Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[junius]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Your point is well made. now, my point: where are you going to put all the traffic that currently uses the viaducts daily to travel east-west in and out of downtown?

What specific concept do you have in mind?

Your ideas are fine in principle, but what are the TANGIBLE options to the viaducts, please

The example given a long time ago on this thread was from South Korea where a similar viaduct removal did not result in congestion elsewhere. It is counter-intuitive but the assumption from planners is that the car owners simply adjust either by re-routing, re-timing or not driving. Fair enough assumption when the opposite is the case which is that when congestion is solved by adding new roads they soon become congested as traffic expands to fill the availability.

[Yume-sama]

The problem with that example is that Seoul is a very large city, with a huge network of roads, ring roads, and expressways, along with local options. It was a redundant road that was taken away. You can't just simply take away one of the only options. Now, if we were to build a road on top of this road, and then take the old road down, that would be the same situation. Technically, we would have eliminated a viaduct. Now, just ignore the fact that we built many others. Also ignore the fact that car ownership in South Korea has been steadily on the rise, and one of the highest in the region.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Paris has a fabulous freeway system that takes many cars off the streets. Most of the freeway system is underground, which is why it has little visual/aesthetic impact.

Shhhhhh... don't say that too loud. People might begin to think that Paris is 'unlivable'.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by racc

You keep spouting forth the same tired rhetoric without any evidence to back it up. Meanwhile, the census proves that people who live near downtown just don't drive that much.

So, you want to keep other people out of downtown? Downtown for downtowners only?

It's the people who come a long distance, to work in and contribute to Downtown Vancouver who use the Viaducts. Some people spend an hour in their car, because taking transit would be double that. I used to live in Burquitlam, and on average it would take 20 minutes longer to take transit than drive into downtown during rush hour. When I lived near Austin in Coquitlam, the difference was bigger (yet I was closer to Lougheed station). I already owned a car for personal reasons, so on most days I would take transit to avoid the time and money spent on parking. It might take longer on transit, but you avoid a lot of stress. But if I was in a hurry or had someplace to go after work, I would drive.

Originally Posted by racc

I understand that you don't like the idea of tearing down the viaducts. That is fine. You don't like the thought of losing something you like to use. I understand, I don't like losing things I use either. Just don't pretend that it would be a big problem for the city. There will be issues but if we all use our creativity to find ways to make it work rather than excuses why it can't, everything will be just fine. In fact, it would make the city a much better place to live in.

How? How would tearing down the Viaducts make life for everyone better? It will make life for a few thousand better (or the same as it was before but just in a different place) and inconvienience tens of thousands more. And not just people who take the Viaduct. Other roads that are Okay now will get busier with increased load. So people enjoying their trip on Powell or Hastings will have to put up with extra traffic, including people on buses.

The region is growing, every year there are still new jobs downtown. More people work and play there each and every day. Why would you reduce capacity for those people to get there? The other roads work well as they are. Skytrain and Canada Line are at near tolerable capacity. Why remove something before you introduce something else new?

The viaducts aren't preventing development of any kind. They just finished a tower on Abbott right next to the Viaduct, and Spectrum has been finished for some time. Building GM place right between them didn't seem difficult either, and I don't remember them putting a crimp on the festivities of Expo, or when we used to have the Indy, and the "unused" land seemed to come in handy for the Cirque tent and Flugtag.

NEFC is as bare as SEFC was a just a couple years ago. There are still large swaths of SEFC to be developed. What's keeping that from happening, or kept it from happening the past 10 years, the impenetrable divide of W 2nd or the Cambie Street Bridge? The viaducts aren't a forcefield, or something you have to duck to get under. It's a span of less than a block. Concord just started developing in the West and has been moving east towards the Viaducts. The buildings on Cooperage Way near the Plaza just opened recently.

This isn't Dubai where we can basically enslave a lower immigrant class and use resource profits to build us a city in a few years. Development is determined by what the market will bare. Not just demand, but it also depends on the labor market. There is no way we could have built up Yaletown AND have NEFC finished without either people willing to work for $3/hour pouring concrete OR people willing to spend $1.5 million on a 450 square foot condo. And if we did, what kind of civilization would we be?

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by junius

The example given a long time ago on this thread was from South Korea where a similar viaduct removal did not result in congestion elsewhere. It is counter-intuitive but the assumption from planners is that the car owners simply adjust either by re-routing, re-timing or not driving. Fair enough assumption when the opposite is the case which is that when congestion is solved by adding new roads they soon become congested as traffic expands to fill the availability.

