NOT THE­ORY, BUT KNOWN FACT

Cockburn Gazette - - OPINION -

IN re­sponse to Jim Red­dy­hough's let­ter in last week’s edi­tion head­lined “Fact missed”, I clar­ify a few things.

"In­duced de­mand" is a gen­er­al­i­sa­tion of any "prod­uct", whereas "in­duced traf­fic" is a spe­cific type of in­duced de­mand.

That is split­ting hairs, but as it has been brought up a cou­ple of times now, I thought it best to clar­ify.

Se­condly, in­duced traf­fic is not a the­ory: it is a known fact. It is used in traf­fic modelling and stud­ies world­wide and has been for decades.

Lastly, my orig­i­nal let­ter was in ref­er­ence to the sug­ges­tion by the Melville mayor that if Roe 8 was not built, the other lo­cal roads would need to be widened to cater fu­ture traf­fic lev­els.

I was just stat­ing that al­ter­na­tives to sim­ply in­creas­ing the road net­work are key to help­ing cre­ate a sus­tain­able so­lu­tion to Perth's traf­fic prob­lems and that is not hap­pen­ing.

John Mer­ritt, the chief ex­ec­u­tive of Vi­cRoads, in an ar­ti­cle on ABC of July last year, said "...ad­vised mo­torists to use pub­lic trans­port, ride a bi­cy­cle, or find a new job closer to home to deal with the city's grow­ing traf­fic con­ges­tion" and is quoted as say­ing "we can't just build our way out of con­ges­tion".

I wish our politi­cians and govern­ment ad­vis­ers were say­ing the same thing.

We need lead­ers who can plan for sus­tain­able so­lu­tions for the next cen­tury and not sim­ply come up with ad-hoc plans with ques­tion­able out­comes that put us and our chil­dren in debt for the next cen­tury.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.