Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698
It will be interesting to see what alternatives the study comes up with, but I don't think it makes sense to spend money tearing them down when they've still got 50 years of serviceable life in them. They're a perfectly good asset that shouldn't go to waste.
If they were near end-of-life then it would make sense to evaluate a range of options for replacing them. But tearing them down now really doesn't make any sense to me.
|
This is one of the main problems in the world today. We seem to be always punting the politically difficult decisions to the next generation while continuing to pile on expensive financial liabilities. The cost of maintaining and replacing the viaducts will only increase. Then, at some point, some city council in the future will have to make the difficult political decision of tearing down the viaducts or spending what likely will be billions of dollars 50 years from now to replace them.
Now, while I don't think we will have the traffic 50 years from now to make that too difficult a decision, it seems likely many of the people who like the viaducts, think there will be still a lot of traffic. OK, so then what happens to the traffic for the year or too it takes to rebuilt the viaducts, especially if they are "integrated into the urban fabric" like many of you say is an option. Anyway you look at it, it will be an expensive and difficult proposition.
How about for once, giving the future a break and making the politically courageous decision NOW and replace the viaducts with housing and parks.
Threaded Mode