Jarita wrote:The fuller picture is that a country like India can only support so much road infrastructure. We are beyond the stage where we can support excessive road infrastructure.
Ji, you make all these statements with no supporting data. Do you have data to show that we are beyond the stage of supporting excessive road infrastructure, or even that we have excessive road infrastructure currently? With the data, we can talk specifics. I did post those links showing road density in India, but since then I've come to the conclusion that km/ km^2 is a flawed metric which artificially shows India as being a lot higher than most of the world. Km-foot/ km^2 is what I'm looking for, not finding it currently.
Unfortunately, our planning is not road free, public transportation, walking city focused. With our limited real estate and heat islands all over, we can't afford to keep concretizing the whole country.
Do you seriously think "road free" is a good idea, and only public transportation is good enough? I hope that's not what you're saying. Please clarify. With no roads, services like ambulances, fire vehicles, emergency vehicles, policing, all become practically impossible. These can't happen on public transport. Airlifting is not an option. Helicopters are very very fuel inefficient.
We can actually plan cities with reduced cars to release real estate for homes, parks and public areas. We can plan walking cities. This will also reduce the heat island effect in our cities and make them more liveable.
I agree. But again, without data, we're talking in circles.
Planting the trees elsewhere is casually given as a solution. This does not happen in most cases in India. Firstly, it takes time for a tree to become a carbon sink. The older the tree the more of a sink it is and the more of an eco system it supports. Cutting one is very costly from an impact perspective. Secondly, if you track compensatory plantations in India, you will see that most of them get washed away or die out. The compensation is NOT matching the initial destruction. Infact, even if it were, the ecosystem destruction would have already happened. These compensatory plantations have to be looked after. Please study how many actually recover. After they are looked after it takes years for them to become carbon sinks. Right now it's not working out.
I'm with you on this. Planting trees by the highway in no way compensates for chopping down a forest. A forest is defined as having a crown density of >40% (dense forest) or 20% to 40% (sparser). Trees by the highway are laughable compensation. Also, the biodiversity is missing - a forest isn't just trees, it's an entire ecosystem of shrubs, plants, grass, animals and birds, reptiles, streams and brooks. Planting a few (probably non-native species) trees all along a highway won't give you any of this. Even a plantation takes time to develop, and it takes time for animal populations to build up (birds would migrate much faster of course). And with a plantation, there's still the question of non-native species. If it is truly a question of chopping down 30,000 trees for a half-hour reduction in travel time along one road, with no compensation for those trees elsewhere, then that is a very bad deal.
However, now I have a question for you. At what point would you agree that it is a reasonable deal? 1000 trees for a 4 hour reduction? 100 for a 12 hour reduction? What is your comfort level? If it is going to be "no trees to be chopped down under any circumstance" then you've lost me. So please define the level of compromise that you're comfortable with.
I also want to point out, since comparisons with the USA keep coming up. Most of the forests in the USA today, are replanted ones. The virgin forests are gone, and now people lament that the forests are no longer representative of original native species. So the USA ain't doing as great as it seems to be.
Regarding roads through reserves and protected areas, once you build a multilane road, overpass or underpass, that forest/ reserve is likely to go in a few years. A small track running through for rangers is different from a multi lane thoroughfare. The choice between the small percentage of reserves we have (+ large bio diversity we host) and the convenience of reducing travel by 30 minutes is one that the people of the country have to make.
No disagreement, but same question as above.
The rest of your post is about specific examples, and on the face of it, those particular examples do look bad. But if you want to argue in general terms about public transport and road development, then it's better to come at it with backing data and alternative solutions. What fraction of personal to public transport are you proposing? 0% and road-free? Road-free means no emergency services. 100%? I most certainly am not for that either.