Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Zassk]

Someone needs to propose a streetcar running over the viaducts between downtown and Strathcona. Let the talk about removing infrastructure take place without discussing the decline of the automobile.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Dave2

I just adore a penthouse view

Haha !! Ya got me good !!

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

... since the majority of trips on the viaducts start in East Van and end in DT; roughly paralleling the Expo line.

But that would also suggest:

-that the viaducts are not of regional signifcance unlike say, gateway/Hwy1.

-that the inability to travel to DT by car due to the loss of a viaduct could more easily be picked up by east van folks taking transit (bus/skytrain) or by bike, or still by car at the expense of an increase of travel time.

-even if a viaduct is removed and even if the expo line currently is nearing capacity at rush, we still have the potential to further increase skytrain numbers, significantly. (longer trainsets, redevelopment of the commercial/broadway hub, etc)

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

But that would also suggest:

-that the viaducts are not of regional signifcance unlike say, gateway/Hwy1.

-that the inability to travel to DT by car due to the loss of a viaduct could more easily be picked up by east van folks taking transit (bus/skytrain) or by bike, or still by car at the expense of an increase of travel time.

-even if a viaduct is removed and even if the expo line currently is nearing capacity at rush, we still have the potential to further increase skytrain numbers, significantly. (longer trainsets, redevelopment of the commercial/broadway hub, etc)

Fine, but that ignores Alex's point about the costs. Do you really think that is the best use of tax dollars at this time?

It also ignores what Strathcona residents said, that this would impact their neighbourhood through increased traffic. Of course, that's the very point the original anti-freeway crusaders were happy to ignore - how their little jihad would affect residential streets like 1st and 12th.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by whatnext

It also ignores what Strathcona residents said, that this would impact their neighbourhood through increased traffic. Of course, that's the very point the original anti-freeway crusaders were happy to ignore - how their little jihad would affect residential streets like 1st and 12th.

But AlexM stated:

majority of trips on the viaducts start in East Van and end in DT; roughly paralleling the Expo line.

following 1st or 12th would be only a small bit of car traffic if originating traffic is from east van. that area is also relatively well covered with transit, getting a 22 a 9 or 99, or an E/M line would cover.

AlexM, where did you get the source on traffic origin?

[WarrenC12]

I think a lot of the traffic currently on the viaducts will divert north to Hastings, but this conflicts with the increasing focus on that area for development, the new 30 km/h speed limits, etc. It's a poor use of tax dollars. Even if it were free I don't think it would be a good idea.

If we were at a point where the viaducts needed to be replaced, I think removing them might be a reasonable idea. Right now it's a stupid idea.

I have faith that this will blow up as soon as it hits the mainstream news... and it will get abandoned.

[mezzanine]

Ahh, here we go:

http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...ents/ttra2.pdf

Combined, the viaducts carry approximately 43,000 vehicles per day, with over 44% of these originating from the eastern half of Vancouver.
....
The number of light trucks has remained relatively constant since 1996, but the number of heavy trucks has dropped by approximately 50%.

Interestingly, the report mentions costs of soil remediation:

A high level review of the soils contamination in the area indicates that the soils remediation costs for this area are likely in the range of $4 -8 million dollars if the full area was remediated to a residential standard.

I'm agnostic about the viaducts, but the level of discussion on this thread is declining.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by whatnext

It also ignores what Strathcona residents said, that this would impact their neighbourhood through increased traffic.

I don't understand this objection. That traffic already cuts right through Strathcona on Prior and Venables. The traffic may find new routes, but it's cutting through Strathcona in either case.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

I don't understand this objection. That traffic already cuts right through Strathcona on Prior and Venables. The traffic may find new routes, but it's cutting through Strathcona in either case.

The city has a detailed plan called the Malkin Connector that is supposed to solve both of those road problems for Strathcona, but it can only happen if the viaducts remain.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

But AlexM stated:



following 1st or 12th would be only a small bit of car traffic if originating traffic is from east van. that area is also relatively well covered with transit, getting a 22 a 9 or 99, or an E/M line would cover.

AlexM, where did you get the source on traffic origin?

