❓ A parliamentary question seeks details on traffic modelling related to the Perth Waterfront Project, including its assumptions and alternative options considered. The government confirms modelling but declines to table it, citing network capacity and cost as reasons for rejecting alternatives.
AnsweredQoN 50Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
PERTH WATERFRONT PROJECT — TRAFFIC MODELLING
(1) Has the government done any traffic modelling on the proposed changes to Riverside Drive contained in the Perth waterfront plan? (2) If yes to (1), will the government table all traffic modelling done on the traffic changes necessitated by the waterfront, including modelling until 2031? (3) Is the traffic modelling predicated on the government’s intention to close the emergency lanes on Graham Farmer Freeway? (4) Which other options did the government consider to deal with the 30 000 motorists a day that currently use Riverside Drive and what were the reasons for their rejection? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN
(1) Has the government done any traffic modelling on the proposed changes to Riverside Drive contained in the Perth waterfront plan? (2) If yes to (1), will the government table all traffic modelling done on the traffic changes necessitated by the waterfront, including modelling until 2031? (3) Is the traffic modelling predicated on the government’s intention to close the emergency lanes on Graham Farmer Freeway? (4) Which other options did the government consider to deal with the 30 000 motorists a day that currently use Riverside Drive and what were the reasons for their rejection? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) Graham Farmer Freeway was designed to have three lanes of traffic in each direction. The traffic modelling undertaken for the waterfront project considered that the metropolitan road network has capacity to handle additional through traffic and that this upgrade should be a response to future growth of the city. (4) During the consideration of the waterfront project, the government assessed bridging and tunnelling options to carry Riverside Drive traffic under or over the waterfront cove. The bridging option was not supported. The option of tunnelling under the waterfront development was not supported for reasons including cost. Further traffic modelling is now being undertaken by the Department of Transport to build on the work undertaken for the waterfront project.
(2) If yes to (1), will the government table all traffic modelling done on the traffic changes necessitated by the waterfront, including modelling until 2031? (3) Is the traffic modelling predicated on the government’s intention to close the emergency lanes on Graham Farmer Freeway? (4) Which other options did the government consider to deal with the 30 000 motorists a day that currently use Riverside Drive and what were the reasons for their rejection? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) Graham Farmer Freeway was designed to have three lanes of traffic in each direction. The traffic modelling undertaken for the waterfront project considered that the metropolitan road network has capacity to handle additional through traffic and that this upgrade should be a response to future growth of the city. (4) During the consideration of the waterfront project, the government assessed bridging and tunnelling options to carry Riverside Drive traffic under or over the waterfront cove. The bridging option was not supported. The option of tunnelling under the waterfront development was not supported for reasons including cost. Further traffic modelling is now being undertaken by the Department of Transport to build on the work undertaken for the waterfront project.
(3) Is the traffic modelling predicated on the government’s intention to close the emergency lanes on Graham Farmer Freeway? (4) Which other options did the government consider to deal with the 30 000 motorists a day that currently use Riverside Drive and what were the reasons for their rejection? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) Graham Farmer Freeway was designed to have three lanes of traffic in each direction. The traffic modelling undertaken for the waterfront project considered that the metropolitan road network has capacity to handle additional through traffic and that this upgrade should be a response to future growth of the city. (4) During the consideration of the waterfront project, the government assessed bridging and tunnelling options to carry Riverside Drive traffic under or over the waterfront cove. The bridging option was not supported. The option of tunnelling under the waterfront development was not supported for reasons including cost. Further traffic modelling is now being undertaken by the Department of Transport to build on the work undertaken for the waterfront project.
(4) Which other options did the government consider to deal with the 30 000 motorists a day that currently use Riverside Drive and what were the reasons for their rejection? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) Graham Farmer Freeway was designed to have three lanes of traffic in each direction. The traffic modelling undertaken for the waterfront project considered that the metropolitan road network has capacity to handle additional through traffic and that this upgrade should be a response to future growth of the city. (4) During the consideration of the waterfront project, the government assessed bridging and tunnelling options to carry Riverside Drive traffic under or over the waterfront cove. The bridging option was not supported. The option of tunnelling under the waterfront development was not supported for reasons including cost. Further traffic modelling is now being undertaken by the Department of Transport to build on the work undertaken for the waterfront project.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) Graham Farmer Freeway was designed to have three lanes of traffic in each direction. The traffic modelling undertaken for the waterfront project considered that the metropolitan road network has capacity to handle additional through traffic and that this upgrade should be a response to future growth of the city. (4) During the consideration of the waterfront project, the government assessed bridging and tunnelling options to carry Riverside Drive traffic under or over the waterfront cove. The bridging option was not supported. The option of tunnelling under the waterfront development was not supported for reasons including cost. Further traffic modelling is now being undertaken by the Department of Transport to build on the work undertaken for the waterfront project.
I thank the honourable member for notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) Graham Farmer Freeway was designed to have three lanes of traffic in each direction. The traffic modelling undertaken for the waterfront project considered that the metropolitan road network has capacity to handle additional through traffic and that this upgrade should be a response to future growth of the city. (4) During the consideration of the waterfront project, the government assessed bridging and tunnelling options to carry Riverside Drive traffic under or over the waterfront cove. The bridging option was not supported. The option of tunnelling under the waterfront development was not supported for reasons including cost. Further traffic modelling is now being undertaken by the Department of Transport to build on the work undertaken for the waterfront project.
(1) Yes. (2) No. (3) Graham Farmer Freeway was designed to have three lanes of traffic in each direction. The traffic modelling undertaken for the waterfront project considered that the metropolitan road network has capacity to handle additional through traffic and that this upgrade should be a response to future growth of the city. (4) During the consideration of the waterfront project, the government assessed bridging and tunnelling options to carry Riverside Drive traffic under or over the waterfront cove. The bridging option was not supported. The option of tunnelling under the waterfront development was not supported for reasons including cost. Further traffic modelling is now being undertaken by the Department of Transport to build on the work undertaken for the waterfront project.
(2) No. (3) Graham Farmer Freeway was designed to have three lanes of traffic in each direction. The traffic modelling undertaken for the waterfront project considered that the metropolitan road network has capacity to handle additional through traffic and that this upgrade should be a response to future growth of the city. (4) During the consideration of the waterfront project, the government assessed bridging and tunnelling options to carry Riverside Drive traffic under or over the waterfront cove. The bridging option was not supported. The option of tunnelling under the waterfront development was not supported for reasons including cost. Further traffic modelling is now being undertaken by the Department of Transport to build on the work undertaken for the waterfront project.
(3) Graham Farmer Freeway was designed to have three lanes of traffic in each direction. The traffic modelling undertaken for the waterfront project considered that the metropolitan road network has capacity to handle additional through traffic and that this upgrade should be a response to future growth of the city. (4) During the consideration of the waterfront project, the government assessed bridging and tunnelling options to carry Riverside Drive traffic under or over the waterfront cove. The bridging option was not supported. The option of tunnelling under the waterfront development was not supported for reasons including cost. Further traffic modelling is now being undertaken by the Department of Transport to build on the work undertaken for the waterfront project.
(4) During the consideration of the waterfront project, the government assessed bridging and tunnelling options to carry Riverside Drive traffic under or over the waterfront cove. The bridging option was not supported. The option of tunnelling under the waterfront development was not supported for reasons including cost. Further traffic modelling is now being undertaken by the Department of Transport to build on the work undertaken for the waterfront project.
(2) If yes to (1), will the government table all traffic modelling done on the traffic changes necessitated by the waterfront, including modelling until 2031? (3) Is the traffic modelling predicated on the government’s intention to close the emergency lanes on Graham Farmer Freeway? (4) Which other options did the government consider to deal with the 30 000 motorists a day that currently use Riverside Drive and what were the reasons for their rejection? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) Graham Farmer Freeway was designed to have three lanes of traffic in each direction. The traffic modelling undertaken for the waterfront project considered that the metropolitan road network has capacity to handle additional through traffic and that this upgrade should be a response to future growth of the city. (4) During the consideration of the waterfront project, the government assessed bridging and tunnelling options to carry Riverside Drive traffic under or over the waterfront cove. The bridging option was not supported. The option of tunnelling under the waterfront development was not supported for reasons including cost. Further traffic modelling is now being undertaken by the Department of Transport to build on the work undertaken for the waterfront project.
(3) Is the traffic modelling predicated on the government’s intention to close the emergency lanes on Graham Farmer Freeway? (4) Which other options did the government consider to deal with the 30 000 motorists a day that currently use Riverside Drive and what were the reasons for their rejection? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) Graham Farmer Freeway was designed to have three lanes of traffic in each direction. The traffic modelling undertaken for the waterfront project considered that the metropolitan road network has capacity to handle additional through traffic and that this upgrade should be a response to future growth of the city. (4) During the consideration of the waterfront project, the government assessed bridging and tunnelling options to carry Riverside Drive traffic under or over the waterfront cove. The bridging option was not supported. The option of tunnelling under the waterfront development was not supported for reasons including cost. Further traffic modelling is now being undertaken by the Department of Transport to build on the work undertaken for the waterfront project.
(4) Which other options did the government consider to deal with the 30 000 motorists a day that currently use Riverside Drive and what were the reasons for their rejection? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) Graham Farmer Freeway was designed to have three lanes of traffic in each direction. The traffic modelling undertaken for the waterfront project considered that the metropolitan road network has capacity to handle additional through traffic and that this upgrade should be a response to future growth of the city. (4) During the consideration of the waterfront project, the government assessed bridging and tunnelling options to carry Riverside Drive traffic under or over the waterfront cove. The bridging option was not supported. The option of tunnelling under the waterfront development was not supported for reasons including cost. Further traffic modelling is now being undertaken by the Department of Transport to build on the work undertaken for the waterfront project.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) Graham Farmer Freeway was designed to have three lanes of traffic in each direction. The traffic modelling undertaken for the waterfront project considered that the metropolitan road network has capacity to handle additional through traffic and that this upgrade should be a response to future growth of the city. (4) During the consideration of the waterfront project, the government assessed bridging and tunnelling options to carry Riverside Drive traffic under or over the waterfront cove. The bridging option was not supported. The option of tunnelling under the waterfront development was not supported for reasons including cost. Further traffic modelling is now being undertaken by the Department of Transport to build on the work undertaken for the waterfront project.
I thank the honourable member for notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) Graham Farmer Freeway was designed to have three lanes of traffic in each direction. The traffic modelling undertaken for the waterfront project considered that the metropolitan road network has capacity to handle additional through traffic and that this upgrade should be a response to future growth of the city. (4) During the consideration of the waterfront project, the government assessed bridging and tunnelling options to carry Riverside Drive traffic under or over the waterfront cove. The bridging option was not supported. The option of tunnelling under the waterfront development was not supported for reasons including cost. Further traffic modelling is now being undertaken by the Department of Transport to build on the work undertaken for the waterfront project.
(1) Yes. (2) No. (3) Graham Farmer Freeway was designed to have three lanes of traffic in each direction. The traffic modelling undertaken for the waterfront project considered that the metropolitan road network has capacity to handle additional through traffic and that this upgrade should be a response to future growth of the city. (4) During the consideration of the waterfront project, the government assessed bridging and tunnelling options to carry Riverside Drive traffic under or over the waterfront cove. The bridging option was not supported. The option of tunnelling under the waterfront development was not supported for reasons including cost. Further traffic modelling is now being undertaken by the Department of Transport to build on the work undertaken for the waterfront project.
(2) No. (3) Graham Farmer Freeway was designed to have three lanes of traffic in each direction. The traffic modelling undertaken for the waterfront project considered that the metropolitan road network has capacity to handle additional through traffic and that this upgrade should be a response to future growth of the city. (4) During the consideration of the waterfront project, the government assessed bridging and tunnelling options to carry Riverside Drive traffic under or over the waterfront cove. The bridging option was not supported. The option of tunnelling under the waterfront development was not supported for reasons including cost. Further traffic modelling is now being undertaken by the Department of Transport to build on the work undertaken for the waterfront project.
(3) Graham Farmer Freeway was designed to have three lanes of traffic in each direction. The traffic modelling undertaken for the waterfront project considered that the metropolitan road network has capacity to handle additional through traffic and that this upgrade should be a response to future growth of the city. (4) During the consideration of the waterfront project, the government assessed bridging and tunnelling options to carry Riverside Drive traffic under or over the waterfront cove. The bridging option was not supported. The option of tunnelling under the waterfront development was not supported for reasons including cost. Further traffic modelling is now being undertaken by the Department of Transport to build on the work undertaken for the waterfront project.
(4) During the consideration of the waterfront project, the government assessed bridging and tunnelling options to carry Riverside Drive traffic under or over the waterfront cove. The bridging option was not supported. The option of tunnelling under the waterfront development was not supported for reasons including cost. Further traffic modelling is now being undertaken by the Department of Transport to build on the work undertaken for the waterfront project.
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.