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
(Visited 150 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply to Mark Cancel reply


  1. Chris says:

    It’s interesting how people that are for the PFL tend to make the comment that people who are against it are against development etc, then go on to say the new port isn’t viable or necessary. The new port is something EVERYONE in the political world seems to agree needs building, it’s just when that is in argument…. This government wants road infrastructure projects, plain and simple, thus the PFL.

    Freo has a traffic problem as it stands, however with the PFL they are going to try to push the container movement from the current 700,000 to 1.4 million up to possible 1.7 million. What is that going to do to the roads? The design of the port is outdated and almost unable to handle the current numbers. What good is a road that increases the traffic, if the port in which it’s built for can’t handle it? Jeez man, get out of the dark ages!!! =)

    • Mark says:

      Just a question if the port cant handle it, why is able to double from its current container amount.
      The point is also if environmental issues are a concern for the PFL then the EPA report is a disaster for Cockburn sound to build a new port there
      Fact is in the next 10 years no matter who is in government the new port will not be operational.
      So freo will continue to have worsening traffic issues for the next decade with no ideas around to fit it, or budgets to pay for it.
      I don’t hear either side of the argument having both sides of story or a good pros and cons list of what happens if we do or don’t.
      I don’t see any funding or costings on a new port, lat 32, new rail network, new road network all to make the other plan work.
      As I don’t see from the government a solution for the Nth Freo issues.

      So for me this thinking is from the dark ages, where one side yells no blindly as the yes side does the opposite. I’m yet able to find a balanced argument, on the subject with real facts as both sides are fear mongering or not be truly open.

      But nothing unusual in freo to be attacked for asking questions, calling for a better discussion or not following group think. The us or them attitude is what’s from the dark ages with nothing in between.
      But it makes for great politics as per usual freo will get bugger all as its not an election margin issue for either major party worth worrying about.

  2. freoishome says:

    It is the Gov’t who have set up this conflict situation Mark, not those who are saying No.

    If the Gov’t had approached this is the more adult way ReThink Perth Link are saying, then there could be a discussion. But as it stands now, Gov’t is dogmatically going ahead with their plans without adult thought.

    The public, ie the people who are saying NO, don’t have the resources to fully assess all the options. But they are able to express opinions based on past assessments, past strategies, plans, and on common sense. Intelligent human can draw inference and conclusions from history. Wisdom often lies in the masses, not the bosses.

    You have tried to make the case that the PFL isn’t just about Freight, whereas that it exactly what it is designed to be all about. Other measures have and are continuing to be undertaken to deal with passenger traffic, eg, public transport. The expansion and electrification of the Metro passenger transport has been an outstanding success; light rail could add to that as well as the fast bus links; and altering town planning to increase density close to activity centres, which themselves will be close to rail and light rail.

    Freight on rail is similar in principle to the Metro passenger trains, ie, get the bulk of containers of roads onto rail, to transport them to the major freight transport hubs. However, the current port’s location, size and shape isn’t suitable for massively increasing freight on rail, hence the need to relocate that activity.

    Building roads has the opposite effect, eg, decentralising communities, increasing urban sprawl and all the negatives lifestyle impacts that go with that as West Sydney now knows all about.

    I think the main problem is Perth Centric thinking. Perth cannot remain all things, to all, in perpetuity. We don’t farm sheep, cattle and wheat in Perth! We don’t mine in Perth! In Perth we administer, we provide State level services. We need at least two more Metro sized cities, ie, each of 500,000 people in WA. Independent cities, not just expanded Perth suburbs or country towns. It seems we need completely different leaders for that to happen, the current mob, of all persuasions, can’t think outside the square, so we just get more of the same!.


    • Mark says:

      Paul the council choose to take a NO positions which lies in their ideology of anti car and anti government which suit many of their own Political ambitions and likes. They had no problem discussing $100,000 to drive their own ideology on the issue and dropped $20,000 on the CUSP report which direction was hardly surprising, considering who was writing it.
      I did not read much about the impact of Cars on the road network it referred too and considering they are the bulk of whats on the road and ever increasing in numbers, yet it failed to address any of this impact.
      Not exactly informative when a huge part of congestion was not even discussed, though it did point nicely along council ideology.

