[Urbanstudy] Urbanstudygroup Digest, Vol 37, Issue 5
saurabh popli
popli.saurabh at gmail.com
Fri Mar 9 11:50:30 IST 2007
As an Architect, Landscape Architect and keen watcher of the debate, I feel
obliged as well to add my 2 cents to the topic.
1. We debate these issues perhaps with a fin de siecle understanding,
attitude (?) that the real issues are possibly beyond us to negotiate? Why
do our cities need millions of acres of roads? Why are these transport
corridors holy cows? Why is a super example of idiotic planning made worse
by sustained treatment of its symptoms without touching the real cause, Lets
face it, our cities are planned like a transportation engineers' wet dream.
2. If Millions of people spend 1/3rd of their working life travelling
intra-city, and if the same amount makes up (pl add the cost of living that
goes up due to this interminable transportation network eg more expensive
sabji, services) household budgets, then its not just about the trees, I
think its about a complete failure of our planning process, and the only
thing that can overhaul this incompetence and casual-ness is informed,
involved citizenry.
3. if we want a systemic, sound basis for these very justified concerns, I
think one would have to begin with the so-called Master-plan. In the sense
it is used now by the DDA, it actually means the exact reverse I would
think!
Regards
Saurabh
On 08/03/07, urbanstudygroup-request at sarai.net <
urbanstudygroup-request at sarai.net> wrote:
>
> Send Urbanstudygroup mailing list submissions to
> urbanstudygroup at sarai.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/urbanstudygroup
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> urbanstudygroup-request at sarai.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> urbanstudygroup-owner at sarai.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Urbanstudygroup digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Butchering Trees and Pavements (ravig1 at toxicslink.org)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 00:37:14 -0500 (EST)
> From: ravig1 at toxicslink.org
> Subject: Re: [Urbanstudy] Butchering Trees and Pavements
> To: urbanstudygroup at sarai.net
> Cc: parvinder at toxicslink.org
> Message-ID: <62768.61.1.73.205.1173332234.squirrel at 61.1.73.205>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Yashdeep
>
> (pl forward to urbanstudygroup/ trees ffor Delhi group, since I am on the
> road and cannot send from this id)
>
>
> I must thank you for raising this issue, for this is the heart of the
> discussion I think. Actually the discussion about saving trees along
> transport corridors must not be seen as that of one =f MRT vs trees. Of
> course, without doubt, MRT (HCBS) is a good thing. It is mass, low
> pollution, cheap, (maybe) efficient etc. It is benefiting all those who do
> not have or choose not to have or travel in cars.
>
> However if alongside we are going to continue to keep the car corridors
> and keep expanding them, then we have those, plus metro plus MRT. ALL.
> Where is the traffic planning, and where do we stop. This HCBS will
> transport (designed for 15000 people per hour, the extended need as of
> now), the current load, but what about the future load. It will already
> make the road from 6 lane to 8 lane since the traffic police does not seem
> to want to reduce the car corridor, so if two dedicated corridors are
> taken out, two new ones must be built. Simultaneously, if one were to
> drive after 10 pm in Delhi, the roads are empty. How much should the lanes
> be widened for peak traffic, and which city does not have to deal with
> traffic jams and traffic management issue alongside?
>
>
> How does one renew 50 to 70 year old trees, especially when the land they
> stand on is taken away and there is no land left for replantation at the
> local site? And why should the neighbourhood be devoid of trees.?
>
>
> Unfortunately trees always get the short strife, for land can be absorbed
> by roads but not be left for trees, since they can go. If we start the
> debate from the idea that trees should not 'go,' but that is the limit of
> the transport corridor, then we approach the idea that transport corridors
> in the city cannot be widened endlessly. Logically often the tree line is
> a few meters from the raod. So now if we absorb that, can we make the same
> argument for people's homes which are the next boundary for the tree
> lines. So if we need to stop after cutting the trees, should we not stop
> now, and plan transport given this corridor width limit?
>
>
> So I think the issue is how much land is available for transport corridors
> in a city, and if that has limits (through the quality of the city and
> physically as well) and how do we plan the city's movement around that
> limit. In fact the city itself. Today instead we are cutting trees for the
> metro, for the HCBS, for the many road widenings and for a new road tunnel
> which will take our the most species rich and old nursery in town.
>
>
> And why should trees not be part of the equation?
>
>
> I am personally very very happy if we only have MRT and no cars along
> with cycle tracks and pedestrian traffic, or make a balance between MRT
> and cars. But we cannot have an open ended expansion. So the traffic
> planners need to work within that limit. Now we take out the trees, and
> then? that is then the limit I think maybe, unless one want to demolish
> homes. But then why not keep the trees. They make the city in many many
> ways.
