High Street Upgrades after the Perth Freight Link – some initial thoughts for discussion.

The killing off of the PFL and the ALP’s commitment to the outer harbour and potentially capping the Fremantle inner harbour has rendered the previously proposed major upgrades to High Street and Stirling Hwy Fremantle as potentially  overly intrusive and expensive.

With this in mind the Fremantle Council is looking forward to working with our community to push for a more immediate, lower cost, interim solution that improves resident amenity, safety and performance. This should  obviously include the key pinch point – the intersection of High Street and Stirling Hwy – which need to be upgraded ASAP to a level currently provided on other parts of the existing freight route such as the Stock Rd and Leech Hwy intersection.

The recent slow growth in containers number means that there is time to do a full investigation into the proposed outer harbour before committing to any major upgrades to this area that would have multiple flow-on impacts including likely impacts on residents, the golf courses and Boo Park.

This means not proceeding with Option 4 as previously proposed (see below for an illustration of what we did not support) and instead creating an improved road but NOT one that is focused on controlled access standards or one that allows freight vehicles to travel at 60kmh around the High and Stirling bend!

This was Main Roads Option 4 which the Fremantle Council did NOT support

Principles for new High Street design:

  • Needs to be improve safety including at Stirling Hwy intersection;
  • Needs to be made safer for netballers to both park and access courts;
  • Needs to enable both public and private golf courses to continue to operate;
  • Needs to retain most of the mature trees south of High Street;
  • Needs to improve the efficiency of vehicle movements;
  • Needs to reduce noise and pollution impacts on nearby residents;
  • Needs to be consistent with the major investment planned for the second harbour;
  • Needs to improve pedestrian crossings north south and east/west;
  • What else?

A moderate and immediate upgrade to High/Stirling intersection

There needs to be an immediate upgrade at the intersection of High Street and Stirling Highway immediately to make it safer and more efficient. This should include an exploration of upgrades including:

  • Flattening out the small peak just west of Montreal Street;
  • Introducing a double turn right lane into Stirling Highway (like Stock Road/Leach Highway travelling from the port);
  • Introducing a slip lane onto High Street for trucks leaving the port so they do not have to stop at this intersection (like Stock Road/Leach Highway travelling to the port);

A moderate and immediate upgrade to High Street from Stirling to Carrington

  • Making the Royal Fremantle Golf Club, Chudleigh, Onslow, Wilkinson and Montreal Street intersections with High Street ALL “left in, left out” only;
  • Making it safer for netballers by formalising parking and upgrading the crossing of High Street via an underpass or overpass or adequate median strip with pedestrian traffic lights.

A more substantial upgrade would be all of the above plus building new west-bound lanes to the south of the mature trees on High Street and create a slip road for High Street residents.


Should either of these be the position that the Fremantle Council lobbies the State Government to fund?

The Fremantle Coucil and I love to hear your feedback.

About Mayor of Fremantle Brad Pettitt's blog
City of Fremantle Mayor

81 Responses to High Street Upgrades after the Perth Freight Link – some initial thoughts for discussion.

    • Karen Bartz says:

      Sell the port but not to the Chinese, to local developers.  Keep anything historic and ensure berthing facilities for cruise ships, ferries and a marina in the plans. The rest for shops, cafes, and apartments.  Ensure local developers only and all Australian workforce for development. Take the proceeds and build the outer harbour!
      There is no rule written or not that we must value truck movements over and above the health and safety of our residents and our community so why do we keep doing it?

  1. Lionel says:

    The second picture included is useless as it is not to scale and doesn’t show the relationship to the current roads and surroundings (unlike the first which is incredibly clear and useful). Was this created by a child?

    I agree this intersection needs immediate attention but if that is the current level of thinking we are doomed.

      • Lionel says:

        There are a few simple requirements that should be met.

        1) Southbound traffic on Stirling highway that is turning East on to High street needs to be able to do so without stopping (i.e. a dedicated turning lane, no giveway/stop sign/lights)
        2) Westbound traffic on High street that is turning North on to Stirling highway needs to be able to do so without stopping.
        3) Pedestrians need to be able to cross this road easily

        These three requirements should be a bare minimum. If the upgrade can’t achieve these things then it is pointless.

      • That will require some rather large vehicle flyovers!

      • Lionel says:

        Yes, exactly. Anything short of that is just pissing away money on temporary solutions.

        Don’t you think that eventually this has to be done (budget and time aside)?

      • I don’t believe this is necessary if the Fremantle Port is capped at a level around where it is now. Much more modest upgrades (in conjunction with other good transport investment) will do the job.

      • Lionel says:

        What is your opinion if the capacity isn’t capped at current levels?

      • Well if it isn’t capped at current levels then the ALP need to be clear what it will be capped at and then the road system should be built accordingly. THat would be the correct order rather than maxing out with a likely cap planned.

      • Lionel says:

        Brad, I realise as a politician it goes against every fibre of your being to give a straight answer, but for the sake of argument, please give it one more go.

        Here is the question I want a yes or no answer to:

        If port movements are not capped by the ALP, should the flyover option be built?

      • If there is to be no cap on Freo Port and and no outer harbour then (perhaps ironically) a tunnel would be the best option but all the way to the port 🙂

      • Jason says:

        There is no realistic costed, let alone funded path towards an outer harbor being operational within the next 20 years. Even then there is no indication at all that Fremantle Port will not operate at (if it’s reached), or continue to grow towards it’s design capacity. Fremantle council has opposed the Roe 8 / 9 on the basis that the Port in it’s entirety would be moved, clearly something that isn’t going to happen.

        Looking at the mainroads proposal, they are prepared for reality. That reality is increased truck movements along this corridor with or without the outer harbour. I firmly believe these same upgrades would be necessary with redevelopment if that were to ever happen, you don’t honestly believe all those luxury apartments would be owned by the type of people who catch public transport do you? No, they will own cars, lots of cars and they will demand easy road access to the rest of Perth.

      • Freo Council doesn’t support the port moving in its entirety. We support capping it ASAP and I don’t see why this should take more than a few years given the planning already done. cheers

  2. Seriah says:

    The proposed changes look like a good solution and meet a lot of needs that have been in existence for a while. My house is on this map and i live on the south side of the fat blue line. Currently if I want to head towards the airport it’s not so straight forward to get onto night street there’s a few options but most roads are blocked or one way. And turning right into leach from Montreal street usually feels unsafe. Can you please draw in a solution for entering onto high street from the south, that’s clear and easy flow for not high traffic too?

  3. Mark Byrnes says:

    We have had a plan in place for Roe 8 and 9 for 20 years and a focus for around 40 years of where our roads should be. We now have primary school children doing drawings for traffic management to lead us into at least twenty more years of traffic into Fremantle port. Roe 8 and 9 are needed to keep Fremantle a viable operating port and not just a coffee spot for hipsters on the weekends. The major attraction of Fremantle is that it is an operating port with cruise ships, sheep and car ships, fishing fleets and even Greenpeace ships. Little boxes by the ocean will do nothing for Fremantle in the unlikely event of the port closing in 20 or more years.

  4. johnwv says:

    Principles for new High Street design:
    What else you ask Brad?
    Needs to accommodate the densification of the Knutsford Precinct and the WGV community.

    Placing a roundabout on the T junction of Amherst and High would achieve two important outcomes for the area:
    1. Calm vehicles speeding between Stirling Highway and East St and importantly,
    2. Provide the densifying Knutsford Precinct and WGV community with an east and west exit onto High from Amherst
    Currently all traffic wanting to head north of the Swan River from this area is directed to the East St lights, and then along the East St 40km school zone to the old traffic bridge. Surely taking traffic away from East St and slowing vehicles heading toward it and the CBD would be a prime safety consideration for the lobby.

    An Amherst – High St roundabout is a moderate and immediate upgrade to High St from Stirling to East. Just a thought.

    John Vodanovic

  5. David Stewart says:

    There’s no way that any residential property should be resumed to make way for yet another road upgrade.
    Any plans need to be made with the utmost regard for the local population and their wishes.

