HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5001  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2017, 10:46 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld View Post
For all the people fearing carmageddon, can any of you produce an example that happened in the real world where car capacity was reduced and it was a complete disaster?

All of the ones I know point to the exact opposite:
  • Collapse of the West Side Highway in New York
  • Demolishing of damaged freeways in San Francisco
  • Removal of the Cheongyecheon freeway in Seoul, Korea
  • Removal of Park Interchange in Montreal

If you do know an example of highway removal being a disaster please enlighten me.
Maybe instead of asking us the question, you can also enlighten us by showing the vast improvements those aforementioned cities created by investing in their rapid transit systems, rezoning more commercial zones to encourage people to commute to new areas other than the traditional city centres, having the number of alternative and improved roadways to enter the city centres after the highway removal, etc. Without providing those points, your conclusion is overly simplistic.

By the way, the cities you mentioned already have some of the worst traffic congestions in the whole world, and they are still getting worse everyday. Carmaggeddon already exists there. Somehow they managed to divert their traffic through other improved routes by removing certain sections of their old highways. However, congestions may be gone at the spots where the old highways were removed, but that doesn't mean that other areas are not. In fact, perhaps they got worse?

San Fran traffic congestions among the worst in the world (2017): not getting better with the section of elevated highway removal after the quake:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...d-10960858.php

Seoul's way of dealing with traffic congestions: high tech traffic system, expansive system of subway trains and buses, dedicated bus lanes, etc. (not removal of urban infrastructure)
http://english.cri.cn/7146/2010/11/12/2001s604741.htm

New York's 5 points to deal with traffic congestions do not include "removing old highways".
https://ny.curbed.com/2017/10/23/165...de-blasio-plan


As for our very own viaducts, I know that their removal will make traffic conditions much worse around the north Falsecreek area. It's the same as traffic congestions becoming really bad after the introduction of massive number of bike lanes around downtown without the major improvements of other transportation amenities. How do I know that? I've lived downtown for more than a decade and I can feel the impact. Furthermore, the 200-300mil demolishing the viaducts, building a "new highway" to replace Prior Street and widening Pacific Boulevard to create a Super Road actually leave a bad taste in my mouth. How can you then say that the removal of the viaducts is in fact "reducing roadways"? In fact, a lot more roadways will be added which is not necessary in the first place. The money should be better spent on providing more buses on all urban streets, creating bus lanes on existing roads, etc.

Last edited by Vin; Oct 25, 2017 at 11:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5002  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 12:29 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickvug View Post
The viaducts are a sunk cost. It is only worth looking at the future, with an eye out decades from now. The question is: does it make sense to keep the viaducts, or is there enough of an economic and city building incentive to tear them down? If the viaducts don't have a long term future, what is the right time to pull the trigger to remove them?

We all know that the viaducts were built to connect a freeway to the downtown core of the city and that freeway never came. What isn't talked about as much is that the core of the city is rapidly expanding to completely envelop the viaducts with higher density development. The viaducts aren't taking you in and out of anything: they will soon start and end within the built up core. It's kind of like having a few blocks of freeway infrastructure that stops and starts within Manhattan (a stretch but I'm sure you get the point). Within the core of a city the focus needs to be on pedestrians and transit first. All streets must work for these modes because there simply isn't enough room for everyone to be driving.

For perspective take a look at this shot of the viaducts back in 1988:



Previously the viaducts at least made some sense as they started in a bit of a no-man's land (sorry Main St) and brought you into the downtown quickly. Now look at the plans for North East False Creek, the new hospital, The Flats (lots of density along main), the Main Street Tech Corridor upzoning, Mount Pleasant industrial upzoning, and the Hastings corridor upzoning. Also keep in mind that there will almost certainly be major upzoning for the Broadway Corridor and False Creek South in the short term. Picture what the future might look like in 15, 30, or 50 years. The crystal ball is clearly pointing towards an density shift East and then South towards Broadway. In this reality the Malkin Connector (or equivalent) becomes the new "viaduct" entry point to the city core.

