Subscribe / Renew
|► Subscribe to our Free Weekly Newsletter|
|home||Welcome, sign in or click here to subscribe.||login|
|print email to a friend reprints add to mydjc|
May 12, 2008
(Regarding the May 8 DJC story “Now there are 10 options for replacing the viaduct.”)
Suspension bridge will cost too much and block views from the waterfront. Views of the mountains are why we want a viaduct-less waterfront in the first place.
Tunnel, while a nice way to completely remove traffic and give the waterfront back to people, will cost too much, and will do nothing to get people out of their cars.
Elevated structure with buildings underneath, on the surface looks interesting, but in reality it will be just as much a physical and psychological barrier between downtown and the waterfront, just the sort of barrier we're trying to remove by taking down the current viaduct.
The surface-transit/bicycle/pedestrian option is the only affordable option that will actually do something to wean us from cars and put us into public transit, while opening up the waterfront and giving it back to people.
The Daily Journal of Commerce welcomes your comments.