Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[officedweller]

Here's what Wikipedia says.

The 401 expressway and Highway 1 were originally separate highways.

Like its Island section, the Highway on the Lower Mainland was first given the "1" designation in 1941. Highway 1's original alignment started out within the city limits of Vancouver, and followed Kingsway from Vancouver to Surrey, and then went along the Fraser Highway to Clearbrook. From Chilliwack, the highway originally went to Rosedale, which is a community just east of Chilliwack, along Yale Road, then along Flood-Hope Road to where it picks up its current alignment just across the Fraser River from Hope.

In 1959, Highway 1 was given an extension from within Vancouver to Horseshoe Bay by way of the Lions' Gate Bridge and Taylor Way in West Vancouver. In 1962, the section between Clearbrook and Chilliwack was re-routed to a new expressway.

In 1964, the Clearbrook-Rosedale section of Highway 1 was restored to its original alignment. Also in that year, a new expressway (or "freeway"), originally designated as Highway 401, opened up on Highway 1's current alignment between West Vancouver and Rosedale. The expressway became part of Highway 1 in 1973.

In 1986, Highway 1 between Chilliwack and Hope was improved to a freeway. Through the 1990s, all signals and intersections on Highway 1 through Greater Vancouver were removed, making the entire section of Highway 1 between Horseshoe Bay and Hope a freeway.

BTW - Highway 99 is a holdback from the old US highway naming system - Route 99 was the predecessor to I-5 and still exists in sections, the same way Route 66 still exists.

[sacrifice333]

Tearing down the Dunsmuir and Georgia viaducts may make sense... but with the Spectrum development complete and heavily influenced by the existing viaducts... removal of those viaducts would significantly change that development and it's interaction with "street level".

hmm....

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Zassk

It was only ever named 401 in the first place to copy Ontario, who is the only jurisdiction in the world that names their freeways in that way. Nowhere else but in southern Ontario do freeway numbers start in the 400's. Turning it back to Highway 1 was correcting a previous mistake.

Personally, I would like to have an explicit freeway system with its own numbers, just like Quebec's Autoroute system.

In France, freeways are called "Autoroutes" and are numbere: "A6,A12" etc
In the UK ,freeways are called "Motorways, and are also numbered: "M1, M5"

How would we label the freeways in B.C.? (there aren't very many, yet) ??
"F" for Freeway or something else? I like your idea, though, but some of our freeways do need an upgrade in capacity and in the quality of the interchanges, and maybe the lighting.

[SpongeG]

south africa uses the M system too

what about the 101 - it continues along the sunshine coast... its a continuation o fthe 101 in the states isn't it?

[Zassk]

93, 95, 97, 99, 101 are all (or were originally) continuations of the equivalent north-south U.S. highways. 91 was built much later and is out of place compared to the U.S. highway system.

[SpongeG]

cool

I only found this out a while ago that in the states odd numbered ones are for north south highways - like the I5 or I95 and even numbers are for east west like the I90 or I80

[officedweller]

And Interstates with the same last digit are generally bypasses.
I-5, I-405, I-205, I-605

[Architype]

I've driven across those viaducts many times. I think they (or some similar alternative) should stay. The geography of Vancouver's downtown peninsula makes them a neccessary evil. Without them, more local streets would have to be added and re-configured, and there would have to be more lanes to carry more traffic.

Another alternative would be a fourth bridge I suppose.

[whatnext]

Isn't it ironic that one of the arguments against Tom Terrific's freeways was that they would destroy Chinatown. And now Chinatown is dying a slow death in the face of free market forces, compounded by Vancouver's other hippie holdover, the permissive attitude toward drug users.

[jlousa]

A few developers have worked on what the land lift would be w/o the viaducts in place, I'm sure the city has as well. The additional density that could be gained would be worth between $40-$50Million at the peak. That is not including the price to demolish it and somehow connect Georgia and Dunsmir to the lower level. That's why there has not been a proposal to tear them down.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by kylemacmac

In Monteal there's also a lady running for mayor who plans to make downtown more livable by building more parking garages and expanding the freeways leading into the city. Make no mistake, this lady is BAT SH!T crazy and has no chance at all of being elected.

Parking garages and freeways are fantastic plans.....if you care about the economy. Parking garages can replace surface parking lots (the ultimate waste of urban space) thereby allowing a lot more commuters to park and shop downtown and freeways allow people to get places faster which brings myriad economic benefits as well as reducing air pollution (less idlng, more moving and faster moving).

Originally Posted by kylemacmac

Montreal has absolutely no lack of freeways going downtown and within the city.....

That's bullshit. I've seen countless aerial shots of Montreal and never seen one viaduct or freeway downtown. A bridge is not the same thing as a freeway.

Originally Posted by kylemacmac

So being crazy might get you heard, but doesn't make you anywhere near having good ideas.

While the woman may be crazy, those two ideas are anything but crazy

Originally Posted by kylemacmac

I suspect most who support keeping the viaducts do so because: a) They give Vancouver a 'big city urban feel'

You're right about that and it seems thoroughly hypocritical to me that someone can love skyscrapers while opposing viaducts on the basis of some fuzzy-thinking notion like "livability". To me livability is skyscrapers and freeways.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Yes, but as threads often due it had moved into a much more constructive direction and then Phil had to come and say something about adding more viaducts downtown (off topic) and then this become a freeway debate.

Oh i'm sorry, I figured that the viaducts are freeways. I didn't know that they are in fact, residential streets.

Originally Posted by DKaz

It boggles me how suburbanites working in Downtown Vancouver would rather drive than choose one of the excellent transit options.

People drive because they have the freedom to choose exactly when and where they want to go. Transit only goes specific places at specific times and people are wiling to pay handsomely for that freedom.

[Metro-One]

Freeways are generally considered to be much longer then 1km hahahahaha. Viaducts are simply bridges over land, the same way you would not call Burrard Bridge a freeway. The ducts have no interchanges, just one ramp each, that is not a freeway. There are many short (1 to 2km) viaducts in many European and Asian cities that are not considered freeways or even highways.

With your logic, I guess the viaduct in Langley City is also a freeway...

The viaducts along the Golden Ears Bridge are starting to enter freeway territory, because there is free flow for about 4 to 5km of the GEW utilizing 3 full interchanges. But even this would not be considered a freeway to most because of its short free flow distance. It is more of a connector.

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Parking garages and freeways are fantastic plans.....if you care about the economy. Parking garages can replace surface parking lots (the ultimate waste of urban space) thereby allowing a lot more commuters to park and shop downtown and freeways allow people to get places faster which brings myriad economic benefits as well as reducing air pollution (less idlng, more moving and faster moving).

Indeed, nothing makes for an attractive street quite like a large parking garage, and Los Angeles, the freeway capital of North America, is renowned for its pristine air quality.

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

That's bullshit. I've seen countless aerial shots of Montreal and never seen one viaduct or freeway downtown. A bridge is not the same thing as a freeway.

Another solid point. The lack of freeways in Montreal must be why it is such an un-liveable city with no cultural significance whatsoever. I don't know why anyone would ever want to go there.

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

You're right about that and it seems thoroughly hypocritical to me that someone can love skyscrapers while opposing viaducts on the basis of some fuzzy-thinking notion like "livability". To me livability is skyscrapers and freeways.

You're right! Life without freeways just wouldn't be liveable, and it's impossible to have skyscrapers without them. Vancouverites live in a dream world if they think they can have the lowest office space vacancy rate in North America without a comprehensive freeway network.

Vancouver's economy has absolutely nothing to do with tourism, and everything to do with getting metro-Vancouverites into and out of downtown as quickly as possible in their own automobiles. That's why, for instance, the two tallest buildings in our city are not hotels.

Furthermore, those "fuzzy-thinking" liveability people are a bunch of hippies who don't know anything about the world, and who don't care about the economy.

[Millennium2002]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

Indeed, nothing makes for an attractive street quite like a large parking garage, and Los Angeles, the freeway capital of North America, is renowned for its pristine air quality.

The air quality of Los Angeles isn't "pristine". Far from that in fact. Very few, if any, urban areas will have pristine air quality. I don't know how parking garages make for attractive streets either... streets that people will like because they are not crowded and because people won't get hit by careless and aggressive drivers. =S

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

Another solid point. The lack of freeways in Montreal must be why it is such an un-livable city with no cultural significance whatsoever. I don't know why anyone would ever want to go there.

Prove this with evidence please. There are probably other reasons for its "un-livability".

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

You're right! Life without freeways just wouldn't be liveable, and it's impossible to have skyscrapers without them. Vancouverites live in a dream world if they think they can have the lowest office space vacancy rate in North America without a comprehensive freeway network.

Vancouver's economy has absolutely nothing to do with tourism, and everything to do with getting metro-Vancouverites into and out of downtown as quickly as possible in their own automobiles. That's why, for instance, the two tallest buildings in our city are not hotels.

Furthermore, those "fuzzy-thinking" liveability people are a bunch of hippies who don't know anything about the world, and who don't care about the economy.

Your post is quite contradictory... I don't see how people can live with crowded 10-lane freeways either... and if you think it's impossible to have skyscrapers without them then I guess you haven't looked at places like Japan.

Vancouver's economy is geared more towards tourism than you would expect. If not then I don't know why Fairmont has 4 hotels here, the tallest building in Vancouver has a hotel, why there's a cruise ship terminal, why we save Gastown and Chinatown, why Stanley Park remains a park, etc.

BTW... it's very unreasonable to condemn people that care about the long-term growth of this city as unfriendly "hippies".

[Metro-One]

Another solid point. The lack of freeways in Montreal must be why it is such an un-liveable city with no cultural significance whatsoever. I don't know why anyone would ever want to go there.

I dont know where you guys get these facts, anyone who has ever been to or who has ever looked at Montreal knows that Montreal has a massive freeway network that does reach downtown. One freeway arm downtown is underground I believe and another is on the surface. Also they are currently building a new freeway and river crossing in the area. And one of the freeways does ride along a several KM viaduct in the greater Montreal area.



All of the darker yellow lines are freeways akin to and larger than our #1 and the light yellow lines are major highways akin to or larger than our Lougheed highway. As on can see, two dark yellow line penetrate the downtown core.

And yet Montreal has retained and flourished its famed downtown life. Even Quebec City and Halifax have larger freeway networks than Vancouver (Metro Halifax is around 350 000 by the way) and somehow these cities still have large dense urban cores relative to their sizes ans Quebec City is often reffered to as one of the best cities in NA.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Architype

I've driven across those viaducts many times. I think they (or some similar alternative) should stay. The geography of Vasncouver's downtown peninsula makes them a neccessary evil. Without them, more local streets would have to be added, and would have to have more lanes and carry more traffic. Another alternative would be a fourth bridge I suppose.

Would it makes sense to extend a freeway to link up with Highway 1? There is only one possible route though.

[deasine]

I think this debate is starting to get off track here: the question is whether we should keep the viaducts or to remove them, despite the fact that the latter will not happen. Not about extending it to Highway 1, to recreate the original highway plan.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

Indeed, nothing makes for an attractive street quite like a large parking garage

I believe the economy should be the first priority and how "pretty" something is is of little importance to me.

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

Los Angeles, the freeway capital of North America, is renowned for its pristine air quality.

Comparing Vancouver to Los Angeles is like comparing Victoria to Vancouver-there is no comparison. Los Angeles is six times the population of Vancouver and as it is, Vancouver has smog. Had Los Angeles not built all those freeways the smog would be even worse.

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

The lack of freeways in Montreal must be why it is such an un-liveable city with no cultural significance whatsoever. I don't know why anyone would ever want to go there.

Montreal's "liveability" or "cultural significance" has nothing to do with what I was talking about-I was simply calling bullshit on another poster's comments about Montreal's (supposed) freeway system. Paying attention helps.

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

Vancouverites live in a dream world if they think they can have the lowest office space vacancy rate in North America.....

Got proof? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

Vancouver's economy has absolutely nothing to do with tourism, and everything to do with getting metro-Vancouverites into and out of downtown as quickly as possible in their own automobiles. That's why, for instance, the two tallest buildings in our city are not hotels.

You actually type really well for someone so high. Shangri-La isn't a hotel?

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

Furthermore, those "fuzzy-thinking" liveability people are a bunch of hippies who don't know anything about the world, and who don't care about the economy.

Finally you said something I agree with!

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I dont know where you guys get these facts, anyone who has ever been to or who has ever looked at Montreal knows that Montreal has a massive freeway network that does reach downtown. One freeway arm downtown is underground I believe and another is on the surface. Also they are currently building a new freeway and river crossing in the area. And one of the freeways does ride along a several KM viaduct in the greater Montreal area. . . .

. . . .And yet Montreal has retained and flourished its famed downtown life. Even Quebec City and Halifax have larger freeway networks than Vancouver (Metro Halifax is around 350 000 by the way) and somehow these cities still have large dense urban cores relative to their sizes ans Quebec City is often reffered to as one of the best cities in NA.

Thank-you, Metro-One, for at least understanding my sarcasm and, yes, I am aware that Montreal has a more extensive freeway network than our own. Allan_kuan, please do not take anything I said in that last post seriously. I was merely having a little fun with Phil's comments. They were just begging for some kind of satire. In the end, I couldn't help myself. . .

[Millennium2002]

You may want to state that clearly at the very bottom of the post in some hidden or italicized font. Few people would have been able to catch that sarcasm. = \