    • Marke J Enkel says:

      Unfortunately things like this need to happen you can’t squeeze a larger road into the same smaller space the one thing that should happen is the owner gets fair value for their property

  6. Christina says:

    I’m very glad to see some discussion around this much needed upgrade and although I am all for an immediate upgrade I don’t think this proposal goes far enough. To me it doesn’t look much different to what exists now except for an extra turning lane right from high street into Stirling hwy. Please consider under passes for pedestrians & cyclists going north south and east west at the intersection. The underpass at George st under Stirling hwy is a great example of how much better this would work & look rather than an overpass. Median strips are not the answer, they are not sufficient on such a busy road carrying trucks. Sure adults can probably navigate them but not children. Try crossing at the median strip on high street near Stirling hwy with a pram & a toddler in peak hour! This proposal doesn’t really address the problem of sharing residents driveway access with a main truck route or trucks turning left off Stirling onto high street. It gives them a slightly longer lane to merge but essentially they are merging at the giveaway sign now anyway and how would this longer turning lane affect residents trying to enter/exit driveways along this stretch while cars and trucks are just focused on merging with traffic? I think an inlet/slip road for high st residents, separate to the main road, is the best solution. It will not only address these issues but also provide an opportunity to create extra parking for netball & mean netball families don’t have to cross the main busy road or have an overpass in the middle of nowhere. There are also small things like rubish constantly blowing along the road and into front yards as the force of the trucks going passed tips over residents rubbish bins on collection days. I also think the mature trees should be a consideration but not something the whole plan revolves around. I don’t want to see trees being cut down for no reason but it’s not a nature reserve and if it is a choice between the trees and safety I choose the safety of my family & for the community.

  7. Tony Haning says:

    The design should include:
    1. the essential and natural traffic calming that currently occurs on cemetery hill (stock rd – carrington st) away from residential.
    2. directing local traffic via carrington – marmion (no right turn off carrington – stirling) and a slip road for residents )or total buy out)
    3. High raise car park for netballers (ground floor kiosk and club rooms)
    4. dedicated truck lane stirling – port 50k limit with extra space at intersections

    I just think a special place needs a special design not just another soul destroying freeway

    Tony Haning

  8. Matt says:

    This looks like a band aid to me that will just cause greater wounds. An outer port is required. Don’t give the government room to avoid committment, by building extra traffic lanes, which increases supply of road and lowers the cost for users, increasing traffic and demand again, decreasing safety. The government needs to action with vision, not to win elections.

    • Karen says:

      Well said

    • Christina says:

      Even with the outer harbour, the plan is to cap fremantle port at current levels. With the size of trucks & number of vehicles travelling along this stretch of road it was identified as needing an upgrade many years ago. An upgrade with minimal impact on the local area would be ideal but it needs to be bought up to a safe standard and this means some compromises need to be made

      • Matt says:

        “Following the opening of the Outer Harbour the freight capacity of Fremantle Port will be capped. The cap will be determined as part of the timetable and transitioning
        to the Outer Harbour, but will ensure that Fremantle Port is maintained as a viable functioning port.” (McGowan, 2016)

        “Fremantle Harbour will continue to operate following the construction of the Outer Harbour. Heavy freight traffic through Fremantle and surrounding suburbs will be reduced as Fremantle Port capacity is capped and freight is transitioned to the new Outer Harbour. The upgrading of existing road and rail links to the Outer Harbour together with the decreased freight traffic through Fremantle is a long term sustainable solution.” (McGowan, 2016)

        “Reducing congestion into Fremantle PortA McGowan Labor Government will:
        • Increase the freight on rail subsidy from $30 to $50 per TEU and take more than 36,000 truck movements off suburban roads every year.
        • Extend Leach Highway between Carrington Street and Stirling Highway to address the freight congestion on High Street.” (McGoawn, 2016)

        The last point is a paradox, and a very easy KPI to meet that could be a waste of money. As mentined above, increasing road supply will just increase qty while decreasing cost. The net result will be increased demand, causing more traffic and again higher cost. All this is likely to occur on day two of opening an extension that was built over three years.

        Extending roads into Freo is a compromise that has negative net results.

        Ref: (https://www.markmcgowan.com.au/files/Our_Vision_-_Freight_and_Trade.pdf)

      • Christina says:

        Upgrading doesn’t necessarily mean increasing supply but making improvements that make it safer

  9. David says:

    I would not support any design that removes the large Native trees on the south side of high Street. Also it would be very sad to see the Fern community cafe destroyed.

    I think in reality we need overpasses at Marmion, canning and Stirling/high St intersections.

    Most importantly we need to get more frieght on rail.

