Letter: No balance
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.In supporting the Salisbury bypass your correspondent makes the popular mistake of trying to balance economic benefits against environmental benefits (Letters, 21 July). The inadequacy of this approach is being demonstrated at the Heathrow Terminal 5 inquiry.
The Department of Transport ties itself in knots endeavouring to balance incomparables, even though UK sustainable development legislation requires these opposing aspects to be "integrated" and "reconciled" rather than weighed or balanced. Integration is a very different process which usually involves a change in state. A resolution for Salisbury, as elsewhere, would be action for fewer vehicles on all roads.
Rosalind Chaloner is right to say that this is a national problem requiring a proactive transport policy, rather than a local one as implied by the recent transport Green Paper. What a pity that both major parties are avoiding the issue.
Gordon Glass
Bath, Avon
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments