❓ Question addresses safety and congestion concerns regarding the demolition of the William Street bridge and its replacement with a signal-controlled intersection. The Minister acknowledges concerns and outlines the advice sought and received from relevant bodies.
AnsweredQoN 1114Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the minister’s media statement of 16 July 2003 that the William Street bridge is to be demolished next year and replaced by a major traffic signal-controlled intersection and ask - (1) Is the minister aware of the safety concerns raised by the Royal Automobile Club of WA about the proposal? (2) Did the minister seek any advice from Main Roads Western Australia on the safety or congestion implications of the proposal? (3) Did the minister receive any advice from Main Roads on the safety or congestion implications of the proposal and will she table such advice? Hon KEN TRAVERS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. The RAC provided a detailed submission to government and was subsequently briefed in detail on the replacement of the bridge by NewMetroRail, Main Roads WA and the City of Perth. RAC has been provided with copies of all relevant traffic modelling analysis and road safety audit reports. (2) Yes. Main Roads WA, along with NewMetroRail and the City of Perth, was a member of the project team that investigated the replacement of the bridge with an at-grade intersection and undertook traffic modelling, traffic analysis and road safety investigations prior to consideration by the Central Perth Planning Committee. In addition, Main Roads WA representatives briefed the CPPC prior to its recommendation on replacement of the bridge. At its meeting on 14 May 2003, the CPPC recommended that the William Street traffic bridge be replaced with an at-grade signalised intersection. In arriving at this recommendation, the CPPC concluded that it had considered the available information on all relevant matters, including safety issues and the impact of traffic movement on changing from grade separation to an at-grade intersection. In so doing it weighed up the probable increases in traffic hazard and congestion against amenity improvements resulting from removal of the William Street bridge. The CPPC recommendation recognised that the replacement of the existing traffic bridge with at-grade intersection offers significant planning and development benefits. Removal of the bridge would allow a far superior urban environment for pedestrians and, particularly, public transport users with the Esplanade station shifted west of William Street into the space currently occupied by the northern end of the bridge abutment. Pedestrian connectivity to the foreshore, the City Busport and the convention centre would be vastly improved. (3) Issues raised by Main Roads WA are detailed in the foreshore traffic study that has already been tabled in Parliament. I now table another copy of this report. [See paper No 1302.]
(1) Is the minister aware of the safety concerns raised by the Royal Automobile Club of WA about the proposal? (2) Did the minister seek any advice from Main Roads Western Australia on the safety or congestion implications of the proposal? (3) Did the minister receive any advice from Main Roads on the safety or congestion implications of the proposal and will she table such advice? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. The RAC provided a detailed submission to government and was subsequently briefed in detail on the replacement of the bridge by NewMetroRail, Main Roads WA and the City of Perth. RAC has been provided with copies of all relevant traffic modelling analysis and road safety audit reports. (2) Yes. Main Roads WA, along with NewMetroRail and the City of Perth, was a member of the project team that investigated the replacement of the bridge with an at-grade intersection and undertook traffic modelling, traffic analysis and road safety investigations prior to consideration by the Central Perth Planning Committee. In addition, Main Roads WA representatives briefed the CPPC prior to its recommendation on replacement of the bridge. At its meeting on 14 May 2003, the CPPC recommended that the William Street traffic bridge be replaced with an at-grade signalised intersection. In arriving at this recommendation, the CPPC concluded that it had considered the available information on all relevant matters, including safety issues and the impact of traffic movement on changing from grade separation to an at-grade intersection. In so doing it weighed up the probable increases in traffic hazard and congestion against amenity improvements resulting from removal of the William Street bridge. The CPPC recommendation recognised that the replacement of the existing traffic bridge with at-grade intersection offers significant planning and development benefits. Removal of the bridge would allow a far superior urban environment for pedestrians and, particularly, public transport users with the Esplanade station shifted west of William Street into the space currently occupied by the northern end of the bridge abutment. Pedestrian connectivity to the foreshore, the City Busport and the convention centre would be vastly improved. (3) Issues raised by Main Roads WA are detailed in the foreshore traffic study that has already been tabled in Parliament. I now table another copy of this report. [See paper No 1302.]