    • Karen says:


    • Brian Pettitt says:

      More freight on rail can’t happen for a number of reasons, the biggest of them being that the rail link south from Fremantle would need to be doubled (it’s currently a single track) and there is no room to do that.

    • Laurence Douglas says:

      Yeah good one David, who’s going to fund those overpasses, now that all the NYMBY’s have thrown away a lot of Federal funding???

      • Matt says:

        Re trains and capacity. Absolutely the way to have transport for the future. But, the frequency increase on the current infrastructure would be a safety hazard. The trains we currently have are unfortunately very old tech and marginally train-worthy. Many of the carriages have wheels that are out of alignment and rumble along like boulders. I can hear and see it when watching them – incredible, these carriages are allowed on the tracks. The foundation of my house shakes, the walls crack, the windows rattle and show a lot of dark dust presumably from diesel smoke coming out of these engines, when the train travels past fishing boat harbour and I’m not right next to the line. It seems the authority looking after trains are either out of money and don’t care much, or have no interest in maintenance. The locomotives honk and pollute like one can see in 50s movies. The future should be electric-powered trains with wheels that are round, not oval. They should track on rails that connect and share infrastructure with passenger transport via technology management. They should be able to go faster than 30 km/h and glide on tracks, without having to sound a horn every 100 m.
        I would be concerned if train numbers were increased on the current infrastructure, but would totally support renewing it so the investment is once for the next 50 years and future oriented. Bicycle tails lights on the last carriage flashing shows the current rail investment is sad.
        It costs money, but a good government can sort it, and it will save money in the future..

    • Christina says:

      How could an overpass be put in without cutting down any trees? Can the trees be moved rather than cut down? Before roe 8/9 came about there was a plan to move fern to another location as it is currently utilizing land that was set aside for this upgrade

  10. Adam says:

    So we’ve gone from a road that would not have any traffic lights from freo to muchea to a transient curve that kills a bunch of trees and muzz buzz and provides some parking for the netball courts…. Yep they have really nailed it that’s really going to help people in Cockburn and spear wood trying to move east and alleviate all those trucks in the vicinity

  11. Jim says:

    As a preface, your statement ‘the ALP’s commitment to the outer harbour and potentially capping the Fremantle inner harbour’ is highly speculative to start with, and hence renders the above exercise pretty meaningless. The ALP have only committed to a study of the outer harbour; even with a full commitment today, there will be no physical outer harbour for 10 years, and even longer if the ALP rhetoric on the state of the state’s finances is to be believed, not to mention the significant approvals process which is just assumed to take place despite the environmental sensitivity of the Cockburn sound. As for capping the inner harbour freight, how will this be capped when there will be at least 10 years of freight growth and general traffic increases still to occur while an outer harbour is still unavailable? Do we cap it at the freight in 10+ years time or for the freight numbers in 2017?

    Nevertheless, for this exercise Mr Pettit I would refer you to another well known current Fremantle leader, who only recently remarked that he always lets ‘the cobblers do the cobbling’… which surprised a lot of people given the perilous state of his team at the time the question was asked. However, as a true leader, he had faith in the people who looked at the recruiting issues week in, week out, and backed them in to do their jobs.

    Likewise, the ‘cobblers’ for High Street, Leach Highway and Stirling Highway are Main Roads WA, they are MRWA controlled and operated roads, not City of Fremantle Roads. They employ a lot of people who look at traffic modelling, traffic safety, and all environmental and public aspects pertaining to roads. Prior to the election, MRWA had the funding, the planning, and the solution to the traffic issues in the area, which was called Roe 8 and 9.

    Obviously an election happened, the ALP committed to scrap Roe 8 and 9, as is their prerogative, and they are now fulfilling their commitment. However, the cobblers at MRWA did have another solution that meets the relevant traffic safety standards while planning for future growth, and that involves the ‘option 4’ you posted above, but is inclusive of wiping out large swathes of the golf courses, not to mention the houses and businesses around Leach / Carrington and Leach / Stock, including ironically the pro ALP supporters in Moody Glen. If a Main Roads engineer put up your drawing and suggestions as a solution to the traffic issues in the area, they would likely be sacked for malpractice. It is simply impossible to build a safe, modern road catering for large truck traffic with all of the ideas you mentioned, without the removal of trees and occupation of the required land for this to work.

