard it’s in.
Of course even with better rail technologies a significant increase in the number of trains on that line is going to have an impact on people nearby. But it’s still preferable to that cargo going by road – any road. That may be no comfort to Rob, but that’s how it is.
It’s worth remembering that the rail reserve past the Roundhouse is double track, and that the line itself used to be double track. A big increase in rail freight traffic, let alone Labor’s Metronet proposal, would surley require the restoration of double track; and electric staunchons for the latter.
Does this come with it’s own noise and aesthetic implications? Sure. But it’s something that should be supported for the overall environmental, social and economic benefit it would bring to Fremantle.
That’s not to say that the current route of the raillway line is ideal for freight. I’ve always believed that the FEB route should have been reserved, not for a wretched freeway – but for rail. The freight rail line could have passed under the passenger line in North Freo, across the Stirling Hwy Bridge, met the FEB reserve and followed it until joining the existing rail line in Spearwood.
Because rail takes up so much less space it would be far easier to have put significant sections of it in a “cut and cover” tunnel through Beaconsfield, which I suspect would be a lot harder on the existing rail alignment near the ocean.
That would have been a real win-win for rail and inner city residents. But with the FEB reserve sold off and the North Bank development in North Freo that’s going to be a whole lot harder.
Further not all freight out of the port has to go via Spearwood anyway. Freight going east and north could also use the line from Fremantle to Perth. The PTA would scream that it’s not possible and the sky would fall in, just like they say it’s impossible to run light rail passenger services south of Freo on a line that only has about eight trains a day! Talk about bureaucrats using unscientific mumbo jumbo to put people off.
The route via Perth is the way the majority of freight used to travel to the port. There are long sections of that line that could be triplicated. There are plenty of places in the world where lines are used predominantly for passenger traffic during the day and then get a whole lot of freight traffic at night. There would be other capital works required, but nothing compared to the billions that gets thrown at freeway construction.
There is a better way!
Thanks Sam,
I appreciate your comments, but you may not be aware that it is FICRA (Fremantle Inner City Residents) who have done the heavy lifting with regards wheel squeal and rail noise in Fremantle not R2R and its wrong to take credit. FICRA working with the Fremantle Ports, Public Transport Authority and Rail providers have got the watering systems in place @ $200K that have done a fantastic job in reducing noise through the centre of Fremantle. Maintenance has been improved and other safety and health options implemented.
The Ports PTA and FICRA have engaged consultants, had numerous studies done, trials of different technology, engines, bogies, examining rolling stock maintenance, rail profiles, speed, driver behaviour, rail lubricants, bogie configuration, and achieved considerable reductions in noise. We have examined the noise and health impacts on residents, with the EPA, and had the rail movements reduced from 24/7 to acceptable hours, all through discussion and negotiation. And without publicity.
I don’t think anyone would argue that R2R is a great idea, but its important that convenors don’t take the easy option and transfer the problem from one back yard to another. What we need is a sustainable, long term solution that benefits the entire community.
Rob,
I (and the whole membership of Road to Rail) agree wholeheartedly with your statement: “What we need is a sustainable, long term solution that benefits the entire community.” That is the whole point of R2R.
Similarly, R2R, from its inception has said that it is important that people “don’t take the easy option and transfer the problem from one back yard to another.” That is why R2R reached out to FICRA, among others – right around WA, in fact.
Unfortunately, at the moment, the only meaningful official plan for handling the expansion of container traffic to the Port is to widen High Street and increase the number, size and speed of the trucks going to and from the Port.
The Department of Transport has publicly stated that it intends to run B-double road trains 24/7 to the Port. Their vision is of a six-lane high Street/Stirling Highway.
The health effects from that, created by diesel particulate pollution, noise and traffic accidents will be horrible, in fact completely unacceptable by any measure of sustainability or community benefit. But it remains as the only real proposal that is on the table.
FICRA has effectively attended to a very small part of this elephantine problem, the noise at the Roundhouse. R2R is trying to find a regional solution. Our scale of approach is vastly different.
Sam Wainwright again shows his ignorance and as a Fremantle Councillor, his lack of respect for ratepayers.
You cannot just lump everything onto rail as Simone McGurk proposes, the line is just not up to it.
No worries, just demolish a heritage building!
Hi Rob,
I wasn’t taking credit on the “wheel squeek” issue, but rather assigning it. I won’t actually pretend to know who’s done the most on the question, but if its FICRA folks, then all credit to them. I just reacted to the shot at the Road 2 Rail people who I know to be honest hard working community activists. Anyway that’s a secondary question. I think I’ve sketched out some of what I think a long term solution is that doesn’t load the entire burden of freight movement in and out of the port onto one section of the community alone. Don’t forget, it’s people near the truck route bearing the overwhelming proportion of that burden at the moment and all the government plans are for it to stay that way.
Graham,
I’m not sure what your point is. I just acknowledged that I should have recognised FICRA work on the wheel squeak. But fair dinkum, you can’t roll out lines like “lack of respect for ratepayers” every time there’s a bit of a debate unless you’re made of sugar.
No one is proposing the demolition of a heritage building…it’s already a double track rail corridor. No one suggests that absolutely everything can go onto rail. But I am proposing we need a qualitative shift in the proportion of freight by road to rail. That’s the guts of the issue.
Another thing Graham:
I ask you not to start a sentence with a cheap shot like, “Sam Wainwright again shows his ignorance…”, without saying what all those previous examples of ignorance are, and why even they are relevant to this discussion. I don’t mind stiff debate, but that kind of game playing is boring.
Sam, I was referring to your denigration of the Fremantle Port Authority for their opposition to the wind farm proposal. Rob Harrison is 100% correct in his comments above.
How do I join Road To Rail?
Details at http://freoroad2rail.org/ Monthly meetings normally at the Freo Council offices, Sat afternoon at the rear entrance to the Council office
Paul