> So yes, the default is to justify why the change must be implemented.
That was done when the plan was proposed (and reviewed/approved by city/state/Federal government).
We're now in the "confirming the benefits" stage. Which is the point of the article we're discussing; those benefits have, indeed, showed up in the stats. As the justifications for the change suggested they would.
Now's the time for opponents to support their pre-implementation allegations of doom and gloom, with concrete evidence now available because it's an actual thing.
> We're now in the "confirming the benefits" stage. Which is the point of the article we're discussing; those benefits have, indeed, showed up in the stats. As the justifications for the change suggested they would.
No, now you're being slippery. The "stats" you cite have shown improvements in things that I don't care about, and you've provided no evidence to counter the argument I am making.
> Now's the time for opponents to support their pre-implementation allegations of doom and gloom
I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but I didn't have "pre-implementation allegations of doom and gloom", so, perhaps you can go find that person instead.
> The "stats" you cite have shown improvements in things that I don't care about…
You implied you cared about pollution, then claimed that was whimsical when evidence became available.
What do you care about that has measurably worsened with the change? And can you demonstrate it with more than feefees? And will it become “whimsical” if debunked?
That was done when the plan was proposed (and reviewed/approved by city/state/Federal government).
We're now in the "confirming the benefits" stage. Which is the point of the article we're discussing; those benefits have, indeed, showed up in the stats. As the justifications for the change suggested they would.
Now's the time for opponents to support their pre-implementation allegations of doom and gloom, with concrete evidence now available because it's an actual thing.