Bridge Integrity Group

First official sod turned for the new Fremantle Traffic Bridge https://fremantleshippingnews.com.au/2024/09/03/first-sod-turned
BTW, if you want to keep track on broadscale progress with the bridge, tune in to Fremantle Ports Cantonment Hill Harbourcam https://www.fremantleports.com.au/the-port/harbourcams/cantonment-hill-harbourcam

www.mainroads.wa.gov.au

Bridge Works Update https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/globalassets/projects-initiatives/projects/metro/swan-river-crossings/src-construction-update-august-2024.pdf?v=4a3d33 - and a video demonstration of how the bridge gets from here to completion https://youtu.be/UvzLIUnmp9c.
Here's hoping it all goes as smoothly as the video shows - though managing the traffic impacts in the later stages will be challenging.

www.mainroads.wa.gov.au

Perth Bloody Long Walk. Discount Entry - Save $50! Challenge yourself to walk 35km from South Perth to Cottesloe Beach. Learn more!

Perhaps when we finally get a decent pedestrian river crossing at Fremantle, we could get this ending at Bathers Beach in Visit Fremantle. https://www.bloodylongwalk.com.au/lp/perth/
Council has been spruiking Bathers Beach for a while now, but the only proposal appears to be a shark net - at a place that has never had a recorded shark attack.

Perth Bloody Long Walk. Discount Entry - Save $50! Challenge yourself to walk 35km from South Perth to Cottesloe Beach. Learn more!

Strange light in the Biscuit Factory, South Freo, just before sunset.

Setting aside the alleged sexism, there appears to be a disturbing similarity between Nedlands and Fremantle - and we're only at day 3!
First problem identified is the asset register. Remember the questions at the Annual Electors Meeting (and later) about revaluation of assets. Nedlands is now having to spend $40,000 to rectify this problem.
AND Nedlands is so cash-strapped that it is having to defer 69 projects. Coincidence?
AND former Nedlands Mayor, Laurie Taylor, makes the same point as I did at the most recent FremantleCouncil meeting - albeit in more forceful terms. He writes:
"Those being investigated must take no part in deciding who carries out the investigation - give human nature, they would seek to influence the investigation to protect themselves".
For those of a masochistic bent, the City of Nedlands Annual Electors Meeting is on 29th April - should be an 'interesting' evening. I'm aiming to be there to get some first-hand appreciation of what's going on.

I was more than somewhat taken aback by the Mayor's comment after my statement/question at last night's Council meeting that she would take my question as being rhetorical. A rhetorical question is one that asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer. Mine, whilst it might have had some dramatic effect, was a very serious question.

This failure to take seriously important issues raised by community members is, in itself, an ongoing problem.

Given the continuing rejection of annual reports/accounts and questions, meeting after meeting, relating to financial matters and the fact that such questions are not satisfactorily answered, there is clearly a lack of confidence in the financial side of the City of Fremantle. In turn, this exacerbates any concerns or misgivings about other aspects of City of Fremantle activities, which is not in anyone's long-term interest - Council, Community or Administration.

As far as I can see (as a Fremantle elector/ratepayer and long-term local government councillor), the only way to resolve this breakdown in trust is to have an independent investigation of the root causes of the problem, which are:
- the financial and accounting systems and reporting of the City of Fremantle and
- the inadequacy of answers to questions asked by community members in Public Question Time at Council Meetings.

For obvious reasons, any such forensic audit has to be independent of the Administration - and that has to include specification of the audit and selection of the auditor.

The Council can do this under Section 2.7 of the Local Government Act, which states that Council:
2.7 (1) (b) "is responsible for the performance of the local government’s functions", and
2.7 (2) (a) "is to oversee the allocation of the local government’s finances and resources".

However, even Council should be careful to operate at arm's length with any such audit, since problems might relate in part to deficiencies in such oversight.

Attached is the text of my statement/question to Council last night and media reports about the Nedlands Council initiative.

Some clarifications requested from Main Roads Bridge Alliance.

The latest update from Main Roads contains a couple of apparent ambiguities or difficulties of interpretation. I have sent the following email to the Bridge Alliance and will post back here when I get a reply.

My Email sent 8.45pm Monday 8th April 2024.

Can you clarify a couple of things from the latest announcement for me, please.

First, it states that: "Pedestrian and cyclist access maintained along the Beach Street foreshore. Path behind the café stays open." However, the map clearly shows the foreshore path west of the car park as 'closed' and the only alternative is via Canning Highway - a steep grade and difficult crossing at Queen Victoria Street. Whilst I appreciate that this foreshore path crosses the line of the drilling, I'd have thought it far enough from any surface or shallow activity for it to be kept open, thus providing continuity of access, even if it has to be fenced on the landward side and short-term closures put in place if and when services are actually being removed from the Traffic Bridge.

