superelevation
Active Member
That's not an accurate representation of the group's position.
They are expressly in favour of the new track.
They simply asked Mx to review alternative designs that would be less impactful on the local ravine.
Its a nice, if small space. It has some rare species and its quite tranquil.
I don't think, based on Mx's proposed track layout and current rules around how to manage railway embankments that there is an option that doesn't cause harm to the local ravine.
The question is more of whether the damage can be mitigated; and/or off-set in some way.
The local group maybe a bit naive, though hiring that particular lawyer (who I know and has a good track record) indicates they have some pocket change.
Mx, on the other hand has been less than transparent, less than forthcoming, and just hasn't ingratiated itself well.
From what I've seen in there communications, there are many in this group who call into question the need for transit expansion. I don't take the supposed support for much, they support it as long as tons of extra money is spent on this section.Fine, then actually read what the criticisms are, in full, and reply to each one specifically, with whatever counterpoints you have.
When you dismiss people as Nimbys it presumes there is one {or 3 etc.) clear arguments, that are selfish, and unreasonable, and that the needs of the many, outweigh those of the few.
I would argue, that the arguments here don't lend themselves to such a reductive analysis, across the board.
Keep in mind this group has stated explicitly that they favour a 4th track and 2-way, all-day.