But this depends entirely on the situations and other variables.

Take this hypothetical:

You have a city that is running steady, constant and well. You might have traffic, but under normal conditions it is the same everyday. The situation is constant.

If you remove a major road, and the instantaneous result is that traffic is so bad on adjoining roads that people adapt by taking longer, less busy routes or by taking transit, thus increasing delays and travel times on those modes.

The end result is that thousands of people now take longer to travel. We are talking about an entire city worth of people losing between a few minutes (because of a full bus or busier than used to be traffic light) to an hour (going from a fast drive to slow bus) each. Even if you never used the missing road, your mode will be impacted by an influx of people using your road, cross roads, or your bus. Everywhere will be slower, not by a lot, just by a few minutes. Add that up it is hundreds of hours of lost time. Add to that the dollar and environmental cost of extra fuel burnt by people driving the "long way", more stop and go or by idling in traffic.

The micro view might be no big deal to some, a few minutes here and there, but to others it could be an hour a day or more lost. The macro view is very significant.

Think of what you want to do tonight when you get home, the chores or entertainment. Now when you get home sit still for an hour. That's what some real people will be losing, now multiply it by thousands. That's thousands of parents who will have less time to spend helping their kids with homework, or have less time to cook a healthy meal (so they stop for drive through) or less time to go for a run or play sports.

Losing the Viaduct might add another neighbourhood of condos, townhouses and trendy shops to the downtown for the elite to enjoy (we do need more sidewalks soiled with dog poop don't we?) but the cost is very measurable in the time stolen from the commuting working folk.

While losing the viaducts might not cost any individual more than 10 more minutes in a car (not like an hour losing a bridge would) as a whole, for even just 24,000 individuals, that's 4000 hours of lost time.

I don't see the trade. What do we, as a society in whole, gain from removing the Viaducts? How does it outweigh the loss?

Now I think the viaducts won't be around forever, but change takes time. Removing them to build some condos without other supporting infrastructure in place first for a growing region (explosive growth at times too) will harm us all for a quick buck. With out vastly expanded commuter rail into the valley (north and south of the river) and extended skytrain lines where we don't even picture them being today (Hastings).

Bringing driving time down to the level of transit won't work in switching people from cars to trains. You need to offer better train service first. For example, WCE from Mission is better than driving, until that is a reality EVERYWHERE what makes it right to make life worse, instead of better?

[Architype]

The viaducts are not that much of a barrier, certainly not more than trying to cross a busy multi-lane street at surface level. All you need is plenty of North-South connections underneath them, and some aesthetic improvements.

[SpongeG]

if it ain't broke don't fix it

[deasine]

Originally Posted by junius

The example given a long time ago on this thread was from South Korea where a similar viaduct removal did not result in congestion elsewhere. It is counter-intuitive but the assumption from planners is that the car owners simply adjust either by re-routing, re-timing or not driving. Fair enough assumption when the opposite is the case which is that when congestion is solved by adding new roads they soon become congested as traffic expands to fill the availability.

The case with Seoul is they did a massive public transportation investment when they removed the highway, not just one line of BRTs, but several connection buses. Seoul also restored the "chungus" stream (don't know how it's spelled) and they really made a park in between two roads, which made that an attraction in itself. Mind you, the people that continued to drive, which many did, chose to use other high capacity routes.

I guess trofirhen's question, at least mine, is what are others suggesting to the case of Vancouver, not in other places.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

While losing the viaducts might not cost any individual more than 10 more minutes in a car (not like an hour losing a bridge would) as a whole, for even just 24,000 individuals, that's 4000 hours of lost time.

It's also useful to look at the cost of these projects. Often they're not really that large when considered on a per capita basis. 5 minutes is not the end of the world to a driver, but neither is $2, so it doesn't make sense to claim that small individual delays are not worth considering.

I'm not sure it's that important to remove the viaducts. There's room for lots of pedestrian improvements and infill given the current setup, and the more valuable land around the water is becoming nicely developed.

As for the highway system, it is true that Vancouver's is very small, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing as long as the travel options are available. With some more rapid transit routes travel times could be quite good, and in a city like Vancouver where land is valuable they make more sense than tying up extra acres for cars.

