Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by AlexYVR

It doesn't take 20 minutes to get from one side of downtown to the other. I mean, it does in rush hour, but you get the gist. 4 blocks will not make 20 minutes of difference especially when there's Pacific Blvd that's 6 lanes as well as all the redundant lighted lanes underneath.

^ I don't see how you can state that with authority, given how many lanes' worth of road will be removed by the viaduct and streetcar proposals. Even Pacific Blvd will be losing lanes to the streetcar. How can you feel confident that there will not be congestion during most of the day after reducing east-west road capacity by so much? And how should we all feel about funneling nearly all traffic from those former routes onto Hastings? Is that really the future we want for Hastings? IMO it is reckless to contemplate such road changes before constructing a rapid transit line down Hastings.

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by Zassk

^ I don't see how you can state that with authority, given how many lanes' worth of road will be removed by the viaduct and streetcar proposals. Even Pacific Blvd will be losing lanes to the streetcar. How can you feel confident that there will not be congestion during most of the day after reducing east-west road capacity by so much? And how should we all feel about funneling nearly all traffic from those former routes onto Hastings? Is that really the future we want for Hastings? IMO it is reckless to contemplate such road changes before constructing a rapid transit line down Hastings.

The same way that YOU can say with confidence that there WILL be a 20 minute delay created (educated postulation). If the viaducts came down, the streets underneath - running through NEFC - would be redone, reworked, and redirected so you're not 'losing' all the lanes that were on the viaducts - you're just calming them quite a bit. I still don't see why people think that 'nearly all' traffic will go onto Hastings - if the viaducts came down, it's not like what's underneath would be bicycle-only. Many people take the Quebec connector without it being a viaduct.

[johnjimbc]

Ok, the last few posts convinces me this is relevant . . . how many people commenting in this thread even actually drive on the viaducts or have any concept as to what we're talking about? That's a serious question.

It sounds like people are arguing the life and death of freeway systems, the entire viability of downtown existence, and the planet - all without realizing the discussion is about a relatively short section of downtown infrastructure.

The description a few posts above is the most accurate I've read. If the existing viaducts were removed with equivalent street level avenues put in their place, there would be no discernible difference in the travel times. IF, after that time, the area is developed in a mix of offices and park system (which has been proposed), it might at most add a few lights. If those are set for travel during rush hours, would still have little impact on traffic flow.

Not to rehash all the details I wrote earlier, but basically I think since they are there, the city can just work with the existing structures and design smartly for their existence.

But to argue that their removal will destroy someone's livelihood or represent some horrible act to punish commuters is going a bit far. Noone is talking about removing the Lion's Gate bridge or anything. It's a discussion about how you handle traffic from Point A to Point B of about 4 blocks where the road currently glides over *NOTHING* via concrete pylons. If there were ever a time to bring those overpasses down to earth (so to speak), now would be the time to do it, as part of the entire plan for the area, allowing free reign to design workable stretches of avenue for the current traffic and more. I don't think it is the work of some evil intent; during the planning period for development of that area is a pretty rational time to consider options regarding the viaducts.

I think it will be fine if they remain as long as the planning incorporates them and works around them well. But if they decide to bring them down and put in smart avenues with parks and development around them, that is a perfectly reasonable and quite viable option as well. Traffic will still flow. New grid options for traffic would even emerge, which could prove important as the downtown core moves toward that direction. Heck, if they build a 700 ft building somewhere near the Bay and a 500 ft building at the old bus station site, you might actually want more than one access point onto Dunsmuir and the other roads in that area to access them . That's hard to do when you've shuttled all traffic down two channels and onto single roadway points on the other end.

[junius]

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

Ok, the last few posts convinces me this is relevant . . . how many people commenting in this thread even actually drive on the viaducts or have any concept as to what we're talking about? That's a serious question.

It sounds like people are arguing the life and death of freeway systems, the entire viability of downtown existence, and the planet - all without realizing the discussion is about a relatively short section of downtown infrastructure.

The description a few posts above is the most accurate I've read. If the existing viaducts were removed with equivalent street level avenues put in their place, there would be no discernible difference in the travel times. IF, after that time, the area is developed in a mix of offices and park system (which has been proposed), it might at most add a few lights. If those are set for travel during rush hours, would still have little impact on traffic flow.

Not to rehash all the details I wrote earlier, but basically I think since they are there, the city can just work with the existing structures and design smartly for their existence.

But to argue that their removal will destroy someone's livelihood or represent some horrible act to punish commuters is going a bit far. Noone is talking about removing the Lion's Gate bridge or anything. It's a discussion about how you handle traffic from Point A to Point B of about 4 blocks where the road currently glides over *NOTHING* via concrete pylons. If there were ever a time to bring those overpasses down to earth (so to speak), now would be the time to do it, as part of the entire plan for the area, allowing free reign to design workable stretches of avenue for the current traffic and more. I don't think it is the work of some evil intent; during the planning period for development of that area is a pretty rational time to consider options regarding the viaducts.

