❓ A parliamentary question regarding the delayed construction of a flyover at the Eelup roundabout, questioning costs, prioritization, and requesting project documentation. The government acknowledges the commitment but cites cost and interim solutions.
AnsweredQoN 384Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
EELUP ROTARY — FLYOVER
I refer to the member for Bunbury’s election commitment to build a flyover at the Eelup roundabout in this term of government, and the recently announced modifications to the Eelup roundabout and associated works. (1) Does the estimated cost of $16 million for these works include the cost of the associated works, being the realignment of Estuary Drive with Austral Parade, and the installation of traffic lights at the intersection of these roads with Koombana Drive? (2) The Main Roads project overview available on its website states that Main Roads investigations have resulted in — … the adoption of a layout that includes a flyover for traffic entering Bunbury CBD along the Australind Bypass with a large signalised roundabout underneath as the preferred option. This being the case, why has the government funded only part of the project and refused to commit to a time line to fund and build the flyover as promised? (3) Why has the Eelup flyover been costed at about triple the cost of the construction of flyovers elsewhere? (4) Given the traffic volumes on the Eelup roundabout, and that the number of crashes exceed the number of traffic volumes and crashes at the Reid Highway–Mirrabooka interchange and the Reid Highway–Alexander Drive interchange, why is the government building flyovers at these interchanges but it will not honour its pre-election commitment to build a flyover at the Eelup roundabout in Bunbury in this term of government? (5) Will the minister table the concept plan, the traffic analysis and the business case for the project; and, if not, why not? Hon NORMAN MOORE
I refer to the member for Bunbury’s election commitment to build a flyover at the Eelup roundabout in this term of government, and the recently announced modifications to the Eelup roundabout and associated works. (1) Does the estimated cost of $16 million for these works include the cost of the associated works, being the realignment of Estuary Drive with Austral Parade, and the installation of traffic lights at the intersection of these roads with Koombana Drive? (2) The Main Roads project overview available on its website states that Main Roads investigations have resulted in — … the adoption of a layout that includes a flyover for traffic entering Bunbury CBD along the Australind Bypass with a large signalised roundabout underneath as the preferred option. This being the case, why has the government funded only part of the project and refused to commit to a time line to fund and build the flyover as promised? (3) Why has the Eelup flyover been costed at about triple the cost of the construction of flyovers elsewhere? (4) Given the traffic volumes on the Eelup roundabout, and that the number of crashes exceed the number of traffic volumes and crashes at the Reid Highway–Mirrabooka interchange and the Reid Highway–Alexander Drive interchange, why is the government building flyovers at these interchanges but it will not honour its pre-election commitment to build a flyover at the Eelup roundabout in Bunbury in this term of government? (5) Will the minister table the concept plan, the traffic analysis and the business case for the project; and, if not, why not? Hon NORMAN MOORE
AnswerView source ↗
I answer on behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Transport. I thank the member for some notice of her concise question. (1) Yes. (2) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. Unlike its Labor predecessor, the Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. The timing and requirement for the construction of the ultimate flyover will be dependent on traffic growth and other variables, such as residential growth, construction of the port access road and the proposed closure of Estuary Drive. (3) Logistical reasons, including the proximity of the Preston River. (4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
(1) Does the estimated cost of $16 million for these works include the cost of the associated works, being the realignment of Estuary Drive with Austral Parade, and the installation of traffic lights at the intersection of these roads with Koombana Drive? (2) The Main Roads project overview available on its website states that Main Roads investigations have resulted in — … the adoption of a layout that includes a flyover for traffic entering Bunbury CBD along the Australind Bypass with a large signalised roundabout underneath as the preferred option. This being the case, why has the government funded only part of the project and refused to commit to a time line to fund and build the flyover as promised? (3) Why has the Eelup flyover been costed at about triple the cost of the construction of flyovers elsewhere? (4) Given the traffic volumes on the Eelup roundabout, and that the number of crashes exceed the number of traffic volumes and crashes at the Reid Highway–Mirrabooka interchange and the Reid Highway–Alexander Drive interchange, why is the government building flyovers at these interchanges but it will not honour its pre-election commitment to build a flyover at the Eelup roundabout in Bunbury in this term of government? (5) Will the minister table the concept plan, the traffic analysis and the business case for the project; and, if not, why not? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I answer on behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Transport. I thank the member for some notice of her concise question. (1) Yes. (2) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. Unlike its Labor predecessor, the Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. The timing and requirement for the construction of the ultimate flyover will be dependent on traffic growth and other variables, such as residential growth, construction of the port access road and the proposed closure of Estuary Drive. (3) Logistical reasons, including the proximity of the Preston River. (4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
(2) The Main Roads project overview available on its website states that Main Roads investigations have resulted in — … the adoption of a layout that includes a flyover for traffic entering Bunbury CBD along the Australind Bypass with a large signalised roundabout underneath as the preferred option. This being the case, why has the government funded only part of the project and refused to commit to a time line to fund and build the flyover as promised? (3) Why has the Eelup flyover been costed at about triple the cost of the construction of flyovers elsewhere? (4) Given the traffic volumes on the Eelup roundabout, and that the number of crashes exceed the number of traffic volumes and crashes at the Reid Highway–Mirrabooka interchange and the Reid Highway–Alexander Drive interchange, why is the government building flyovers at these interchanges but it will not honour its pre-election commitment to build a flyover at the Eelup roundabout in Bunbury in this term of government? (5) Will the minister table the concept plan, the traffic analysis and the business case for the project; and, if not, why not? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I answer on behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Transport. I thank the member for some notice of her concise question. (1) Yes. (2) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. Unlike its Labor predecessor, the Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. The timing and requirement for the construction of the ultimate flyover will be dependent on traffic growth and other variables, such as residential growth, construction of the port access road and the proposed closure of Estuary Drive. (3) Logistical reasons, including the proximity of the Preston River. (4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