It's useful to compare with other cities but often the situations are very different. Halifax topography is somewhat more broken up than Vancouver's and the road network is much older and less planned, so a few major routes have to carry a large percentage of traffic. It's also worth pointing out that both Halifax and Montreal have ill-conceived highway infrastructure (and in both cities there are plans to get rid of some of it).

[Metro-One]

But the ducts don't take up extra acres for cars, because they are grade separated, and our ducts compared to many sit very high with few pillars, this allows more sunshine and light beneath them and they do not create the same barrier as the Gardner Expressway, among others. As Locked In said the skytrain guideway is far more intrusive due to its design in that area then the ducts.

There are plenty of ways they can be integrated into the urban fabric, as many have shown on here. And again, all one has to do is look at the western end of the ducts to see it happening.

Also, as the area beneath the ducts has an opportunity to utilize any traffic calming measures it wants, simply because the cross traffic in that area has a decent alternative, this is what the ducts are for (at least should be used for). I am 100% for all forms of traffic calming in that area due to the presence of the ducts. This way cross traffic is taken off of the local streets below, freeing them up for trams, bicycles and pedestrians. I feel we have a good opportunity to build a unique community below and around these ducts.

Also for those talking about Seoul, while Seoul was taking down that one ducts (which has parallel high capacity road service) they were building more freeways in other areas.

I honestly feel the city should design the road system in the area so that all of the cross region traffic (or more of it) is funneled towards the ducts, making the roads below safer and more livable. And just because they are not jammed with traffic everyday does not mean they are not serving their purpose, in fact it could mean quite the opposite that they are efficient.

I support bike infrastructure (I would love to see a bike and pedestrian only bridge across False Creek), and anyone here knows that I fully support any mass transit improvements, but I also believe in having a decent road system.

[SpongeG]

so we could make room for more condos that people can't afford and than there are no jobs downtown so they have to reverse commute on congested routes or hop on a bicycle and pedal it to a suburban office park? is this the idea?

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

so we could make room for more condos that people can't afford and than there are no jobs downtown so they have to reverse commute on congested routes or hop on a bicycle and pedal it to a suburban office park? is this the idea?

You're attacking a straw man - the consensus has moved on.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Oh, and for anyone who has not seen it, Paris has a fabulous freeway system that takes many cars off the streets.
Most of the freeway system is underground, which is why it has little visual/aesthetic impact.

I think that is a great idea and should be imported here to Vancouver. They should extend the viaducts using that Malkin St. proposal and them bury the roadway down first avenue or the Grandview cut. If the latter option was chosen they can create a very impressive green-way above while still having practicality of added lanes without having them intrude on local neighbourhoods

[AlexYVR]

I'd like to start by saying that I'm not necessarily for the removal of the viaducts. BCPhil, you've got some very good points to make, but I do take umbridge with one and feel that you miss another: civic betterment and the 'opinion-as-fact' fallacy. To approach the 2nd point first:

The 'downtown elite': Because people make different choices in lifestyles does not make them 'elite'. I don't live downtown (though close), but wouldn't mind and am the target demographic for it. I'm 23, I rent, I'm educated but not overly so, I can't afford a car, and it's going to be a long time before I own. I have no problem with this because it allows me to live closer to the city and to the centre of what goes on in my life. I could just as easily argue that you - living out in the suburbs, wanting to be/being landed gentry, owning a vehicle - are much more 'elite' than myself.

When we're at the point where 88,000 people call downtown home - 1 in 6 Vancouverites - I don't think you can call them 'elite' any longer. This isn't a white collar vs. blue collar issue. Many downtowners rent to afford to live there, work double jobs, or live in sunrooms. Simply because their choices are not the same as yours does not make them think they're better, or 'elite'. I wish people could just accept lifestyle as lifestyle and not try and place it in a hierarchy.

The same goes for condos! It's not 'people' that like yards; it's you that likes yards. You are in a category with a large subset of people, yes, but please don't presume to tell me that I like yards or, worse, that I don't believe a condo is property. At 23, I'm in the perfect demographic to live in the city and in downtown. I firmly believe that density is needed and that, to retain a sense of nature, the city needs to invest heavily in shared, public spaces - which it has done. I don't need a yard if the nearest park is a block away and if I have kms and kms of seawall running around my entire city, and this includes when I have children. Just like I don't presume to tell you that you don't want to live in Burquitlam and have a yard and a white picket fence, please don't tell me that I do. The densified lifestyle works very well for many, many people. Condos are as big of sources of investment, equity, and security as houses. You saying that I aspire to own a 'box in the sky' is as ridiculous as me chiding you for not owning the entire block your house sits upon.