      I still don’t see how any of this will help the average resident in Freo, the vast majority of whom drives cars on a daily basis.
      I just have to look out my window and see the number of parents dropping kids at school by car or SUV, then to go on their daily routine.
      In 10 years time the congestion will be worse, but they will still drive the car and i see no real plans to address it or money to fix it.
      I agree the government has done a crap job at information, consultation, but council has not done anything any better all they have done is drive their own ideology, a bit like the state government
      I agree more PT rail would be great in many suburbs, but how much will it cost and what will be cut to pay for it. Then the ever increasing budget needed for subsidies
      Plenty of areas want it and realistically where will the money come from to pay for it?
      Would People be happy if the South St road reserve was activated how many homes and all the big pines would go to make it work, for PT, do people understand these impacts?
      I agree the PFL will have an environmental impact, but so will building Lat32, its network of new roads and a new port & rail, costing billions of dollars, far more than the PFL and will not increase rail past 30%, but give us longer truck trips for most containers
      The EPA report on the outer harbour states it will have a huge impact on Cockburn sound, but again I don’t hear any information on any of this.

      The greater city idea well we know that would be great, but again where’s the $$$$.

  3. Martin says:

    Hi Mark,

    I see a lot of opposition to the PFL, and for good reason, but very little real discussion.

    I thought the State Govt had asked 3 consortia to each look at possible options for the PFL. Until this work has been completed it is not clear what is being proposed. Meanwhile we have people chaining themselves to chimneys in houses on High St, people opposing a road in Hamilton Hill, and others just opposing everything – no matter what gets presented.

    The Govt has told us that they have put the project out to the 3 consortia for ideas, and are waiting for the results of that work before sharing it with the community. I am not sure what else they are supposed to be telling us right now?

    While all political parties seem to support a new Port, NONE of them support closing the existing one. Freo Port will continue to grow in volume throughput.

    It is interesting that you are branded as “For” the PFL for simply asking questions. Encouraging a discussion… Your line of questioning is obviously inconvenient for some?

    The main issue I have with the current PFL is that it ignores North Freo, which is probably in most need of congestion relief. This needs to be addressed first. There are 67,000 vehicles going through there every day, with less than 10% of this being trucks. Even doubling the number of trucks won’t keep up with the growth of car traffic through there.

    Infrastructure Australia has predicted that West Coast Hwy will become the 5th most congested road in Australia. The worst bottleneck on this road is North Fremantle and crossing the river.

    Both Freo and North Freo are already well served by public transport. This congestion is unlikely to be solved by public transport, as the traffic is passing through our City, not visiting us. West of the Airport there are major north / south road crossings of the Swan River at just Tonkin Hwy, Kwinana Fwy and Stirling Hwy. We live in a bottleneck for people wanting to cross the river.

    This is a problem we face here and now! It’s real!

    A solution just for trucks is not going to solve North Freo’s problem. This suburb is already divided and strangled by traffic of all types. Surely this is not fair on the residents of North Freo, and unsustainable. Is doing nothing really an option in the long term. The Port is not going anywhere, and infill residential development just south of Freo is going to make traffic even worse. This needs to be discussed, regardless of what the “thought police” want you to do and say.

    I think those in the dark ages are perhaps the ones that have not actually read the CUSP report, researched the Latitude 32 project or the impact of a New Port on Cockburn Sound. If they had, they would realise that both alternatives create very similar problems – just in different people’s back yards.

    Both projects involve building many, many kilometres of new four lane roads, driving a highway through the string of wetlands that stretch from North Lake to Rockingham, and moving containers from Port to Road or from Port to Rail to Road. The CUSP / Second Port proposal still results in most containers being transported by truck from Latitude 32!

    Ninbyism is alive and well in Fremantle. So in inconsistency – an 18km extension of Tonkin Hwy to a port in Kwinana is still a ROAD!

    Jeez man, people should step out of the herd once in a while and do some homework for themselves. Perhaps even ask a question for a change! That’s how discussions start…

    You sound like you are getting used to being attacked for asking questions in Freo. Keep asking them Mark, because they need to be asked.


  4. I love the ‘your living in the dark ages’ accusation. Having heard it here, it’s made me think of the dark ages. When people lived in castles and created and built ROADS to get from town to town to create trade routes.

    Stop standing in the way of progress. It is you who is living in the dark ages. Humankind has progressed beyond weaving baskets by hand or operating a horse and cart because of progress, more so because they have adopted and can afford a motorcar.

    Cars are freedom from public transport and you cannot stop people from using them, and frankly, why would you! If I want to drive a v8, I will! Good luck trying to stop me.

