Perth Freight Link Councils at Opposite ends of Spectrum

Its amazing the the different points of view to bordering councils can have on the same issue as the Perth Freight Link or Roe8 which ever name you perfer.

In Fremantle councils, Fremantle Pulse we see the councils position.

“Council has adopted a position not to support the state government proposals for sections 1 and 2 of the Perth Freight Link (PFL). It has called on the state government to put the current proposal on hold until further long-term freight planning and better options are developed.

Council supports the planning and development of an outer harbour serviced by rail. The outer harbour concept is in keeping with many decades of settled freight transport and urban planning. A long-term solution to container freight transport issues based on rail as the key component would result in: • a more cost effective long-term solution for freight transport • saving the highly valued conservation area, Beeliar Wetlands, from decimation through road building • minimising localised freight impacts, especially at High Street and North Fremantle • a reduction of carbon intensive greenhouse gas emissions • a reduction in community health issues related to road trauma and exhaust emissions • better utilisation of existing road infrastructure.”

12563 - Map with Markers (2)

City Of Melville

Where Melville councils position quite the opposite, an extract from their council minutes.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION (3645) APPROVAL That the Council:- 1. Reconfirm its support for the extension of Roe Highway between the Kwinana Freeway and Stock Road in accordance with the plans adopted by Main Roads Western Australia to finalise the Perth Freight Link. 2. Request the Chief Executive Officer to write to Main Roads Western Australia requesting they approach the construction of the Roe Highway extension for that section within the Beeliar Regional Park, in such a way as to minimise any potential adverse environmental impacts on the Park, by ensuring the maximum protection of the flora and fauna, the wetlands and the amenity of the area, together with maintaining and enhancing public accessibility of this regionally important asset. 3. Reiterate its support for the extending the Roe Highway, west of Stock Road to Stirling Highway, utilising the alignment of the Fremantle Eastern Bypass for the Perth Freight Link. 4. Request the Chief Executive Officer to write to the State Government advising that in order to minimise the potential impact of utilising the Fremantle Eastern Bypass alignment for the Perth Freight Link, all or part of the route between Clontarf Hill and Stirling Highway be tunnelled.”

Sadly Fremantle council has abandoned their electorate to follow party politics with no intention to solve the traffic congestion, safety issues that faces its residents, where Melville councils officers and councillors have recommended and voted to address traffic congestion and safety issues for its residents.

Fremantle council is still bleating on about the outer harbour which will do nothing to address Fremantle’s traffic safety issues for the next decade at least, happy to leave its residents to have increasing congestion worsening safety issues and increasing pollution which will rapidly worsen with the stop start nature of traffic congestion and not to mention all the traffic lights.

With the local election and the door knocking in process its quite interesting to hear the number of people in the valley and towards freo who are in favour or have no objection to the tunnel option proposed but not so in favour of the high st expansion option. Clearly our council has once again slid down its political agenda instead of looking after the best interest of its rate payers.

Currently, only around 15% of containers are moved by rail, despite a substantial subsidy from the State Government. At present, Fremantle Port is one of the best performing ports in Australia with container movements by rail.

The city of fremantle  is misleading its residents by saying the outer harbour will solve the traffic issues, it will not its own study from CUSP, costing rate payers $20,000, (which several councillors have told me was a waste of money), shows that the traffic will worsen till the outer harbour is built another decade at least. Then when it opens it will drop the amount of trucks with the transition and then the truck traffic over the years will continue to increase out of fremantle to a much worsen situation than we have now. Increasing by as much as 30% more than we have currently 2015. That’s with the outer harbour fully operational and of course this will do nothing for the every increasing amount of other vehicles on our Fremantle roads.

Even with the outer harbour Fremantle will continue to have the same traffic problems we have now and it will continue to worsen and we will continue to get more trucks once the outer harbour is built and operational.

Whats worse is with the negative position our council has taken if the Roe 8 is built we will not have had any input into making sure we get the best outcome for Fremantle, to make all of our lives safer, healthier and happier.

 

River tunnel gets minister’s ear | Fremantle Herald Interactive

Source: River tunnel gets minister’s ear | Fremantle Herald Interactive Perth Freight Link issue

Just a few clarifications, while I did speak to Main Roads about the PFL their meeting was not 90 mins, they suggested another person who gave us a 90 mins meeting which lead to the meeting with Dean Nalder. Whom I must say was very generous with his time and open to our suggestions. I imagine he has dozens of restricting issues let alone how much they it would cost.