They had traffic counts and diagrams for the Reconnect competition when I made my entry.http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...sstudy2011.pdf

I'm not sure what the remediation Andy Yan was talking about entailed. It may have been over a larger site, or using treatment instead of capping and sealing.

[logan5]

The billion dollar estimate (not including new trains) to extend the platforms has to be way off. The Translink estimate to build a new elevated RRT station is 20 million per station. I know there would be challenges to extending the platforms while Skytrain is in operation, and there are more complicated procedures at the underground stations, but surely it couldn't cost more than building each new station from scratch?

The Expo Line has 20 stations. Multiply that by 20 million per station and that equals 400 million, and that is probably a high estimate.

http://www.translink.ca/en/Be-Part-o...rade-Offs.aspx

Why could the Malkin connector not be built without the viaducts?

Originally Posted by Zassk

The city has a detailed plan called the Malkin Connector that is supposed to solve both of those road problems for Strathcona, but it can only happen if the viaducts remain.

Even without any Skytrain expansion, Pacific/Expo Blvd/Prior St. could be reconfigured to handle the extra traffic. Combine that with a new Malkin connector and reintroduce the Kingsway connector, and imo traffic would move in a more orderly fashion. Some freeway entrances have traffic control signals in order to prevent large flows of traffic entering the freeway all at once, causing congestion and accidents, which is what the viaducts do right now - throw large volumes of traffic at city streets that have nowhere near the capacity to handle these volumes.

We have a large artery flowing into a much smaller one, which makes no sense.

The realigned surface streets would have much the same effect as freeway entrance ramp meters, and that would be to meter traffic into East Vancouver streets, regulating the amount of congestion and providing a smoother flow of traffic. It's something like the hare and the tortoise.

[s211]

Originally Posted by logan5

Why could the Malkin connector not be built without the viaducts?



Even without any Skytrain expansion, Pacific/Expo Blvd/Prior St. could be reconfigured to handle the extra traffic. Combine that with a new Malkin connector and reintroduce the Kingsway connector, and imo traffic would move in a more orderly fashion. Some freeway entrances have traffic control signals in order to prevent large flows of traffic entering the freeway all at once, causing congestion and accidents, which is what the viaducts do right now - throw large volumes of traffic at city streets that have nowhere near the capacity to handle these volumes.

We have a large artery flowing into a much smaller one, which makes no sense.

The realigned surface streets would have much the same effect as freeway entrance ramp meters, and that would be to meter traffic into East Vancouver streets, regulating the amount of congestion and providing a smoother flow of traffic. It's something like the hare and the tortoise.

What you've described sounds like hell for people living in the area, especially along Quebec. Nothing like grid lock to make areas like Citygate that much more pleasant to live in.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by logan5

The billion dollar estimate (not including new trains) to extend the platforms has to be way off. The Translink estimate to build a new elevated RRT station is 20 million per station. I know there would be challenges to extending the platforms while Skytrain is in operation, and there are more complicated procedures at the underground stations, but surely it couldn't cost more than building each new station from scratch?

The Expo Line has 20 stations. Multiply that by 20 million per station and that equals 400 million, and that is probably a high estimate.

http://www.translink.ca/en/Be-Part-o...rade-Offs.aspx

Why could the Malkin connector not be built without the viaducts?



Even without any Skytrain expansion, Pacific/Expo Blvd/Prior St. could be reconfigured to handle the extra traffic. Combine that with a new Malkin connector and reintroduce the Kingsway connector, and imo traffic would move in a more orderly fashion. Some freeway entrances have traffic control signals in order to prevent large flows of traffic entering the freeway all at once, causing congestion and accidents, which is what the viaducts do right now - throw large volumes of traffic at city streets that have nowhere near the capacity to handle these volumes.

We have a large artery flowing into a much smaller one, which makes no sense.

The realigned surface streets would have much the same effect as freeway entrance ramp meters, and that would be to meter traffic into East Vancouver streets, regulating the amount of congestion and providing a smoother flow of traffic. It's something like the hare and the tortoise.

So instead of having efficient, stacked roadways, you instead want to widen the streets on the ground? Even though you can't build a condo under the viaduct (that someone would want to pay a million to live in anyway), at least the ground is usable for other activities. There is a nice skateboard park under it at one end. Stuff like that would be hard to have with wider roads and townhouses lining the sidewalks.

I believe the BC Government estimate to expand capacity on the Expo line was in the area of $2.5 billion (but that might have included extending Skytrain as far as 168 St in Fleetwood though). I think the main problem with extending trains is that the system as a whole is designed for the trains that fit the current platforms. Certain longer spans (longer than a train length) might have the be reinforced or replaced to carry the extra weight of longer trains. And certain sidings where trains are held off peak will be useless unless they too are expanded.

While the Expo line does do a good job, you need more than that to replace the viaducts. Not everyone in Vancouver (and beyond) can be shoehorned into one single corridor for entry into downtown. For many people on the Eastside, the Skytrain is out of the way. They use buses that depend on having lanes available (and not clogged with traffic) for them to get into downtown.

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.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by s211

What you've described sounds like hell for people living in the area, especially along Quebec. Nothing like grid lock to make areas like Citygate that much more pleasant to live in.

IMO, it would also back up traffic along Pacific and Expo, potentially turning somewhat busy streets into gridlock for many hours of the day.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by IanS

IMO, it would also back up traffic along Pacific and Expo, potentially turning somewhat busy streets into gridlock for many hours of the day.

yup. would be a mess 6-8 hours a day ..... let alone after special events at the arena/stadium/etc .....

[logan5]

Originally Posted by s211

What you've described sounds like hell for people living in the area, especially along Quebec. Nothing like grid lock to make areas like Citygate that much more pleasant to live in.

Originally Posted by IanS

IMO, it would also back up traffic along Pacific and Expo, potentially turning somewhat busy streets into gridlock for many hours of the day.

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

yup. would be a mess 6-8 hours a day ..... let alone after special events at the arena/stadium/etc .....

There are pretty much the same amount of cars on our city streets every day. Tearing down the viaducts and making some adjustments to surface streets will not put a bunch of new vehicles on our city streets but will, according to you guys, transfer volumes of traffic from other parts of the city into downtown. So if tearing down the viaducts would create this traffic chaos on the downtown side, shouldn't the opposite be true - shouldn't the viaducts that move traffic so well, create traffic chaos on the eastern side of the viaducts?

[osirisboy]

edit

[Pinion]

I was just in Seattle where the closure of the Alaskan Way Viaduct has made Pike Place Market a lot more pleasant but I-5 is even more of a nightmare than usual. Bumper to bumper traffic at 1pm on a rainy Sunday. Not worth the trade off (until the tunnel is done, but obviously that's not an option in Vancouver).

[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...

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by logan5

There are pretty much the same amount of cars on our city streets every day. Tearing down the viaducts and making some adjustments to surface streets will not put a bunch of new vehicles on our city streets but will, according to you guys, transfer volumes of traffic from other parts of the city into downtown. So if tearing down the viaducts would create this traffic chaos on the downtown side, shouldn't the opposite be true - shouldn't the viaducts that move traffic so well, create traffic chaos on the eastern side of the viaducts?

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.

I missed this point from earlier.

Originally Posted by Logan5

The billion dollar estimate (not including new trains) to extend the platforms has to be way off. The Translink estimate to build a new elevated RRT station is 20 million per station. I know there would be challenges to extending the platforms while Skytrain is in operation, and there are more complicated procedures at the underground stations, but surely it couldn't cost more than building each new station from scratch?

The Expo Line has 20 stations. Multiply that by 20 million per station and that equals 400 million, and that is probably a high estimate.

Looking back I may have used the cost for Metrotown and Main together for renovation costs.

Main and Metrotown are expected to cost ~$10M to upgrade to modern standards, without extending the platforms. I figure this extension will probably add somewhere near $10-20M to these two stations refurb. Just over half the cost of a new surface station on the Canada line. It would probably cost more to extend and expand Granville and Burrard, so I would add in at least 50% more on those two. That brings the total to $420-$630M for stations.

Add in $200M for power infrastructure.

It may take the cost of rolling stock to bring it to the $1B price tag.