Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by TransitJack

This project frustrates me for several reasons:

1 - The viaducts are sound and in good repair - As someone else already pointed out, if they were at the end of their useful life this would be another discussion, but they are still solid

2 - Surrounding streets are quite congested. One need only drive along Pacific to see the volume, and streets north are transit corridors and have bike lanes

3 - The SkyTrain viaduct/guideway will STILL BE THERE!

4 - Tax payers dollars to study, demolish, remove the structures, more tax payers dollars to re-mediate the soil (4-8 million is way too low a figure, I predict.) All so that a multi-million dollar company (Concord) can swoop in, rezone the land and build million dollar condos and make a huge profit! I would be less skeptical if the developer was willing to bare the costs associated with this project. Why does the city always cater to big developers?

5 - The land is transformed to high density condos that most of us cannot afford.

I get that the land does need improving, but why should the City have to pay to make the land better for development. If you buy a fixer-upper property you can't expect the city to come in and demolish the house, re-mediate the land, then rezone it for your maximum profit... so why do they cater to the developers so much...

Ok this was more /rant y than I intended...

Maybe a little more "rant y" than you intended, but well thought through, IMO. Couldn't major vehicle traffic feeders into / out of downtown - the viaducts being the prime example - be put underground?

Road tunnels seem to be a dirty word around here, maybe due to the cost. But if you want to have your cake and eat it too along with tearing down the viaducts, tunnels are one idea, anyway.

Or should I be posting this in the road fantasies thread? hey, this is a largely unexplored option (although I can hear people saying "shaaadup! We already talked about that!!")

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Currently streets on the east side work better than Dunsmuir St. heading westbound. Especially in off hours the capacity choke is at Dunsmuir and Beatty when the light timings shorten up. Sometimes you will see cars back up past Main St. heading west. When you see backups that bad, most people will go around the viaducts, containing the jammed cars mostly on the viaducts.



Traffic volumes at Clark/Venables, Commercial/Venables, and Victoria/Venables generally isn't much of a problem, with the exception of some left hand turn movements.

Heading east, the traffic volume is largely split, so the Georgia St. side can't feed traffic on to the viaduct as quickly as it can exit onto Prior and Main. Left hand turns at Main onto 1st Ave. tend to jam up though.

Is there any way to adjust the contrast. I couldn't quite make out the masses of cyclists using the bike lane.

Congrats to Dorbrovolny and crew for vastly increasing vehicle emissions though.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

When you see backups that bad, most people will go around the viaducts, containing the jammed cars mostly on the viaducts.

The viaducts basically act as a buffer for the light timings on Dunsmuir. If you were to replace them with equivalent surface capacity from Union & Main to Beatty and Dunsmuir (using a ramp to get up the escarpment) then the only difference will be a minute or so of travel time.

But I'd just as soon keep the viaducts until they reach end-of-life. Hopefully by that time even more of the mode share will have shifted to transit / walking / cycling and so (a) removing them won't raise so much of a hue and cry, and (b) we won't need to build equivalent capacity into the urban form.

Of course there's a bit of chicken and egg at work here - leaving the viaducts in place will discourage the mode share shift. But I'd rather take the intervening time to build capacity for alternate modes rather than have to build more capacity for vehicles today.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Is there any way to adjust the contrast. I couldn't quite make out the masses of cyclists using the bike lane.

Congrats to Dorbrovolny and crew for vastly increasing vehicle emissions though.

I believe I counted 3 cyclists during the 10 or so minutes it took me to cross the viaducts on foot. Keep in mind this is only at 6:45pm on a weekday.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I believe I counted 3 cyclists during the 10 or so minutes it took me to cross the viaducts on foot. Keep in mind this is only at 6:45pm on a weekday.

3 cyclists? You must have been there during rush hour.

BTW when it comes to the old saying of a picture being worth a thousand words...the one you posted was priceless

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

3 cyclists? You must have been there during rush hour.

BTW when it comes to the old saying of a picture being worth a thousand words...the one you posted was priceless

It happens more than you would think. I always drive down Union for a block when I leave home going that way, just to check for backups on the viaducts. Because once you get on, you're stuck.

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

It happens more than you would think. I always drive down Union for a block when I leave home going that way, just to check for backups on the viaducts. Because once you get on, you're stuck.

I'm shocked to see you admitting that putting a road up on a viaduct has some disadvantages compared to a regular street with intersections that connect to the rest of the street grid and providing opportunities for diversions

[Mousey]

Not my opinion:
Heard something while listening to 99.3 the Fox this morning.
With the Granville Bridge is needing some major repairs from what it looks like, they were quite against the thought of closing the viaducts, or even considering it for the time being. If that bridge were to ever be shut down or any bridge into the city for a while, then the viaducts are absolutely crucial to keep. The Fox supported the Going Green stuff, but at some point cars need to be thought of as well.
"This is one of the times where he (Robertson) actually needs to forget about all the bike lanes talk and realize the amount of cars they move daily. If they are removed and you need to close one of the bridges into Downtown, we are in big trouble!"

My opinion:
Fully agree with the statement. Upgrade the bridges so that they are fully safe and functional for the next hundred years, and improve ALL the other entrances into downtown, and maybe removing the viaducts could work. Otherwise they are telling 50,000 cars a day that 2,000 or so bikes are more important than you, and you can go f*** yourselves . Great selling point!

[Zassk]

I still think city council's main goal should be to reduce traffic on Hastings and Pender. The city shows a great disregard for those neighbourhoods through this viaduct debate. The viaducts should be seen as a solution to be leveraged, not a problem to be solved.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Zassk

I still think city council's main goal should be to reduce traffic on Hastings and Pender. The city shows a great disregard for those neighbourhoods through this viaduct debate. The viaducts should be seen as a solution to be leveraged, not a problem to be solved.

I couldn't agree more. I would love to see traffic reduced on Hastings and bus lanes for east side residents installed. Maybe even replace the overcrowded articulated trolleys with LRT or Streetcars one day. If the city depended on Hastings through the DTES to carry that much traffic, improved transit to the east side would be impossible. Also can you imagine how much busier the intersection of Powell and Carrall will be? It would ruin Gastown. And it would make the Downtown Vancouver Streetcar project next to impossible to implement.

Taking out the Viaducts will only harm our potential transit future.

I think they should build the Malkin Connector, take out the bike lanes, and really funnel as much traffic as possible onto the Viaducts and Dunsmuir. Then traffic calm all the other major eastern roads. With fewer cars on Pender, it can be used for the dedicated bike lanes and you can take the buses off if you put the bus lanes on Hastings.

With the Malkin connector you could almost double the cars on the Viaducts, and in return significantly reduce the number of cars racing through Chinatown, Gastown, and the DTES, opening up new transit and bike opportunities.

[Metro-One]

Exactly, and make water street pedestrian only!

It seems Visions focus is completely off the mark here.

If the tram network ever gets going (could you imagine if all this viaduct energy / attention was focused on the tram system instead??) that will take even more lanes away from Hastings and Pacific, which is good, if the viaducts are still in place.

Also remember that the second of only two links to the north shore is the Lion's Gate Bridge, which the viaducts still bridge for the east / west traffic to and from that link.

The Georgia viaduct is especially useful in that there is never a traffic problem leaving downtown Vancouver (because the Georgia viaduct funnels it out so perfectly) so why create a problem where one does not exist?

It just makes no sense, the vast majority of cities that have removed viaducts had key aspects which Vancouver does not have.

1. - elevated structure being replaced by tunnel (Seattle, Boston, etc...)

2. - Viaducts at end of life span and / or severely damaged via natural disaster (San Francisco)

3 - elevated highway has duplicate high capacity route serving similar corridor (Seoul)

If you were to actually go to ,or even just look at Seoul and San Fran you would see that their downtown cores are still served by numerous high capacity free flow arteries.

Even cities such as Stockholm and Amsterdam have freeways accessing their cores within a couple kilometers.

All this will do is force more traffic on Hastings, pacific, etc... making them even more pedestrian and cycling unfriendly. Even if you were to cut the viaducts traffic in half by removing them, that would still be 25 000 extra vehicles a day on our already chocked surface streets in that area.

I dont think we have to mention again that Concord and other developers already had plans to build in and around the viaducts before this dog and pony show started, so as pointed out by Jlousa there will be little to no increase in living space with their removal.

And I also don't have to show again how a much more unique and interesting urban space can be created with them in place through markets, sporting facilities, lighting effects, etc... under them.

Bottom line is this is really putting the cart before the horse.

I would support tearing down the viaducts only if the following aspects were already in place:

1. - They had reached the end of their lifespan and required considerable maintenance to keep them viable (such as the Pattulo Bridge).

2. - The Expo line has completed all of its expansions allowing 30 000 pph

3. - The tram network is built

4. - This is the most important one, the Lion's Gate Bridge has been closed for vehicle traffic, and a new second crossing (6 lanes) has been constructed (base of main street seems to be the best). Therefore eliminating all cross region traffic through downtown.

But now, instead vision has found a poster child enemy, and Geoff Meggs is going to play with all of our tax money to remove his personal pet peeve.

Again, you can not deny that this entire study was no more than a bias dog and pony show, do you really think Geoff Meggs would be so pumped announcing that the conclusion is coming out soon if the study had any chance of them remaining in their current form?

[jlousa]

I agree completely with the above post. Building the Malkin connector would address the major issue of Strathcona residents. It's a shame the Kingsway connector was rejected as that too would help remove traffic from Main north of 7th Ave further improving the area. This whole excerise seems to be a excerise in aping what other cities have done instead of doing what we should do. I'll awaiting the day we hear council discussing installing a giant ferris wheel while pointing to it having worked in other cities. We would be better served coming up with innovative ideas of our own. The area is not dead because of the viaducts, it's dead because there is nothing there. That doesn't need to be the case, you can build under and around them and the area will stop being dead.

[red-paladin]

I agree 100% with you guys.

[Stingray2004]

It's still important to note that the Georgia Viaduct is part of Translink's "Major Road Network" and, AFAIK, Translink has never removed the MRN designation from a route without a "superior" and "new" alternative.

That means that the Georgia viaduct and its 3 eastbound lanes will remain virtually in perpetuity. Having Georgia re-routed on a ramp down to existing Pacific/Expo Blvd. just won't cut it with Translink.

The CoV can legally remove the Dunsmuir viaduct (which unfortunately doesn't have the MRN designation) - but that would look/be kinda silly, wouldn't it?!

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

It's still important to note that the Georgia Viaduct is part of Translink's "Major Road Network" and, AFAIK, Translink has never removed the MRN designation from a route without a "superior" and "new" alternative.

That means that the Georgia viaduct and its 3 eastbound lanes will remain virtually in perpetuity. Having Georgia re-routed on a ramp down to existing Pacific/Expo Blvd. just won't cut it with Translink.

The CoV can legally remove the Dunsmuir viaduct (which unfortunately doesn't have the MRN designation) - but that would look/be kinda silly, wouldn't it?!

I agree, fwiw that was the way it was for about 6 months from June 71 to Jan 72

[Dave2]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I wonder how many of them are already pissed off that their bus now has to travel at 30km/h down Hastings. Imagine if it could barely move at all.

Heh... I was on an eastbound 135 around 5:15 PM yesterday, after leaving the stop at Main there was no way we were travelling at 30 km/h. (Note to self, use GPS on the phone next time). Posting 30 km/h on Hastings is probably no more effective than posting 55 mph on Interstates was.

I wonder if the 30 km/h truck speeds on Renfrew and Nanaimo are being observed?

[dreambrother808]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

The CoV can legally remove the Dunsmuir viaduct (which unfortunately doesn't have the MRN designation) - but that would look/be kinda silly, wouldn't it?!

Wasn't that the plan? People here still talk like the viaducts are coming down as soon as council gives the go ahead. It is a phased demolition, with the final phase apparently 15 years from now.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Dave2

I agree, fwiw that was the way it was for about 6 months from June 71 to Jan 72

The photo shows clearly the rail yards and related industrial uses on the 'false creek flats' that the old and new viaducts were designed to fly over - getting downtown traffic from the 'tabletop' at Georgia & Beatty over to Main St.

Jeepers - do I see FIVE lanes of traffic on the new Georgia viaduct?

[officedweller]

I think that some of that lane width was eaten up by the Spectrum sidewalk.

Both Dunsmuir and Georgia viaducts had about 5 lanes where they meet Beatty. I'm wondering if that may have been to accommodate additional lanes from the unbuilt north-south freeway.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

Wasn't that the plan? People here still talk like the viaducts are coming down as soon as council gives the go ahead. It is a phased demolition, with the final phase apparently 15 years from now.

That's not the point. The Georgia Viaduct, as part of the MRN, will never come down as it would require Translink (ie. Metro Vancouver) approval.

I'm aware of a couple of instances (Surrey and Delta) whereby local councils requested removal of certain portions of MRN from Translink after the fact. Translink never agreed.

That's the crux of the matter and what Vancouver officials, during the late 1990's, warned Vancouver residents about the consequences of incorporating any Van City arterial as a Translink MRN.

Once it's part of the MRN, it's next to impossible to have the MRN designation removed.

And the Georgia Viaduct will have that MRN designation in perpetuity - unless a new "higher standard", with greater capacity alternative to the Georgia Viaduct comes to fruition - ie. another viaduct or tunnel.

The Georgia Viaduct will still be here in 30 years.

The key question is what will happen to the Dunsmuir Viaduct. If council decides to have it removed - that will look silly. And 15 years from now - or 3 years from now after the next election - an NPA-dominated council will likely rescind any Dunsmuir Viaduct removal - so it's all a moot point IMHO.