Faber Road: LTA working with agencies to reduce environmental impact

Letter from Helen Lim Today Online 16 Mar 11;

WE REFER to Mr Ong Li Min's letter, "Road-building: Are other relevant authorities involved in decision?" (March 7).

We understand the concerns that the construction of the new access road into the Faber area could affect the environment in the area. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) had taken this into consideration when planning this new access road.

We are working closely with the Urban Redevelopment Authority and National Parks Board (NParks) to minimise any impact to the existing environment and the number of trees affected. This includes planting a dense row of trees along the new stretch of road.

NParks is also selecting the appropriate species of trees which not only provide shade but also attract birdlife.

We have taken a holistic approach in ensuring a quality living environment. It includes not just having a green environment but also a congestion-free one. The new access road is important in ensuring that the living environment is not affected as traffic increases in the future due to new housing developments in the area.

Prior to the start of this project, the LTA had consulted the Adviser, Neighbourhood Committee Members, Grassroots Leaders and residents on the new road at various dialogue sessions. As in many things, there are difficult trade-offs to be made and this access road is necessary for the wider public interest.

We thank Mr Ong for his feedback.

Road-building: Are other relevant authorities involved in decision?
Letter from Ong Li Min Today Online 7 Mar 11;

I AM writing in response to Daryl Yong's letter, "Some of us would rather have a road" (Feb 28), which addresses Ms Chow Bee Lin's letter "Bird sanctuary under threat" (Feb 24).

I am concerned with Mr Yong's statement that "conservationists should refrain from claiming to speak for unborn persons", made in response to Ms Chow's stand that the Land Transport Authority (LTA) should refrain from building the road which cuts across the bird sanctuary at Clementi, as nature should be preserved for future generations.

While I agree with Mr Yong that it is "anybody's guess what future generations would prefer", I am heartened that individuals such as Ms Chow take interest in issues of the environment. What is good for future generations is certainly up for debate and it is my belief that a healthy debate will help our policymakers consider stakeholders' viewpoints and ultimately arrive at better decisions. Hence, this should be encouraged.

I am not a conservationist but I applaud Ms Chow for challenging the LTA's decision so that Singaporeans can be aware of this environmental issue. Otherwise, this decision might pass unnoticed.

Personally, I prefer to preserve of the bird sanctuary in Clementi, particularly since it is home to a few endangered bird species. As other members on TodayOnline's Voices forum note, a sanctuary cannot be replaced once it is removed.

I wonder, when the LTA makes a decision that impacts outside of their scope (in this case, it touches on the environment), are the other relevant authorities such as the National Environment Agency, National Parks Board or Urban Redevelopment Authority involved in the process?

I would be interested to hear the LTA's and/or other authorities' comment on this matter.