Swan River Crossings/Fremantle Traffic Bridge: Submission Summary
The process to-date has proceeded without any effective community input, despite Main Roads own policy with respect to reference groups.
The future process envisaged does not have any meaningful community input to (let alone representation on) the proposed working groups.
Involving the community only after key decisions have been made will result in resentment and continual revisiting of those decisions rather than moving on with the project.
The project has not taken adequate account of the Westport Future Port Recommendations, which cast severe doubt on the need or justification for freight rail upgrade to the existing container terminal.
Building a new rail bridge for port traffic that will cease in the foreseeable and planned future will leave a redundant rail bridge that can only be used as a very expensive hand-me-down cycle/pedestrian bridge not designed for that purpose.
Without the perceived need to construct a new rail bridge to the east of the existing one, a new road bridge between the existing traffic bridge and rail bridge becomes feasible.
The existing traffic bridge is an important component of the history of river crossings and should be part of the ‘gateway’ to Fremantle.
If the existing traffic bridge is retained, it can provide a range of access (pedestrian/cyclist) and community (public space) functions.
If the existing traffic bridge cannot be retained in its entirety, elements should be kept on both the northern and southern shores so that the linkage and function is readily identifiable. The visible history of fixed river crossings is also (only) on the northern shore.
If the existing traffic bridge cannot be retained in its entirety, a high-quality, well-designed cycle pedestrian bridge could be built to link the two ends and retain the access function.
Any new cycle/pedestrian bridge should be designed with aboriginal and other heritage as context – as has been done with the proposed new bridge to replace the cycle/pedestrian access on the Causeway in Perth.
Planning and design of any new bridge must reflect the physical, historical and cultural context. This applies as much to the location as to the detailed design and should include interpretative elements.
Specifically, any new bridge(s) must not destroy or prevent appreciation of historical elements of previous bridges.
Whatever the specific planning and design outcomes, the project should include active heritage interpretation using technology such as computer simulations. Such a centre could be run in conjunction with one or more North Fremantle businesses.
Without a new rail bridge to the east of the existing rail bridge, there is space to build the replacement road bridge between the two existing bridges. Community Input
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong” (H L Mencken)
“We live in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world. This means that no single organisation, discipline or philosophy alone has the answers to how to tackle the challenges of today and tomorrow.” (https://www.thenavalstore.com)
The Swan River Crossings project has proceeded, to-date, with little or no community input. This is despite Main Roads own claims that Reference Groups are a key mechanism for involving community members and stakeholders in our projects.
Source: https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/community-environment/our-community/
Without genuine community input throughout the process (not just after key decisions have been made), it lacks a critical (in both senses of the word) dimension.
It can no longer be assumed that the community has nothing to offer in the developmental stages, bearing in mind that professionals in all disciplines are also members of the community. It does not follow, however, that because professionals involved in the project as professionals are ‘members of the community’ that they are able to reflect the interests and concerns of any particular community.
Several ‘working groups’ were listed in one of the information panels at the ‘walk-in’ session on Monday 17th August. None of these included any community representation, being comprised entirely of technocrats.
More pragmatically, attempts to involve the community only after key decisions have been made will almost certainly result in resentment and continual revisiting of those decisions rather than moving on with the project. Strategic Planning
Westport
Removal of container traffic (shipping, road and rail) from the Inner Harbour substantially changes the context for the proposed Swan River Crossings. The port use and associated activities (rail freight and heavy truck movement) become ‘temporary’, whereas the existing and potential future residential and associated uses are ‘permanent’. These latter should be given greater weight than has been the case in the process so far.
The Westport Future Port Recommendations report on the future of the Port of Fremantle (dated May 2020) was released on 10th August 2020 (https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2020/08/Visionary-plan-for-future- container-port-endorsed-by-Government.aspx) just one week before the ‘walk-in’ information session at the East Fremantle Town Hall.
There is no evidence that this report or its recommendations were available to or had been considered by Main Roads or its project team.
