SASTR wholly rejects that criticism and believes Mr Neville is either missing the point or misinterpreting what we have been consistently saying about this program to improve Toodyay Road.
Everyone, including SASTR, knows and understands the need to improve the road from a safety perspective.
But if it was just about safety, as Mr Neville argues, the road could be improved through far less expenditure, as has happened in the metropolitan section of Toodyay Road using road treatments that Main Roads WA (MRWA) data shows is the most cost-effective way to improve safety.
However, in order to respond to the need expressed by some in the community for “more passing lanes”, MRWA has had to spend a whole lot more money.
We can debate whether we really need the number of passing lanes that are being planned in a relatively short distance of road, particularly given the degree of environmental destruction that is necessary.
But the real issue is that federal funding was necessary to justify such expenditure and a business case had to be prepared in order to attract such funding.
SASTR has obtained that business case through an FOI request and carried out a detailed review.
It states that the investment in improvements to Toodyay Road will realise, and we quote:
“Travel time improvements of 20 per cent along the route through an increase in the posted speed to 110km/h and the provision of passing lanes”.
Such figures are arrived at using economic modelling, a technique with which this author has had some experience, and the numbers generated are predictions.
What is often not stated is that there is considerable error associated with such predictions and it is of some interest that in a presentation to Toodyay Council some years ago, travel savings from Perth to Toodyay were quoted as five minutes, not 20 per cent of travel time.
Leaving aside the flaws of economic modelling the key point here is to ask how is it possible for an organisation to attract funding based on a model or scenario that will not actually take place in real life, namely a speed limit of 110km/h?
We are slightly heartened that Mr Neville and his RoadWise Committee are not in favour of increasing the speed limit and MRWA has also since confirmed that the speed limit will remain at 100 km/h, thereby it would seem, undermining its own economic argument.
So, the business case for improvements to Toodyay Road seem to be a particularly egregious example of flawed thinking that looks at pure economics without consideration of other factors and the fault does not only lie with the funding applicant but also the organisation approving the funding.
The fact that more than 1200 people largely from the local community have signed our petition against the planned improvements, together with more than 4000 people online, would suggest that SASTR is amongst many who believe we, and our environment, deserve better from our governments!
