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.