❓ Hon. Ken Travers questions the Minister for Transport regarding the Perth Freight Link tunnel proposal and future port capacity. The Minister confirms a river tunnel is not feasible due to physical constraints, while the Forrestfield-Airport Link tunnel is viable due to its design.
AnsweredQoN 1248Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
PERTH
FREIGHT LINK — TUNNEL PROPOSAL
1248. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the
parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Transport:
I refer to a BusinessNews
Western Australia article of 6 August 2015 titled ''Freo river
tunnel ruled out''.
(1) Was the article correct when it stated that the Minister
for Transport had said —
(a) that he intended to indicate
the preferred route for stage 2 in about six weeks' time;
(b) that it
would take at least 10 years to develop an outer harbour, and in the meantime
there would be a doubling of truck movements at Fremantle to 6 000 per day;
(c) ''I
think we have 15 years of capacity left in the inner harbour'';
(d) that the
outer harbour was likely to be a ''spillover'' facility that
would add to capacity at the inner harbour;
(e) that the
government was still working out how it would handle an expected doubling in
truck movements around Fremantle, but has ruled out one option—that is,
sinking a tunnel under the Swan River; and
(f) that the
government had concluded that a tunnel under the river was not feasible because
it would need to be 26 metres deep?
(2) If no to (1), what did the
minister say?
(3) Does the minister still believe
these comments are correct?
(4) If no to (3), what is different
and why?
(5) How deep
under the Swan River will the Forrestfield–Airport Link rail tunnel be,
and why is that different from Fremantle?
FREIGHT LINK — TUNNEL PROPOSAL
1248. Hon KEN TRAVERS to the
parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Transport:
I refer to a BusinessNews
Western Australia article of 6 August 2015 titled ''Freo river
tunnel ruled out''.
(1) Was the article correct when it stated that the Minister
for Transport had said —
(a) that he intended to indicate
the preferred route for stage 2 in about six weeks' time;
(b) that it
would take at least 10 years to develop an outer harbour, and in the meantime
there would be a doubling of truck movements at Fremantle to 6 000 per day;
(c) ''I
think we have 15 years of capacity left in the inner harbour'';
(d) that the
outer harbour was likely to be a ''spillover'' facility that
would add to capacity at the inner harbour;
(e) that the
government was still working out how it would handle an expected doubling in
truck movements around Fremantle, but has ruled out one option—that is,
sinking a tunnel under the Swan River; and
(f) that the
government had concluded that a tunnel under the river was not feasible because
it would need to be 26 metres deep?
(2) If no to (1), what did the
minister say?
(3) Does the minister still believe
these comments are correct?
(4) If no to (3), what is different
and why?
(5) How deep
under the Swan River will the Forrestfield–Airport Link rail tunnel be,
and why is that different from Fremantle?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for asking his question, and
the well-thumbed section of my answer book is now open.
(1)–(4)
The government is assessing the container capacity of the inner harbour as part
of the due diligence for the proposed Fremantle port divestment. The due
diligence is still to be completed and considered by government. Heavy vehicle
traffic will grow in line with port throughput. A road tunnel underneath the
Swan River servicing Fremantle port is not feasible. Due to the physical
landscape and design requirements, particularly gradients, the length of tunnel
infrastructure required to return to natural ground level would be excessive.
(5) The depth
of the Forrestfield–Airport Link rail tunnel under the Swan River is 26
metres. This is sufficient length to return to ground level at an acceptable
gradient.
the well-thumbed section of my answer book is now open.
(1)–(4)
The government is assessing the container capacity of the inner harbour as part
of the due diligence for the proposed Fremantle port divestment. The due
diligence is still to be completed and considered by government. Heavy vehicle
traffic will grow in line with port throughput. A road tunnel underneath the
Swan River servicing Fremantle port is not feasible. Due to the physical
landscape and design requirements, particularly gradients, the length of tunnel
infrastructure required to return to natural ground level would be excessive.
(5) The depth
of the Forrestfield–Airport Link rail tunnel under the Swan River is 26
metres. This is sufficient length to return to ground level at an acceptable
gradient.
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.