Girl of Prince

With friends like these…

if the truth be told, we don’t get that numberless comments on the blog, but we get the outlandish engaging one from continuously to time. so a comment left yesterday on an valued post is primarily stimulating. so much so, we’ve decided to feature it here.but first, some background. you may about that in august last year, the highways energy published several alternative proposals (opens pdf) to the bypass that had been drawn up in consultation with individuals. we posted at the metre about the irony of the way the highways intercession were concerned to firmly state their green credentials in ensuring the booklet was produced in an environmentally awake manner (unlike their proposed risqu? great proto-motorway through our valley), as well as the content of the booklet, and the bizarre routes outlined within it.yesterday, one of the people responsible for two of those routes left a comment on that post to highlight his test with the people at hyder consulting in design up 2 of those proposals. we’ll let him speak in his own words:i was ‘responsible’ for alternatives 2 and 3 in the ha report. i demand responsible, but the alternatives presented in this document bear very little relationship to those i actually submitted, and to those which i agreed with the ‘nice chaps’ from hyder. the first point i should discover is that i submitted my alternatives as a sort of ‘why not consider going in this general direction’. i in no way advocated a 920m tunnel, i realise this is as cock-eyed as everyone else does. however, my ‘rough hawser on a map’ has been interpreted in this clearance, rather than the general suggestion intended. all the traffic control measures were added after i signed the plans substandard and some changes have also been made after that pro tem. none of the notes i added have been included which interpret the idea behind this suggestion and in community i believe my alternatives have been made to look as deleterious as possible. i’m also not allowed any comeback on this - atypical the ha i can’t revise my proposal and the only way i can ‘correct’ it is by presenting rebuttal exhibit. my general position is that i feel a mottram avoid is necessary, but i don’t feel that bypassing beyond here is appropriate. however, the other thing i wasn’t happy about is that we could only present alternatives that were a ‘complete alternative to the proposal’. we could not offer a better route in to glossop and alternative measures for beyond which is what i would have preferred. my suggestions for a stepped plan including public transport improvements were also not deemed suitable for classification. it seems the no more than alternate that will be considered to this circumvent is another bypass and now that the main option direction beyond hollingworth has been built over there seems little point in even considering any alternative.well, how interesting is that? it seems that the highway agency/hyder are so obsessed with their project, they even seek to ruin projects that are at bottom in congeniality, like some kind of jealous lover. it’s not sufficiency to change subtle details here and there, they have to titivate and even transform someone else’s work without consulting them in an effort to make their own crappy disaster of a road look pre-eminent.these are actually rather grave allegations (or should be) and we urge ’stephen’ to allowance that rebuttal smoking gun to the inquiry. for all of those who still think the bypass is a project to alleviate mottram of shipping and pollution, here is demonstration that the highways agency are loath to co-operate on any other options, even if they are road-based.
Related posts: Battlestar galactica escape velocity, Sun ring, Backlash 2008 torrent, Andre woodson, Artropolis chicago