❓ Minister MacTiernan outlines significant flaws in the Opposition's proposed Kenwick rail route for the Perth-Mandurah line, citing increased travel time, station closures, and traffic chaos.
AnsweredQoN 795Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
RAIL ROUTE, VIA KENWICK
The Opposition continues to argue that the proposed rail from Perth to Mandurah should go via Kenwick rather than a faster, direct route. Will the minister outline some of the unresolved issues with the slower, indirect Kenwick route? Ms MacTIERNAN
The Opposition continues to argue that the proposed rail from Perth to Mandurah should go via Kenwick rather than a faster, direct route. Will the minister outline some of the unresolved issues with the slower, indirect Kenwick route? Ms MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. The more we looked at the Kenwick option the more we saw that it was an ill-conceived project. It is no wonder that it was stillborn; it was flawed from the start. It was basically an attempt to build a cut-price rail, which meant that the rail of the existing Armadale line would have been used between Kenwick and Perth. We all know that that option added an extra 12 minutes to a trip from Mandurah to Perth, because, as we said, it took the line via the North Pole! Those 12 minutes are critical to the capacity of a rail to attract patronage. Additionally, with that option, up to 21 trains an hour would have to use a single line. That would mean, to keep the trip from Mandurah to Perth down to one hour, three stations would be closed - Welshpool, Carlisle and Lathlain. In addition to those closures, a number of trains would be able to stop only at alternate stations. That meant that Claisebrook, which serves “Silver City”, or McIver, which serves Royal Perth Hospital, would get only every second train, not every train. That would create a great deal of complexity for people trying to work out which train they should get into the city. Mr Pendal: It’s not rocket science. Ms MacTIERNAN: It is not rocket science. It is amazing that the previous Government was going to spend $1.2 billion on such a flawed project. In addition, the project would have created a major problem at Perth railway station, because it allowed only 2.5 minutes headway at that station. The minimum time it takes to unload and load a train is three minutes, but this proposal meant that at peak hour there would be only 2.5 minutes. It would have meant absolute chaos. In addition, four level crossings were not going to be grade separated. Members can imagine what would have happened. Forty-one trains - 20 trains each way, plus the Australind - would pass at peak hour through four level, unseparated crossings, which provide important east-west links in the south-east corridor. That would have meant that the boom gates would have been down for 26 minutes each hour. Can members imagine the traffic chaos that would have been generated at crossings such as the one at Wharf Street, through which 1 500 cars pass each hour? It was an entirely unworkable, discredited attempt by the Opposition to build a railway on the cheap. It was never going to work.
Ms MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The more we looked at the Kenwick option the more we saw that it was an ill-conceived project. It is no wonder that it was stillborn; it was flawed from the start. It was basically an attempt to build a cut-price rail, which meant that the rail of the existing Armadale line would have been used between Kenwick and Perth. We all know that that option added an extra 12 minutes to a trip from Mandurah to Perth, because, as we said, it took the line via the North Pole! Those 12 minutes are critical to the capacity of a rail to attract patronage. Additionally, with that option, up to 21 trains an hour would have to use a single line. That would mean, to keep the trip from Mandurah to Perth down to one hour, three stations would be closed - Welshpool, Carlisle and Lathlain. In addition to those closures, a number of trains would be able to stop only at alternate stations. That meant that Claisebrook, which serves “Silver City”, or McIver, which serves Royal Perth Hospital, would get only every second train, not every train. That would create a great deal of complexity for people trying to work out which train they should get into the city. Mr Pendal: It’s not rocket science. Ms MacTIERNAN: It is not rocket science. It is amazing that the previous Government was going to spend $1.2 billion on such a flawed project. In addition, the project would have created a major problem at Perth railway station, because it allowed only 2.5 minutes headway at that station. The minimum time it takes to unload and load a train is three minutes, but this proposal meant that at peak hour there would be only 2.5 minutes. It would have meant absolute chaos. In addition, four level crossings were not going to be grade separated. Members can imagine what would have happened. Forty-one trains - 20 trains each way, plus the Australind - would pass at peak hour through four level, unseparated crossings, which provide important east-west links in the south-east corridor. That would have meant that the boom gates would have been down for 26 minutes each hour. Can members imagine the traffic chaos that would have been generated at crossings such as the one at Wharf Street, through which 1 500 cars pass each hour? It was an entirely unworkable, discredited attempt by the Opposition to build a railway on the cheap. It was never going to work.
