Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
And it's not a crappy plan. Without even factoring capital costs or timelines I actually think elevated is the superior option because it will be less harmful to PIP, delivers many riders to their destination level instead of 3+ stories below, and has better OPEX.
|
Elevated infrastructure tends to make the area underneath and immediately surrounding it pretty undesirable, generally:
- Degrading the visual appeal of downtown. It’s ugly infrastructure and you know the supports will end up an eyesore, collecting grime and becoming inundated with sh-tty tagging.
- Blocking out the sun and reducing daylighting, which makes the areas below colder; way less inviting and usable.
- Increasing the ambient noise floor — and it’s already loud enough to begin with thanks to all the crackle-tuned Audi dickholes.
- Reducing the curb-appeal and value of immediately surrounding areas, kicking in the teeth any high-value development that these areas could have otherwise supported or invited in the future.
I could keep going, there’s a lot of reasons why elevated sucks.
I mean, I’m sure the bean-counters are happy that the capital cost is lower, but the sum of the negatives and opportunity cost over years and decades can’t really be hand-waved away. This will dramatically change the feel of the downtown core at street level wherever it runs, and not for the better. Boston’s “
Big Dig” is one of the most instructive case studies of solving an infrastructure problem that Calgary — courtesy of the UCP — is poised to
create for itself. Perhaps it isn’t at the sheer scale of the Central Artery, but the same problems it created for Boston are the ones this’ll create for Calgary.