MRC, quadruple bottom line, weightings, sensitivity analysis....what happened to common sense???

Common sense says there is not enough support for this project to continue any further. Just look at the two main issues:

1. Social – Only 20% of stakeholders support or strongly support the extension of the highway (SMC Information Day 24th October 2009), and it cuts through sacred Aboriginal grounds.

2. Environmental – The road goes straight through native wetlands, the WA EPA have already stated that it “would be extremely difficult to be made environmentally acceptable”

Without social support what purpose does Roe 8 serve? The environmental issues are just another slap in the face by this ill thought out project.

I would like to think that if any environmental issues are resolved and the project goes ahead that there would be a future rail line factored in to provide better access from east to west etc. If it doesn't go ahead there still needs to be a rail link from for better access and keeping cars off the road. I hate driving around Perth and the suburbs if you are not on the freeway as there are so many traffic lights and changes in speed limits every couple of minutes. It would be nice to get off at a train station on the Mandurah line and be able to switch trains to carry onto somewhere like Cannington or Fremantle.

Original plans for Roe Hiway were to funnel traffic through to Rockingham Road - which is dual-lane.

The map of the Roe Hiway extension shows work to the West of Stock Road - which does not continue the traffic through to Rockingham Road.

It stops just after Forrest Road changes direction to the North West.

A major issue with not continuing the extension past Stock Road, through to Rockingham Road, is that a large proportion of traffic will continue West of Stock Road and then along Forrest - or other minor suburban roads.

If this project is given approval, then major works needs to be completed West of Stock Road to PREVENT traffic from using Forrest as a route to Rockingham Road and then Fremantle. Using Forrest Road as a replacement for the extension of the Roe Hiway to Rockingham Road is simply not acceptable.

Forrest Road already has too many large trucks using it as a route to Stock Road and I see it only getting worse unless significant effort is made to reduce large vehicles from taking the shorter route.

Forrest Road nor the community can tolerate this traffic.

My preference is to take the extension to Rockingham Road as originally designed.

I have recently returned to WA after several years away overseas. My home is in Kardinya and I am really pleased to see the progress of the Roe Highway. Before I left WA, I really had no concept of the plan, however I must say it is a fantastic achievement to lower the density of heavy traffic (trucks) from Leach Hwy and South Street. Whilst the Roe is a great concept, we should all encourage the users of heavy goods vehicles to use the facility. I am surprised that the Roe does not link into the Port system and the traffic volumes on High Street and Leach is dangerously overloaded. I play golf at Royal Fremantle GC and am regularly reminded of the dangers of this heavy traffic on this particular road. It is hard to believe that in 2010, the regulators have chosen to direct this huge traffic volume through built up areas. Forunately, there have been none or little incidents through the locality, however should a fuel or chemical vehicle have an incident near the netball courts on a Saturday afternoon, the outcome would be catastrophic. Whilst this might sound a little alarmist, it is almost negligent on our planners to even consider allowing this type of vehicular activity in our suburban areas. I guess it has always been my priority to put people ahead of environmental considerations, however I have seen first hand examples of the crude bureacracies that can be invoked because of unfounded environmental considerations. As an example, I recently read that the Gorgon project needed to provide something like 50 - 60 million dolars over the project life cycle to protect the "Flat Back Turtle" or something like that. If the negotiators of this "deal" stepped back and though about what this kind of money might do for mankind, maybe they might have negotiated from a different position. I guess what I am suggesting is that the environment might have to give a a bit even if it means saving the life of one human being as apposed to a few turtles or similar. I don't want to get on a soapbax too much but, hey, let's put some perspectve in all af this. I would love to have some further siscussions with any informed advocate of the Roe Hwy project. AT this time, I muct commend the planners for their work and vision for all previous major infrastructure projects. History has told us they don't get too much worng over the years. Well done.

Kind regards,

Wayne

1.As far as the enviroment issue, there is more than sufficeint wetlands located around Coogee, Spearwood, North Lake, Bibra Lake, South Lakes, Munster, Henderson and Beeliar to overcome any concern about Roe Highway being built through the North Lake wetlands area especially using the existing Hope Rd.

2. With the Roe Highway cutting across Progress drive it will reduce traffic flow along Progress drive making it safer for people with children using the area for recreational purposes.

3. The original plan to connect Roe highway to Rockingham Rd should be reconsidered as this would allow more traffic to access Kwinana Freeway and reduce traffic flow through the side streets leading to Stock Rd

I am not surprised that Indigenous heritage is not on the minds of most commentators although I note 'chenga' 22 Dec 2009 makes a reference. Nevertheless Indigenous heritage is certainly going to influence the outcome of the proposal. Aboriginal people have already made application under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cwlth)(ATSIHPA). The consent of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs under section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) will need to be sought if the alignment is between North and Bibra Lakes as at least one known Aboriginal site registered with the Department of Indigenous Affairs would be impacted by any such alignment. If consent under the State legislation is granted the application under ATSIHPA referred to above will be triggered. I have raised these matters at several South Metro Connect forums.

Let me get this right.

You want to know "What factors should be considered in assessing design options for the Roe Highway Extension?"

So, no matter what reply is given, the fundamental question of the Roe8 debate is not of any interest to you, namely: whether the majority of the community is willing to sanction the environmental sabotage and sacrilege against indigenous sites that the Roe 8 extension represents.

I think it is an extremely arrogant position for you to just assume that Roe 8 will proceed. I also think it extremely arrogant for South Metro Connect to tout itself has being even the slightest bit interested in "Community Consultation" when that consultation tries to avoid and tacitly censor any discussion that is opposed to the Roe8 extension even going ahead.

Clearly, South Metro Connect is in unashamedly in favour of the Roe8 extension proceeding and does not wish to enter into any debate about the possibility of the project being scrapped as UNSUSTAINABLE from an Environmental, Social or Economic perspective. I wont even mention the political debate that’s raging over this that you completely ignore.

Its an act of monumental hypocrisy on the part of South Metro Connect to take up the mantle for the Government over Roe8 and then try to appear as if this "Community Consultation" is something other than a thinly disguised exercise in political propaganda.

Clearly, South Metro Connect is a proxy for the Liberal Party. Just who do you think you're kidding ?

I agree with SaveBibraLake (above)that it is pretence that the SMC is truly engaging in a community consultation process, except perhaps in some of the finer details AS the project proceeds, come what may. In the last update I could not at all equate their summary of the mood of the Community Info Day (55% opposition of the project from attendees, was it?!)to the overwhelmingly negative mood prevailing on that occasion. It is my first experience of a so called "Community Consultation Process" & now I am getting a handle on how that really works! The term seems to be a euphanism for whitewashing public opinion & a kind of benign quashing of opponents & criticism. As efficient, nice & well intentioned as the people at SMC may be ( & they are all 3 I believe), it is clear what the real function of SMC is: to re-present the feedback & market research in sanitised ways that dont reflect the real hostility to the project. As far as the market research goes, it is unsurprising that in a busy world, so many people are oblivious to this project, & then a few carefully framed questions directed to such people can easily evoke the desired response for the organisation that commissioned the survey. So how can such a survey carry any weight? I am not rabidly opposed to the project, but like the respondent SaveBibraLake find it insulting that we are expected to regard the SMC as impartial or this process as genuine. & as for the Multiple Criteria Analysis & other such academic mechanisms & tools- I know we need to be aware of how the consultants & academics work & assess such projects, but I feel they can then use such devices to smokescreen. Talk about "visual impact" - did these analysts not understand the visual impact of those 100s of protest dots against the different issues at the info day. Now THAT was an undeniable statement!! However thank you to the SMC for these Forums. A practical comment is that I stumbled upon this particular forum, but then couldnt easily find it again, compared to the forums accessible from another page.

I am pleased that some people are concerned about the environment of the frogs, turtles and black cockatoos. However, I wish they could be equally concerned about my environment which over recent years has become extremely noisy with numerous trucks using the Kwinana Freeway and Leach Highway. Not to mention the stench in and around my home every time a live sheep boat is being loaded.

I do trust Minister O'Brien takes account of the environmental concerns regarding the proposed route for Roe 8 but that he also takes account of the environmental needs of many residents and progresses Roe 8 as soon as possible.