At the very least, the removal of container trade from the Inner Harbour in the foreseeable (and now planned) future will have an impact on some of the constraints identified by the project team, including:
! The need and justification for an additional rail bridge to separate freight and passenger rail, and
! The extent to which the operational needs of the Port are a constraint precluding that bridge, if still needed, being built to the west of the existing rail bridge.
With regard to whether or when a new rail bridge is needed, Infrastructure Australia has noted, in February 2020, prior to the Westport report being released, that “it is unclear when the rail bridge will reach capacity” (see graphic on following page).
The Westport report, itself, states (p72) that Fremantle didn’t make the shortlist as a stand-alone option for a number of reasons, including: Reliance on the existing freight rail corridor into the port, as no other viable alternatives could be identified. Expanding the capacity of the freight rail would involve duplicating the line, sinking the tracks and enclosing them – with the track having to be closed for several years so the work can be undertaken through
Fremantle’s main heritage and tourism precinct, at a cost of $1.4 billion6. The duplicated line would also make Victoria Quay largely inaccessible from central Fremantle, preventing full utilisation of that prime land.
This implies a lack of justification for additional rail infrastructure to serve the existing Fremantle container terminal on North Quay. This is reinforced by the report’s statement (p39): While it may be possible to solve some issues with incremental upgrades or operational changes at Fremantle in the near-term, eventually, the cumulative amount of work and costs … will make the transition to a new port a more fiscally sensible option.
Source: ‘Infrastructure Priority List Project and Initiative Summaries’. Infrastructure Australia. February 2020 https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020- 02/2020%20Infrastructure%20Priority%20List%20HI%20resolution.pdf
Notwithstanding issues relating to the northern abutment of the existing traffic bridge, if a new rail bridge does not have to be built to the west of the existing one, the potential for building a new road bridge between the existing road and rail bridges, as identified by the City of Fremantle in its Freo 2029 – Transformational Moves strategy (see below) needs to be revisited.
This is especially important as the decision to relocate container traffic from the Inner Harbour represents a fundamental change in the relative importance of the interests of the Fremantle Port, on the one hand, and the residents of North Fremantle (particularly those living close to the currently-proposed new bridge), on the other. This change is not simply one of time (the residents will be there much longer than the port). It is also one related to the potential future development of the North Quay area, itself.
It has been suggested that North Quay could be redeveloped to accommodate a substantial residential population, which would have the effect of removing a large volume of truck traffic (which mainly uses Tydeman Road/Stirling Bridge) and substituting a substantial volume of car and servicing traffic which would be split between the two bridges, with the traffic bridge replacement being the shorter route to and from Fremantle. This higher traffic volume on the proposed new bridge would increase noise, pollution and vibration for nearby residents.
‘Freo 2029 – Transformational Moves’? https://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/council/key-council-strategies/freo-2029-transformational-moves
In 2015, the City of Fremantle identified three key strategic directions and five transformational moves for the future of Fremantle. The key strategic directions were:
! Economically and socially revitalise the core area of the centre, particularly to increase its working and residential populations.
! Protect and enhance the liveability and identity of the centre, and to better integrate with a reinvigorated waterfront.
! Improve connectivity throughout and beyond the centre for all city appropriate modes of movement.
The ‘transformational moves’ were:
! City Centre. Attracting new residents, businesses and visitors within a rejuvenated city heart.
! Waterfront. Uniting the city with a reinvigorated waterfront – port, beach and fishing boat harbour.
! Network City. Enhancing an accessible, liveable and walkable city centre and making Fremantle the hub of the region.
! Northern Gateway. Strengthening the city’s river gateway for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles and as a place to live. The ‘Northern Gateway’ moves included actions related to river crossings, Cantonment Hill and development of a Queen Victoria Street residential quarter.
! Fremantle Oval Precinct. Unlocking the assets of the Fremantle Oval.
There has been visible progress or there are current initiatives for four of the five transformational moves and, within the ‘Northern Gateway’ move, on Cantonment Hill and the Queen Victoria Street residential quarter. In the case of Cantonment Hill, ‘views of the river to the north, across the bridges, the harbour, North Fremantle and the ocean’ were identified as an important feature with potential ‘to become an entry statement into Fremantle’ (Cantonment Hill Master Plan, City of Fremantle, 2012).
With regard to river crossings, the strategy clearly identified:
! The value of and potential for retention of the existing traffic bridge for cyclists and pedestrians and as a public space; and
! The desirable location for a new bridge being between the existing traffic bridge and the existing rail bridge.
However, this strategic context appears to have been forgotten or ignored in the current process for the Swan River Crossings. Heritage Issues
The History of River Crossings in Fremantle Main Roads seems to have a very limited appreciation of the heritage values of the existing (and previous) bridges. It proposes to retain a stub of the existing bridge on the southern side only, when the main heritage actually relates to the North Fremantle side – the bridge was originally called the NORTH Fremantle Bridge and the remains of the two previous bridges are also on the northern side.
Fremantle has already lost one historic bridge to the Port, in 1962. Let's not lose another to the perceived 'need' to accommodate what we now know will be temporary port operations.
Source: https://www.facebook.com/streetsoffremantle If the entire bridge cannot be retained (and I believe there are options to retain it – or, at least, more of it than MRWA proposes), there should be some part of it kept on the northern side to form a heritage commemoration with the remains of the earlier bridges.
Any new bridge must not destroy or restrict access to the remains of the earlier bridges. Indeed, the project should, if possible, improve access to and celebrate the historical remnants.
In practice, to retain interpretable bridge heritage, there should be some part retained on both the north and south sides, so that visitors can at least envisage the bridge in its entirety (including from Cantonment Hill). A stub on one bank only runs the risk of being seen more like a jetty than a bridge.
If we were able to keep a stub at both north and south, we could surely connect them with a pedestrian/cyclist bridge - as was done in 1980 with the former ‘Halfpenny Bridge’ on the southern edge of Nottingham, UK, which originally opened as a toll bridge for general traffic in 1870, but was closed when declared unsafe in 1974. Following demolition of the central span, a narrower footbridge and cycleway, retaining the original bridge approaches, was opened in 1980. The bridge (as pictured below) was subsequently widened to accommodate an extension of the Nottingham light rail network in 2015.
The WA Government has announced $50 million for a new cyclist/pedestrian bridge to replace the substandard path currently on the Causeway. 11 years ago, I did the benefit-cost evaluation of a new bridge to replace Causeway, so I know it is value for money.
The big question now is why is the Fremantle community being fobbed off with something grafted onto a bog-standard road bridge, which puts cyclists and pedestrians in close proximity to the noise, vibration and pollution of motor vehicle traffic - which will only increase with the relocation of the container port and its replacement by thousands of dwellings?
The opportunity is there to create an amazing entry statement by bridging between remnants of the old traffic bridge on the north and south banks if the bridge is not to be retained in full. The total cost of pedestrian/cycle bridges to replace the Causeway in Perth, the eastern of which spans a slightly greater width of water, albeit with lower above-water clearance requirements, to the river at Fremantle, is $50 million. The project includes two bridges (the western one being shorter) and associated paths on approach and across Heirisson Island - so perhaps $30 million for the longer bridge. So for not much more than 10% of the stated cost of the Main Roads Swan River Crossings project, which already includes the cost of pedestrian and cycle facilities, we could have something which takes pedestrians and cyclists away from the noise and fumes of motor vehicle traffic, while preserving the form, heritage and function of the existing bridge.
The Naval Store (https://www.thenavalstore.com)
The 2012 Cantonment Hill Master Plan noted a number of access constrains for the Naval Store, including:
! Dangerous for vehicle access, and
! There is no available area for parking.
However, it also identified as an opportunity:
! Closure of the Queen Victoria Bridge would enable land to be reclaimed in front of the Naval Store, with the road realigned to improve access and parking to the Naval Store.
Community consultation for the Cantonment Hill Master Plan also established that:
! The construction of a new traffic bridge should present an opportunity for increased parking in front of the Naval Store. Re-aligning the road to allow parking in front of the building would aid in its activation and create the impression that it was being utilised.