    Hence, this is the fundamental dishonestly of holding a position against Roe 8 and 9 that none of the major supporters of the cause have ever acknowledged; trees, houses, businesses and land along High Street and Leach Highway will be bulldozed in order to keep the promise to scrap the PFL. There is simply no other way around it. The sooner this is acknowledged the better, and at least people can get on with their lives, instead of wasting time putting suggestions on this blog in the vain hope that they will be listened to.

    • Jim
      I disagree. I can’t see why this road can’t be brought up to an equivalent standard that exists on other part of the route and i think the intersection of Stock and Leach is a good example of what is practical and not too damaging.

      • Jim says:

        Thanks for the response Brad,

        While the road can be brought up to a better standard similar to Leach / Stock, is that intersection design really what we should be aspiring to, having heavy trucks rolling downhill into a busy intersection utilised by a lot of cars? Trucks and high volumes of cars need continuous flow of traffic; this can only be delivered by flyovers, which requires additional land to the current High St streetscape. Upgrading the road as you suggest may help for the next 5 years, but hardly for the next 20-30 years, and while there are lots of stop / start traffic lights for trucks to negotiate, it will continuously be a hazard for cars along the route.

      • Christina says:

        I’m all for this stretch of road being upgraded to the same standard of the rest of the route but there are major differences between the stock / leach intersection and the high / Stirling intersection, not sure they can really be compared. The stock / leach intersection is six lanes with multiple turning lanes, very wide median strips separating traffic moving in opposite directions, no direct driveway access to residences, majority of trucks & cars going straight, not turning and commercial businesses not houses surrounding the intersection. I personally don’t see how high / Stirling could be bought up to this standard even if it remains four lanes without trees being removed and the road slightly widened?

  12. Andrew.L says:

    There was a solution….Petition · Mark McGowan: Build Roe 8 before it’s too late!

  13. Tony says:

    Rather than the labour government trying to prove a point – why not go ahead with Roe 8 and 9 as its a solid plan and will remove a lot of trucks off what I class as residential roads. It will reduce the congestion and pollution of the current road system. I have sat watching my daughters play netball on and the number of large truck going past is massive – it wont be till there is a major accident that the public will make noise that these triple decker trucks should not be on these roads.. In Victoria the newly elected Labour government tore up the contracts to the east west link and along the way $1bn – 3 years on they realise that they need it and are planning to build – lets not allow our stubborn elected government do the same

    • Christina says:

      I live on high street just a few houses from the netball court and definitely support what u say about the road not being adequate for the size and number of trucks traveling along it. I too hope something sufficient is done before there is a major accident!

  14. Dennis Marinovich says:

    Roe 8 would have been the solution here and been much less invasive.

      • Brian Pettitt says:

        Stirling Bridge was built specifically to take traffic over the river. Had Stirling Highway been continued south as originally intended, there would have been no issues. Remember, it was a previous Labor government buying votes that put a stop to that.

      • Cain Fogarty says:

        Roe 9 and 10 tunnels were the perfect solution. Roe 10 tunnel under the river was in advanced planning stage if not approved and funded. Running all the freight under the river would avoid having to widen Stirling Bridge at some stage. Avoid more freight on trains theough Freo…
        Brad- its not too late to support Roe 8, 9, and 10.

      • Well the then Premier bluntly said they were not planning it so if you are right no one in power was willing to say so publicly

  15. Noel Wood says:

    Let me understand this – the Mayor wants to cap Freo Port capacity so that most of the money spent on it todate just goes up the wall (taxpayer money – your money – about the same way he runs the Freo Council). Let me give you an example of why the Freo Port will suffice for at least 30 years. In the late 90’s Port Hedland harbour was modelled to determine its ultimate capacity. About 250mtpa was the answer – today it’s doing nearly 500mtpa. Why? – Systems change, technology gets smarter – why do we want to waste 4 or 5 billion dollars (maybe more) on something our State budget cannot afford and we actually do not need for at least 30 years – maybe more.
    However Roe 8 and 9 will improve port efficiency,and save an amazing amount of travel time (= money saved) for trucks and all the southern suburban residents.