To the topic of the viaducts: I hope, eventually, they come down. Eventually. The city will need to invest much more in mass transit before this happens. This isn't to shut people out, or because I believe that downtown is for downtowners; it's because we all have a civic duty to make the occasional harder decision to ensure that the future is an improvement on the present. It’s a simple (if generalized) fact that transit reduces emissions over single occupancy vehicles. It is a simple fact that having each house separated by ½ an acre leads to longer driving distances (more emissions from cars), longer roads (more maintenance needed), increased utility distances (more pipes, wires, maintainance, etc), and so on and so forth. By encouraging people to reduce their automobile travel while simultaneously providing other options for comfortable transit, we will begin to move in that direction. Is it high speed rail into downtown instead of the viaducts? Is it increased bus service or more skytrain lines? That’s going to take years to figure out. It IS true, however, that with the removal of the viaducts, SOV travel will become more time consuming in Vancouver. The cost/benefit equation will shift and it will make more sense for more people to take transit, or to work nearer their homes. I think we can all agree that this is a good thing.

I would never call for the removal of all SOVs – at least not in the next 100 years. People deserve choice. Heavy trucks will always need a way in to the city. There are times when a car is necessary and useful and the right tool for the job, no doubt about it. Some jobs, such as construction and landscaping, will never be transit-appropriate. That doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t have to pay for the privilege of an automobile. BCPhil, just like in your example about transit users that should be happy to pay tax for their car-owning coworkers, those SOV occupants should realize that people who take transit are not putting strain on the roadways every year; they’re not using up excess capacity; and they are reducing smog and emissions in the Lower Mainland, all very real benefits that SOV users can enjoy. I guess what I’m saying (always) is that there’s two sides to the debate.

And finally, for the future:

I would be interested in exploring the possibility of turning the viaducts into a ‘commercial only’ zone – trucking and heavy commercial users being allowed on while residential/commuter/visitor traffic would be shuttled along pacific or through Chinatown. This would preserve the ingress and egress of business to the city which so worries some people on this board while encouraging carpooling and transit options for those who have them available.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

I think that is a great idea and should be imported here to Vancouver. They should extend the viaducts using that Malkin St. proposal and them bury the roadway down first avenue or the Grandview cut. If the latter option was chosen they can create a very impressive green-way above while still having practicality of added lanes without having them intrude on local neighbourhoods

Thanks, EastVanMark, but I tried suggesting putting roads underground several months back, and almost everyone disagreed vehemently with the idea, for any and all reasons.

I still adhere to it, and if you do too, then I really appreciate that. We're about the only ones who do around here.

[johnjimbc]

Some cities have transformed viaducts to functional and perfectly acceptable ground level avenues so to advocate that there is no possibility of doing so here is ridiculous. It's been done in larger cities than Vancouver.

However, I think in this case the best bet is to simply work with the existing structures. They are there and are functional.

I have seen areas beneath viaducts in cities that were functional, clean areas (picture a park on either side and sports areas underneath). As long as the area is developed in an inviting way and natural light is allowed on either side, they can work fine. Where it fails is when they are aloud to decay and fester, becoming de facto garbage dumps in the city. No one would want to be there or even walk through them. And once they do degrade, it's pretty much a lost area and a wall to human pedestrian activity.

Since the area on either side is largely undeveloped anyhow, there is an opportunity to craft a plan that works with the existing viaducts to ensure that any development incorporates smart designs working with the viaducts. Georgetown in Washington DC has a large viaduct that is a rather vital connection that takes traffic around the narrow streets of the neighborhood itself, instead taking autos around the area and into the heart of the federal core. In recent years they've created a really nice park system along the river on one side of the viaduct ( great video showing the transformation in the link . . . park is now complete http://www.georgetownwaterfrontpk.org/ ). Under the viaduct itself is a smaller local street with wide sidewalks on either side. On the "city" side of the viaduct - opposite the "park" side, there are entrances to both residential and office buildings. There is even a large theatre entrance under the viaduct in one restored heritage building - an old industrial facility that is also incorporated into a very high-end Ritz Carlton hotel / residential complex.

For those buildings that are residential, the residential suites start a few levels up so they view "over" the viaduct rather than underneath it. It's not that it looks that bad - in fact, now anything there would look across to the new park system. But it does allow for more light to have them over the viaduct, and they get better views of the Potomac River. I've been in those units and you hardly even notice the highway - the view of the river and the city are what you notice. It's no different than having a building over a busy avenue in a city. The whole area works fine. Some of the more expensive condos in the city are located in that strip.

The effort did take work. When I first saw the city in the 80s (it had a lot of other issues as well then!), the area under the viaduct was creepy, and what is now the park was a really shabby gravel and dirt parking area. It looked more like an impound lot than a livable urban waterfront.

The fact that they were able to transform that area without touching the viaduct shows it can be done.
_____________

However, having said that, I draw the line at advocating MORE viaducts be built. Nah, let's not do that. Many cities were crippled by that lure in the 50s and 60s, when big highway interests advocated ringing all downtown cores with major freeways. There is no surer way to drain a city of life than to build monolithic highway infrastructure through and over and around everything. For new traffic flow, we need to be a little smarter about how to incorporate any new infrastructure.

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by johnjimbc

_____________

However, having said that, I draw the line at advocating MORE viaducts be built. Nah, let's not do that. Many cities were crippled by that lure in the 50s and 60s, when big highway interests advocated ringing all downtown cores with major freeways. There is no surer way to drain a city of life than to build monolithic highway infrastructure through and over and around everything. For new traffic flow, we need to be a little smarter about how to incorporate any new infrastructure.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

They should extend the viaducts using that Malkin St. proposal and them bury the roadway down first avenue or the Grandview cut. If the latter option was chosen they can create a very impressive green-way above while still having practicality of added lanes without having them intrude on local neighbourhoods

I suspect that something to that effect will eventually become a reality as pressure on the existing system within the City of Vancouver exacerbates itself. The Cassiar Connector tunnel is a case in point.

Too much pressure was building on the system between Rupert Park and the IWMSNB with thru traffic and voilà the tunnel was built making that above ground neighbourhood more 'livable'.

Another 1 million residents are projected for the Metro Vancouver region over the next thirty years and that population is funnelling eastward/south eastward in the region.

It's no wonder that many residents in East Vancouver continue to be up in arms over the thru traffic coming off Hwy 1 to 1st Ave., Granview/12th, and Hastings. These local routes were never designed to handle that thru traffic mixing in with local traffic and it will only become worse over time. And that thru traffic doesn't equate to 'commuter' traffic for the 9 to 5.

Downtown Vancouver is also downtown Metro Vancouver. Take away downtown Vancouver and the adjacent areas and the City of Vancouver is nothing more than typical suburban sfd residential sprawl full of NIMBYS who want to preserve their sfd neighbourhoods.

So yeah, a north/south and east/west free-flow tunnel through the City of Vancouver will eventually one day become a reality to take pressure off the system and make the surface residential streets/neighbourhoods more 'livable'.

To paraphrase Marie Antoinette: "Let them take transit" will never fly with the majority of the region's residents and that's just a fact of life.

[Metro-One]

I would support tunneled roadways in Vancouver, as has been said before many cities around the globe have been doing so.

And for johnjimbc, no one here is advocating building more viaducts downtown, just preserving these ones which are only at mid life and are currently very functional (and as I said before when the area develops can be used to take all cross region traffic out of the local streets below, freeing them up for trams, pedestrians and bikes, this is how layers work when used properly!)

Also don't forget people that the city plans to build a streetcar crossing all the surface roads into Vancouver along the east/west divide and that will run along Pacific Boulevard, Powell and Cordova streets, which are all east/west connecting streets, so essentially all of the east/west streets will be intersected by the street car and nearly half of the east/west connector streets will have the streetcar running down them. This will add further possible congestion to the east/west connections and does it not make sense to keep the viaducts and funnel commercial and cross region traffic onto them to help free up the streets below for the streetcars and local traffic, pedestrians, cyclists, etc...???



This will affect the already restrained east/west connections much more then the more properly built north/south connections.

[johnjimbc]

Actually a few pages back more than one person was advocating for more viaducts. The last part of my comment was addressing those comments.

Granted it may be a small group of people, but I was responding directly to an argument put forth in this discussion that more viaducts were needed.