(4) Given the traffic volumes on the Eelup roundabout, and that the number of crashes exceed the number of traffic volumes and crashes at the Reid Highway–Mirrabooka interchange and the Reid Highway–Alexander Drive interchange, why is the government building flyovers at these interchanges but it will not honour its pre-election commitment to build a flyover at the Eelup roundabout in Bunbury in this term of government? (5) Will the minister table the concept plan, the traffic analysis and the business case for the project; and, if not, why not? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I answer on behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Transport. I thank the member for some notice of her concise question. (1) Yes. (2) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. Unlike its Labor predecessor, the Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. The timing and requirement for the construction of the ultimate flyover will be dependent on traffic growth and other variables, such as residential growth, construction of the port access road and the proposed closure of Estuary Drive. (3) Logistical reasons, including the proximity of the Preston River. (4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
(5) Will the minister table the concept plan, the traffic analysis and the business case for the project; and, if not, why not? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I answer on behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Transport. I thank the member for some notice of her concise question. (1) Yes. (2) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. Unlike its Labor predecessor, the Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. The timing and requirement for the construction of the ultimate flyover will be dependent on traffic growth and other variables, such as residential growth, construction of the port access road and the proposed closure of Estuary Drive. (3) Logistical reasons, including the proximity of the Preston River. (4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I answer on behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Transport. I thank the member for some notice of her concise question. (1) Yes. (2) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. Unlike its Labor predecessor, the Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. The timing and requirement for the construction of the ultimate flyover will be dependent on traffic growth and other variables, such as residential growth, construction of the port access road and the proposed closure of Estuary Drive. (3) Logistical reasons, including the proximity of the Preston River. (4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
I answer on behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Transport. I thank the member for some notice of her concise question. (1) Yes. (2) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. Unlike its Labor predecessor, the Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. The timing and requirement for the construction of the ultimate flyover will be dependent on traffic growth and other variables, such as residential growth, construction of the port access road and the proposed closure of Estuary Drive. (3) Logistical reasons, including the proximity of the Preston River. (4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
(1) Yes. (2) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. Unlike its Labor predecessor, the Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. The timing and requirement for the construction of the ultimate flyover will be dependent on traffic growth and other variables, such as residential growth, construction of the port access road and the proposed closure of Estuary Drive. (3) Logistical reasons, including the proximity of the Preston River. (4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
(2) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. Unlike its Labor predecessor, the Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. The timing and requirement for the construction of the ultimate flyover will be dependent on traffic growth and other variables, such as residential growth, construction of the port access road and the proposed closure of Estuary Drive. (3) Logistical reasons, including the proximity of the Preston River. (4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
(3) Logistical reasons, including the proximity of the Preston River. (4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
(4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
(1) Does the estimated cost of $16 million for these works include the cost of the associated works, being the realignment of Estuary Drive with Austral Parade, and the installation of traffic lights at the intersection of these roads with Koombana Drive? (2) The Main Roads project overview available on its website states that Main Roads investigations have resulted in — … the adoption of a layout that includes a flyover for traffic entering Bunbury CBD along the Australind Bypass with a large signalised roundabout underneath as the preferred option. This being the case, why has the government funded only part of the project and refused to commit to a time line to fund and build the flyover as promised? (3) Why has the Eelup flyover been costed at about triple the cost of the construction of flyovers elsewhere? (4) Given the traffic volumes on the Eelup roundabout, and that the number of crashes exceed the number of traffic volumes and crashes at the Reid Highway–Mirrabooka interchange and the Reid Highway–Alexander Drive interchange, why is the government building flyovers at these interchanges but it will not honour its pre-election commitment to build a flyover at the Eelup roundabout in Bunbury in this term of government? (5) Will the minister table the concept plan, the traffic analysis and the business case for the project; and, if not, why not? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I answer on behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Transport. I thank the member for some notice of her concise question. (1) Yes. (2) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. Unlike its Labor predecessor, the Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. The timing and requirement for the construction of the ultimate flyover will be dependent on traffic growth and other variables, such as residential growth, construction of the port access road and the proposed closure of Estuary Drive. (3) Logistical reasons, including the proximity of the Preston River. (4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
(2) The Main Roads project overview available on its website states that Main Roads investigations have resulted in — … the adoption of a layout that includes a flyover for traffic entering Bunbury CBD along the Australind Bypass with a large signalised roundabout underneath as the preferred option. This being the case, why has the government funded only part of the project and refused to commit to a time line to fund and build the flyover as promised? (3) Why has the Eelup flyover been costed at about triple the cost of the construction of flyovers elsewhere? (4) Given the traffic volumes on the Eelup roundabout, and that the number of crashes exceed the number of traffic volumes and crashes at the Reid Highway–Mirrabooka interchange and the Reid Highway–Alexander Drive interchange, why is the government building flyovers at these interchanges but it will not honour its pre-election commitment to build a flyover at the Eelup roundabout in Bunbury in this term of government? (5) Will the minister table the concept plan, the traffic analysis and the business case for the project; and, if not, why not? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I answer on behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Transport. I thank the member for some notice of her concise question. (1) Yes. (2) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. Unlike its Labor predecessor, the Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. The timing and requirement for the construction of the ultimate flyover will be dependent on traffic growth and other variables, such as residential growth, construction of the port access road and the proposed closure of Estuary Drive. (3) Logistical reasons, including the proximity of the Preston River. (4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
(4) Given the traffic volumes on the Eelup roundabout, and that the number of crashes exceed the number of traffic volumes and crashes at the Reid Highway–Mirrabooka interchange and the Reid Highway–Alexander Drive interchange, why is the government building flyovers at these interchanges but it will not honour its pre-election commitment to build a flyover at the Eelup roundabout in Bunbury in this term of government? (5) Will the minister table the concept plan, the traffic analysis and the business case for the project; and, if not, why not? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I answer on behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Transport. I thank the member for some notice of her concise question. (1) Yes. (2) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. Unlike its Labor predecessor, the Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. The timing and requirement for the construction of the ultimate flyover will be dependent on traffic growth and other variables, such as residential growth, construction of the port access road and the proposed closure of Estuary Drive. (3) Logistical reasons, including the proximity of the Preston River. (4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
(5) Will the minister table the concept plan, the traffic analysis and the business case for the project; and, if not, why not? Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I answer on behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Transport. I thank the member for some notice of her concise question. (1) Yes. (2) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. Unlike its Labor predecessor, the Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. The timing and requirement for the construction of the ultimate flyover will be dependent on traffic growth and other variables, such as residential growth, construction of the port access road and the proposed closure of Estuary Drive. (3) Logistical reasons, including the proximity of the Preston River. (4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I answer on behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Transport. I thank the member for some notice of her concise question. (1) Yes. (2) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. Unlike its Labor predecessor, the Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. The timing and requirement for the construction of the ultimate flyover will be dependent on traffic growth and other variables, such as residential growth, construction of the port access road and the proposed closure of Estuary Drive. (3) Logistical reasons, including the proximity of the Preston River. (4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
I answer on behalf of the minister representing the Minister for Transport. I thank the member for some notice of her concise question. (1) Yes. (2) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. Unlike its Labor predecessor, the Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. The timing and requirement for the construction of the ultimate flyover will be dependent on traffic growth and other variables, such as residential growth, construction of the port access road and the proposed closure of Estuary Drive. (3) Logistical reasons, including the proximity of the Preston River. (4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
(1) Yes. (2) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. Unlike its Labor predecessor, the Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. The timing and requirement for the construction of the ultimate flyover will be dependent on traffic growth and other variables, such as residential growth, construction of the port access road and the proposed closure of Estuary Drive. (3) Logistical reasons, including the proximity of the Preston River. (4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
(2) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. Unlike its Labor predecessor, the Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. The timing and requirement for the construction of the ultimate flyover will be dependent on traffic growth and other variables, such as residential growth, construction of the port access road and the proposed closure of Estuary Drive. (3) Logistical reasons, including the proximity of the Preston River. (4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
(3) Logistical reasons, including the proximity of the Preston River. (4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
(4) The state government is committed to providing a flyover at this location. However, at a $100 million-plus cost for the interchange option, a decision was made to identify and deliver a lower cost interim at-grade treatment which fitted with the ultimate grade separation and could deliver more immediate safety and capacity benefits for the community. This seems like a repetition of the answer to (2). Unlike its Labor predecessor—which I have already said—this Liberal–National state government is interested in achieving results to improve road safety, not political point-scoring, so the more immediate option is being progressed with the longer-term goal still intact. I will need to double-check to see there is an error of significant magnitude in this answer where one answer has been repeated twice. (5) The technical nature of the business case is not available for tabling and the traffic analysis was undertaken using computer micro-simulation and not able to be tabled. However, should the member require further explanation a briefing can be provided and will be arranged by the minister’s office at a time convenient to all parties.
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.