None of this appears to have been taken account of in the current proposal for replacing the existing traffic bridge, whereas a new road bridge to the west of the traffic bridge, as envisaged by the City of Fremantle in 2015 would remove the traffic intersection away from the Naval Store and provide more direct cycle/pedestrian access.
Context and Heritage Interpretation
Bridge location and design are both important elements in heritage interpretation and whilst design has been denoted by Main Roads as a subsequent stage of the Swan River Crossings project, context (including location) and design must go hand in hand. As the NSW Centre for Urban Design has observed: Context sensitive design is a key design value. Indeed, all design requires an understanding of its context. In the past, context sensitive design was something that would have occurred naturally. For example it would have been rare to use anything but local materials. Local labour would have particular ways of using those materials. Both materials and labour would have had to be used wisely and sustainably. Major earthworks would have been difficult to undertake, therefore bridges and highways would have had to respond to the constraints of the local landform to a greater extent than today. Also, design standards (as a global rather than local matter) were not so exacting. Due to rapid changes in vehicle design, public spending and safety awareness, design has become very sophisticated and precise. Requirements for cambers, super elevation, sight lines, drainage, barriers and other aspects all encourage a centralised design approach rather than a site specific one. Design that is sensitive to context is valued by communities. Structures and landscapes that fit and enhance context are good for community pride and local identity. They are often more sustainable and self-reliant. (‘Bridge Aesthetics Design guideline to improve the appearance of bridges in NSW’, Centre for Urban Design’, NSW Government, February 2019).
Bridge location and design can contribute to heritage interpretation through creation of spaces and vistas for viewing the physical and functional story of river crossings in that location. In Sydney, abutments under the new Iron Cove Bridge in Rozelle, have ‘created a place to view the evolution of Sydney Harbour crossings at that point – from early ferries to timber truss to Art Deco steel truss to concrete incrementally launched girder’.
Source: ‘Bridge Aesthetics Design guideline to improve the appearance of bridges in NSW’, Centre for Urban Design’, NSW Government, February 2019. https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/business-industry/partners- suppliers/documents/centre-for-urban-design/bridge-aesthetics-guidelines.pdf Active Heritage Interpretation
As far as possible, physical remnants should be ‘self-explanatory’, but remnant heritage inevitably requires interpretation. However, passive approaches (eg information plaques) often do not wear well and, in any case, often do not do justice to the situation.
More active approaches, however, require some for of security and greater maintenance.
A heritage centre with computer simulation of the history of river crossings at the location – from ferry through the historical bridges to the new structures – could be an attraction in its own right as well as providing a fuller experience of the heritage. This need not necessarily be a stand-alone centre but could be incorporated in one of the businesses in North Fremantle, adding to the attractiveness and viability of the centre. Is There Space?
The Westport report envisages removal of container trade from the existing port in the next 12-25 years and casts severe doubt on the wisdom of spending substantial sums on upgrading the freight rail link to the existing container terminal (see Westport, above)
Does this demolish (unintentional pun) the Main Roads argument that the new rail bridge, if required, can't encroach on the current port area? Main Roads says there is 'only' 30 metres between the two current bridges on the northern embankment - and they 'need' to construct a new rail bridge, a new road bridge and a path for bike riders and pedestrians.
Remove the new rail bridge (by moving it to the Port side or not building it at all) and accommodate cyclists and pedestrians on the existing traffic bridge and surely 30 metres is enough for four traffic lanes (@3.2 metres = 12.8 metres) plus a median of, say, one metre and allow one metre each side for structural/maintenance access reasons.
Surely it is possible to build a 16-metre wide bridge in a 30-metre gap.
If the new rail bridge could be moved to the western side of the existing one (or not built at all), it also avoids disruption to passenger services and expensive/disruptive duplication/relocation of overhead train power infrastructure.
On top of this, if the container terminal is to be relocated in the medium (rather than long) term, is it really an economic use of resources to build a rail bridge that will be redundant after that – or, at best, a very expensive hand-me-down cycle/pedestrian bridge? Surely, Fremantle pedestrians and cyclists deserve better than this.
Ian Ker
27 August 2020