    The same principle applies to road vs rail transport. It’s a cost issue. If you have a method of making rail transport cheaper, more convenient and quicker then you will see companies clamouring to use it. If you can solve this ‘problem’, I’m all ears. At the moment road transport from the port wins everytime.

    The next time you order something online from overseas or interstate, think about how long you are prepared to wait for it to be delivered and how much you are prepared to pay for delivery. It is YOU who has the power already to determine this and yet, I think you have already chosen convenience and cost over your own ideology.

    I have ordered items from overseas and chosen sea transport, that took 3 months, but considering the cost or road, rail and air, transport, I chose sea transport, in that example. Other times, I want something immediately.

    Multiply that same or similar demand by 2.3 million people.

    Governments are reacting and acting according to community demands. The community is demanding this because it’s needed because of increased freight, increased purchases, increased demand. Fremantle is the main port, just as we have the main airports.

    If I need something overnight because I need to fulfil and order because a customer demands it, and they will pay for it, then as a good business operator, I will do it.

  5. freoishome says:

    With Respect Mark, Martin and Matthew. I don’t hear any of you talking about your suggestions or your solutions.

    The most vocal and one of the longest, active group of locals have recommended switching container traffic from road to rail. This isn’t the Lat 32 idea, it is an alternate solution to it and PFL. Isn’t that an idea worthy of your intellects, your analytical minds?

    I must be guilty of defective hearing, as when I go to meetings or meet with groups like Rethink Perth Freight Link, I hear them basing their concerns on the views expressed by the current Gov’t, statement by statement. They are listening to Gov’t and don’t like what they hear. Whereas that can’t be said of the Gov’t and their supporters, who are not picking up the suggestions and alternatives put by others, and analysing them as these groups are doing.


    • Mark says:

      Paul is it really physically possible to switch all container traffic to rail.
      I’m all for the rail being brought up to its 30% level, but I believe that’s a limit due to (approx) 30% of containers going to a location with a rail as a destination.
      I am saying we need to have a conversation where people can get facts and hear opposing views in a positive open discussion, all the conversations now are with blinkers on and driving their own agenda, I don’t see any big picture realistic long term direction taking in all the pros and cons.
      Rail is a great solution for long distance transportation trucks are application for short trips and the discussion will be in the middle on whats better for medium distance transportation.
      I do have an alternative idea but as history tells us to release it too soon or before you have looked/considered it properly it only leaves you open to attacks before the idea has been properly thought out, possibly killing it before it has a chance to be viewed for its real benefits.
      I don’t see how the idea of having conversation for people to discuss their concerns, is not a solution, as that’s where solutions normally start.

      • freoishome says:

        Firstly, I am thinking about container traffic going to and from our harbour. When it leaves the harbour where does it go and why, and likewise where has it come from. What is very apparent, even at this cursory stage is that this is very different to trucks and their containers being used for distribution, to homes, businesses, retail and industry. So easier to consider the Distribution needs for containers separately from their Haulage.

        At present Perth only has one Haulage transport ‘Hub’ at Kewdale. Trains and trucks use it. Individual containers get loaded/unloaded onto trains and road trains, etc.

        Break Bulk is another huge undertaking. Where the contents of a container are, as the term implies, broken up into smaller loads for ‘Distribution’, and conversely, collected together to fill a container. Some of this is done at Kewdale, but a huge amount is done by a group of large companies with large fleets of trucks, shuttling back and forwards to Freo port, literally hundreds/day to each of these companies yards.

        In pure financial terms the benefit of freight rail is on long haul. But economics is actually about the benefits to community, that can be levered through finance. Freight rail for shorter distances brings a wider range of benefits and costs, when compared with Road Haulage. These community benefits are at their best where a city the size of Perth and larger has several well distributed Transport Hubs, not just the one Perth currently has at Kewdale. Then freight rail can transport the 000s of containers/day to these hubs, where the Break Bulk, Road Train and further freight rail activity takes place.

        However, we know that Fremantle Port has serious limitations for increasing freight rail beyond 30%. Kwinana, on the other hand could be designed specifically for freight rail. Also establishing one transport HUB at the port itself, and then transferring the bulk of the remaining freight to other transport Hubs by rail.

        In the Eastern States freight rail moves 64,000 tonnes per/hr, ie, equivalent to 1600 x 40 tonne trucks per hour. The idea of freight rail only being capable of transporting 30% to and from the Harbour, may be true for the current harbour, but I’m not aware of it being nationally or internationally based fact applicable for all ports!