>
>
> Besides any transport corridor construction means contracts and money.
> Trees are poor compensators!
>
>
> best
> ravi
>
>
> >
>
>
> >>Dear all,
> >>
> >>As we follow the leads first provided by Ravi, the question that keeps
> >>cropping up, across a range of issues, is not only of the 'real' costs
> >> and
> >>benefits, but of debates around the basic principles through which we
> >> make
> >>a case for one or the other choice. Kaveri's mail - on the necessarily
> >>subjective calculations cost-benefit analysis; medium and long-term
> >>implications and Yashdeep's deployment of 'sustainability' argument -
> all
> >>invoke concepts that are in need of greater elaboration, on this list,
> >> and
> >>elsewhere. What they also suggest is that the choices on offer are far
> >> from
> >>obvious. I first came across this problem around the time that CNG was
> >>being implemented in Delhi and till date I'm conflicted about the
> >> benefits
> >>of the move when the improvements in air quality (necessary in my
> >>opinion)are considered together with the costs that were borne largely
> by
> >>migrant auto-drivers. Similarly, conflicting assessments around the
> >>closure of polluting (illegal?)factories and accompanying job losses. In
> >>this regard environmental choices in the urban contexts may present us a
> >>very different scenario than in rural contexts where, Ram Guha pointed
> >> out
> >>several years ago, there is greater synergy between claims for justice
> >> and
> >>environmental good.
> >>
> >>For me, what is stake is the very imagination of our urban forms and
> >>desirable environments and, equally importantly, the cultivation of
> >> public
> >>dialogues to argue and contest these forms. Historically, urban reform
> >> has
> >>been a rather authoritarian process (Haussmanns of the word and their
> >>Indian clones are well known to readers of this list)and the greater the
> >>complexity of the environmental issues confronting us, perhaps greater
> >> the
> >>challenge to think through the ways in which we deal with policy, legal
> >> and
> >>scientific discourses about our urban futures and environmental choices.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Dipu
> >>
> >> On March 7, 11:58 am Kaveri Gill <kg204 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> > Dear Ravi and Yashdeep,
> >> >
> >> > Ravi, thanks for your email, I agree with you 100%, they've just been
> >> > chopping more trees this morning in some neighbourhoods of Delhi -
> >> > completely unnecessary and such a waste!
> >> >
> >> > On your questions, Yashdeep, I reply as an economist albeit one
> >> > living outside India at the moment:
> >> >
> >> > > a.. While the cutting down of trees is clearly gut-wrenching,
> >> > > especially to those for whom they have special meaning, is it not
> >> > > true that the HCBS will have a beneficial ramifications on the
> >> > > wider society (read as those who do not drive cars) in the long
> >> > run?
> >> >
> >> > We don't have any evidence of this until we have seen some
> >> > cost-benefit studies etc. However, even economists now voice serious
> >> > doubt about the validity of these justifications, since depending on
> >> > how you score and weight things, you get completely different answers
> >> > - hence totally subjective and not objective! Why don't they put a
> >> > congestion charge on cars so there are less vehicles on the streets
> >> > fullstop, the bus service will automatically improve?!
> >> >
> >> > > b.. I am not an advocate to justify the means employed towards
> >> > > the HCBS end, but are not trees a renewable resource, and while
> >> > > the cutting down of trees may impact the immediate aesthetics of
> >> > > the street, will not the sutainable benefits of improved public
> >> > > transport outlast this short-term disturnbance to the streetscape?
> >> > > I look forward to my narrow assumptions being corrected.
> >> >
> >> > In theory, trees are a renewable resource, but I am not to sure about
> >> > this being a short term disturbance. Given all the noise about
> >> > climate change and global warming - and trees are a key factor in
> >> > absorbing CO2 emissions, so we should be cultivating them not felling
> >> > them and not just on aesthetic grounds - I think this will be
> >> > disastrous for Delhi in the medium to long-term as well!
> >> > >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Kaveri
> >> >
> >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > From: Ravi Agarwal
> >> > > To: urbanstudygroup sarai
> >> > > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 5:51 PM
> >> > > Subject: [Urbanstudy] Butchering Trees and Pavements
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Dear all,
> >> > >
> >> > > As I spend another morning today trying to gather evidence of the
> >> > > trees , over 2500, marked for felling, I find I cannot shoot for
> >> > > more than some minutes. To see fully grown trees, of all shades
> >> > > and varieties, the type you cannot find in Delhi any more, some
> >> > > over 50 years old marked for felling in yellow ink and numbers
> >> > > etched onto the tree trunks, is more than I can accept. Behind
> >> > > the construction boards of the HSBS ( High Capacity Bus Service)
> >> > > lies a trail of disaster. Uprooted giants of trees, some axed,
> >> > > some bleeding at the roots, mercilessly felled.
