Re: Re(2): Fwd: Next to the highway
From: Rebecca Dawn Kaplan (rebeccapsyche.mit.edu)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 95 21:33 CST
Regarding the argument that trees rather than walls should be 
used to block freeway sound, to preserve the vista for the drivers.
Well, there are quite possibly good arguements to be made for 
the ecological notion of using trees instead of brick walls 
wherever possible, but preserving vistas for freeway drivers
stikes me as being one of the least compelling notions. 

People choose to drive on freeways for various reasons, I do so 
myself sometimes. But I am intentionally chosing to live in a 
location that minimizes my inclination to drive around alot. People 
who drive, especially who drive on freeways regularly in teh 
standard suburb-to-city commute, are contributing in many ways 
to the devastation of teh environment and of the city's economy.
People who drive daily are usually thoroughly oblivious to 
the needs of others (eg, bicycles), and seem to feel entitled
to have vast amounts of land paved over for their convenience.
Why should a cohousing community choose to submit to 
the annoyance of increased noise to protect the vicarious 
pleasure that the driver gets at seeing the nature that they 
are destroying?
Why not demand a change in the transit system, rather than demand
that people accomodate an ever-growing number of vehicles?
I realize that this is a little strong, I don't mean to trash 
the person who wrote that post. I agree that sound walls are ugly.
But freeways are ugly too. And in teh US it seems that the needs
of cars (& drivers) are always assumed to be more important
than the needs of people who are not in cars. 
-rebecca

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.