        Modern container cranes can service several train tracks. But Freo Port chooses to organise that aspect around port trucks, forklifts, parking and reloading subsequently on road trucks or trains.

        This principle already applies to Air Freight, ie, airports are Break Bulk transport Hubs. But not integrated with freight or passenger rail, only road haulage and road distribution.

        The airports and Kewdale don’t even use the excellent passenger line rail as part of the distribution network. Only trucks of different sizes. I don’t understand why we don’t have ‘end of line’ parcel services, where containers (not shipping containers) like those on aircraft are just wheeled into a freight carriage on every train, and the local courier services just drop off and pick up their loads instead of hundreds of them driving to the airport multiple times/day.

        So I have put up this idea. Is it properly thought out, is it going to get shot down? An idea is never properly thought out! It needs critical analysis. If that is done in a conversational manner, ie, where others advance the ideas, point out short comings in a style designed to encourage change, not just smash them, then Blogs oughts to be the ideal forum. Of course that is in sharp contrast to academia, where their practise, is only to critique, not to contribute.


        • Mark says:

          Paul talking about any limitations, I would only be referring to Fremantle, as I imagine every port is different and has its own peculiarities.

        • Martin says:


          There is an insightful report prepared for the Dept of Main Roads in Oct 2009 called “Roe Highway Strategic Review – Final Report”. While it is out of date, many of the insights are still valid.

          My reading of this report is that the 30% limit on freight being taken out of Fremantle Port is not a constraint at the port end, but that it due to the distribution of destinations for the delivery of containers from the Port.

          Approximately 35-40% of containers are destined for the Kewdale / Forrestfield region, about 15% goes to O’Connor and the rest is thinly spread throughout the rest of Perth and the greater WA. Only 15% of containers going to the port are sourced from Kewdale / Forrestfield.

          Unfortunately this distribution of destinations limits the effectiveness of delivering containers by rail. This is the crux of the road versus rail issue. From what I can tell, the 30% figure is a target of getting almost all of the containers destined for Perth’s major Road / Rail Hub delivered by rail. There are no other natural locations for another Hub in Perth (except perhaps Muchea for northbound trucks) – I am happy to be proven wrong here! Both the existing and proposed new port have great rail links to Kewdale.

          It would be totally illogical to deliver a container by truck to O’Connor, Bibra Lake or Canningvale after transporting it first to Kewdale by train.

          So herein lies the issue. Where does your 30% freight rail constraint at Fremantle Port come from. What is it based on? It forms the foundation for your argument and that of many others. Did you get it from the Road to Rail supporters, or did you go and do your own research to verify this assumption? Is it valid? Yes the Port will have a rail capacity constraint, but is this causing the “30%” bottleneck or is it somewhere else?

          Don’t get me wrong. I am anti road and very pro rail, and have been all of my life. I fill up my car with fuel once every month or two. I use public transport daily, I walk most places in Freo and I use my bike. I don’t just talk the talk, I live it daily. I don’t feel any need to brand myself as Green to minimise my footprint, or choose the way I live my life. However, I have very little time for tokenism. I would be the first to celebrate if we could get 100% of the containers out of Freo Port by rail. Unfortunately, there is a big and complex world out there, and we cannot expect to shape other people’s lives into our own personal view of utopia – and then expect them to pay for it!

          The problem with the public PFL discussion is that most people are too lazy to verify the facts for themselves – or perhaps it is just more convenient to repeat what other like minded people have told them.

          I have no interest in shooting anybody’s proposal down. All proposals are good proposals, provided they have been properly thought through are primarily based on facts. I encourage you to keep pursuing this one.

          Unfortunately we have a freight and traffic problem, and it actually needs a pragmatic solution.

          […and I think transporting 64,000 tonnes per hour is more likely to equate to at least 3,500 – 5,000+ containers / trucks off the road not 1,600, based on maximum allowable 40′ container weights]


          • freoishome says:

            Thanks for your reply Martin. We obviously share similar transport lifestyles, and I too am not a political party member. I’ll follow up your suggested MRWA link.

            FPA report indicates that the majority of its containers are transported by road to 11 Break Bulk companies all in the southern suburbs, several in areas close to naval base and possibly includes the O’Connor location. This is an obvious candidate for a freight transport Hub. I suspect there are a number in the Northern and Western suburbs as well, based on the continuous flow of trucks on Curtin Ave to West Coast Hwy, all from a small number of haulage companies. I suspect, but don’t know how to verify, that the % that is thinly spread over the Metro is quite small, and with a HUB model would be picked from the various hubs. But even so, the freight transport Hub concept is to spread the Truck load more evenly over the Metro. At present nearly 90% of containers go directly to the port by truck. This is not just a environmental issue, as Matthew would like to make out, to trivialise. Trucks require inordinately stronger constructed roads, and the ongoing damage requiring enormous sums in maintenance are not caused by cars.
            It isn’t just Greenies who want to reduce the volume of trucks on our roads, every motorist has that same wish. Every resident where trucks pass by, not just next door, but several streets back from truck routes, don’t want the endless convoys of trucks. There are environmental concerns, as well as serious health concerns from diesel particulates. Politicians love to use the word economics, but are so ignorant they think it is just a substitute for the words finance, money and accounting, the latter being considered dirty words. Economics is about how to provide benefits to the community. Reducing noise, chemical, environmental, etc, pollution is a public benefit of great concern to the vast majority of citizens. Minimising the nuisance of motor traffic is a public benefit, and trucks are way up there on that list of public traffic nuisance, probably second to caravans.
            Many think freight rail is the obvious solution to replace convoys of trucks. Even truckies think that, they would rather use a small number of strategically located freight transport Hubs, than drive to the Port. Trucks are fantastic for distribution, but lousy in convoys.

            Freight rail already travels through Kwinana, and from there can go west and south to Mundijong and beyond, also north to Kewdale, and via the airports to Midvale and beyond, and even a connection going into East Perth. The northern metro suburbs are not well supported with freight rail, but that isn’t out of the question.

            Underused rail infrastructure is such a waste. Politically led scandal! Once freight rail infrastructure is installed its lifetime is far superior to road, and I suspect the maintenance costs are as well.

            Matthew supports a tunnel to Freo Port. That has already been discounted by the engineers, it is impossible. Whether for trains or trucks to maintain the required flow needed for port ops, it needs a gradient that there isn’t space to build. The English channel tunnel, doesn’t pop out 50 meters from either coast, on the UK side is nearly 10kms from the coast and nearly 4km on the French side, admittedly much deeper than Fremantle Port needs, but it gives the general picture.

    • Martin says:

      The current environment is incredibly toxic when it comes to discussions on the PFL. Until there is a proper balanced discussion taking place it would be a waste of my time to make suggestions in public. I don’t do “religious debates”.

      Asking question of the misinformation being spread about is a better use of my time than jumping on the bandwagon with the rest of the herd.

      The CoF and the “Transport Experts” at CUSP are pushing the Lattitude 32 concept. I haven’t seen any other suggestions backed up with any substance. If you have, why not share them with us by sending a link.

      I prefer to share my view / suggestions / solutions with people with open minds, and there is not much of that going around just now on this topic.


      • Mark says:

        Sadly Martins its politics that helps bring this toxic environment instead of a intelligent discussion to look into the pros and cons of building the PFL or not and what impacts either decisions will have on our great city and the state as a whole.
        It’s this political stand our council has taken is what has killed off any balanced discussion and left the door open for a fear mongering based campaign, killing off real questions getting real answers and possibly restricting the feed of new ideas to bring other solutions to the public forum

  6. I think I’ve made my views pretty clear in relation to the PFL. I support the current governments position. I think its a good solution, so far, and I don’t have a problem with it. I think the tunnel solution is a better solution than the High St/Stock Rd option. I’m in favour of it, because we need it, the money has been allocated and I think we need to build it before the Labor party gets back into government and removes all the road reserves and sells off the land and we have worse congestion that we already do.

    Not building the PFL is not a solution to the problem.

    I think that Dean Nalder is doing a great job.

    It’s okay to disagree with the governments position, but that doesn’t mean you will stop it, or you are in government, or you represent a majority, or you are right. Outside of Fremantle, there isn’t a lot of support for the Re-Think the Link movement. There has been a huge amount of support from eastern suburbs to get this project built for 15 years.

    I think there was maybe 20 people against the Link being built that was reported on the news tonight. 1500 signatures in a petition that Lynn MacLaren presented. Not really a lot of support there.