Related to this long term visioning, check out the slides for a presentation Gil Kelley made to council last week to kick of "Metro Core 2050": http://council.vancouver.ca/20171017...esentation.pdf. There is a push to integrate all of the plans mentioned into a larger, cohesive long term vision. It wouldn't surprise me if this plan also included some bigger moves that aren't being factored in yet.

Personally I'm very excited for what the core of Vancouver is like to become. To me, any argument for their superior road capacity is vastly outweighed by the benefits of what removing the viaducts means for the future evolution of the downtown core. Others might weigh extra road capacity vs. urban design and land use considerations differently.
The Viaducts were not built as part of a highway. They were built to replace the previous viaducts that were there since early last century and were in need of replacement. The previous viaducts and the current ones crossed rail lines, roads, and industrial land bellow along with some marsh land.

The current viaducts traverse a choke point (which you can easily see) and handle a steep grade, they are a integral part of the transportation infrastructure of the area and lead into a future Malkin connector that will continue east.

The viaducts don't hinder development, they are seismically safe, they cost almost nothing to maintain, they continue to do their job and are functioning at capacity with the only choke points being artificially created at their ends within the past 10 years.

This council needs to go and Jerry Dobrovolny should be fired asap. He doesn't have the ethics to work in his position.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5003  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 12:48 AM
mezzanine's Avatar
mezzanine mezzanine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin View Post
Maybe instead of asking us the question, you can also enlighten us by showing the vast improvements those aforementioned cities created by investing in their rapid transit systems, rezoning more commercial zones to encourage people to commute to new areas other than the traditional city centres, having the number of alternative and improved roadways to enter the city centres after the highway removal, etc. Without providing those points, your conclusion is overly simplistic.
I think the point is that you can do it without seeing any direct carmageddon from removing a properly vetted road.

Other examples include the Park east freeway in Milwaukee. a lot of similarities to the viaducts, part of an abortive freeway network through central Milwaukee, with similar traffic counts. The elevated sections were torn down, and caught flak for remaining empty for some time, but now under revitalization.





Torn down in ~ 2004.



Now developing.




Quote:
As for our very own viaducts, I know that their removal will make traffic conditions much worse around the north Falsecreek area. It's the same as traffic congestions becoming really bad after the introduction of massive number of bike lanes around downtown without the major improvements of other transportation amenities.
I dunno, traffic is a plastic, dynamic force that rises and falls with different options. the viaducts are on land in the city centre, already close to transit, job centres and dense living and an elevated road IMO wouldn't be the best use of land. off peak I find little problems getting around with a car, and at peak times I look to other ways of getting around like transit getting to DT or bikes within DT. If I drive in DT at peak, I'm not surprised when traffic is bad.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5004  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 12:53 AM
mezzanine's Avatar
mezzanine mezzanine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
The Viaducts were not built as part of a highway.


http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5...0/File0020.jpg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5005  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 2:05 AM
retro_orange retro_orange is offline
retro_orange
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: East Van
Posts: 2,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
The Viaducts were not built as part of a highway. They were built to replace the previous viaducts that were there since early last century and were in need of replacement. The previous viaducts and the current ones crossed rail lines, roads, and industrial land bellow along with some marsh land.

The current viaducts traverse a choke point (which you can easily see) and handle a steep grade, they are a integral part of the transportation infrastructure of the area and lead into a future Malkin connector that will continue east.

The viaducts don't hinder development, they are seismically safe, they cost almost nothing to maintain, they continue to do their job and are functioning at capacity with the only choke points being artificially created at their ends within the past 10 years.

This council needs to go and Jerry Dobrovolny should be fired asap. He doesn't have the ethics to work in his position.
Not entirely true. The viaducts were rebuilt in order to accommodate highway traffic levels.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5006  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 3:25 AM
VancouverOfTheFuture's Avatar
VancouverOfTheFuture VancouverOfTheFuture is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 3,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by retro_orange View Post
Not entirely true. The viaducts were rebuilt in order to accommodate highway traffic levels.
they were built to replace the previous viaduct that had every 2nd lamp post removed to save weight while it was loosing chunks of concrete. at the same time, they built the viaducts to be integrated into a freeway project. they were built as a replacement since one was urgently needed, but they were smart since they built them with a 2nd ability to be part of a greater traffic plan; something that lacks today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5007  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 4:16 AM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
San Francisco traffic near the Embarcadero was terrible last time I was there (2015).

Yes of course it is more pleasant now, but people can't enjoy pleasant areas if they're commuting two hours per day.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5008  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 5:12 AM
flipper316 flipper316 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld View Post
For all the people fearing carmageddon, can any of you produce an example that happened in the real world where car capacity was reduced and it was a complete disaster?

All of the ones I know point to the exact opposite:
  • Collapse of the West Side Highway in New York
  • Demolishing of damaged freeways in San Francisco
  • Removal of the Cheongyecheon freeway in Seoul, Korea
  • Removal of Park Interchange in Montreal

If you do know an example of highway removal being a disaster please enlighten me.
The Queensboro Bridge closure due to the electrical fire for one. When one of the north shore bridges get shut down due to an accident or police incident. That's another.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5009  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 5:14 AM
mezzanine's Avatar
mezzanine mezzanine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinion View Post
San Francisco traffic near the Embarcadero was terrible last time I was there (2015).

Yes of course it is more pleasant now, but people can't enjoy pleasant areas if they're commuting two hours per day.
but it's a passenger ferry terminal, people arrive there on foot from the boats. there's also a BART station a block away, and MUNI.

if i drive in SF, i really would expect it to be busy and reconsider taking other options.

I also hear it's more pleasant now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5010  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 3:25 PM
Bdawe Bdawe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sunrise
Posts: 535
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipper316 View Post
The Queensboro Bridge closure due to the electrical fire for one. When one of the north shore bridges get shut down due to an accident or police incident. That's another.
Unexpected disruptions are of a different nature than expected or permanent traffic pattern changes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5011  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 4:29 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 2,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by flipper316 View Post
The Queensboro Bridge closure due to the electrical fire for one. When one of the north shore bridges get shut down due to an accident or police incident. That's another.
You can't point to a one-time short term closure and compare it to a longer removal where traffic patterns have had time to adjust.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5012  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 4:40 PM
gordoninvancouver gordoninvancouver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld View Post
For all the people fearing carmageddon, can any of you produce an example that happened in the real world where car capacity was reduced and it was a complete disaster?

All of the ones I know point to the exact opposite:
  • Collapse of the West Side Highway in New York
  • Demolishing of damaged freeways in San Francisco
  • Removal of the Cheongyecheon freeway in Seoul, Korea
  • Removal of Park Interchange in Montreal

If you do know an example of highway removal being a disaster please enlighten me.
Of your examples the only one I have read about was the San Francisco example. There were studies noting that a lot of daily trips were simply no longer taken. That was seen as a great success from the point of view of the planners. Fine for them. But I doubt that most of the trips no longer taken were of the wasteful, "lets go drive around for fun" variety. They represented people going to work, kids taken to visit grandma, adults participating in recreational softball leagues and so on.

I support the objective of providing alternatives so we can get people out of driver only car trips. I am all for more mass transit, I voted for the tax increase in the last transit referendum. But our leaders are treating citizens with contempt when they dismiss our day to day travel priorities as targets to be eliminated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5013  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 4:50 PM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by mezzanine View Post
I think the point is that you can do it without seeing any direct carmageddon from removing a properly vetted road.

Other examples include the Park east freeway in Milwaukee. a lot of similarities to the viaducts, part of an abortive freeway network through central Milwaukee, with similar traffic counts. The elevated sections were torn down, and caught flak for remaining empty for some time, but now under revitalization.





Torn down in ~ 2004.



Now developing.






I dunno, traffic is a plastic, dynamic force that rises and falls with different options. the viaducts are on land in the city centre, already close to transit, job centres and dense living and an elevated road IMO wouldn't be the best use of land. off peak I find little problems getting around with a car, and at peak times I look to other ways of getting around like transit getting to DT or bikes within DT. If I drive in DT at peak, I'm not surprised when traffic is bad.
This project has been brought up before but it needs to be repeated. That particular project in Milwaukee was replaced with another viaduct type project as part of a large highway realignment/renewal project that was almost right next to this old strucutre which would have made this old one redundant. So its not like Vancouver at all which plans on replacing the viaducts with absolutely nothing. Its an apples to oranges comparison.

If Vancouver was replacing the viaducts with an alternate project somewhere else or lets say a tunnel in the same spot, then there would be more support for the project. As it is, we all know the true reason why they're going and who is behind the move (follow the money)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5014  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 9:17 PM
mezzanine's Avatar
mezzanine mezzanine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastVanMark View Post
This project has been brought up before but it needs to be repeated. That particular project in Milwaukee was replaced with another viaduct type project as part of a large highway realignment/renewal project that was almost right next to this old strucutre which would have made this old one redundant. So its not like Vancouver at all which plans on replacing the viaducts with absolutely nothing. Its an apples to oranges comparison.
Do you have a link? I cant find a reference to this online.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5015  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 10:14 PM
Vin Vin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 8,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by mezzanine View Post
That plan doesn't even show our current viaducts. Again it is propaganda that that they were part of a redundant freeway plan. They served us well for card to negotiate the sudden climb in elevations from the flats to the downtown peninsula, and are vital links from the east to the west, like Cornholio said.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5016  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2017, 10:27 PM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,600
[/QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mezzanine View Post
Do you have a link? I cant find a reference to this online.
Here is a link to when the project itsef and when it was completed.

https://americastransportationawards...hange-project/

Below is a picture of the completed (somewhat) project. It is literally a few blocks from the old East-West Freeway.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...Szv3zwg4g.jpeg


The distance between the two roadways is roughly the same if the viaducts had a sister road way on 4th Ave or on the waterfront.

This picture illustrates how close the 2 roadways were. The park east is in the very right of the picture. https://images.wisconsinhistory.org/...06001037-l.jpg


While in Milwaukee, they removed a section of viaduct that was redundant and not really needed, we here in Vancouver are removing a viaduct when we have nothing else to replace it.

Last edited by EastVanMark; Oct 26, 2017 at 10:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5017  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2017, 6:09 AM
mezzanine's Avatar
mezzanine mezzanine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastVanMark View Post

Here is a link to when the project itsef and when it was completed.

https://americastransportationawards...hange-project/

Below is a picture of the completed (somewhat) project. It is literally a few blocks from the old East-West Freeway.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...Szv3zwg4g.jpeg


The distance between the two roadways is roughly the same if the viaducts had a sister road way on 4th Ave or on the waterfront.

This picture illustrates how close the 2 roadways were. The park east is in the very right of the picture. https://images.wisconsinhistory.org/...06001037-l.jpg


While in Milwaukee, they removed a section of viaduct that was redundant and not really needed, we here in Vancouver are removing a viaduct when we have nothing else to replace it.

I dunno, linking the reconstruction of the marquette interchange versus the removal of the Park East freeway IMO is a reach. if you look at the network geography, i would think that their effects are independent of each other:



The dashed roads are the never-built freeways and the roads outlined in black are limited access freeways. You can see what the Park east was suppposed to do and why it was underutilised and not really part of the larger network.

other traffic studies prior to the park east removal also suggested that traffic effects would be more local to the stub and could be accommodated by expanding the surface grid after the removal, which is more analogous to vancouver.

Also of note - the cost for removal of the park east was $25 million (ignoring any increase in tax base revenue due to redevelopment/repopulation). For the Marquette reconstruction it was $810 million.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5018  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2017, 4:12 PM
Aroundtheworld Aroundtheworld is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut View Post
West Side Highway -> replaced with the Joe DiMaggio Highway
Embarcadero -> replaced with a boulevard supplemented by LRT
Pine Park Interchange -> simplified using three intersections instead of a flyover maze

Most other cities either replace the highway with a new highway (usually underground, in order to renew the surface), or they count on other road/transit infrastructure to pick up the slack. The Chongyecheon Freeway wasn't replaced with anything, BUT traffic diverted to other side roads. Where are Vancouver's drivers going to divert to? Keefer? Pender?

I support the removal, but Robertson and friends, in their infinite wisdom, have decided to disregard all of the above - and on top of it, to demolish all the overpasses and add a crossing every hundred metres. That's the controversy. If the viaduct removal came with an underground replacement freeway or an LRT/SkyTrain project, hey, no problem!
You do realize that they are replacing the viaducts with a substantial boulevard. You could say the capacity is there right now on Georgia and Expo, but I would also tell you its underutilized (I live in the area). A good chunk of the viaducts traffic will be at street level instead of in the air.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5019  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2017, 4:56 PM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by mezzanine View Post
I dunno, linking the reconstruction of the marquette interchange versus the removal of the Park East freeway IMO is a reach. if you look at the network geography, i would think that their effects are independent of each other:



The dashed roads are the never-built freeways and the roads outlined in black are limited access freeways. You can see what the Park east was suppposed to do and why it was underutilised and not really part of the larger network.

other traffic studies prior to the park east removal also suggested that traffic effects would be more local to the stub and could be accommodated by expanding the surface grid after the removal, which is more analogous to vancouver.

Also of note - the cost for removal of the park east was $25 million (ignoring any increase in tax base revenue due to redevelopment/repopulation). For the Marquette reconstruction it was $810 million.
While yes the Park East doesn't exactly follow the I43 it is literally just a few blocks away from it, and can help you get to the exact same destination as the park East did. Interstate 145 can also get you to the same area just as fast . US 794 also takes you to roughly the same area and it too is literally a stones throw from where the Park East once stood, rendering it completely redundant. (especially now since as I mentioned before that route has been upgraded and expanded). When I was last in Milwaukee they had just opened that stretch of hwy after the expansion reconstruction. The map may be a little deceiving as if you are actually there, these different routes are mere blocks apart.

The situation in Vancouver is completely different. We have zero freeway connections to our downtown core, so the viaducts are anything but redundant. If we had another high capacity efficient route leading into our downtown, then yes the parallels could be made, but we don't.

As for cost, yes, it cost a lot more to redo the highway, but it is crucial to staying competitive in a very hostile business climate. Milwaukee has seen its industrial base be decimated and ensuring ease of movement of both goods and people in the region are of paramount importance to keeping what they have left. Cute coffee shops and microbrews may be pretty to look at, but you have to take care of sectors that provides well paying jobs to its citizens and drives the economy.

Even as a port city, Vancouver seems to ignore this and its economy depends on the service industry and real estate. What is the economic impact of trucks idling on city streets? What is the cost of a company choosing not to do business here, or even going elsewhere in the local region where road connections are far better? In the long run, I'd venture to say it will be a lot.

Last edited by EastVanMark; Oct 27, 2017 at 5:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5020  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2017, 5:28 PM
Pinion Pinion is offline
See ya down under, mates
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld View Post
A good chunk of the viaducts traffic will be at street level instead of in the air.
With all the existing street level traffic - stuck at Vancouver's most frustrating new intersection: Georgia and Pacific. It'll make Burrard and Robson look free flowing.

But of course anything other than a basic four way intersection would be inappropriate in this city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:00 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.