Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I still don't get it. Viaducts unsafe? Tear down the viaducts!

Massey Tunnel unsafe? Uh... keep the tunnel and fix it! And build another one!

Developers bribed CoV for the viaduct removal. Can't build towers in South Delta/Tsawassen so there's no bribery coming there.

Originally Posted by casper

It a fairly significant drop from West Georgia down to the level where Expo Blvard is.

What would have been cool is to create an underground street network that serves the two stadiums, Costco and other buildings in the area. Similar to what exists for around the convention centre. You could then build a much more pedestrian friendly street environment above all of that and gradually slope that down similar to the existing viaducts.

The difference between north of the tracks on Burrard inlet and the viaducts/Pacific Blvd is the amount of traffic going through. Most people don't even know you can drive through the convention centre to Main street, and it's not the fastest way unless everything is backed up. Pacific Blvd and south/southeast downtown will always have a ton of cars coming through it, you can't just block it.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

What sort of rapid transit do you feel they should supply? There's already a SkyTrain right there.

1) The Viaducts serve downtown as a whole, not just Creekside and Crosstown; the new arterial will have to as well. If built in conjunction with a downtown streetcar and/or a Hastings SkyTrain, then fine, but otherwise it's probably going to be undercapacity pretty fast.

2) Stadium-Chinatown's about five blocks away - not quite "right there."
Yes, I know people will walk great distances to good transit, but the new district's supposed to attract residents and tourists from all over Metro Van; a downtown LRT or SkyTrain "beltway" would work better than an already-crowded SkyTrain station on the other side of Rogers Arena.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Oh yeah, that's what we really need - an at grade transit system in the densest mixed traffic of the region that blocks and is blocked by other vehicles and can't go around obstructions.

Let's be fair, the existing Downtown Streetcar proposal already has a ROW up to Pacific, and the rest of it's a straight shot through a couple of side roads rather than arteries. Unlike Surrey, Vancouver City Hall has both existing density (so they don't need "rail bias" to spur development) and what appears to be a sane engineering team.

[WarrenC12]

Viaducts... just do it already, stop yapping.

In order for the streetcar to have a hope of success it needs to connect Granville Island, Olympic Village, Main St/Science World, Gastown, Waterfront, and Stanley Park (specifically the Aquarium).

[casper]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Developers bribed CoV for the viaduct removal. Can't build towers in South Delta/Tsawassen so there's no bribery coming there.



The difference between north of the tracks on Burrard inlet and the viaducts/Pacific Blvd is the amount of traffic going through. Most people don't even know you can drive through the convention centre to Main street, and it's not the fastest way unless everything is backed up. Pacific Blvd and south/southeast downtown will always have a ton of cars coming through it, you can't just block it.

Drive through Expo Blvd and Grifiths, they are already very much an underground roadway. Just needs to be extended and fully enclosed a bit more. Makes for a good truck and service route as well as a nice way of accessing parking for the highrise buildings in the area. Pacific around the stadiums could also be make as underground streets. You can then built another street above that it.

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Their other theory is that the viaducts in an earthquake would drop onto the Skytrain because of unstable soil conditions.

How much better are the foundations of the guideway in the area. Likelihood they studied that before coming up with this "theory"... Zero?

There's archived video of piledriving for all of the guideway columns on the flats. They go down at least 60 feet. At the very least they aren't just sitting on top of a lump of concrete.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by casper

It a fairly significant drop from West Georgia down to the level where Expo Blvard is.

What would have been cool is to create an underground street network that serves the two stadiums, Costco and other buildings in the area. Similar to what exists for around the convention centre. You could then build a much more pedestrian friendly street environment above all of that and gradually slope that down similar to the existing viaducts.

You can already drive through the Spectrum / Costco parking garage to get from Expo Blvd to Beatty Street.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by rickvug

I'm all for the NEFC plan, including ripping down the viaducts. This isn't about seismic safety. This is about city building. I wish the city would stop talking about seismic upgrade costs as the justification. Talk about what's the best use for the land and what this big move will do for the city. The viaducts don't justify themselves given the value of the land and the fact that they aren't connected to the freeways. It is as simple as that. A bit more congestion will be a small price to pay for a world class waterfront park, a new entertainment zone, a better integrated Main Street, and the general eastward growth of the downtown core. None of this would be cohesive or economical if the viaducts weren't removed.

If you rip down a good city infrastructure and rebuild something less inefficient, you are not only ripping off current tax payers and residents, but also thousands of people who toiled in the past paying taxes to get that piece of infrastructure built. Who gains in the end? You? Me? Think about it.

[MIPS]

For me really all I can think of is that the city is terrified about building anything underneath it which in a place like Vancouver makes no sense and almost seems like a dumb rule set out by a game like Sim City where one square of land will only and can only be occupied by one thing at a time.
I believe right now city zoning has only allowed for the development of parking lots, a skateboard park and a contaminated soil transfer station....and that one building on the east end by the SkyTrain tracks that has seemingly been there forever but nobody knows what it is.

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by casper

Drive through Expo Blvd and Grifiths, they are already very much an underground roadway. Just needs to be extended and fully enclosed a bit more. Makes for a good truck and service route as well as a nice way of accessing parking for the highrise buildings in the area. Pacific around the stadiums could also be make as underground streets. You can then built another street above that it.

I drive down them every day. You were the one talking about changing things. They're (mostly) enclosed due to the viaducts, which are very much needed.

Expo and Pacific are much more than "truck and service routes," they're a critical artery for tens of thousands of people. Same with the viaducts. It's the one part of town that is built to adequate scale and of course Vancouverites want to ruin it.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Pinion

I drive down them every day. You were the one talking about changing things. They're (mostly) enclosed due to the viaducts, which are very much needed.