I thank the member for the question. The more we looked at the Kenwick option the more we saw that it was an ill-conceived project. It is no wonder that it was stillborn; it was flawed from the start. It was basically an attempt to build a cut-price rail, which meant that the rail of the existing Armadale line would have been used between Kenwick and Perth. We all know that that option added an extra 12 minutes to a trip from Mandurah to Perth, because, as we said, it took the line via the North Pole! Those 12 minutes are critical to the capacity of a rail to attract patronage. Additionally, with that option, up to 21 trains an hour would have to use a single line. That would mean, to keep the trip from Mandurah to Perth down to one hour, three stations would be closed - Welshpool, Carlisle and Lathlain. In addition to those closures, a number of trains would be able to stop only at alternate stations. That meant that Claisebrook, which serves “Silver City”, or McIver, which serves Royal Perth Hospital, would get only every second train, not every train. That would create a great deal of complexity for people trying to work out which train they should get into the city. Mr Pendal: It’s not rocket science. Ms MacTIERNAN: It is not rocket science. It is amazing that the previous Government was going to spend $1.2 billion on such a flawed project. In addition, the project would have created a major problem at Perth railway station, because it allowed only 2.5 minutes headway at that station. The minimum time it takes to unload and load a train is three minutes, but this proposal meant that at peak hour there would be only 2.5 minutes. It would have meant absolute chaos. In addition, four level crossings were not going to be grade separated. Members can imagine what would have happened. Forty-one trains - 20 trains each way, plus the Australind - would pass at peak hour through four level, unseparated crossings, which provide important east-west links in the south-east corridor. That would have meant that the boom gates would have been down for 26 minutes each hour. Can members imagine the traffic chaos that would have been generated at crossings such as the one at Wharf Street, through which 1 500 cars pass each hour? It was an entirely unworkable, discredited attempt by the Opposition to build a railway on the cheap. It was never going to work.
Mr Pendal: It’s not rocket science. Ms MacTIERNAN: It is not rocket science. It is amazing that the previous Government was going to spend $1.2 billion on such a flawed project. In addition, the project would have created a major problem at Perth railway station, because it allowed only 2.5 minutes headway at that station. The minimum time it takes to unload and load a train is three minutes, but this proposal meant that at peak hour there would be only 2.5 minutes. It would have meant absolute chaos. In addition, four level crossings were not going to be grade separated. Members can imagine what would have happened. Forty-one trains - 20 trains each way, plus the Australind - would pass at peak hour through four level, unseparated crossings, which provide important east-west links in the south-east corridor. That would have meant that the boom gates would have been down for 26 minutes each hour. Can members imagine the traffic chaos that would have been generated at crossings such as the one at Wharf Street, through which 1 500 cars pass each hour? It was an entirely unworkable, discredited attempt by the Opposition to build a railway on the cheap. It was never going to work.
Ms MacTIERNAN: It is not rocket science. It is amazing that the previous Government was going to spend $1.2 billion on such a flawed project. In addition, the project would have created a major problem at Perth railway station, because it allowed only 2.5 minutes headway at that station. The minimum time it takes to unload and load a train is three minutes, but this proposal meant that at peak hour there would be only 2.5 minutes. It would have meant absolute chaos. In addition, four level crossings were not going to be grade separated. Members can imagine what would have happened. Forty-one trains - 20 trains each way, plus the Australind - would pass at peak hour through four level, unseparated crossings, which provide important east-west links in the south-east corridor. That would have meant that the boom gates would have been down for 26 minutes each hour. Can members imagine the traffic chaos that would have been generated at crossings such as the one at Wharf Street, through which 1 500 cars pass each hour? It was an entirely unworkable, discredited attempt by the Opposition to build a railway on the cheap. It was never going to work.
Ms MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. The more we looked at the Kenwick option the more we saw that it was an ill-conceived project. It is no wonder that it was stillborn; it was flawed from the start. It was basically an attempt to build a cut-price rail, which meant that the rail of the existing Armadale line would have been used between Kenwick and Perth. We all know that that option added an extra 12 minutes to a trip from Mandurah to Perth, because, as we said, it took the line via the North Pole! Those 12 minutes are critical to the capacity of a rail to attract patronage. Additionally, with that option, up to 21 trains an hour would have to use a single line. That would mean, to keep the trip from Mandurah to Perth down to one hour, three stations would be closed - Welshpool, Carlisle and Lathlain. In addition to those closures, a number of trains would be able to stop only at alternate stations. That meant that Claisebrook, which serves “Silver City”, or McIver, which serves Royal Perth Hospital, would get only every second train, not every train. That would create a great deal of complexity for people trying to work out which train they should get into the city. Mr Pendal: It’s not rocket science. Ms MacTIERNAN: It is not rocket science. It is amazing that the previous Government was going to spend $1.2 billion on such a flawed project. In addition, the project would have created a major problem at Perth railway station, because it allowed only 2.5 minutes headway at that station. The minimum time it takes to unload and load a train is three minutes, but this proposal meant that at peak hour there would be only 2.5 minutes. It would have meant absolute chaos. In addition, four level crossings were not going to be grade separated. Members can imagine what would have happened. Forty-one trains - 20 trains each way, plus the Australind - would pass at peak hour through four level, unseparated crossings, which provide important east-west links in the south-east corridor. That would have meant that the boom gates would have been down for 26 minutes each hour. Can members imagine the traffic chaos that would have been generated at crossings such as the one at Wharf Street, through which 1 500 cars pass each hour? It was an entirely unworkable, discredited attempt by the Opposition to build a railway on the cheap. It was never going to work.
