He keeps pushing it because it's the alternative that he thinks will make him look best because it addresses the need for a transportation route that is not just surface streets and more mass transit but is not a large viaduct blocking the views of those who can afford to live downtown.
I'm voting "No" on both though because the new proposed viaduct will have walls that take away any view one might have while stuck driving in slow traffic on the thing...
Nothing wrong with a tunnel there. It wouldn't be bored, it would be cut and cover. Dig a ditch, insert concrete tubes, cover it up again. They build similar things across Victoria Harbor in Hong Kong, or the BART tubes under San Francisco Bay. They just sink the concrete tubes, connect them up, then drain the water from inside when they are done.
The viaduct, as is, is stinky, noisy and an eyesore. The new, improved viaduct is just a bigger, stinky eyesore. No other city is building elevated highways anymore. Especially next to a waterfront.
I prefer the surface + transit option. After all, traffic is going to be totally fubar during construction anyway.
Comments 98
I'm voting "No" on both though because the new proposed viaduct will have walls that take away any view one might have while stuck driving in slow traffic on the thing...
Eh - there's got to be a better way somehow...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
If you like the viaduct for the view, you don't support rebuilding a new viaduct - no more view.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
I prefer the surface + transit option. After all, traffic is going to be totally fubar during construction anyway.
Reply
Leave a comment