I think it will be fine if they remain as long as the planning incorporates them and works around them well. But if they decide to bring them down and put in smart avenues with parks and development around them, that is a perfectly reasonable and quite viable option as well. Traffic will still flow. New grid options for traffic would even emerge, which could prove important as the downtown core moves toward that direction. Heck, if they build a 700 ft building somewhere near the Bay and a 500 ft building at the old bus station site, you might actually want more than one access point onto Dunsmuir and the other roads in that area to access them . That's hard to do when you've shuttled all traffic down two channels and onto single roadway points on the other end.

I agree with you. It appears to be such a "slippery slope" hot button for the motordom crowd.

I drive on the Viaducts regularly. I find they are busy during peak hours which is about 4 hours of the day and before/after events at GM or BC Place. Losing them would not be the end of the world.

It is sad to see how quickly the debate polarizes on both sides.

[nova9]

I'm fine with the status quo.

There are ways to build underneath viaducts...and rapid transit infrastructure. I'm sure there are examples internationally of how to do that.

One local example, on Victoria Drive before the Victoria Drive Diversion into Commercial Drive, there is a small concrete building being constructing right underneath the Skytrain tracks. I wish I had picture.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

Ok, the last few posts convinces me this is relevant . . . how many people commenting in this thread even actually drive on the viaducts or have any concept as to what we're talking about? That's a serious question.

It sounds like people are arguing the life and death of freeway systems, the entire viability of downtown existence, and the planet - all without realizing the discussion is about a relatively short section of downtown infrastructure.

That's what pretty much many members have been debating about the entire time.

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

While the area around the viaducts may seem slow in revitalization (due to the break neck speed of Vancouver development of late) there actually already have been massive positive changes and integration in that area over the last 25 years.

Here are some pics from the early 1980s. Pay particualr attention to the west end of them where most of the transformation so far has taken place.

That's a pretty crazy transformation over a span of little more than 2 decades. WOW.

I can't wait to see the chinatown area, and the area near and around the viaduct - and how that area is going to transform. I, personally, think the viaducts should stay. It brings a nice element to the city, and I don't see why they can't build around them. Look at the pic with GM Place - they are starting to build around that area, and it's fairly close to the viaducts. I can see a few more residential towers going up in and around the area.

[Metro-One]

The ducts are there, we should keep them.

Taking them down would not be the end of the world, but on the flip side neither is allowing them to stay.

I just feel it is wise to keep the ducts seeing the placement of a new St. Pauls will be directly at their base, this way ambulances comingfrom downtown can get there directly without interfearing with street level traffic.

Also, with the street car, up to 4 east west lanes will be gone or margnalized along the east/west routes.

Keeping the ducts allows for much easier process of traffic calming through the streets below. Do the people living in these new areas want all the cross commercial and cross regionla traffic driving through their streets everyday?

People are tend to forget that the new streets built on ground level are likely to be built as local streets, not main arteries, for serving the people living and working in the area. This way having the streets more dedicated for bikes, pedestrians and trams is much easier to accomplish if the ducts are there.

I use the ducts very often and I can tell you they save a lot more then 180 seconds off a commute instead of taking other routes along the same distance, such as Hastings.

So in the end, they free up the streets below for other forms of transit and traffic calming and they can be used to take commercial traffic, emergency response traffic, and cross regional traffic off what will soon be local community streets below.

Smart city planners will decide to keep the ducts and utilize them to their full potential.

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by awvan

I'd just like to say that I think BC Place looks awesome without the roof. Obviously that isn't something that could ever happen with our climate, but still, it looks good.

With regards to the viaducts, this thread has gone downhill. We are bickering and yelling at each other and hardly proposing anything at all. Here is my proposal. Let the NEFC/Crosstown area develop by with the viaducts in place, and see what the result is. We can always rip the viaducts down in the future. Chances are if we took them down now (and by now I mean in the relative future, before the area has had time to develop) we would NEVER be able to put them back.

The area around International Village has only just seen the completion of Espana and Firenze which are what, 6 towers combined? Let the people move in and the neighbourhood grow. Almost all the retail space is empty down there, but it won't stay like that over the next couple years. We are getting we ahead of ourselves here. Let the plans for the area play out as they have been envisioned and worry about any changes to the viaducts later.

I agree, BC Place does look good without the roof, eh? Too bad we don't have a retractable roof like Rogers Centre that fits for BC Place - we would have an awesome roof, then! Hehe..

Wasn't BC Place built to attract a MLB franchise back in the 80's? Maybe that's still a reality down the future, with an upgraded BC Place (though, unlikely, but you never know...)

[officedweller]

And with respect to freeing up available land, lowrise buildings can be built under the viaducts to improvement the streetscape and density can be transferred to other sites to take advantage of the "lost" density.

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Does anyone know when this will get built? I might have missed it somewhere in this thread - my apologies. I'm just curious as to when the project will get done, 'cause I think it looks promising for the downtown residents, but also for vancouver residents going to downtown. makes it more convenient to get around to places.

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by Vancity

Does anyone know when this will get built? I might have missed it somewhere in this thread - my apologies. I'm just curious as to when the project will get done, 'cause I think it looks promising for the downtown residents, but also for vancouver residents going to downtown. makes it more convenient to get around to places.

I seem to recall speculation that it won't be. Though, it depends how well the Olympic trial goes.

I'll definitely take it a few times to Granville Island to help it out.

[johnjimbc]

In all seriousness, what about just placing a really nice "seawall" style separate pedestrian and bike path area along the length under both viaducts, complete with landscaping and athletic and play parks under the Georgia viaduct and little art and fountain park areas under the Dunsmuir one? A portion of the Georgia Viaduct "Park" could connect to the park area planned for that part of the NEFC. They could then expand the residential around the false-creek side of Georgia viaduct and vastly expand the business corridor on the other side (including the area between the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts). It would make for a rather graceful border between the two areas and utilize the space in an approachable fashion. The bike and pedestrian paths could cross new streets crossing underneath the viaducts just as another automobile street would - with street lights and all.

My fear of beginning to place buildings under the viaducts is two-fold. One, they would need to be pretty low low-rises - the viaducts do not sit that high. Secondly, any building will have an alley area behind it, which begins to emphasize the dead and dingy "underpass" atmosphere that makes them so undesirable anyhow. I think it would be best to make the space something desirable rather than exacerbate the downside that makes highways so unfriendly to any form of existence other than autos.

Anyone who has not seen the area where the false creek seawall goes under the Cambie bridge should check it out. It works to have those recreational areas under the overpass there . . . it even allows for basketball games when its raining out. You could accomplish the same feel for the existing viaducts while developing the areas around them.

[Metro-One]

Good point, the area under the ducts would be great for such outdoor uses given that they provide shelter from the rain during the winter, perfect for tennis courts, bike paths, etc...

[mezzanine]

I can't recall if i'v said this already (this thread really has legs..), but i think of when they blocked off alternating lanes on georgia at granville for road improvements this summer - east boung traffic from the bridge was backed up to thurlow regularly. The viaducts really do move and disperse traffic thru and out of downtown quite effectively.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

I can't recall if i'v said this already (this thread really has legs..), but i think of when they blocked off alternating lanes on georgia at granville for road improvements this summer - east boung traffic from the bridge was backed up to thurlow regularly. The viaducts really do move and disperse traffic thru and out of downtown quite effectively.

I don't understand the logic to the arguments to keep the viaducts. If the 1960s freeways had been built, you'd say the same about them - they move people out of the downtown.

We need to stop thinking about moving cars and instead moving people. Sure the elevated roads move cars, there's nothing on them to slow traffic - just the same as crossing the Granville or Cambie bridges. But, the viaducts alienate the land below and the viaducts are too big and too low for the space underneath to become an inviting pedestrian environment (unlike under the Grnaville Bridge - Granville Island - which is inviting).

The best use of the land is to tear down the viaducts and reconnect the city street grid. Do not add any more lane capacity, just remove it. Transit into downtown Vancouver and other alternatives to the car are viable. Vancouver doesn't need the viaducts and they do not add anything to the urban environment.

[Metro-One]

You forgot to add "IMO" Some of us thing that the area under the ducts around the stadiums is one of the most unique and "urban" looking areas in the city. Amenities such as the skate park seem to do just fine under them as well, in fact, they meet the character of many urban amenities that are missing in this city.

You want to take down the ducts, not add any more lanes, and then have 4 lanes of what is left taken away by the street car.

So essentially, you want to reduce the east/west entrance into downtown by 10 lanes! *if I read your post correctly*

Wow, now I know you are someone with an agenda.

Also, if you don't like what is built under and around the ducts, then you don't have to go there.

Other people with imaginations can actually see many possibilities for under and around the ducts. in fact, they give us an opportunity to build some features and amenities that otherwise would not be as able due to such high land prices in the downtown area.

[LotusLand]

build some low rise social housing under the viaducts. The homeless squat under them anyways. At the base line it with retail. You might be able to get some good value and make the most use out of the land

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by LotusLand

build some low rise social housing under the viaducts. The homeless squat under them anyways. At the base line it with retail. You might be able to get some good value and make the most use out of the land

It's inhumane to have social housing that isn't in $600,000 waterfront condos, don't ya know.

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

You forgot to add "IMO"

YOU of all people say this? The dude that just, one post before, said "Smart city planners will decide to keep the ducts and utilize them to their full potential." as if anyone who disagrees with you is a. . .stupid city planner? Own medicine, buddy. Taste.

Once again, I'm for the near-future use of the viaducts with their EVENTUAL removal/conversion into a unique, Highline-esque park space. Hopefully the planners that were designing NEFC would understand that the viaducts were coming down and therefore all streets planned wouldn't be local, traffic calmed lanes - they would make allowances for the fact that traffic would be flowing through to downtown.