06-29-2021, 04:21 PM
(06-29-2021, 10:22 AM)tomh009 Wrote:(06-28-2021, 07:16 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: There could be drainage issues, I'm not a hygrologist, and I haven't looked at the area. That could add cost and complexity to be sure.
All I know is that a 1/4 km long bridge and causeway is very far from my preferred option, it squanders the opportunity to expand the greenspace, as well as limits the transportation connectivity options, and frankly, a 1/4 km long bridge is just not likely to be a particularly pleasant experience, summer or winter.
Is there a reason why we need 100m+ ramps at both ends? Could we not put in stairs and an elevator (and/or escalator)? It would take far less space, and the elevator likely costs much less than 100m of concrete ramp.
Stairs, yes, an elevator...gosh, you want to talk about expensive, now you have to maintain a climate controlled building.
I don't really know what the expense of an elevator would be, if it's comparable in cost, I certainly think it would be better than the 200m ramp. But fundamentally, the reason that such a massive structure is required is because of the height above the ground required by bridging the overheight traffic on the superelevated freeway. An elevator and stairs would still be a more significant obstacle to a more pedestrian scale (and less exposed to the elements) tunnel would be, to me, that is the ideal solution, provided we also spend the money to mitigate the social safety issues. But certainly an alternative like you propose would be better.
Of course, we can also imagine worse solutions, where they stack 200m of ramps in a zig-zag pattern to reduce costs of the ramp, while also extending all trips significantly.
Ultimately, the key to any solution is that the priority be on it being good for the users, rather than cheap for the developers. There are plenty of examples of bad overpasses AND underpasses that don't get used because they are inconvenient, poorly designed, unpleasant, and unsafe, all in the name of minimizing cost.