Ambitious plan to transform Freo port – The West Australian

Waterfront homes for thousands of people, an international standard cruise ship terminal and a $1 billion boost to State Government coffers are key outcomes of an ambitious plan to change the face of the southern side of Fremantle port.

 

Source: Ambitious plan to transform Freo port – The West Australian

 

More pie in the sky spin from our Mayor Brad Pettitt

How many decades before such infrastructure could be built and with Fremantle’s geographical  location would it ever warrant such a development for the cruise ship industry, the state gov would need to get commitment from the cruise industry before developing such a place, to ensure it just didn’t become unused infrastructure.
Barnett has already said live export would move to the outer harbour once its built. So why is bringing this into his discussion as its moving anyway.

No need to move the car off load for RORO and double the distance for cars to be delivered to car yards, just make this part of the development.

The picture attached of Broadwater is hardly a good comparison as this area of the gold coast is all estuaries, mariners, beaches, residential development, leisure activities parks etc.

The google link above to the map or earth shot is movable and can zoom in and out so have a look just touch and drag to explore it.

Not what fremantle harbour is, being active cargo port, narrow river mouth surrounded by concrete.


What escapes the Mayors grasp of reality or suits his latest agenda is without a proper road network how will the thousands of guests and crew, new residences, workers get in and out of the city area in a efficient manner.
He and his council have made our road system into a dogs breakfast with their Anti-car platform.
Not to mention he needs to remove the rail out of the way, as this will also be a problem for development of residential apartments with trains riding down the side of it with heavy freight rail at night. Which would just create another problem.

Attached here is a link (Click to see it) to a post I wrote a while back, doing some of things this idea above mentions, but also deals with removing the heavy rail from traveling through town,

  • Sorts out the traffic problems,
  • Opens the north side of Freo up to more residential use and provides better access PT to new residents,
  • Opens north Freo back to the beach fronts,
  • Slashes traffic movements down Stirling Hwy
  • Cuts traffic of South st
  • Diverts, trucks off Hampton road heading south or north
  • Removes passengers vehicles from Fremantle who are only driving through to get somewhere else.
  • Opens up poor used land for better use in the north port side
  • Brings back a village feel to the Tydeman road precinct, well till Sullivans try’s to approve a 15 story building for it.
  • Lowers noise pollution
  • Makes our local roads safer
  • Lowers emissions to the local area, by taking away the stop start of heavy vehicles making them more efficient.
  • Opens up the heavy freight line running south of Freo back to PT (Public Tranport), linking the new developing suburbs to the rail stations, with rail cutting the need for people to park and ride in town.
  • Giving space for more cycle and pedestrian ways.
  • Opens the possibility to link the north lines PT rail to Freo in a circle line opening up direct PT rail to Cockburn and the Mandurah line also allowing a rail service with one change to the hospital and Murdoch.
  • All while keeping an operational port in town.
  • Improving Freo’s Green space and lowering the amount of concrete surface our council loves so much.

In case it’s escaped his attention the outer harbour is not planned to replace Fremantle port but be a spill over once Freo harbour/port reaches a cap which is higher than its current container movements right now.

.
Which will put more freight on rail without increasing the % moved on rail and will bring more container Trucks to our suburb as he was against the infrastructure that would have removed them. Being the PFL, Roe 8 or Roe 9 or which ever way its portrayed.

.
So too add to the congestion he proposed thousands more to come to work, in the city and more visitors while he wants NO new roads, while increasing freight rail through town, creating More division and social problems and less car parking.

.
Sounds like a recipe for disaster, but at least we have a rapid charging point for EV in town and guaranteed you can get pissed at a noisy concert right in the centre of a what was a quiet historic area of town, now  heavily used for residential.

.
Maybe that’s the plan with J-shed if the noise is loud enough from his approved, piss up concerts, it may drown out the noise from the trains.

Oh and Paul I think this is offering a solution while disagreeing with another POV, just in case you missed that point again.

Lesser of 2 Evils Roe 8 or the Outer Harbour

Seems Fremantle’s Mayor Brad Pettitt has had his crystal ball out again as he was reported in the West Australian that the Outer Harbour project has the broad community support, using his magical gift of knowing what the silent majority is thinking or maybe I missed his community engagement survey he conducted on this subject?

Strangely enough a Cockburn Councilor ran a strong campaign in support of Roe 8 and got elected in his ward in the last local election. I wonder if Brad was taking into consideration communities like this, or maybe their POV doesn’t count if it differs from his?

Reading Peter Newman’s comments on the decade old plan for Lat 32, it sounds like he plans it to be the replacement for Kewdale as an inter-modal area. So does that mean everything gets trucked from Kwinana that sounds like a lot more truck miles than the current scenario? Not to mention without Roe 8 how does Brad and peter intend all the trucks to get to Canningvale a huge industrial area, Ranford Rd is a single lane road in parts.

Amazing and Newman thinks you can build the outer harbour with little infrastructure, brad sees no reason for land infill? It’s amazing it will be like a MacGyver port. Places like Singapore have spend decades planning their new ports, Billions of $$ on infrastructure, if only they had Brad or Peters mobile number they could have had it done years earlier and for a fraction of the cost.

All that said they still didn’t deal with the current traffic congestion for Fremantle or the fact the number of trucks coming out of the port even with the new harbour will still increase. Great to see the Mayor Fremantle, solving issues for Cockburn and Kwinana but still hasn’t addressed the Freo issues, perhaps that’s why Fremantle is still on its downward slope?

So which is worse for the Environment a bridge over the Beeliar Wetlands or Dumping 10’s of thousands of Tonnes of infill into Cockburn sound?

Each has separate issues though as we saw in Queensland last week when a train derails the impact can be massive.