I thank the member for the question. The more we looked at the Kenwick option the more we saw that it was an ill-conceived project. It is no wonder that it was stillborn; it was flawed from the start. It was basically an attempt to build a cut-price rail, which meant that the rail of the existing Armadale line would have been used between Kenwick and Perth. We all know that that option added an extra 12 minutes to a trip from Mandurah to Perth, because, as we said, it took the line via the North Pole! Those 12 minutes are critical to the capacity of a rail to attract patronage. Additionally, with that option, up to 21 trains an hour would have to use a single line. That would mean, to keep the trip from Mandurah to Perth down to one hour, three stations would be closed - Welshpool, Carlisle and Lathlain. In addition to those closures, a number of trains would be able to stop only at alternate stations. That meant that Claisebrook, which serves “Silver City”, or McIver, which serves Royal Perth Hospital, would get only every second train, not every train. That would create a great deal of complexity for people trying to work out which train they should get into the city. Mr Pendal: It’s not rocket science. Ms MacTIERNAN: It is not rocket science. It is amazing that the previous Government was going to spend $1.2 billion on such a flawed project. In addition, the project would have created a major problem at Perth railway station, because it allowed only 2.5 minutes headway at that station. The minimum time it takes to unload and load a train is three minutes, but this proposal meant that at peak hour there would be only 2.5 minutes. It would have meant absolute chaos. In addition, four level crossings were not going to be grade separated. Members can imagine what would have happened. Forty-one trains - 20 trains each way, plus the Australind - would pass at peak hour through four level, unseparated crossings, which provide important east-west links in the south-east corridor. That would have meant that the boom gates would have been down for 26 minutes each hour. Can members imagine the traffic chaos that would have been generated at crossings such as the one at Wharf Street, through which 1 500 cars pass each hour? It was an entirely unworkable, discredited attempt by the Opposition to build a railway on the cheap. It was never going to work.
Mr Pendal: It’s not rocket science. Ms MacTIERNAN: It is not rocket science. It is amazing that the previous Government was going to spend $1.2 billion on such a flawed project. In addition, the project would have created a major problem at Perth railway station, because it allowed only 2.5 minutes headway at that station. The minimum time it takes to unload and load a train is three minutes, but this proposal meant that at peak hour there would be only 2.5 minutes. It would have meant absolute chaos. In addition, four level crossings were not going to be grade separated. Members can imagine what would have happened. Forty-one trains - 20 trains each way, plus the Australind - would pass at peak hour through four level, unseparated crossings, which provide important east-west links in the south-east corridor. That would have meant that the boom gates would have been down for 26 minutes each hour. Can members imagine the traffic chaos that would have been generated at crossings such as the one at Wharf Street, through which 1 500 cars pass each hour? It was an entirely unworkable, discredited attempt by the Opposition to build a railway on the cheap. It was never going to work.
Ms MacTIERNAN: It is not rocket science. It is amazing that the previous Government was going to spend $1.2 billion on such a flawed project. In addition, the project would have created a major problem at Perth railway station, because it allowed only 2.5 minutes headway at that station. The minimum time it takes to unload and load a train is three minutes, but this proposal meant that at peak hour there would be only 2.5 minutes. It would have meant absolute chaos. In addition, four level crossings were not going to be grade separated. Members can imagine what would have happened. Forty-one trains - 20 trains each way, plus the Australind - would pass at peak hour through four level, unseparated crossings, which provide important east-west links in the south-east corridor. That would have meant that the boom gates would have been down for 26 minutes each hour. Can members imagine the traffic chaos that would have been generated at crossings such as the one at Wharf Street, through which 1 500 cars pass each hour? It was an entirely unworkable, discredited attempt by the Opposition to build a railway on the cheap. It was never going to work.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.