Expo and Pacific are much more than "truck and service routes," they're a critical artery for tens of thousands of people. Same with the viaducts. It's the one part of town that is built to adequate scale and of course Vancouverites want to ruin it.

A lot of Vancouverites haven't travelled too much, and/or lived in other cities. They're being led down the garden path by a deceitful pied piper who shall remain nameless.
A lot of the same people have been lulled into a vision of a dreamsville by the ocean where everything is roses, no pollution, little traffic, people on bikes, whistling merrily as they go.
They cannot, or will not accept, that until Yellowstone volcano explodes, The Big One hits, or a nuke happens, there's still lots of oil in the ground and cars will be here for a long time.
If they're really going to tear down the viaducts, they need to build connector road tunnels to take up the slack, because the bottlenecks at the lights will be horrendous.
And city hall and its sycophants have to stop lying (yeah, lying) to everyone about how good and easy this is all going to be. It's going to be a freaking disaster without other infrastructure.

[rickvug]

Originally Posted by Vin

If you rip down a good city infrastructure and rebuild something less inefficient, you are not only ripping off current tax payers and residents, but also thousands of people who toiled in the past paying taxes to get that piece of infrastructure built. Who gains in the end? You? Me? Think about it.

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.

[rickvug]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

If they're really going to tear down the viaducts, they need to build connector road tunnels to take up the slack, because the bottlenecks at the lights will be horrendous.

While I don't value road capacity as highly as some others (see my last post) I do think you have a point here. If Vancouver and the province were to invest in road capacity what about expanding 1st Ave to 6 lanes, with some portions tunnelled? The right of way is wide enough up until Nanaimo, which conveniently is also a hill. Tunnel into that hill to bypass the slow Commercial Drive section. Exit the tunnel at Clark to connect with a Malkin connector and perhaps Terminal as well. You now have extra lanes of capacity (with counterflow potential even) and have saved 6 stoplights. That should more than make up for the increased congestion when trying to get out of the downtown.

All of this said, the above is extremely expensive. I'd rather see a downtown congestion charge, Skytrain system, and streetcar system to hold the line on downtown traffic before investing in road capacity that would likely induce demand.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by rickvug

While I don't value road capacity as highly as some others (see my last post) I do think you have a point here. If Vancouver and the province were to invest in road capacity what about expanding 1st Ave to 6 lanes, with some portions tunnelled? The right of way is wide enough up until Nanaimo, which conveniently is also a hill. Tunnel into that hill to bypass the slow Commercial Drive section. Exit the tunnel at Clark to connect with a Malkin connector and perhaps Terminal as well. You now have extra lanes of capacity (with counterflow potential even) and have saved 6 stoplights. That should more than make up for the increased congestion when trying to get out of the downtown.

Sounds like a plan. That plus a SkyTrain down Hastings should more than compensate for the viaducts' removal.

Originally Posted by rickvug

All of this said, the above is extremely expensive. I'd rather see a downtown congestion charge, Skytrain system, and streetcar system to hold the line on downtown traffic before investing in road capacity that would likely induce demand.

No argument here - we need heavy rapid transit spending to take pressure off the road network. So long as we all understand the need to actually have a proper road network at the end of the day (*cough* City Hall *cough*)...

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sounds like a plan. That plus a SkyTrain down Hastings should more than compensate for the viaducts' removal.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
No argument here - we need heavy rapid transit spending to take pressure off the road network. So long as we all understand the need to actually have a proper road network at the end of the day (*cough* City Hall *cough*)...

For examples of how other cities manage vehicular traffic, as well as transit, many people use American examples. Often such examples are not so good, due to the US emphasis on cars.
*
For better examples, I'd suggest looking at European cities: ex; Stockholm, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, even Paris. It's different over there, as transit is much more heavily built up.
Also, they use a lot of road connectors, freeways eve, but such as here in Paris, much of it is often underground and does not cut up and scar neighbourhoods as in the USA.

[WarrenC12]

Gotta get rid of on street parking on the major east-west roadways: Hastings, 1st, Broadway, 12th.

And either add left turn lanes or ban left turns on these routes as well, for each crossing.

Those 2 items would solve a ton of problems IMO.

[casper]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Gotta get rid of on street parking on the major east-west roadways: Hastings, 1st, Broadway, 12th.

And either add left turn lanes or ban left turns on these routes as well, for each crossing.

Those 2 items would solve a ton of problems IMO.

I think much of Hasting (outside of the downtown east side) is a viable and pleasant pedestrian environment for window shopping. The parking along the street adds a buffer between the traffic and the sidewalk. I think if you removed the parking it would make it less desirable.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by MIPS

For me really all I can think of is that the city is terrified about building anything underneath it which in a place like Vancouver makes no sense and almost seems like a dumb rule set out by a game like Sim City where one square of land will only and can only be occupied by one thing at a time.
I believe right now city zoning has only allowed for the development of parking lots, a skateboard park and a contaminated soil transfer station....and that one building on the east end by the SkyTrain tracks that has seemingly been there forever but nobody knows what it is.

Yeah because fires underneath roads have never happened. Oh wait.

[Aroundtheworld]

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.

[Migrant_Coconut]

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!

[officedweller]

I think you'll see some traffic from 1st Ave / Terminal opt to enter downtown via the south side of False Creek and Cambie Bridge
instead of through the stadium area (the new Georgia St. ramp or Pender St./Hastings St.)

You may also have traffic from Hwy 1 opt to take 12th Ave. then Cambie St. instead of 1st Ave.