Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'd be willing to bet they aren't going to introduce any type of grade to the train tracks around there.

So are you saying the rendering is wrong?

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's an article from 2012. Changing City says Malkin was the preferred option since 2007. Your argument is irrelevant.

As for the railway, it's owned by CN, which is definitely not going to spend money on a tunnel when it can make Vancouver foot the bill for its own traffic.

Originally Posted by Changing City

Do you have a source for the idea of 'redoing Prior Street' (whatever that would involve), and trenching the railway? Or are you just making things up? As others have noted, the rails aren't going anywhere, and I'm pretty certain somebody (and not the rail company) would have to buy a lot of expensive property and build an expensive trench in order to make that possible. There are sidings just by the Prior Crossing, so I doubt whether you could make a trench work anyway, The options considered so far are an underpass or a bridge like Powell Street. Either will be disruptive and probably involve buying land and demolishing buildings. That's why Malkin was the preferred option, until the disruption of the existing businesses became a major issue.

Originally Posted by Changing City

You're rewriting history to suit your opinion. The need to replace Prior has been known for many years, and in policy since the The False Creek Flats Rail Corridor Strategy was started in 2007 (before Vision Vancouver even existed) and adopted in 2012 - before the Viaduct demolition discussion took place.

The Engineers always favoured Malkin as an alternate route - which would/might still cost only $100m to build, but it wouldn't allow the existing food distribution businesses to stay operating, and they mounted a very strong lobbying exercise to stay where they are, and operate as they do today. That's why other options were looked at - and the chosen option (which as I noted has a lot wrong with it), which was discussed on the appropriate thread) was added by the panel that were selected to try to offer a solution.

Nothing has been decided yet, and nobody has lied about anything. Prior could still be the choice (although a difficult one as there's a big new Chinese senior's tower very close to the tracks), and so could Malkin. What won't change is more disruptive train activity in future.

This proves that you are so wrong, Changing City, just like many issues that you argue about. In the report it says construction alone for the Malkin option is in access of $400 mil: money that the City obviously does not have. Like I said before, the cheapest option has to be through Prior/Venables. Hey, I suggested doing a cut along the railway after hearing someone say the cut is impossible on Prior/Venables itself, but then the City decided to do a cut on the road regardless. Must have figured out how to do it. Final word: I don't make things up.