Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[WarrenC12]

It's apples and oranges, that simple. Of course the maintenance of the Granville and Burrard Bridges both need attention, and this is an embarrassment.

To break it down to an either/or with the viaducts is either childish or idiotic.

[spm2013]

....

[officedweller]

Of interest from the Perkins + Will blog:

The Underneath Space: Reclaiming + Reconnecting People in the City -

...

The city of Dallas, Texas is no stranger to these kinds of discussions. As the Dallas population grew throughout the 20th century, more highways were built to connect the residential suburbs with the central business district including the elevated expressway known as Interstate 345. Over the years there have been efforts to beautify the area underneath I-345, with murals painted by the community and colorful light displays at night. However, the area is still undesirable to developers and intimidating to pedestrians.

The chorus clamoring for the teardown of I-345 has grown louder recently, but such a large-scale fix can take vast political and financial capital, not to mention an extraordinary amount of time. In my opinion, there is still an unrealized potential for revitalizing the space beneath I-345. Dallas can commit to making this corridor a good place within the city core, in a short amount of time, but we need to act now in order to humanize this potentially valuable urban space.

The ways in which cities around the world have chosen to address these spaces vary widely, from removal (as in San Francisco and Portland) to lowering or capping (like in Boston and Dallas). Other cities, such as Vancouver and Toronto, are evaluating their options for their elevated expressways. A few cities, however, have chosen to make these often-overlooked urban spaces assets to the community while leaving the existing infrastructure intact. Examples are in place around the United States, with solutions that address the function, programming, and aesthetics of the space to create better places for people.

...

The discussion around the role of urban highways and their effect on communities is one that every city should be having as they plan for their future. I believe that the quick decision to tear down infrastructure that is hard to redo may be premature – there is no guarantee it will be the silver bullet to revitalizing neighborhoods without well-planned design. In Dallas, where there is unparalleled design talent, with big ideas waiting to be expressed, something spectacular can come to the underside of I-345. Dallas has an opportunity to re-imagine, re-define, and re-invigorate a part of town that desperately needs some attention. And embracing the urban fabric that is a defining piece of a large, modern city is a great place to start.


The next great urban space in Dallas, potentially.

http://blog.perkinswill.com/the-unde...e-in-the-city/

[red-paladin]

AllI can say about that is that I've been to Dallas, and there are freeways and freeway viaducts and ramps everywhere, downtown and all over the suburbs. It was like one giant massive sized Edmonton.

[theKB]

so... what do we think will happen now?!

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by theKB

so... what do we think will happen now?!

I bet they'll be down and roads reconfigured before the next election. My best guess- at least 6 months before the next civic election to allow Vancouverites to experience the new configuration, like it, and reelect the party. Otherwise if its pre-construction or construction phase they will not get reelected.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by theKB

so... what do we think will happen now?!

Originally Posted by SOSS

I bet they'll be down and roads reconfigured before the next election. My best guess- at least 6 months before the next civic election to allow Vancouverites to experience the new configuration, like it, and reelect the party. Otherwise if its pre-construction or construction phase they will not get reelected.

What really worries me is that the anti-viaduct people have not calculated the full impact of their removal.
I think that they have bitten off more than they can chew, and that the resultant traffic gridlock will be horrific.
Then again, maybe not. But it seems a foregone conclusion, now.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

What really worries me is that the anti-viaduct people have not calculated the full impact of their removal.
I think that they have bitten off more than they can chew, and that the resultant traffic gridlock will be horrific.
Then again, maybe not. But it seems a foregone conclusion, now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I wasn't living in the area during the Olympics, but weren't the viaducts closed to traffic during the games with next to no major traffic issues? If this were the case, I'm sure that removing a short section of unconnected freeway will have little major effect.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by SOSS

Correct me if I'm wrong, I wasn't living in the area during the Olympics, but weren't the viaducts closed to traffic during the games with next to no major traffic issues? If this were the case, I'm sure that removing a short section of unconnected freeway will have little major effect.

I did not have a car when the olympics were on. So I was taking transit everywhere.

The vehicles that were usually using the viaducts. Were now using Hastings and Pender and Powell. This increase in traffic through the DTES. Actually caused major problems for bus routes that go through that area. That on some days the 20 or 22 (the only ones I was taking). Were behind by up to 30 minutes at times.

[WarrenC12]

I'm still waiting to see a fully costed plan. That's the #1 decision maker for me.

I will say that the Powell St. overpass construction closed a vital commuter route into the city, and although there were some delays, it wasn't traffic Armageddon. Since that was temporary, there were also no other additional routes added.

With the viaduct removal, we should be getting some additional capacity on other routes.

I will say that the pro-car/anti-bike/anti-transit people, both in government and the general population, really need to form a more cohesive vision before they turn into a complete joke. They repeatedly cry wolf at any changes and are consistently shown to be wrong.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

What really worries me is that the anti-viaduct people have not calculated the full impact of their removal.
I think that they have bitten off more than they can chew, and that the resultant traffic gridlock will be horrific.

That fear is waved every time there are road closures, whether it's for permanent changes or just construction. I think the last "carmaggedon" scare was when Powell Street got closed for a year or so. Life went on then, as it will if the viaducts get removed.

Speaking as a cyclist, I'm more concerned about how they're going to deal with the loss of the viaduct's bike lane. As it stands now, getting up to Beatty is a very reasonable grade - I'm hoping that doesn't get replaced with something that's so much shorter that the grade is too steep. Seeing how the city seems to designate bike routes on the steepest possible streets when other, gentler grades are often available nearby gives me cause for worry.

[theKB]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I will say that the pro-car/anti-bike/anti-transit people, both in government and the general population, really need to form a more cohesive vision before they turn into a complete joke. They repeatedly cry wolf at any changes and are consistently shown to be wrong.

I think it's both sides that equally are lacking a cohesive vision. You get the pro bike anti everything else movement that has ZOMG BIKES ARE BEST BRO and then the anti bike crowd that thinks they are superior. For me I want to see a complete plan that enhances ALL transport modes. This crap the city spews about a decrease in car trips is complete garbage and doesn't take into account population growth that WILL see more cars on the road even if they are a lower percentage of modal share. Using the modal share argument to reduce road capacities until we see a massive change is flawed and will create problems in the long run especially with the population estimates for the region.

There are creative ways in dealing with the viaducts and the land around them instead of ripping them down as a thank you gift to the Aquilini's and Concord for their support over the last 6 years.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

don't forget wasting money on tearing down something that's only half-way through its life. its one thing to tear something old down and not replace it, but its completely different if you are tearing something down half-way through its life when there are much cheaper, better options out there. like trying to actually integrate the viaducts into the area. when I'm walking around there i must say it doesn't feel enclosed to me. the viaducts were built with very minimalist supports. you could put some shops under them and create a weather protected little market/strip-mall idea.

[SOSS]

I agree we need to see the costs associated with tear down with new routes vs major upcoming maintenance. How much they can sell bonus land, yadda yadda, yadda. I think its safe to say the fear of carmageddon is unwarranted.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by theKB

I think it's both sides that equally are lacking a cohesive vision. You get the pro bike anti everything else movement that has ZOMG BIKES ARE BEST BRO and then the anti bike crowd that thinks they are superior. For me I want to see a complete plan that enhances ALL transport modes. This crap the city spews about a decrease in car trips is complete garbage and doesn't take into account population growth that WILL see more cars on the road even if they are a lower percentage of modal share. Using the modal share argument to reduce road capacities until we see a massive change is flawed and will create problems in the long run especially with the population estimates for the region.

How do you explain the decrease in car traffic we've seen in the last ~30 years (into downtown Vancouver), while all other modes increase?

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

don't forget wasting money on tearing down something that's only half-way through its life. its one thing to tear something old down and not replace it, but its completely different if you are tearing something down half-way through its life when there are much cheaper, better options out there. like trying to actually integrate the viaducts into the area. when I'm walking around there i must say it doesn't feel enclosed to me. the viaducts were built with very minimalist supports. you could put some shops under them and create a weather protected little market/strip-mall idea.

I've been saying this for a while now. some creativity and immagination in using the viaducts would be nice. lol.

i hate the anti-car, or anti-bike discussion too. I think bikes are a great way to get around the city (esp. during the Summer, winter may be too cold and wet for some, depending on where they live too). but c'mon, cars aren't going to be gone any time soon (as much as Gregor seems to want that). I agree with posters here who say they want a more cohesive plan for ALL modes of transportation - vehicles, bikes, skytrain, etc. We need a better road and transportation infrustrature, as this city continues it's upward population growth trend. more people are coming to this city, and the government needs to have VISION, rather than react all the time

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

How do you explain the decrease in car traffic we've seen in the last ~30 years (into downtown Vancouver), while all other modes increase?

is this strictly for Vancouver, or the GVRD?

Perhaps cars are simply too expensive to afford in today's world. People are almost forced to choose an alternative mode of transportation (even if it's less than good - i.e. skytrain, buses, etc).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by theKB

This crap the city spews about a decrease in car trips is complete garbage and doesn't take into account population growth that WILL see more cars on the road even if they are a lower percentage of modal share.

You know that the actual number of cars itself has been going down, right? Not just as a percentage of all trips, but as an absolute number. In the 15 years from 1996 to 2011 the number of cars entering the City dropped by 5%. The number is much higher for vehicles entering the downtown peninsula - in the same time period the number of those vehicles dropped by 20%.

Again, that's actual numbers, not percentage of trips. See: http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/annua...18/krueger.pdf

The two biggest reasons for this are because (a) a lot more people who work downtown actually live downtown, and (b) there is much improved transit service from places like Surrey and Richmond into downtown than there was in 1996.

[osirisboy]

I'm going to chime in here. I couldn't care less about the traffic issue or even if there would be any. For me it's a useful piece of infrastructure that more importantly allows itself to become part of a unique and interesting part of downtown. I just don't want the city to tear it down just to recreate more monotonous resort like developments.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vancity

is this strictly for Vancouver, or the GVRD?

Perhaps cars are simply too expensive to afford in today's world. People are almost forced to choose an alternative mode of transportation (even if it's less than good - i.e. skytrain, buses, etc).

Corrected my post to downtown only. It's been well publicized.

Millennials are also driving far less, time will tell if that's a long term trend, and a broader issue (like how big should the Massey Tunnel replacement actually be).

For the viaduct issue, we have to look at the facts of what is happening with traffic in/out of the downtown core. That's what matters.