Second, there is mention of an anticipated road closure in May in the following terms: "A weekend closure of Swan Street, between Tydeman Road and the traffic bridge, will be required to allow space for the pre-assembled pipe to be pulled back under the river for service relocation works". However, Swan Street runs parallel to Tydeman Road (not 'between' Tydeman Road and the Traffic Bridge') and, in any case, does not appear to provide a logical (or even feasible) place for the described activity, as any such pipes would need to be turned through 90 degrees at Queen Victoria Street - thus requiring closure of QV Street.
Should the closure be described as "closure of Queen Victoria Street, between Tydeman Road and the traffic bridge"?

If you can clarify these points for me, I'll post them on the Bridge Integrity Group page.

Creating an Opportunity from Vegetation Removal?

Turning vegetation removal into an opportunity?

The area where vegetation will need to be removed or pruned to enable installation of the drilling rig for service relocation from the bridge to under the river, is the most degraded area of the scarp between Beach Street and Canning Highway.
At the same time, one of the unresolved issues for the replacement bridge remains how to connect the ped/cycle path on the eastern side of the bridge down to Beach Street and the river foreshore, given the height of the bridge. At the moment, even with the existing bridge, the deck of which is probably two metres lower than the replacement will be, the only connection is a set of steep, narrow and difficult-to-use steps.
So - is there a way of using the cleared/disturbed area to build a boardwalk-style path to negotiate the slope with reasonable gradients for all users?
Here's a thought, although it might in practice be necessary to add a zig or zag or two to comply with disability access requirements. After all, if we can do the treetop walk in Kings Park surely we can crack this one.
A CHALLENGE for innovative landscape architects or engineers - and for Main Roads/Bridge Alliance to accommodate this within the project budget now that it no longer has to stretch a new rail bridge as well!

Update on vegetation clearing for replacement of Fremantle Traffic Bridge.

Following from my previous post about the update on the Swan River Crossings project, I have had email responses (below - responses shown in inverted commas " ") from the Bridge Alliance and met on-site with representatives of the Alliance.
I am reasonably reassured by the responses and verbal assurances given yesterday, but will keep a close eye on the project. One good result of this has been re-establishment of a direct and constructive relationship between BIG and the Bridge Alliance.

My email with Alliance responses.

The most recent update has created considerable concern in the Fremantle community, most particularly with regard to the areas shown as 'Approximate vegetation clearing locations' (shaded green).
Whilst it is pleasing to see the comment that: "These [vegetation removal] works have been staged separately, using one drill at a time instead of two, which has reduced the clearing footprint", the scale of the denoted areas is substantially greater than the community had been led to expect.

First, the area to the east of the bridge, on the southern foreshore, is largely vegetated steep slope with a flat area at top and bottom. In a meeting with representatives of the Alliance when the service relocation works were originally due to start, community representatives (Bridge Integrity Group and Save Our Shores, Fremantle) were assured that the only vegetation clearance would be at the foot of the scarp to enable, as the current update also states, "construction of a limestone pad for the drill rigs and site laydown areas". Given that the remainder of the shaded area would not be suitable for such purposes, why is the whole of it shown as clearing location?

Alliance Response:
"The limestone pad needs to be constructed slightly on the scarp to house the drill rig and requires the rig to be on a downward angle to drill into the ground prior to Beach Street. The rig needs to drill new service lines approximately 40m below sea level and needs distance to be able to drill under the river. The area highlighted in the above map was to provide an indicative area only. Not all the vegetation in that section will be removed as some trees will be pruned back to allow space for the drill rigs.
I understand the some community members are concerned about vegetation removal and I would like to reiterate that the team has been extremely diligent in reducing the footprint."

We are also mindful of the statement in the November 2023 Project Update that: "the new design has ensured…minimal construction impact on the southern landing, limestone escarpment and Beach Street Reserve".
You will recall that clearing of this very area (the vegetated scarp) was a major (although by no means the only) reason for the strong community opposition to the previous proposal to divert Canning Highway down to the foreshore and under the bridge.

Second, the area west of the bridge on the southern foreshore contains the historic remains of the base base for the early 19th century ferry capstan. This is highlighted in the aerial view below (circled in yellow). It is acknowledged that the design for the new bridge will require disturbance, including removal of vegetation, immediately to the west of the existing bridge, we ask that extreme care be taken to protect the ferry capstan base and its immediate surrounds at all times.

Alliance Response:
"Our team will ensure this will be done with the utmost care. The date for the vegetation removal in the Ferry Capstan area is still to be confirmed and will not be commencing next week. Our intent was to inform the community that this area needed to be cleared but I can let you know the date once confirmed."

Third, the area to the east of the bridge on the northern foreshore was the subject of some considerable concern when the initial proposal, for a new bridge to the east of the existing one, was announced. Residents of the ground floor apartments fronting Queen Victoria Street were concerned (one was quite distraught) not only at the moving of Queen Victoria Street closer to their apartments, but more so at the likely removal of the semi-mature trees close to the apartments that provided some barrier to the traffic intrusion. We ask that any ground works or vegetation removal in this area should be restricted to the area between the footpath and Queen Victoria Street - apart from the benefits alluded to above, this would allow continuity of pedestrian access down to the river foreshore.

Alliance Response:

"The trees between Queen Victoria Street and the footpath are the only ones to be removed. The shrubs heading south and closer to the area used as an informal carpark (north-east side of QVS) will be removed as this space is required to house the drill pipeline exit point."

What are 'service relocation' works, why are they necessary and how are they done?

For those who are unsure of what the 'service relocation' works being carried out on Beach Street and next to Queen Victoria Street over the next little while entail (and why they are necessary), Main Roads has produced a useful information sheet. Downloadable from https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/globalassets/projects-initiatives/projects/metro/swan-river-crossings/fact-sheet-service-relocation-works-march-2024.pdf?v=495885 and screen shots attached here.

This is what the activity at Beach Street was about today.

For those concerned by reports that work on the Beach Street area for service relocation had started today, when Main Roads had said it would be Monday 25th March, the work today was apparently just to install solar-powered floodlights. There is no evidence of disturbance to the grass, trees or bushes.
These lights don't look to be part of the temporary lighting for road users needed because of the removal of a number of street lights on Beach Street - they are floodlights and are in the area of Beach Street marked as 'long-term closure (ie for the duration of the works), so perhaps they are to enable work to be expedited by working out of daylight hours.

Email to Main Roads and Bridge Alliance re vegetation clearing. Also sent to SOS Ffremantle, Fremantle elected members, Simone McGurk, MLA, Brad Pettit MLC, Lisa O'Malley MLA, Geln Dougal CEO City of Fremantle, Jim O'Neill Mayor East Fremantle, Steve Grant Fremantle Herald, Michael Barker Fremantle Shipping News.

The most recent Main Roads update on the Swan River Crossings project (replacement of the Fremantle Traffic Bridge) has caused a lot of anguish about the possible extent of the proposed vegetation clearance. I have emailed Main Roads and the Bridge Alliance to set out the main concerns and to seek clarification. My email is below and I will circulate any responses when I receive them.
Email to previous contact at Bridge Alliance and to Main Roads.
I don't know if you are still with the Alliance, but if not, I ask Main Roads to forward this email from the general enquiries email address which is the only one provided in the most recent update on the Swan River Crossings Project.
The most recent update has created considerable concern in the Fremantle community, most particularly with regard to the areas shown as 'Approximate vegetation clearing locations' (shaded green).
Whilst it is pleasing to see the comment that: "These [vegetation removal] works have been staged separately, using one drill at a time instead of two, which has reduced the clearing footprint", the scale of the denoted areas is substantially greater than the community had been led to expect.
First, the area to the east of the bridge, on the southern foreshore, is largely vegetated steep slope with a flat area at top and bottom. In a meeting with representatives of the Alliance when the service relocation works were originally due to start, community representatives (Bridge Integrity Group and Save Our Shores, Fremantle) were assured that the only vegetation clearance would be at the foot of the scarp to enable, as the current update also states, "construction of a limestone pad for the drill rigs and site laydown areas". Given that the remainder of the shaded area would not be suitable for such purposes, why is the whole of it shown as clearing location?
We are also mindful of the statement in the November 2023 Project Update that: "the new design has ensured…minimal construction impact on the southern landing, limestone escarpment and Beach Street Reserve".
You will recall that clearing of this very area (the vegetated scarp) was a major (although by no means the only) reason for the strong community opposition to the previous proposal to divert Canning Highway down to the foreshore and under the bridge.
Second, the area west of the bridge on the southern foreshore contains the historic remains of the base for the early 19th century ferry capstan. This is highlighted in the aerial view below (circled in yellow - Pic 3). It is acknowledged that the design for the new bridge will require disturbance, including removal of vegetation, immediately to the west of the existing bridge, we ask that extreme care be taken to protect the ferry capstan base and its immediate surrounds at all times.
Third, the area to the east of the bridge on the northern foreshore was the subject of some considerable concern when the initial proposal, for a new bridge to the east of the existing one, was announced. Residents of the ground floor apartments fronting Queen Victoria Street were concerned (one was quite distraught) not only at the moving of Queen Victoria Street closer to their apartments, but more so at the likely removal of the semi-mature trees close to the apartments that provided some barrier to the traffic intrusion (Pic 4). We ask that any ground works or vegetation removal in this area should be restricted to the area between the footpath and Queen Victoria Street - apart from the benefits alluded to above, this would allow continuity of pedestrian access down to the river foreshore. (Pic 5)
Whilst it is disappointing that work has started today, a day earlier than stated (Monday 25th March - https://fremantleshippingnews.com.au/.../stuff-has-started), the Fremantle community would very much appreciate your early clarification of the matters raised in this email, as a way of easing any concerns that might be unnecessary. I am happy to undertake to share such clarification as widely as possible through social media and other opportunities available to me.

Repurposing Laing O'Rourke leftovers (in Wales).

Laing O'Rourke (Fremantle Bridge Alliance) contributes to tiny house/environmental movement. https://youtu.be/y1Jb9-Xquzs

Laing O'Rourke (Fremantle Bridge Alliance) contributes to tiny house/environmental movement. https://youtu.be/y1Jb9-Xquzs

Comment on the Development Application for the replacement for the Fremantle Traffic Bridge closes 1st February.
In my view, this proposal ticks a lot of the community boxes, with the significant exception of retention of any part of the existing traffic bridge. However, the history/heritage of the site is more than just that one artefact and I have suggested a way of recording and acknowledging that.
My comments on the DA (submitted today) are below.

The current proposal takes advantage of innovative bridge construction techniques to come very close to what the community has consistently said it wanted - like-for-like replacement of the existing traffic bridge. The main omission in this respect is any retention of any part of the existing traffic bridge.
The latest design, unlike previous ones, does contain distinctive elements (esp above the deck) which the community had sought as a distinctive 'entry statement' for Fremantle.
I have a few outstanding concerns.
First, whilst the innovative construction method substantially reduces the period of time for which there will be no active river crossing for motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians at this point, there is no clear indication of how the river crossing demands will be accommodated while the bridge is closed. Project consultations have been told that the remaining road system (esp Stirling Bridge) would be unable to cope with such closure.
Would it be possible, for example, to construct the cycle/pedestrian paths on one or both sides at the same time as the main lateral support structures so that these could be operational at the time the existing traffic bridge is closed and demolished?
Second, in the absence of any retention of the existing traffic bridge, the heritage/history of river crossings at this point will largely disappear. There is, however, a model (made in 1933) of the previous Bridge of Sticks, currently in the WA Maritime Museum. I suggest that a similar model be commissioned (or perhaps a competition held) for the existing traffic bridge and other previous crossings (to the same scale) to provide, in conjunction with historical display material previously produced as part of the project consultations, an historical record of the significance of the site.
Third, the artist's impressions do not clearly show river level access across Queen Victoria Street under the proposed bridge (and, ultimately, the rail bridge) on the northern side. This is important both for the longer-term, when this would be an important link between parts of North Fremantle and the redevelopment of North Quay when the container trades move to Kwinana, and to provide continuity of access across Queen Victoria Street during construction of the new bridge and its approaches.

Hot on the heels of the latest proposal for replacing the Fremantle Traffic Bridge, a Development Application has now been lodged - https://consultation.dplh.wa.gov.au/reform-design-state-assessment/fremantle-traffic-bridge/ It is open for comment until 1st February 2024.
There is a very large amount of documentation, covering everything from the actual proposal to heritage assessment and interpretation, traffic management and geotechnical investigations - see list in pic below.
Many of the documents are basically technical assessments. From the community point of view (at first sight - I haven't even looked at all of them yet), I'd suggest anyone interested focus on those listed here, unless you have a specific technical interest in others:
- Applicant Swan River Crossing Development Application -Submission - THIS IS THE CORE DOCUMENT.
- Applicant Design Concept Plans - Appendix A
- Applicant Community and Stakeholder Engagement Summary Report - Appendix E
- Applicant Heritage Interpretation Strategy - Appendix F
- Applicant Community and Stakeholder Engagement Summary Report - Appendix E
- Applicant Heritage Interpretation Strategy - Appendix F
- Applicant Construction Management Plan - Appendix K
- Applicant Traffic Impact Statement - Appendix L
That's still a heck of a lot - but I'll post here as often as I can when I've been able to have a closer look at the package.