(2) Did the minister seek any advice from Main Roads Western Australia on the safety or congestion implications of the proposal? (3) Did the minister receive any advice from Main Roads on the safety or congestion implications of the proposal and will she table such advice? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. The RAC provided a detailed submission to government and was subsequently briefed in detail on the replacement of the bridge by NewMetroRail, Main Roads WA and the City of Perth. RAC has been provided with copies of all relevant traffic modelling analysis and road safety audit reports. (2) Yes. Main Roads WA, along with NewMetroRail and the City of Perth, was a member of the project team that investigated the replacement of the bridge with an at-grade intersection and undertook traffic modelling, traffic analysis and road safety investigations prior to consideration by the Central Perth Planning Committee. In addition, Main Roads WA representatives briefed the CPPC prior to its recommendation on replacement of the bridge. At its meeting on 14 May 2003, the CPPC recommended that the William Street traffic bridge be replaced with an at-grade signalised intersection. In arriving at this recommendation, the CPPC concluded that it had considered the available information on all relevant matters, including safety issues and the impact of traffic movement on changing from grade separation to an at-grade intersection. In so doing it weighed up the probable increases in traffic hazard and congestion against amenity improvements resulting from removal of the William Street bridge. The CPPC recommendation recognised that the replacement of the existing traffic bridge with at-grade intersection offers significant planning and development benefits. Removal of the bridge would allow a far superior urban environment for pedestrians and, particularly, public transport users with the Esplanade station shifted west of William Street into the space currently occupied by the northern end of the bridge abutment. Pedestrian connectivity to the foreshore, the City Busport and the convention centre would be vastly improved. (3) Issues raised by Main Roads WA are detailed in the foreshore traffic study that has already been tabled in Parliament. I now table another copy of this report. [See paper No 1302.]
(3) Did the minister receive any advice from Main Roads on the safety or congestion implications of the proposal and will she table such advice? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. The RAC provided a detailed submission to government and was subsequently briefed in detail on the replacement of the bridge by NewMetroRail, Main Roads WA and the City of Perth. RAC has been provided with copies of all relevant traffic modelling analysis and road safety audit reports. (2) Yes. Main Roads WA, along with NewMetroRail and the City of Perth, was a member of the project team that investigated the replacement of the bridge with an at-grade intersection and undertook traffic modelling, traffic analysis and road safety investigations prior to consideration by the Central Perth Planning Committee. In addition, Main Roads WA representatives briefed the CPPC prior to its recommendation on replacement of the bridge. At its meeting on 14 May 2003, the CPPC recommended that the William Street traffic bridge be replaced with an at-grade signalised intersection. In arriving at this recommendation, the CPPC concluded that it had considered the available information on all relevant matters, including safety issues and the impact of traffic movement on changing from grade separation to an at-grade intersection. In so doing it weighed up the probable increases in traffic hazard and congestion against amenity improvements resulting from removal of the William Street bridge. The CPPC recommendation recognised that the replacement of the existing traffic bridge with at-grade intersection offers significant planning and development benefits. Removal of the bridge would allow a far superior urban environment for pedestrians and, particularly, public transport users with the Esplanade station shifted west of William Street into the space currently occupied by the northern end of the bridge abutment. Pedestrian connectivity to the foreshore, the City Busport and the convention centre would be vastly improved. (3) Issues raised by Main Roads WA are detailed in the foreshore traffic study that has already been tabled in Parliament. I now table another copy of this report. [See paper No 1302.]
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. The RAC provided a detailed submission to government and was subsequently briefed in detail on the replacement of the bridge by NewMetroRail, Main Roads WA and the City of Perth. RAC has been provided with copies of all relevant traffic modelling analysis and road safety audit reports. (2) Yes. Main Roads WA, along with NewMetroRail and the City of Perth, was a member of the project team that investigated the replacement of the bridge with an at-grade intersection and undertook traffic modelling, traffic analysis and road safety investigations prior to consideration by the Central Perth Planning Committee. In addition, Main Roads WA representatives briefed the CPPC prior to its recommendation on replacement of the bridge. At its meeting on 14 May 2003, the CPPC recommended that the William Street traffic bridge be replaced with an at-grade signalised intersection. In arriving at this recommendation, the CPPC concluded that it had considered the available information on all relevant matters, including safety issues and the impact of traffic movement on changing from grade separation to an at-grade intersection. In so doing it weighed up the probable increases in traffic hazard and congestion against amenity improvements resulting from removal of the William Street bridge. The CPPC recommendation recognised that the replacement of the existing traffic bridge with at-grade intersection offers significant planning and development benefits. Removal of the bridge would allow a far superior urban environment for pedestrians and, particularly, public transport users with the Esplanade station shifted west of William Street into the space currently occupied by the northern end of the bridge abutment. Pedestrian connectivity to the foreshore, the City Busport and the convention centre would be vastly improved. (3) Issues raised by Main Roads WA are detailed in the foreshore traffic study that has already been tabled in Parliament. I now table another copy of this report. [See paper No 1302.]
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. The RAC provided a detailed submission to government and was subsequently briefed in detail on the replacement of the bridge by NewMetroRail, Main Roads WA and the City of Perth. RAC has been provided with copies of all relevant traffic modelling analysis and road safety audit reports. (2) Yes. Main Roads WA, along with NewMetroRail and the City of Perth, was a member of the project team that investigated the replacement of the bridge with an at-grade intersection and undertook traffic modelling, traffic analysis and road safety investigations prior to consideration by the Central Perth Planning Committee. In addition, Main Roads WA representatives briefed the CPPC prior to its recommendation on replacement of the bridge. At its meeting on 14 May 2003, the CPPC recommended that the William Street traffic bridge be replaced with an at-grade signalised intersection. In arriving at this recommendation, the CPPC concluded that it had considered the available information on all relevant matters, including safety issues and the impact of traffic movement on changing from grade separation to an at-grade intersection. In so doing it weighed up the probable increases in traffic hazard and congestion against amenity improvements resulting from removal of the William Street bridge. The CPPC recommendation recognised that the replacement of the existing traffic bridge with at-grade intersection offers significant planning and development benefits. Removal of the bridge would allow a far superior urban environment for pedestrians and, particularly, public transport users with the Esplanade station shifted west of William Street into the space currently occupied by the northern end of the bridge abutment. Pedestrian connectivity to the foreshore, the City Busport and the convention centre would be vastly improved. (3) Issues raised by Main Roads WA are detailed in the foreshore traffic study that has already been tabled in Parliament. I now table another copy of this report. [See paper No 1302.]
(1) Yes. The RAC provided a detailed submission to government and was subsequently briefed in detail on the replacement of the bridge by NewMetroRail, Main Roads WA and the City of Perth. RAC has been provided with copies of all relevant traffic modelling analysis and road safety audit reports. (2) Yes. Main Roads WA, along with NewMetroRail and the City of Perth, was a member of the project team that investigated the replacement of the bridge with an at-grade intersection and undertook traffic modelling, traffic analysis and road safety investigations prior to consideration by the Central Perth Planning Committee. In addition, Main Roads WA representatives briefed the CPPC prior to its recommendation on replacement of the bridge. At its meeting on 14 May 2003, the CPPC recommended that the William Street traffic bridge be replaced with an at-grade signalised intersection. In arriving at this recommendation, the CPPC concluded that it had considered the available information on all relevant matters, including safety issues and the impact of traffic movement on changing from grade separation to an at-grade intersection. In so doing it weighed up the probable increases in traffic hazard and congestion against amenity improvements resulting from removal of the William Street bridge. The CPPC recommendation recognised that the replacement of the existing traffic bridge with at-grade intersection offers significant planning and development benefits. Removal of the bridge would allow a far superior urban environment for pedestrians and, particularly, public transport users with the Esplanade station shifted west of William Street into the space currently occupied by the northern end of the bridge abutment. Pedestrian connectivity to the foreshore, the City Busport and the convention centre would be vastly improved. (3) Issues raised by Main Roads WA are detailed in the foreshore traffic study that has already been tabled in Parliament. I now table another copy of this report. [See paper No 1302.]
(2) Yes. Main Roads WA, along with NewMetroRail and the City of Perth, was a member of the project team that investigated the replacement of the bridge with an at-grade intersection and undertook traffic modelling, traffic analysis and road safety investigations prior to consideration by the Central Perth Planning Committee. In addition, Main Roads WA representatives briefed the CPPC prior to its recommendation on replacement of the bridge. At its meeting on 14 May 2003, the CPPC recommended that the William Street traffic bridge be replaced with an at-grade signalised intersection. In arriving at this recommendation, the CPPC concluded that it had considered the available information on all relevant matters, including safety issues and the impact of traffic movement on changing from grade separation to an at-grade intersection. In so doing it weighed up the probable increases in traffic hazard and congestion against amenity improvements resulting from removal of the William Street bridge. The CPPC recommendation recognised that the replacement of the existing traffic bridge with at-grade intersection offers significant planning and development benefits. Removal of the bridge would allow a far superior urban environment for pedestrians and, particularly, public transport users with the Esplanade station shifted west of William Street into the space currently occupied by the northern end of the bridge abutment. Pedestrian connectivity to the foreshore, the City Busport and the convention centre would be vastly improved. (3) Issues raised by Main Roads WA are detailed in the foreshore traffic study that has already been tabled in Parliament. I now table another copy of this report. [See paper No 1302.]
The CPPC recommendation recognised that the replacement of the existing traffic bridge with at-grade intersection offers significant planning and development benefits. Removal of the bridge would allow a far superior urban environment for pedestrians and, particularly, public transport users with the Esplanade station shifted west of William Street into the space currently occupied by the northern end of the bridge abutment. Pedestrian connectivity to the foreshore, the City Busport and the convention centre would be vastly improved.
[See paper No 1302.]
(1) Is the minister aware of the safety concerns raised by the Royal Automobile Club of WA about the proposal? (2) Did the minister seek any advice from Main Roads Western Australia on the safety or congestion implications of the proposal? (3) Did the minister receive any advice from Main Roads on the safety or congestion implications of the proposal and will she table such advice? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. The RAC provided a detailed submission to government and was subsequently briefed in detail on the replacement of the bridge by NewMetroRail, Main Roads WA and the City of Perth. RAC has been provided with copies of all relevant traffic modelling analysis and road safety audit reports. (2) Yes. Main Roads WA, along with NewMetroRail and the City of Perth, was a member of the project team that investigated the replacement of the bridge with an at-grade intersection and undertook traffic modelling, traffic analysis and road safety investigations prior to consideration by the Central Perth Planning Committee. In addition, Main Roads WA representatives briefed the CPPC prior to its recommendation on replacement of the bridge. At its meeting on 14 May 2003, the CPPC recommended that the William Street traffic bridge be replaced with an at-grade signalised intersection. In arriving at this recommendation, the CPPC concluded that it had considered the available information on all relevant matters, including safety issues and the impact of traffic movement on changing from grade separation to an at-grade intersection. In so doing it weighed up the probable increases in traffic hazard and congestion against amenity improvements resulting from removal of the William Street bridge. The CPPC recommendation recognised that the replacement of the existing traffic bridge with at-grade intersection offers significant planning and development benefits. Removal of the bridge would allow a far superior urban environment for pedestrians and, particularly, public transport users with the Esplanade station shifted west of William Street into the space currently occupied by the northern end of the bridge abutment. Pedestrian connectivity to the foreshore, the City Busport and the convention centre would be vastly improved. (3) Issues raised by Main Roads WA are detailed in the foreshore traffic study that has already been tabled in Parliament. I now table another copy of this report. [See paper No 1302.]
(2) Did the minister seek any advice from Main Roads Western Australia on the safety or congestion implications of the proposal? (3) Did the minister receive any advice from Main Roads on the safety or congestion implications of the proposal and will she table such advice? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. The RAC provided a detailed submission to government and was subsequently briefed in detail on the replacement of the bridge by NewMetroRail, Main Roads WA and the City of Perth. RAC has been provided with copies of all relevant traffic modelling analysis and road safety audit reports. (2) Yes. Main Roads WA, along with NewMetroRail and the City of Perth, was a member of the project team that investigated the replacement of the bridge with an at-grade intersection and undertook traffic modelling, traffic analysis and road safety investigations prior to consideration by the Central Perth Planning Committee. In addition, Main Roads WA representatives briefed the CPPC prior to its recommendation on replacement of the bridge. At its meeting on 14 May 2003, the CPPC recommended that the William Street traffic bridge be replaced with an at-grade signalised intersection. In arriving at this recommendation, the CPPC concluded that it had considered the available information on all relevant matters, including safety issues and the impact of traffic movement on changing from grade separation to an at-grade intersection. In so doing it weighed up the probable increases in traffic hazard and congestion against amenity improvements resulting from removal of the William Street bridge. The CPPC recommendation recognised that the replacement of the existing traffic bridge with at-grade intersection offers significant planning and development benefits. Removal of the bridge would allow a far superior urban environment for pedestrians and, particularly, public transport users with the Esplanade station shifted west of William Street into the space currently occupied by the northern end of the bridge abutment. Pedestrian connectivity to the foreshore, the City Busport and the convention centre would be vastly improved. (3) Issues raised by Main Roads WA are detailed in the foreshore traffic study that has already been tabled in Parliament. I now table another copy of this report. [See paper No 1302.]
(3) Did the minister receive any advice from Main Roads on the safety or congestion implications of the proposal and will she table such advice? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. The RAC provided a detailed submission to government and was subsequently briefed in detail on the replacement of the bridge by NewMetroRail, Main Roads WA and the City of Perth. RAC has been provided with copies of all relevant traffic modelling analysis and road safety audit reports. (2) Yes. Main Roads WA, along with NewMetroRail and the City of Perth, was a member of the project team that investigated the replacement of the bridge with an at-grade intersection and undertook traffic modelling, traffic analysis and road safety investigations prior to consideration by the Central Perth Planning Committee. In addition, Main Roads WA representatives briefed the CPPC prior to its recommendation on replacement of the bridge. At its meeting on 14 May 2003, the CPPC recommended that the William Street traffic bridge be replaced with an at-grade signalised intersection. In arriving at this recommendation, the CPPC concluded that it had considered the available information on all relevant matters, including safety issues and the impact of traffic movement on changing from grade separation to an at-grade intersection. In so doing it weighed up the probable increases in traffic hazard and congestion against amenity improvements resulting from removal of the William Street bridge. The CPPC recommendation recognised that the replacement of the existing traffic bridge with at-grade intersection offers significant planning and development benefits. Removal of the bridge would allow a far superior urban environment for pedestrians and, particularly, public transport users with the Esplanade station shifted west of William Street into the space currently occupied by the northern end of the bridge abutment. Pedestrian connectivity to the foreshore, the City Busport and the convention centre would be vastly improved. (3) Issues raised by Main Roads WA are detailed in the foreshore traffic study that has already been tabled in Parliament. I now table another copy of this report. [See paper No 1302.]
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. The RAC provided a detailed submission to government and was subsequently briefed in detail on the replacement of the bridge by NewMetroRail, Main Roads WA and the City of Perth. RAC has been provided with copies of all relevant traffic modelling analysis and road safety audit reports. (2) Yes. Main Roads WA, along with NewMetroRail and the City of Perth, was a member of the project team that investigated the replacement of the bridge with an at-grade intersection and undertook traffic modelling, traffic analysis and road safety investigations prior to consideration by the Central Perth Planning Committee. In addition, Main Roads WA representatives briefed the CPPC prior to its recommendation on replacement of the bridge. At its meeting on 14 May 2003, the CPPC recommended that the William Street traffic bridge be replaced with an at-grade signalised intersection. In arriving at this recommendation, the CPPC concluded that it had considered the available information on all relevant matters, including safety issues and the impact of traffic movement on changing from grade separation to an at-grade intersection. In so doing it weighed up the probable increases in traffic hazard and congestion against amenity improvements resulting from removal of the William Street bridge. The CPPC recommendation recognised that the replacement of the existing traffic bridge with at-grade intersection offers significant planning and development benefits. Removal of the bridge would allow a far superior urban environment for pedestrians and, particularly, public transport users with the Esplanade station shifted west of William Street into the space currently occupied by the northern end of the bridge abutment. Pedestrian connectivity to the foreshore, the City Busport and the convention centre would be vastly improved. (3) Issues raised by Main Roads WA are detailed in the foreshore traffic study that has already been tabled in Parliament. I now table another copy of this report. [See paper No 1302.]
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes. The RAC provided a detailed submission to government and was subsequently briefed in detail on the replacement of the bridge by NewMetroRail, Main Roads WA and the City of Perth. RAC has been provided with copies of all relevant traffic modelling analysis and road safety audit reports. (2) Yes. Main Roads WA, along with NewMetroRail and the City of Perth, was a member of the project team that investigated the replacement of the bridge with an at-grade intersection and undertook traffic modelling, traffic analysis and road safety investigations prior to consideration by the Central Perth Planning Committee. In addition, Main Roads WA representatives briefed the CPPC prior to its recommendation on replacement of the bridge. At its meeting on 14 May 2003, the CPPC recommended that the William Street traffic bridge be replaced with an at-grade signalised intersection. In arriving at this recommendation, the CPPC concluded that it had considered the available information on all relevant matters, including safety issues and the impact of traffic movement on changing from grade separation to an at-grade intersection. In so doing it weighed up the probable increases in traffic hazard and congestion against amenity improvements resulting from removal of the William Street bridge. The CPPC recommendation recognised that the replacement of the existing traffic bridge with at-grade intersection offers significant planning and development benefits. Removal of the bridge would allow a far superior urban environment for pedestrians and, particularly, public transport users with the Esplanade station shifted west of William Street into the space currently occupied by the northern end of the bridge abutment. Pedestrian connectivity to the foreshore, the City Busport and the convention centre would be vastly improved. (3) Issues raised by Main Roads WA are detailed in the foreshore traffic study that has already been tabled in Parliament. I now table another copy of this report. [See paper No 1302.]
(1) Yes. The RAC provided a detailed submission to government and was subsequently briefed in detail on the replacement of the bridge by NewMetroRail, Main Roads WA and the City of Perth. RAC has been provided with copies of all relevant traffic modelling analysis and road safety audit reports. (2) Yes. Main Roads WA, along with NewMetroRail and the City of Perth, was a member of the project team that investigated the replacement of the bridge with an at-grade intersection and undertook traffic modelling, traffic analysis and road safety investigations prior to consideration by the Central Perth Planning Committee. In addition, Main Roads WA representatives briefed the CPPC prior to its recommendation on replacement of the bridge. At its meeting on 14 May 2003, the CPPC recommended that the William Street traffic bridge be replaced with an at-grade signalised intersection. In arriving at this recommendation, the CPPC concluded that it had considered the available information on all relevant matters, including safety issues and the impact of traffic movement on changing from grade separation to an at-grade intersection. In so doing it weighed up the probable increases in traffic hazard and congestion against amenity improvements resulting from removal of the William Street bridge. The CPPC recommendation recognised that the replacement of the existing traffic bridge with at-grade intersection offers significant planning and development benefits. Removal of the bridge would allow a far superior urban environment for pedestrians and, particularly, public transport users with the Esplanade station shifted west of William Street into the space currently occupied by the northern end of the bridge abutment. Pedestrian connectivity to the foreshore, the City Busport and the convention centre would be vastly improved. (3) Issues raised by Main Roads WA are detailed in the foreshore traffic study that has already been tabled in Parliament. I now table another copy of this report. [See paper No 1302.]
(2) Yes. Main Roads WA, along with NewMetroRail and the City of Perth, was a member of the project team that investigated the replacement of the bridge with an at-grade intersection and undertook traffic modelling, traffic analysis and road safety investigations prior to consideration by the Central Perth Planning Committee. In addition, Main Roads WA representatives briefed the CPPC prior to its recommendation on replacement of the bridge. At its meeting on 14 May 2003, the CPPC recommended that the William Street traffic bridge be replaced with an at-grade signalised intersection. In arriving at this recommendation, the CPPC concluded that it had considered the available information on all relevant matters, including safety issues and the impact of traffic movement on changing from grade separation to an at-grade intersection. In so doing it weighed up the probable increases in traffic hazard and congestion against amenity improvements resulting from removal of the William Street bridge. The CPPC recommendation recognised that the replacement of the existing traffic bridge with at-grade intersection offers significant planning and development benefits. Removal of the bridge would allow a far superior urban environment for pedestrians and, particularly, public transport users with the Esplanade station shifted west of William Street into the space currently occupied by the northern end of the bridge abutment. Pedestrian connectivity to the foreshore, the City Busport and the convention centre would be vastly improved. (3) Issues raised by Main Roads WA are detailed in the foreshore traffic study that has already been tabled in Parliament. I now table another copy of this report. [See paper No 1302.]
The CPPC recommendation recognised that the replacement of the existing traffic bridge with at-grade intersection offers significant planning and development benefits. Removal of the bridge would allow a far superior urban environment for pedestrians and, particularly, public transport users with the Esplanade station shifted west of William Street into the space currently occupied by the northern end of the bridge abutment. Pedestrian connectivity to the foreshore, the City Busport and the convention centre would be vastly improved.
[See paper No 1302.]
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.