Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 4608x6656 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

VIGILANS ET AUDAX.
One Hundred and Nineteenth Year ol Publication.
PERTH. MONDAY, JUNE 18, 1951.
FREMANTLE HARBOUR
The State Government could
fairly claim that before the
initial survey work for the
Tydeman scheme of port de
velopment at Fremantle was
started ample time was allowed
for full public discussion of the
arguments for and against up
river extensions. The oppor
tunity was not ignored but, un
fortunately, most of the criti
,cism to date has been con
cerned with the likely effect of
more river berths on an already
polluted Swan River. Conse
quently, other implications of
the scheme have been given
less consideration. That is not
to say that the pollution ques
tion is unimportant. It is
supremely important and,
rightly or wrongly, many citi
zens sincerely believe that
more ships in the river will
mean more pollution.
Assuming, however, that the
Government and its experts are
right on the pollution question
and the critics mistaken, the
soundness of the Government's
Barbour policy may be still
doubtful. There is a formid
able array of highly-qualified
opinion in favour of going up
stream first and then outside
the harbour to provide more
berths, but it should be noted
that the river does not en
joy preference on engineering
grounds. In his report Mr.
Tydeman wrote: "Development
seawards suffers from no
restriction of land, would cause
lesser problems of cross-river
communication, and impose no
restriction on the number of
berths possible .... From the
engineering and navigational
standpoints seawards develop
inent schemes are possible."
He added that they would be
more to the advantage of town
planners than upstream exten
sions in congested and de
veloped areas.
Economy decided the issue in
favour of 11 upstream berths.
Seeing, however, that ocean
front development would re
quire less imported materials
and skilled labour than river
development with all its asso
ciated bridge building, it is con
heivable that rising costs
would progressively weaken
the economy argument. West
ern Australia is not a
.wealthy State but too often
have Governments sacrificed its
interests on the altars of ex
pediency and economy. What
is proposed to be done to the
Swan must have a profound
and permanent influence on the
Fremantle region and on the
metropolitan area. as a whole.
A new railway bridge at Point
Brown will mean that for
many years to come (once the
railways have been rehabili
tated) the greater part of the
Fremantle zone's agricultural
imports and exports will con
tinue to be hauled through the
Perth bottleneck by rail. Yet
Mr. Meyer has pointed to a
simple and rational solution of
this problem. Having decided
to build a direct rail link be
tween Bassendean and Welsh
pool, it is strange that the
Government will not admit the
case for a wheatbek connection
with Fremantle south of the
river.
The immediate question, how
ever, is the speed with which
the efficiency of the port can
be raised. Here, the Minister
for Works (Mr. Brand) is any
thing but convincing. Indeed,
he has said that it is impossible
to give an assurance that steel
and cement will be available as
required for the railwaX bridge
which, according to the Min
ister for Transport (Mr. Simp
son), is due to be ready for
traffic by 1955. Reorganisation
of the existing harbour will en
able much more cargo to be
handled but the old bridge.
which must be replaced in the
near future, restricts the effi
ciency of Victoria Quay and is
a barrier to upstream harbour
extensions. If 11 new ocean
berths were built below the
South Mole and serviced by a
new southern railway line,
there would be no need for an
elaborate and expensive new
railway bridge and the traffic
bridge could remain undis
turbed for many years. A rail
way bridge some distance east
of the present structure would
be required, but would not one
of timber construction suffice.
if necessary? Ultimately, but,
of course, not for years, it
would be desirable to transfer
the wheat bulk handling facili
ties from North Wharf to the
new berths. This would avoid
transport of wheat through
Perth or across the river.
It would be foolish to assert
that the building of an ocean
front port would involve few
supply difficulties, but, in view
of the acute shortages of steel
and cement, it would require
much courage to say that the
provision of half a dozen berths
there would take longer than
in the river. Much of the work
would be dredging, reclamation
and the transport of stone for
a breakwater. Timber and
cement will be needed for
berths wherever they are built
and rails abound in an exces
sive railway system. Once a
site had been selected work
could commence with little
delay.
So much is at stake that the
Government would be well ad
vised to think again before it
commits itself irrevocably to a
policy which will certainly
make it more difficult to abate
the railway nuisance in the
metropolitan area, which will
involve costly and probably
very protracted bridge building,
which will inevitably add to
congestion in Fremantle and
which will necessitate large
scale resumptions in the built
up areas of North Fremantle.
An outbreak of war would im
mediately dry up all steel sup
plies and leave the State's
major port in semi-chaos in
definitely. Seeing that the
Government is willing ulti
mately to go outside the har
bour, are all the risks, includ
ing that of pollution, worth. II
river berths? The Govern
ment has a majority in the As
sembly and could probably
withstand a challenge on har
bour pqoicy. But it would re
veal strength rather than weak
ness if it would calmly and
fully and with an open mind
review all the factors, includ
ing some important ones which
were not apparent when' Mr.
Tydeman made his report, and
was willing, if the evidence.and
prospects warranted it, to go
outside the harbour now and
forget about its plans for ex
tension up-river.
$