Quote:
Originally Posted by TransitJack
This project frustrates me for several reasons:
1 - The viaducts are sound and in good repair - As someone else already pointed out, if they were at the end of their useful life this would be another discussion, but they are still solid
2 - Surrounding streets are quite congested. One need only drive along Pacific to see the volume, and streets north are transit corridors and have bike lanes
3 - The SkyTrain viaduct/guideway will STILL BE THERE!
4 - Tax payers dollars to study, demolish, remove the structures, more tax payers dollars to re-mediate the soil (4-8 million is way too low a figure, I predict.) All so that a multi-million dollar company (Concord) can swoop in, rezone the land and build million dollar condos and make a huge profit! I would be less skeptical if the developer was willing to bare the costs associated with this project. Why does the city always cater to big developers?
5 - The land is transformed to high density condos that most of us cannot afford.
I get that the land does need improving, but why should the City have to pay to make the land better for development. If you buy a fixer-upper property you can't expect the city to come in and demolish the house, re-mediate the land, then rezone it for your maximum profit... so why do they cater to the developers so much...
Ok this was more /rant y than I intended...  |
Maybe a little more
"rant y" than you intended, but well thought through, IMO. Couldn't major vehicle traffic feeders into / out of downtown - the viaducts being the prime example - be put
underground?
Road tunnels seem to be a dirty word around here, maybe due to the cost. But if you want to have your cake and eat it too along with tearing down the viaducts, tunnels are one idea, anyway.
Or should I be posting this in the road fantasies thread? hey, this is a largely unexplored option (although I can hear people saying "
shaaadup! We already talked about that!!")
Threaded Mode