|Re: Re(2): Fwd: Next to the highway||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|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.