Re: Re: Before the Bulldozers: Images of a Doomed Suburb
@alonso wrote:
disproved? When? Where’s your data? Where’s your evidence? Where is there a semblance of substance in anything you’ve posted?
Sigh. Here.
@alonso wrote:
Let me get this straight. What you are saying is that the promoters of this scheme, DLRCoCo, took the two most fundamental elements of any argument in relation to road infrastructure – time saving and traffic impact – and rather than present an impartial view, they skewed the argument in a way that made the acceptability of their own proposal even less difficult to find. They twisted their own evidence against themselves. That’s what you are claiming.
No. This is the sequence of events as I understand it. The reports on the road were prepared by separate groups from DLR. It recommended that they not proceed with the road. They rejected this and proceeded with the road. Is this not correct? And is it not reasonable? They weighed pros and cons, and made a decision. They weren’t required to accept the findings.
@alonso wrote:
As for vendettas, I have plenty. Against State-sponsored vandalism, against designing our cities for an obsolete mode, against compromising the ability of mass transit to operate, against redundant failed philosophies determining our futures and against backward governance.
What utter guff. “An obsolete mode”. I’m seriously raging at this comment, and the mindset that must have produced it. How you can expect the private car to quietly vanish in the next few decades is totally beyond me. It’s not going anywhere.
Your posts on this topic so far have been loaded with more emotion than an Oscar speech – so much for “knowing with the heart”. Your evidence against the road consists entirely of ephithets and exaggerations, “devastated”, “punched”, “soon-to-be-eliminated tranquillity”, “major new highway” .
The EIS isn’t wrong as such; Yes the road will have drawbacks, it will bring traffic down streets that currently have little or none. But this is all very subjective. Many of the people on those streets may actually – whisper it – want the road access that this provides, combatting their current severance from surrounding areas. What makes you think that creating a route through their estate is necessarily a bad thing? Does everyone living in a suburb want to be on a cul-de-sac? Of course not. This lack of through-routes contributes to longer journeys, inefficiency, increased fuel use, and urban incoherency.
@alonso wrote:
The debate has been had and I can’t keep repeating myself to someone unwilling to listen or do any basic research on the topic.
Yes, but some people disagree with you. Your view is being challenged. That’s the whole point of a discussion group after all; leading the thread by saying “It’s a done deal; it shouldn’t be happening; I’m just going to document the vandalism” is arrogant: implying that everyone agrees with you and no debate should be had.
