Freo's View

BAD PLANNING NO EXCUSE FOR PERTH FREIGHT LINK

Posted in fremantle, fremantle ports, perth freight link, roe 8 highway by freoview on February 11, 2017

There is an interesting opinion piece by Liberal party fan Paul Murray in the West Australian today about Fremantle Port and the Perth Freight Link.

Let me first state that I am sick and tired of politicising the debate about this issue and wished all politicians would stick with the facts because this is an extremely important and very expensive project for WA.

Murray writes that on August 13, 2014 nine senior Fremantle Port and Department of Transport officials plus consultants on transport economies and land use were involved in a workshop, and that the report they published in April 2015 states that the existing harbour will not reach capacity until 2055 and an overflow outer harbour would not be needed until 2038, so another 21 years from now.

The workshop concluded that Fremantle Port’s capacity was 2,1 million TEUs(container units) and not as had been assumed previously only around 1,3 million TEUs.

If Murray reports facts here, and why would he not, this puts a different light on the urgent need to build an outer harbour at Kwinana, but for me the Perth Freight Link still does not make sense, even if an outer harbour is not needed and built the next twenty years.

I disagree with Paul Murray that a major part of the PFL attraction is that is solves the problem of massive traffic congestion south of the river. It does not because the last link will not be built and there will not be a better connection into the port.

What will happen is that the proposed tunnel will spew out thousands of trucks and private cars near Stirling Highway that have nowhere to go but the two already congested bridges to North Fremantle. Traffic chaos in North Freo would be a result of bad government planning and not having been able to find a solution on how to connect Roe 8 and 9 to Fremantle Port.

The Perth Freight Link highway/tunnel is unresolved and until the port connection is solved it should not be built. There will not be better port efficiency because the new road will soon be congested and trucks to the port will end up in long queues at Stirling Highway and in North Fremantle. That in my opinion is bad planning that is politically driven without achieving the essential outcomes it should aim for.

Roel Loopers

8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Rob Fittock said, on February 14, 2017 at 6:02 pm

    good to see discussion but like many countries around the world and in Oz building a tunnel using the amazing technology that continues to evolve including air quality control you don’t even see or hear traffic and trains moving through leaving the rivers, lakes, pristine wetlands and bushlands, suburbs, et al for people to enjoy

    The outer harbour will eventually happen but there is a mountain of environmental issues to be resolved before any serious consideration can be entertained and it won’t be happening for many years to come….in my humble opinion 🙂

    Not sure how a tunnel can divide a community with roads when it goes under??

  2. freoishome said, on February 12, 2017 at 4:21 pm

    Yes Rob, just what we all want, a 50 year extension period, of 000’s of truck movements/day in our residential suburbs! Pollution, noise, roads dividing our communities, increase health risks, etc.
    Why?

  3. Glen said, on February 12, 2017 at 4:18 pm

    Have to disagree Rob.

    Barnett has already stated there is no plan for a Roe 10, it all stops at the Freo traffic bridge/Canning Hgwy intersection.

    How from up there on high at the intersection could you integrate a tunnel under the river and get the traffic down into it???

    Its piecemeal thought bubble planning and one seriously has to ask why?

    The outer harbour is the only sane solution.

    Govts have always ignored spending for Freo and now they want to sell the cash-cow of Freo port to try and get back what they have blown in budget.

    The road to nowhere is simply to try and make the sale of the Port easier, basically spending a fortune just to advantage what will possibly be a foreign investment sell-out.

    Freo Port should become a Tourist Port like Darling Harbour, this should have been conceptualised years ago but sadly we had local naivety suggesting tourists want to see a working port and not comprehending that the growth in that would far outweigh the ability of the surrounding suburbs to support that much traffic.

    To build a road to nowhere and suggest that in 20 to 30 years we can integrate a solution into it once congestion and health issues have become so huge that they have to unwillingly spend money on it is crazy, for once it would be good to have a Govt that tries to get the solution right in full first time around!

  4. Rob Fittock said, on February 12, 2017 at 3:03 pm

    the answer is to connect the Roe 9 tunnel to the Roe 10 tunnel which runs under the river and into the nth wharf….it would add another 50 + years to the life of the port

  5. Bob said, on February 11, 2017 at 7:55 pm

    Regardless of the benefits or not of Roe 8, and to make a point here let’s say traffic travelling to the port from Roe 8 as it is now. I find it strange or narrow thinking that it is proposed to engineer a tunnel AFTER the highway crosses the lake areas ( destroying the natural environment) and why the tunnel could not commence before the wetlands, avoiding the destruction and possibly take a shorter overall route (but a longer tunnel). That to me seems to be a better compromise. And of course I mean a two way road for traffic leaving the port. Just needs some extra planning and ventilation and minimal clearing and resumption.

  6. gnangarra said, on February 11, 2017 at 7:10 pm

    what we have is port designed in the 1890’s, a road plan designed in the 1950’s. Yes recently there has been further expansion and more reclaimed land used to expand the Port. The reality is we have wondrful assest a growing cruise ship industry, by building the out Harbour and shifting freight there it creates to create a residential, tourism and commercial area serviced by public transport on the waters edge while moving the heavy vehicles away from the area…. The worst problem is if we wait we lose the advantage of the current lack of development through that area therefore mproving the ability to adjust to designswith out major impacts…. The other issue the LNP cant consider the Outer Harbor because its locked into $2B court battle with Buckridge(BGC) over the collapse of plans to build the James Point port. http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/premiers-potentially-costly-len-buckeridge-gaffe-20121106-28vyl.html

  7. Lionel said, on February 11, 2017 at 5:22 pm

    You ask others to stick to facts then you say things like:

    “What will happen is that the proposed tunnel will spew out thousands of trucks and private cars near Stirling Highway” and “There will not be better port efficiency because the new road will soon be congested and trucks to the port will end up in long queues at Stirling Highway and in North Fremantle.”

    These aren’t facts, just the opinion and catch-cry of the anti-Roe 8 brigade. Truck movements won’t suddenly increase because a road is built.

  8. freoishome said, on February 11, 2017 at 11:13 am

    Imagine how much more difficult it will be to arrive at an optimal solution in 2038 or 2055! If we can’t do it now, why would any rational person imagine we would achieve anything many years later when all the other factors impacted will also have expanded, changed and grown.

    We are asking the wrong people the wrong questions. We wonder why we get dumb solutions. Ok so some people with vested interests come up with a possible solution. But is a smart solution, is it optimal, does it account for all the other factors? Clearly not!


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: