08-18-2020, 11:08 AM
The question of what infrastructure is justified is very interesting.
A tunnel would certainly be very expensive, we're talking more than 10 million. It would also be extremely disruptive, and would involve substantial property taking on both sides, city cafe would be no more. It would also form an obstruction in the area and increase the social safety issue in this area. Further, it would require cyclists and pedestrians to climb a big grade (of course this could be solved by raising the road instead, but that would create even more obstruction and cost probably 2-3 times as much).
Overall, a bridge or tunnel has substantial costs, both direct monetary costs, and also other costs. In some cases it might be warranted, or the context makes it more suitable (the roundabouts on Ottawa at Homer-Watson could easily have been raised for wide safe airy tunnels underneath with minimal disruption in a wide open suburban context for example), but in an urban context like Victoria and West I don't believe the costs are justified because of the next part.
Now, the other important question is who benefits from doing this. People (including past me) might immediately say, "well cyclists duh"...but much like grade separating transit, that implies an unchangeable priority. Right now (and after the reconstruction), the region prioritizes road users over the trail users...a tunnel would, at great cost, raise the priority of the trail users, however, the other option is to instead share the priority more equitably between the two groups of users, they could signalize the crossing. Now, all of a sudden, it is no longer the trail users which are benefitting from a tunnel...
In the Netherlands, tunnels are often built and justified by the motor traffic in an areas, basically when car traffic would be too congested as a result of the measures necessary to make a level crossing safe (narrowing the road, lowering speeds, signalized crossings, etc.) There can be some benefit to other users, not waiting for a signal, for example, but like grade separating transit, the main beneficiaries are actually drivers, but only because there is an implicit assumption that drivers would not be given priority otherwise.
A tunnel would certainly be very expensive, we're talking more than 10 million. It would also be extremely disruptive, and would involve substantial property taking on both sides, city cafe would be no more. It would also form an obstruction in the area and increase the social safety issue in this area. Further, it would require cyclists and pedestrians to climb a big grade (of course this could be solved by raising the road instead, but that would create even more obstruction and cost probably 2-3 times as much).
Overall, a bridge or tunnel has substantial costs, both direct monetary costs, and also other costs. In some cases it might be warranted, or the context makes it more suitable (the roundabouts on Ottawa at Homer-Watson could easily have been raised for wide safe airy tunnels underneath with minimal disruption in a wide open suburban context for example), but in an urban context like Victoria and West I don't believe the costs are justified because of the next part.
Now, the other important question is who benefits from doing this. People (including past me) might immediately say, "well cyclists duh"...but much like grade separating transit, that implies an unchangeable priority. Right now (and after the reconstruction), the region prioritizes road users over the trail users...a tunnel would, at great cost, raise the priority of the trail users, however, the other option is to instead share the priority more equitably between the two groups of users, they could signalize the crossing. Now, all of a sudden, it is no longer the trail users which are benefitting from a tunnel...
In the Netherlands, tunnels are often built and justified by the motor traffic in an areas, basically when car traffic would be too congested as a result of the measures necessary to make a level crossing safe (narrowing the road, lowering speeds, signalized crossings, etc.) There can be some benefit to other users, not waiting for a signal, for example, but like grade separating transit, the main beneficiaries are actually drivers, but only because there is an implicit assumption that drivers would not be given priority otherwise.