AC­CEPT OF­FER

Cockburn Gazette - - OPINION -

AN­OTHER failed thought bub­ble hey Mr Red­dy­hough (None so blind, Gazette, Fe­bru­ary 9), but for good­ness sake don't get your mother to ex­plain your­self.

In re­gards to the Nar­rows du­pli­ca­tion, did it solve our con­ges­tion? No. Do we still have traf­fic con­ges­tion on week­days? Yes.

So how has it helped with con­ges­tion Jim? As you ad­mit­ted, “in­creas­ing traf­fic filled both bridges up”. Mean­ing it in­vited more ve­hi­cles into the area it was sup­posed to fix. Roe 8 is an­other replica of the Nar­rows.

Di­vert­ing and NOT ac­tu­ally re­mov­ing ve­hi­cles is a bla­tant lie by the State Govern­ment claim­ing 5000 ve­hi­cles are be­ing re­moved.

If Mr Red­dy­hough would ac­cept my of­fer of meet­ing me at the cor­ner of Stock Road and Leach High­way on any work­day af­ter­noon, he can see with his own eyes the con­ges­tion that al­ready ex­ists.

If you think Roe 8 is such a great idea Jim, ask to have the damn thing built near your house and I guar­an­tee you will wake up to mas­sive waste of money it is, that will do noth­ing but in­crease traf­fic in some­one else’s sub­urb.

How is that solv­ing con­ges­tion?

How­ever, when it comes to trans­port plan­ning in WA, he is very un­wise to be­lieve a sin­gle word that Dean Nalder says.

How are trucks go­ing to get to the port if you will not let them build Roe 8, or don’t you care?

The tree you re­fer to was not cut down by Roe 8 pro­test­ers, as you seem to im­ply, but by Main Roads, not be­cause it was start­ing to build Roe 8, but be­cause the tree was con­sid­ered a dan­ger, al­though there is still con­sid­er­able doubt as to whether this is true.

You talk rub­bish about Roe 8 be­ing “a road to nowhere”.

You are merely copy­ing Green and La­bor politi­cians, who are say­ing this just to be op­po­site to the ob­vi­ous, sen­si­ble view­point.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.