If the health of the wetland is such a major concern why would they want to open it up to the possibility of what we saw in Queensland this week?

http://www.abc.net.au/…/3100-litres–sulphuric…/7058000

When trains crash they crash big, at least with trucks the size of the disaster is limited.
I wonder if all the people in Kwinana and those living side by side to km’s of rail track realize the potential size of a disaster if a train derailed in our suburbs some up to a 100 carriages long.
https://goo.gl/maps/z5uALFmZtMu
click the link above for a map the grey line shows the train track route
https://goo.gl/maps/YEk2yo66tQ42
The picture from google earth shows the rail line running between the Samuel Carpon Reserve and the Beeliar Regional Park both with large wetlands, then into the suburbs that runs alongside Bibra lake road.


As the train/rail track from Kwinana runs through suburbs and along side the hotly contested Beeliar wetlands, I wonder what damage a derailment of this magnitude would do to the critical wetlands, 10’s of thousands of litres of toxic chemicals in one hit, dumped into the ground around Bibra Lake? .
Makes the road impact look insignificant.

Up to 31,500 litres of sulphuric acid has possibly leaked…
ABC.NET.AU

Mayors exchange words

MELVILLE Mayor Russell Aubrey has criticised the City of Cockburn for backing a $290 million road project to unlock traffic in Perth’s south-east

Source: Mayors exchange words

Good to see both Mayors of Melville and Cockburn driving development that will make their own citys, less congested, more efficient, more productive, safer, better for emplyment etc.

The ALP seem to have no issues building new roads, with great promises to Armadale and Cockburn.

I hope they have a big budget as Metronet and the Outer Harbour looks like costing them 10 billions on just to projects. I wonder if that leaves any money for the Freo area or are we due to miss out again on any state funds.

Cockburn is driving for new roads and connections to keep their area, driving forward with development. Of course they want the Outer Harbour to develop and possibly more importantly the Lat 32 giving the area a huge boost in revenue, developments and jobs.

Seems that both Roe 8 and the outer harbour will have environmental impacts.

Back to Freo with all the chat on the various issues and views, if Roe 8 and Roe 9 don’t go ahead what will be done  for Freo in the 10-15 years to fix the growing car traffic and of course the every expanding Port.

Considering at the last meeting I saw with the Premier and Peter Newman they seem to agree that the while Fremantle port already has best practice in Australia for Rail use, it would not be possible to expand containers to Rail much past 30% which is the current target. The also both agree Fremantle Port will continue to operate and with cap and transitions (once the outer Harbour opens) will see the port grow in containers movements over the next 15 years at least.

So the question stands what will happen to improve Fremantle’s every worsening  traffic situation? I still haven’t heard a solutions just objections.

In my reading i found this doc below which had some interesting reading in.

Southmetroconnect

On pg 11 (of the above link) shows some of the environmental studies/info which shoulders right to the Lat 32 area.?

Perth Freight Link Damned if we do Damned if we don’t Pt 3.

Following up from Pt 2.

To sum up they don’t want PFL, fair enough everyone has a right to an opinion, environmental impacts a big reason, they seem to want Lat 32 which needs the outer harbour, but that will also have huge environmental impacts greater than the PFL, so maybe its they are just against development? Sadly the whole thing is just political not practical and the residents of Fremantle will be left to have large trucks driving many different routes through our suburbs and our roads congestion will just get worse. Outer harbour has many challenges before construction can even begin, the biggest will be where will the $5billion to build it, come from?

Not to mention the $90 per 40′ container subsidy that each container doing onto rail gets from the state government, doubling the containers onto rail will also mean doubling the budget for subsidies. A budget that runs out soon, then what?

Rail struggle in Fremantle due to ‘shorthaul’ competition

One thing for sure this Lat 32 will not put more containers on rail or lower truck miles or stop bad environmental impacts on our local areas.  It will just shift it, though it will;

  • Increase truck miles for most containers
  • Need more trucks to the same job that is done now
  • Increase truck pollution
  • Increase costs for shipping and freight
  • Not increase rail out of Fremantle Port with out new infrastructure being built, ie dedicated rail lines and links
  • Have a huge impact on cockburn sound and on the areas for the Lat32 intermodal area and all the new roads it needs to work
  • Do nothing for Fremantle’s current congestion problem which will just continue to grow

Perth Freight Link Damned if we do Damned if we don’t Pt 2.

 

Following up from Pt 1.

If they bothered to read the Lat 32 plan it does not take trucks off roads or shorten truck trips it actually increases them and requires a longer road to be built. Plus it has Roe 8 as part of its plan. If anything the Lat 32 would increase truck miles and more than likely the number of trucks needed to do the job. Have a look here is a link latitude32.com.au

latitude32-location-map2

Future Regional Road is ROE 8

The High wide load corridor is a road twice as long as PFL for truck trips, not rail. Rail use still stays at the max of 30% whether a new port is built or not.

As the COF council has eluded to in the council meetings is that the PFL well may go ahead anyway, if it does sadly it does not look our council has fought to get the best possible outcome for our suburbs in regards to traffic management and we will just sit and watch as congestion gets worse and more accidents happen and the state government just puts through a road that’s best for the port. Council is missing the opportunity to solve other traffic management issues which have nothing to do with trucks or FPA operations.

I still find it quite amusing the council complains about commercial in confidence when the state government uses it but council has commercial in confidence meetings regularly, the Kings Square business plan a perfect case in point. Since October last year a Fremantle resident has asked questions about some of the financial figures council used which are hidden from residents view due to the council claiming it’s in commercial in confidence. No double standards there right?

Why Does Fremantle Need or Not Need, Perth Freight Link (PFL)

 

%d bloggers like this: