Re: Re: Before the Bulldozers: Images of a Doomed Suburb
@pippin101 wrote:
Sigh. Here.
Seriously. That post is complete nonsense
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.
No it’s total arse. The road dates from the 70’s like the Royal Canal Motorway etc. It was removed as an objective in 1993 as it was deemed unnecessary and environmentally damaging. In 1997 DLR did a Needs Study, the results of which were not made public, and the Councillors voted to put it back on the plan.
In 2005 DLR commissioned Faber Maunsell consultants to draw up an EIS and it went to planning. The ABP Inspector totally rubbished the scheme in his report (ANY CHANCE ANY OF YOU HAVE READ EITHER OF THESE REPORTS????). He rubished it from all angles – policy, modelling, need for scheme, environmental effects etc etc. ABP ignored this and granted as it was on the DEvelopment Plan and fulfilled the objective. The Councillors were then forced again to vote on this element of the Plan by a Green Councillor and voted 16-11 in favour of it.
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.
As a mode of commuting to work in urban areas YES it is obsolete. We have destroyed tracts of the urban in a vain attempt to predict and provide. Facilitating people driving to work and school is the greatest failure in urban planning history. Do you really not see this? Do you need to go to LA where 80% of urban land caters directly for the private car yet there’s still massive congestion?
Perhaps a few words from DLR County Manager Owen Keegan, someone who i give the benefit of the doubt to on this scheme as it was in progress before he got there, will paint a clearer picture. From his days in Dublin City Council:
“The argument that private car capacity should be increased was lost a long time ago.”
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2002/1224/3649369068HM1CITYTRAFFIC.html
“We have given up trying to cater for the private car and if people haven’t worked that out yet then there is a serious problem with IQ.”
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/newsfeatures/2002/1228/2113072661OPQUOTES.html
Yeh I dug em up a few years ago. And he is spot on.
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” .
My evidence against this road is from reading the EIS, the Inspector’s Report and from my education and training. What’s yours in favour? Google Map scribbles with no data to back it up?
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.
Hmmm, no. The only supporters were Yankee tce landlords and residents on the lower part of Newtown Park Avenue.
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.
And for the FIFTH time, the debate was had on a previous thread in 2006!!! Read that for fucks sake. But please for the sanity of any readers please read the only 2 things you need to know about this scheme – the EIS and the ABP reports.
Until then go for a drive along Ongar Road or Sallyglen Road and come back here with your experience and dare to tell me or anyone else that these developments are anything but damn wrong. Maybe even have a look at how this scheme is progressing in the flesh.