    Putting off and coming up with an alternative solution such as building another port and not going ahead with this project will make the situation worse. I feel Fremantle needs this project to progress. I want to see the port stay in Fremantle. I think people need to realise that they are living around a port and there are reasons why there are exclusion zones around industrial areas. Its a bit late for people to move away from the Port, but you need to remember that Fremantle is a busy port with trucks and rail coming to and from it shipping goods around the metro area. A port in Kwinana is out of the question at the moment because of the costs to develop it.

    I think a lot of your premise Paul is based purely on the idea of rail being superior to road from an environmental perspective. I don’t have a problem with that, if that’s your view. Your mission is to save the planet or its to remove trucks from Fremantle roads, or both. I don’t think you’ve answered the question of the extra km’s in regard to the Lat 32 container holding zone along with many other questions. In fact, you’ve deliberately avoided it.

    Roe Highway and the PFL should have been built 25 years ago. Now, we essentially need it because of congestion to and from the port. Congestion is everywhere on most major roads. You solution is to provide more public transport, at the expense of personal freedoms and convenience. Your freight arguments for rail don’t encompass the subsidies that are needed to be paid. Your solution is to pay the subsidy, regardless of the cost to the State in relation to this and the new Port. Are you going to raise taxes? Even if you put 30% freight on rail, you still havent stated how you will do this? Legislation? Whats to stop a trucking company winning the work and doing it cheaper? More legislation? You still haven’t solved that problem.

    There seems to be a lot of experts, who aren’t experts. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, however, I think a lot of people think their opinion is gospel and that they are experts. Like I said previously, do you have access to the millions that are being spent on researching this project? The actual paid experts? Road planners? City engineers? Tunnel experts? What about a whole department of people dedicated to the State’s planning and infrastructure?

    I’m not trying to diminish anyone else’s opinion on this PFL matter. However, I am merely trying to bring some common sense into the debate. How many people who are opposing the PFL drive a car? When you buy something online, do you expect it to get here asap at the least cost? Everyone has a choice and I’m not a big fan of ‘lets blame the government’ because we cannot make our own decisions.

    I make a decision to drive a car and add to the congestion.
    I make a decision to cross the old bridge vs the new bridge.
    I make a decision to buy goods from overseas that come in via the container port (Fremantle).
    I make a decision to live in Fremantle, around a working port.
    I make a decision to live on a busy road.

    If I didn’t want to deal with congestion and worked in Perth, I would live closer (1 example).

    A lot of this argument is based around the movement of freight, when it has been shown that’s not necessarily the main issue with the current roads and the Road to Rail mob have piggy backed onto it.

  7. economics
    noun: economics; plural noun: economics

    the branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth.
    the condition of a region or group as regards material prosperity.
    “he is responsible for the island’s modest economics”

  8. Martin says:


    I have provided you with the name of the document that provides in graphical form where containers leaving the port are heading to, and containers going to the port are sourced. It was written by engineers for Main Roads.

    Yet you are still suspecting an assumptions that suits your arguments, while stating that you don’t know how to verify. It’s in the document. I can’t read it for you. I found it on the internet with very little effort.

    I have also managed to verify from a government source today that the 30% target / cap is driven by factors outside the port, and not driven by the port constraints.

    Outside of Kewdale and O’Connor, no more than 5% of containers are delivered to any other locality. The statistics of containers delivered to the port are even more diverse. This makes your Hub concept impractical to serve by rail.

    The stats are readily available. To solve a problem it is best to define the problem, gather the data, formulate the assumptions and methodologies and do the analysis. Starting with the answer, continuously repeating the answer and then concluding that the answer is the one and only answer, is not an approach I can recommend. It rarely results in the best outcome.

    • freoishome says:

      Martin, I think you might be interested in the report that I have referred too. Sorry it has taken a while for me to locate it, as it is no longer available on the FPA website, I needed to get the exact title:
      Fremantle Port Container Movement Study 2012, only 16 pages.
      Joint FPA MRWA report
      Apart from the stats of movement, with 80% in the southern suburbs, it provides some insight into the difference between road and rail haulage, like times of day, day of the week, rail being a means where this control of flow is most easily managed, whereas road haulage being linked very obviously to conventional working hours and weekdays, and there is lots more.
      My selective reading criteria isn’t about biased political content, I like to be informed from all perspectives, one of the reasons I read here, rather, I am quite a slow reader, something that led me to later chose not to follow a PHD path, hence settled with an Honours degree.
      I tried to follow some of the rather general pointers from a number of bloggers here to LAT 32, but Google just leads to a very general link to the overall project with many references. So I hope future bloggers are precise in their references.

%d bloggers like this: