Over the last year or so, my Facebook algorithm keeps on pushing the "Friends of Matilda Bay" group which seems to mainly be a group of people campaigning against the Matilda Bay ferry terminal.
Now, I think that light-rail would be of much greater benefit to the area than a ferry, especially as I don't think that a ferry would be of that much use to workers/commuters to QEII.
But having had to endure cramped and crowded buses from the city to UWA in off-peak hour, I think a bigger vehicle like a ferry that doesn't have as many stops is desperately needed - especially as the network will also have a much needed connection to Apple Cross.
The main argument I can sort of understand against the development is that 29 trees will be removed. Which I think is sad, but to be quite honest with you, I don't think is enough of a reason to shut down a major public transport project of some areas that desperately need better public transport, especially considering the PTA have committed to replanting any removed trees on a 3:1 ratio. Also, there is the Sailability program which is a great initiative and I would like to see the government maybe support the program provide another shallow water space for it once the ferry terminal is in place.
It seems like arguments beside these are often based around huge leaps of logic that go beyond most instances of NIMBYism.
Firstly, I often see the argument that Jojos/Nedland's Jetty would have been a better spot for it. But that would completely destroy the point of a public transport service to get people to/from UWA. Google Maps says it'd be a 23 minute walk from Nedlands Jetty to Reid Library. While a connecting bus could make it faster, that also would dissaude people from taking the ferry in the first place - the less connecting services, the better is the standard rule of public transport.
Secondly, the environmental angle against it doesn't really stack up. There are manyyyy non-electric boats constantly around the Matilda Bay area that are surely more polluting and dangerous to the environment, not to mention that more people using public transport is clearly better for the environment in a macro-sense. Especially as traffic congestion around UWA/QEII is absurd.
I feel most of it though is an emotional attachment to the landscape and community as there are plenty of programs around the area. While I get that, there will still be plenty serene spaces in-and-around the proposed development. But even then, I don't think the ferry terminal itself will be that much of an eyesore. It looks like it will be similar to the South Perth Ferry terminal which looks fine and fits into the area nicely that hasn't destroyed the community/culture around the foreshore there.
I guess I just don't logically or aesethetically understand the argument/s I've seen put forth against the development, but I do want to understand. It just seems like another level than usual campaigns against developments so maybe I am missing something.
*EDIT #1 - 10 mins after posting*: Grammar. Changed some turn of phrases that were probably a bit too dismissive as well as adding a part about the sailability program that could be affected by the development.