|
Robert McInnes ("Small business is set to quit
Subi", POST letters, 12/4) is correct in saying
that excessive density in the China Green proposals
will aggravate Subiaco's parking problems, and in
consequence its economic viability.
When, in London in the 1960s, a bureau was set
up to encourage office developments in the suburbs,
this had the bad effect of increasing car usage
because, as in Perth, London public transport
radiates mainly from the centre.
Surely the centre - served by stations
from CityWest to East Perth and Esplanade -
is where most offices should be.
Mr McInnes mentions the problem that few staff
working in Subiaco live on the Fremantle to Perth
line, whereas workers in the centre have access
from all rail lines, and from far more bus routes.
As most readers have agreed - most
recently those in Subi Centro, whose protests were
reported in the May 3 edition - the amount
of accommodation (both offices and residential)
currently planned for China Green, must be
drastically reduced.
A particular absurdity is the idea of a
10-storey "entry statement"; this should be
abandoned: it would be even taller than the ugly
tower block of King Edward Memorial Hospital, and
like it, out of scale and character with its
surroundings.
Even a reduced China Green development will
produce much traffic. Rail use would be encouraged
by a new station where the train comes out of the
tunnel, halfway between Subiaco and Daglish
stations; this could also serve the hospital, local
residents and, hopefully, a retained Lord's.
The government is right in encouraging public
transport use, but needs to do more to make it
acceptable. This includes increasing the frequency
of trains and buses, improving security, and
introducing new routes.
If employers offered free public transport
instead of free car parking, this would further
reduce traffic problems.
Peak oil is a reality, and we had better be
prepared for its consequences.
Tony Noakes
Hardy Road
Nedlands
|