> >> > >
> >> > > I know of no other city where 8 land higways criss cross it. (
> >> > > From exisiting 6 lane this will now become 8 lane with the new
> >> > > service). Cleave it through and hack all that in its way. And a
> >> > > citenzery whcih is so quiet that it took a week to even get the
> >> > > media to do a story on it, and that also only via a concerned
> >> > > reporter. There is such silence and such uncertainty. The
> >> > > isolation which can be afforded through the window panes of cars,
> >> > > where we sit an decide if we can afford to raise our voices or
> >> > > maybe this will go away and no one will know. Like it never
> >> > > hapenned.
> >> > > My friend the photo printer told me "dil dehal jaata hai jab mei
> >> > > us sarak per jaato hoon. Kitne bade and sunder per, aise hi kaat
> >> > > denge.?" My heart stops when I go on that road, will such big and
> >> > > majestic trees just be cut? Another friend who lives in Saket,
> >> > > refuses to look out of the taxi window, since it upsets her so
> >> > > much. Like it does me.
> >> > >
> >> > > Whose consensus was sought. When this project was approved. Who
> >> > > made the decision that the road is needed. Who saw the traffic
> >> > > studies? Who justified it. Who executed it? How is the consensus
> >> > > made? How are such decisions taken? Someone's pet project.
> >> > > Someone well respected in the city. Someone who has always talked
> >> > > about pedisterisation and cycle ways. Now that very project
> >> > > stripping the city of trees, and pavements. For a high capacity
> >> > > bus!
> >> > > In the last post I wrote about my inability to act. I wonder if
> >> > > it is the larger inability to act. How we seem to have said 'yes'
> >> > > without saying anything. How we maybe are caught up in our not
> >> > > wanting to neogotiate our little gains or how we justify them to
> >> > > ourselves (the city needs better transport! - read as "I like my
> >> > > car!"). There is not point thinking and pontificating if we are
> >> > > not prepared to participate in what is going on. The city has
> >> > > been changing as I write. By April end, the city would have lost
> >> > > over 3000 of its most glorious and old trees. Then we can get to
> >> > > work on time. I suppose - to a better future!
> >> > >
> >> > > ravi agarwal
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Toxics Link
> >> > > H-2 Jangpura Extension
> >> > > New Delhi - 110014
> >> > > ph + 91 11 24328006/ 24320711
> >> > > fax: + 91 11 24321747 (NOTE :This is not a spam mail as it
> >> > > consists complete sender's details. If you have received this
> >> > > communication by error, please delete the email and destroy all
> >> > > copies of it & in case you wish to unsubscribe our special
> >> > > offerings / promotions kindly send us a email with Subject
> >> > > "UNSUBSCRIBE". excuse us if this was an unwanted mail for you.)
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > -----------
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > Urbanstudygroup mailing list
> >> > > Urban Study Group: Reading the South Asian City
> >> > >
> >> > > To subscribe or browse the Urban Study Group archives, please
> >> > > visit https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/urbanstudygroup
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Urbanstudygroup mailing list
> >> > Urban Study Group: Reading the South Asian City
> >> >
> >> > To subscribe or browse the Urban Study Group archives, please visit
> >> > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/urbanstudygroup
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Urbanstudygroup mailing list
> >>Urban Study Group: Reading the South Asian City
> >>
> >>To subscribe or browse the Urban Study Group archives, please visit
> >>https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/urbanstudygroup
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a
> > month.
> > Intro*Terms
> >
> https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Urbanstudygroup mailing list
> > Urban Study Group: Reading the South Asian City
> >
> > To subscribe or browse the Urban Study Group archives, please visit
> > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/urbanstudygroup
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urbanstudygroup mailing list
> Urbanstudygroup at sarai.net
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/urbanstudygroup
>
>
> End of Urbanstudygroup Digest, Vol 37, Issue 5
> **********************************************
>
--
Warm Regards,
Saurabh
98 681 25159
'There is not enough time to do all the nothing that we want to do!'
Bill Watterson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/urbanstudygroup/attachments/20070309/d30b376c/attachment.html
More information about the Urbanstudygroup
mailing list