Waterfront traffic woes surface
The scale of traffic problems to be caused by the Perth waterfront redevelopment emerged yesterday when the State Government flagged plans to expand the Graham Farmer Freeway tunnel to six lanes to cope with the flood of cars pushed off Riverside Drive.
The plan to convert the tunnel's emergency lanes to traffic lanes was labelled reckless by the Opposition and prompted an RAC safety warning.
Dodging the freeway | Traffic stress takes toll |
"The Perth waterfront development will clearly impact on the 24,000 vehicles per day which utilise Riverside Drive," Transport Minister Troy Buswell said.
"The State Government is planning for modifications to the Graham Farmer Freeway, including the addition of a third lane to the Northbridge tunnel, to assist in the orderly flow of traffic around the city."
Main Roads said the tunnel could easily accommodate a third lane each way using the emergency lanes.
"Obviously one lane will be taken up but we have in place a 24-hour towing service strictly for the tunnel so we can move disabled vehicles fairly quickly," a spokesman said.
RAC head of member advocacy Matt Brown raised concerns about how quickly emergency services could enter the tunnel once the stopping lanes were lost.
"In terms of a road safety side of things, in an ideal world you wouldn't want to lose an emergency lane," he said.
"There are examples elsewhere in Australia and around the world where they have converted emergency lanes into traffic lanes but they have had very robust incident management plans.
"They also make use of intelligent traffic systems.
"It can be done but it's not ideal."
Mr Brown said the tunnel was designed to be expanded to cope with congestion from population growth, not increased traffic from planning changes.
"If the Government is now saying expanding or widening the tunnel is our answer to Riverside Drive, that leaves some very big question marks about what happens when the population grows," he said. "The Graham Farmer Freeway tunnel alone shouldn't be seen as a quick fix to the Riverside Drive issue because all that will do is push the issue and the cost on to a future government."
Opposition Leader Eric Ripper said the change was reckless and stupid.
Mr Barnett said Riverside Drive would not be touched until 2013.
"In the meantime, the Government will have time to look at any re-routing and changing of roads in the central city area," he said.Follow thewest.com.au on Twitter
Sponsored links
Breaking
- 5:05 pm Fears for the trapped as night descends
- 3:37 pm Hundreds of Aussie doctors in quake
- 2:50 pm Deadly quake strikes NZ
- 2:47 pm It's dark and horrible: trapped Aussie
- 2:19 pm Baby 'sent home before death'
- 12:17 pm More schools to go independent
- 12:14 pm Great Southern man found
- 11:59 am Barnett backs WAN's move on Seven
- 11:49 am Barnett 'frustrated by distractions'
- 11:32 am Australia sends emergency team
Most Commented
- Families face years of power bill pain 48 Comments
- Who are WA's most influential? 32 Comments
- AFL in power play for Eagles, Dockers licences 29 Comments
- WAN to buy Seven's media assets for $4.1b 26 Comments
- Big rise in power bill help calls 23 Comments
- Perth gets livability approval 22 Comments
- Balloon trial to combat child obesity 19 Comments
- Secret plans for Premier's new office 18 Comments
- Action call on shake-up of councils 12 Comments
- Housing damage bill hits $7.2m 11 Comments
News Poll
- Related News Story:
- Councils want to cut speed limits
Sponsored links
ALSO ON THE WEST
'The West Australian' is a trademark of West Australian Newspapers Limited 2011.
All rights reserved.
26 Comments
I would've thought that one of the big issues with tunnel congestion is having the west bound lanes merging into one lane half way over a bridge. Lovely piece of planning, design and engineering that. Not to mention the other merging issues that haunt the Poly Pipe.
ReplyWhy can't the tunnel underneath the waterfront inlet being constructed first? That way the traffic along the Graham Farmer Freeway won't be affected.
ReplyThe traffic planning around this is so poor I wonder how fair dinkim the proposal is. Just Government window dressing in the lead up to the next election. We have heard it all many times before, just like the new sports stadium. I'll believe it when I see it.
2 RepliesIt is that merge point turning into one lane that does the damage. a bad mix of stupid design and people who cannot merge to save their life.
ReplyIf the tunnel is designed to accommodate 6 lanes in the future, why have we only got four lanes now. For the sake of some line-marking it should be used in its six-lane format now.
ReplyIve never seen a car in the Emergency lane of the tunnel. Add the extra lane now. Also MR should be using the red, amber and green signals hanging from the roof of the tunnel appropriately, instead of warning for things that arnt even on the road. Speed limit change to 100 - perfect.
ReplyKid's at the local kindergarden have more common sense at sorting things out than this stupid government, yeah it's heading into a mess for the people to endure like our so-called freeway's!
ReplyTypical short-sighted Barnett. A total focus on roads instead of improving public transport. When will they ever realise that more roads/lanes=more cars and more pollution. Have a look at Beijing next time you go there Colin! learn something!
ReplySilver One, your got the right idea about Barnett checking out Beijing, as long as the b@stard stay's there!
ReplyDo most people have to drive - no. So why all the fuss about putting extra lanes in the tunnel. Fix up the public transport system and discourage people from using their car. Stop being so car-centric. There is no law in the land that says - 'you have to use your car, or else!'. Put the...
1 Reply