IN response to Jim Reddyhough’s letter in last week’s edition headlined “Fact missed”, I just wanted to 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 only wish our own politicians and government advisers were saying the same thing.
State Treasurer Mike Nahan, who bizarrely suggests any objection to this is purely political, is now suggesting that a selling off Western Power could be used to revive MAX Light rail (which was previously promised and fully funded at the last election).
Yet, Transport Minister Dean Nalder continually states that he feels it is too expensive, and that buses, tunnels or heavy rail might be a better solution.
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.