From the YYC Poli thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog
Neither the Metro Van example nor the 10 Ave / 14 St elevated track are really a good parallel to punching an elevated track through the downtown core.
You’re missing several long-term points about how urban environments evolve and why cities like Boston and Seattle eventually reverse these types of decisions. I mean yeah, sure, 10th and 2nd aren’t exactly shining examples of a walkable pedestrian utopia, but those corridors are probably two of the best examples of opportunity for revitalization. The area being relatively bleak as an excuse for why we should be okay with it just reinforces why we shouldn’t be, because we still have the opportunity to fix it before the Green Line effectively locks it in (short of enduring an even more massive cost to fix it later). 1950s Boston justified the Central Artery the same fatalistic way; its ugly and industrial, so what difference does it make?
As for shadowing, at least there’s some sunlight, even if for short periods. An elevated alignment will kill the surviving daylight. CRUs don’t get developed until a place becomes desirable, and for a city looking to invest in revitalization of its downtown communities, this moves in precisely the wrong direction. If you’ve spent any time in Toronto, as much as I loved the convenience of the Gardiner Expressway as a driver (it kinda felt like zipping through a Need for Speed track), you know it’s a horrible piece of infrastructure at ground level which — between that and its steadily rising cost of maintenance — is why they constantly debate getting rid of the elevated portion somehow.
Making decisions today about building tomorrow’s city using yesterday’s urban planning decisions is what this boils down to, really. It’s looking at 1950s infrastructure with an undeserved fondness rather than learning from it.
You’re right about transitioning areas also being crap, but at least those are small pockets rather than one big long stretch of it.
|
There's a big difference between a 28m wide elevated freeway (Gardiner) and a 10m wide elevated LRT, and there's a big difference between thousands of noisy cars polluting constantly and an electric train rumbling through every 5 minutes or so.
2nd is fully built out until Eau Claire. It dead-ends at the south. 1st and 3rd are much nicer streets to walk. It's unlikely the street would see any upgrades with the tunnel, but some of the patchwork crap over the years will get cleaned up when they build elevated. Will it be a net negative overall [compared to the tunnel]? Probably, but it sure has hell isn't $1B worth of negative. When you factor the existence of the line vs no line, it is still a net positive.
Similar deal with 10th. There are a few lots there to be developed. The existence of the green line will help. The elevated tracks are not a big deal. It means there will likely be another station in the beltline (that got scrapped with the tunnel) adjacent to several empty lots.
Having said all of that, I really do not want the elevated plan at all and I think there are much better solutions - namely terminating the SE line at 8 Ave after going under the CP tracks. And then focus on making the North Central line fully automated. When it comes to 'building it right the first time' that should have been the goal with the SE, too.
Instead we got this magical low floor street revitalization project that also has to be fully grade separated in the most expensive way possible (even though the main selling point of trams is that they navigate tight spaces without grade separation).