  16. Perthfella says:

    You need to admit that Perth cannot afford to lose the Federal Government grant to build the Perth Freight Link or else Fremantle will become a slum with no growth potential… !

  17. Laurence Douglas says:

    I have to say I am a little shocked at this blog! Having destroyed the only viable solution for Fremantle using federal funding, The Roe & PFL, we now have a bunch of totally delusional amateurs coming up with road designs that are completely dysfunctional for the smooth safe use of juggernauts carrying containers to a Port that will continue to exist and grow into the future, irrespective of some future outer harbour that is well over 20 years away. In the absence of anything better, your first option with the blue lines should be the only thing being considered. Everything else is a waste of time and money and probably lives!

  18. Bruce says:

    Well done Fremantle council. You blindly stopped the Perth freight link and now are looking for solutions to the traffic problems. I’ve often said that council has no idea what is happening away from Freo. People don’t wont to come to Fremantle because of the congestion on south and leach highway. South street is an absolute
    Nightmare with traffic backing up all the way from Canningvale. Fremantle is gridlocked already but I guess if you live close by and can ride a bike into town you wouldn’t know this is the case. Talk about blinkered vision. Don’t worry about the traffic hold ups whilst all of these improvements are made to high
    Street. The PBL was a good solution for Freo and will need to be built eventually. I wonder who will lose their homes when it is finally built.

    • Bruce says:

      Does anyone actually read the papers and follow what the experts have to say. Western Australia has a very high rate of freight on trains already compared to the eastern states. The 30 per cent that is often quoted by labour is never going to happen. The most will be around 19 per cent and families living near the rail way that passes south Fremantle are alraeady complaining about the noice from the trains. Isn’t it amazing that the council says a few trees will need to be removed on high street but when the roe eight tried to go through old farm land every body was screaming blue murder.thats right accordining to the grand son of Stephenson who designed the roe highway it was farm land in 1955. What will be said when farrington, Phoenix , north lake road, winterfold and as we already have been told high street need to be widened at a cost of $840 million dollars as per the report that was given to Cockburn council. I would also like to see the port moved to Cockburn sound but it will take 10 years to build and will cost billions of dollars to build. The labour government has only committed about 25 million to do another review of what is needed. Roe eight to stock road makes perfect sense if the port goes to Cockburn sound. Everyone only comments on the trucks to the port but everyone who drives to Freo from the east including the hills knows we need to continue roe eight. God help the people that want to Fiona Stanley at the
      moment because the traffic jams at south street and the freeway exit near Murdoch train station adds about 20 minutes to the journey. I would love the councillors of Fremantle and the members of the Labour Party to start out at Canningvale at 8:00 am on a week day and try to get to Fremantle. I gave up on south street and leach highway to get to Fremantle years ago although I eventually gave to use though roads. If these guys a ready to waste an extra 20 minutes of their lives to get to work ecch day I would be surprised. Of course then you waste another 20 going home. Oh well so
      Much for the businesses that have drivers stuck in the traffic on these roads. Wake up Freo. We are already in gridlock. Yes the metro net is needed but it doesn’t help any traffic in the Freo Cockburn area. Don’t be hood winked by distorted reports and check out the actual facts. Oh by the way. The other night I was playing tennis in the Melville area and I stopped play to count the black cockatoos and the red tail cockatoo s and we counted 40. I guess they are extinct as reported although when in the hills last year they seemed to be every where. Please stop listening to five second grabs on the news and research this a bit more.

  19. Perthfella says:

    State Government already have a huge deficit and are about to rip up a grant for $1.2b to complete the Perth Freight Link… which would solve all of the Leach Highway congestion. So it would be better if Fremantle lobbies state government to complete the PFL..!!

  20. Mary ann rath says:

    Remember bicyles…goffers…pedestrians….
    More parking for Fern
    plant significant trees

  21. Martin says:

    Close Montreal street and win an extra lane. Make amherst/high a proper interaction; round about?

  22. Trevor Vivian says:

    Fremantle port to remain as Liner destination. All other shipping to new outer harbour port. Port lands turned into housing precinct. Truck transport to Fremantle along High St to remain as is with upgrade to 2 turning lanes. I use the intersection High St to Stirling Bridge at all hours and the traffic flow needs xtra turn lane. No more needs to be done apart from Outer Harbour build pronto. Stephenson Plan was aborted when Stock Rd river access was denied due to Liberal Heartland. Fremantle as an 18th century road plan can never be anyhing but what it is.

  23. Steve says:

    If Roe Highway was not required then why are we now going to waste funds and disturb the environment for this one intersection? If the Fremantle council really thought that traffic was a problem then why did it oppose Roe Highway? It argued for years that we should not worry about trucks along this road because rail freight and the outer harbour would eventually stop trucks going to Fremantle Port anyway.

    It seems totally pointless to go to all this effort for minimal benefit, when tens of thousands of residents, truck drivers, transport companies and the rest – all who would have benefited hugely from Roe Highway – were totally ignored. This is just a waste of money and is hugely hypocritical.

    The council should instead lobby the new state government to implement what everybody in Fremantle wants and what the council proposed in lieu of Roe highway – build the outer harbour immediately and replace all truck freight going to and from the port with rail freight.

    Otherwise, when does it all stop? Do we also have to widen High Street and Stirling Highway? Do we have to beef up the Stirling Bridge to handle decades of increasing truck traffic? Isn’t that what the Roe Highway project was going to do but the council opposed it?

    Perversely, the council appears to have completely changed it’s tack and is now encouraging truck traffic to not only continue along this route, but actually increase in volume.

    • Steve
      I see it differently. It is about bringing the poorest part of this road up to the moderate standard of the rest of the current link but not being over the top about it.

      • Steve says:

        And many people will see it as a cynical twist to a very sad drama.

        After having little consideration for the countess thousands of people who would have benefitted form Roe Highway, the WA economy, and billions in funding from the federal government, Fremantle council is now expecting the WA tax payer to foot the bill for a self centred road upgrade.

        A $20m budget for this upgrade may not sound like much when you don’t have to pay for it, but the funding for these projects has vanished. If you want this upgrade to go ahead then the ratepayers of Fremantle should put their money where their mouth is and pay for it themselves. If not, stick to the solutions Fremantle gave for years when pushing to stop Roe Highway – build the outer harbour immediately and replace road freight with rail.

        Is the Fremantle council now saying that these are not realistic solutions to the traffic problems along this traffic route? You can’t have it both ways. If Fremantle council no longer believes in its own solutions then it should urgently reverse its strategy and lobby the new government to go ahead with Roe Highway, before the associated federal funding disappears.

      • Steve
        We continue to support building the second harbour ASAP and increasing freight on rail in addition to more modest road upgrades.
        You seem to forget that the very expensive PFL was also our taxpayer dollars

  24. Karen Bartz says:

    You could immediately cut truck traffic on this stretch of road by at least 40%.
    with three simple steps.
    1. It has been logged that 30% of trucks in and out of the port run empty and Labour were going to make that illegal, so do that and enforce it with fines.
    2. I understand the live export is moving south in any case
    3. Increase the road to rail quota by a further 10%.
    This lends enough time to build the outer harbour without enabling even more truck movements on our roads with increased diesel particulate and increased safety concerns which is only at best are stop gap measures at the expense of residents and road users.

  25. Did a kindergarten kid draw the second picture ?

  26. Dave R says:

    Here’s a thought why not win the Americas Cup again as this is one of the few times Fremantle got on the map and we all actually pulled together for the good of the town rather than our single sole interests . We have kicked the can long enough and paid millions to consultants and government departments to produce maps assessments models, proposals … we have now arrived at a pretty basic freehand sketch as a proposed solution with no actual indication of impacts this has on easing traffic reducing risks to other traffic users, pedestrians. It’s consultation is great but procrastination isn’t. It’s time to get the facts make a plan and execute it set a deadline to resolve this important issue as I would like to see the actual outcome in my lifetime

    • Matt says:

      America’s Cup eh. Good suggestion. I worked as a courier then. Those were the times… Leach Hwy up to Stock Rd were busy to get south. Can’t remember Freo much in terms of commercial traffic.
      Means we would have to beat the Kiwis on many fronts. Wellington Port looks better situated and they seem to be able to divert traffic to other ports as a result of bottlenecks. Looks unlikely that we can beat them, if we upgrade, rather than create the outer harbour as the focal point to succeed. We need a new yacht, not just a winged keel. Let’s be innovative and win it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: