Last evening, I attended a workshop by Main Roads regarding proposals for renewal of the Swan River – Derbal Yerrigan crossings between Fremantle and North Fremantle. It was well prepared and Main Roads staff were ‘on-story”. If Main Roads representatives are to be believed there is only one option to accomplish this project and that entails a new road crossing to be built upstream from the Traffic bridge, and, an additional freight rail crossing to be built upstream from the existing shared rail bridge – monopolising the space available.
The work is apparently to be undertaken in two phases, phase one -the road crossing and phase two -the rail crossing with a core consideration being to maintain road and rail connectivity for the construction period, a commitment I fully support.
I maintain the proposed crossing locations condemn the community and travellers to unnecessary sub optimal outcomes. Choosing to locate a new road crossing upstream from the Traffic bridge compounds the shortcomings of the existing situation insomuch as the landing on the Fremantle side presents as a terminating leg of a T junction offering absolutely no sense of arrival or connectivity to Fremantle for people crossing the river. A downstream location would liberate the potential for intuitive connectivity to Fremantle with the new river crossing; achieved by curving the crossing and road to mimic the existing rail crossing. I cannot overemphasise the importance for travellers from North Fremantle to Fremantle to arrive in Fremantle, and not at some arbitrary T junction. Furthermore, for the North Fremantle landfall of a new bridge to be squeezed up against Northbank apartments is highly inappropriate due to probable impacts on residents.
The logic put forward for the location proposals is based on the fact two new bridges will not fit between the two existing bridges. This is based on the belief they cannot locate an additional rail crossing downstream from the current shared rail crossing. I challenge this as having no engineering basis. If the motivation is Fremantle Ports insistence that they need all Port land for operational requirements, that is not reason enough to so severely compromise this once in a generation project. Main Roads in fact stated on their story boards at the presentation that the downstream road crossing location was indeed their first preference. We should return to that location, and if phase two ever becomes a reality, I am convinced a good engineering solution can be achieved.
The Swan River – Derbal Yerrigan crossing is of high heritage values for several reasons; firstly, it is a part of the Derbal Yerrigan river that has cultural and ceremonial importance for the First Nation people -the Wadjuk Noongar people and appropriate and significant consultation needs to be undertaken with the Elders, not a token process once the design is chosen. The river crossing also holds significant heritage values for colonial people, and the bridge apparently due for demolition is on the State Register of Heritage Places. Should the Heritage Council agree to the demolition of part or all of the existing bridge that renders the areas at either side of the river doubly important in telling the story of the river crossing. Any construction needs to acknowledge and incorporate this into its design. This aspect needs to take precedence over the more mundane issues of the design of a road crossing a river, because this project has to be much more than that.
In conclusion, the Community needs to be able to choose between more than one option related to road bridge location, it is essential there is an option locating the bridge downstream from the existing one. The design has to be fitting for the heritage of the location and Fremantle’s heritage values. Lastly Urban Planners have to be part of the design team from the onset, good urban design cannot be retrofitted on the run.
Jon Strachan 