Also our idea was a little more sophisticated than dumping the rocks over the end of the port, but the intent or suggestion was to use the earth extracted from the tunnel to further extend the port for space, giving the port almost double its dock  current space, freeing up other space for residential or mixed space use, partly to offset the additional cost of tunneling option. A huge cost and time saving issue i’m sure?

The main idea if we had a tunnel and motorway that serviced the area it would work for the port , then at a later date if it had another use, the motorway access would service its next function as well as freeing up our major roads from through traffic, these are the  roads used by local residences and businesses.

It has the potential to seriously lighten traffic on

  • Stirling Hwy
  • Old Fremantle bridge and Queen Victoria St
  • Hampton Rd
  • High St
  • South St
  • Canning Hwy
  • Curtin Ave
  • etc.

Again the point is if the PFL is going to be built, trying to get the best possible outcome for Fremantle, its business and residents, instead of just a motorway in and out of the port.

Perhaps not perfect but the 1st step in a bigger conversation for the greater benefit of Fremantle.

 

 

Fremantle’s $100,000 Fighting Fund Deferred.

Good to see item  (SPC1505-1 NOTICE OF MOTION – CR JON STRACHAN – FREMANTLE COUNCIL’S POSITION ON THE PROPOSED PERTH FREIGHT LINK) for allocating $100,000 of COF funds for their attack on the state government was deferred. No chance of them voting it down out right, I think a couple were salivating at the idea of wasting that much money on trying to stick it to the government? For information it was not Strachan who came up with the magic $100K figure he said that it came from the CEO/staff.

The point Rachel Pemberton raised was correct it’s not clear what they would be protesting against. As the actual plan has not been finalized yet. Maybe she has been reading my blog post? What was clear is that again Dave Hume brought a touch of reality to the issue perhaps he has been speaking to residents and ratepayers on the issue? As his point was what I have heard a lot over the last couple of days, is that this $100,000 of rate payers funds is pretty much to fund certain councillors personal political agendas.

Following Dave Humes touch of reality, Bill Massie brought his no nonsense, practical, common sense to the conversation, cautioning councillors to be responsible with rate payer’s funds, which brought the usual scoffs and snickers from the same councillors? Amazing Bill speaks of responsibility, no waste, fiduciary responsibility and they laugh, tells a story doesn’t it? Makes you wonder who the sustainable ones are and who just use it as a political catch cry?

Of course several said that of course this was not the case but Dave Hume made a good point which is pretty obvious that council’s action need to be in the best interest of the general good of Fremantle, not their personal concern or political ideals etc.

With the actions of council over the last year or so it seems clear political agenda is the first and foremost issue and general amenity of residents and ratepayers appear to be well down the list. The current councils not driving a political agenda is as believable as them being, not anti-car?

I get there are certain parts of the community would love the council to spend a fortune fighting against the state government, on this issue or others but is this the function of council? I’m sure there are groups in our community, who couldn’t damn for councils political agenda ideals and others are dead against it?

I would like to see an impact/modeling study on the impact on Fremantle if the current train system was to be maximised on freight use, would all those residents along the train line be happy with volume of train use, their heavy diesel pollution brought in the CBD, the noise pollution etc? The council wants to re-engaged the port through the Freo train station area, how is that possible if we quadruple the rail traffic?

What impact would that have on the businesses in fishing boat harbour? How would this effect emergency services accessing these areas?

What impact would that have on access to the south mole?

What impact would that have on southern harbour operations, Rottnest island ferries, retail on the port, cruise ships etc?

Impact on the arts precincts in the west end, round house, bather’s beach, J-shed area, etc. All areas the council is telling us they are trying to activate?

Sadly I don’t think one system or the other will maintain the ports transport needs into the future but it will be a mixture of both. I would also like to hear from the port authority on what is practical for their operational point of view? The real issue is it also seems impossible to go to one location and get unbiased information on the issue as a whole?

According to Brad all will be clear once CUSP finishes or releases their studies, no agenda from that group is there? What’s was concerning is listening to Brad discuss the timing of CUSP releases with the city use $100,000 fighting fund to maximise impact? No political agenda there right, so much for waiting for the findings of the minister request for proposals, or the CUSP reports, it seems from these comments the course of action to be already pre-determined?

Just waiting now for the Fremantle rate payers and residents to foot the bill again?

 

%d bloggers like this: