Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by Vin

So, come again?

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/conco...se-creek-plans

I was right? 41 storeys on Georgia will barely stick up over the old 30 storey table top from most angles, and the rest of the buildings to the east are stumps.

[theKB]

So now that the chief proponent of the Viaduct tear-down is leaving city council, does that mean we can bring some sanity back into the discussion?!

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by theKB

So now that the chief proponent of the Viaduct tear-down is leaving city council, does that mean we can bring some sanity back into the discussion?!

No because (and here I'm going to kick off a conspiracy theory for you all to glom onto) Geoff Meggs be the Premier's Chief of Staff and thus will have the ear of the Premier who will then give TransLink direction to remove the viaducts from the MRN and pave the way (ha!) for the viaducts to come down.

[nickbeaulieu]

it's annoying that they keep having all these different designs for this space. First it's a huge park... then it's a huge park... now it's a huge development. Just friggin' get on with it, the giant paved eyesore has been there long enough

[Vin]

Originally Posted by whatnext

But people are still going to have to "get there" first. With few offices around, there would not be enough local foot traffic around to sustain it.

You forget that there's skytrain. How do people get there? Same as how people will get to Rogers Arena, BC Place Stadium and the new Casino. There will be tons of foot traffic here in the future to sustain it.

Originally Posted by theKB

I have to say that looks very cool... the floating restaurant makes me wonder if that is the future use of the mcbarge that was rumoured a long time ago.

White that said, the "active bridge" is ridiculous and the viaducts could be maintained and executed in the same way as the complaints are really unfounded if they plan on maintaining a similar structure for people to walk on. They could easily beautify and execute a plan underneath the viaducts.

Totally agree with you on that. They can still build the same number of condo units and offer the same park space with the viaducts intact too. The whole neighbourhood would be more interesting, and at the same time, less congested.

[waves]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

No because (and here I'm going to kick off a conspiracy theory for you all to glom onto) Geoff Meggs be the Premier's Chief of Staff and thus will have the ear of the Premier who will then give TransLink direction to remove the viaducts from the MRN and pave the way (ha!) for the viaducts to come down.

Does Translink even own the viaducts?

[Spork]

Originally Posted by waves

Does Translink even own the viaducts?

They don't own them, but they do have veto power as to what happens to them as they are part of the MRN. As has been discussed in this thread, Surrey had some road's removal (32nd avenue?) from the MRN denied by Translink.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Spork

They don't own them, but they do have veto power as to what happens to them as they are part of the MRN. As has been discussed in this thread, Surrey had some road's removal (32nd avenue?) from the MRN denied by Translink.

Yeah, and New West keeps trying to get Royal Avenue removed from the MRN too (as if that'll ever happen). It might be a little different for Vancouver because they're not just asking for the designation to be removed, they're talking about removing the entire road.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Yeah, and New West keeps trying to get Royal Avenue removed from the MRN too (as if that'll ever happen). It might be a little different for Vancouver because they're not just asking for the designation to be removed, they're talking about removing the entire road.

Well they're replacing it with a 10 lane road down Georgia to Pacific.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Well they're replacing it with a 10 lane road down Georgia to Pacific.

Or 8, or 6, depending who you talk to. The viaducts are 4 lanes, Pacific and Expo are 4 lanes today. A replacement at 8 lanes would theoretically allow the same amount of traffic flow, but there's so many more factors other than lane count that impact the flow of traffic in a busy area like downtown.

[Pinion]

Yep. Hopefully Georgia and Pacific won't be like Robson and Burrard where only one car will be able to turn right/left for every green light due to pedestrians ignoring the signals constantly.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Or 8, or 6, depending who you talk to. The viaducts are 4 lanes, Pacific and Expo are 4 lanes today. A replacement at 8 lanes would theoretically allow the same amount of traffic flow, but there's so many more factors other than lane count that impact the flow of traffic in a busy area like downtown.

You don't really need that many more lanes to replicate the capacity of the viaducts, because they are bottlenecked at both ends by traffic lights anyway.

[Vin]

I think those sneaky planners in CoV only show the expanded road to be 6 lanes to portray how "normal" it would look after the viaducts come down. Otherwise they were just lying about building the super road. The general acceptance of the viaducts coming down is derived from misinformation and lies: nothing different from the outcomes of Brexit, Trump and, to a smaller extent, the BC provincial elections.

[jsbertram]

So some Strathcona residents have figured out that the new Malkin road and connector to Clarke means that a slice of Strathcona park and some community gardens will be lost to widen Malkin, and predictably they aren’t happy.

Malkin would have to be at least 2 lanes each way, plus another lane if you want to keep on-street parking. That’s as wide as Broadway at Cambie if you include the left-turn lanes at Clarke.

Time for a new idea. The first avenue tunnel.

Starting with western portals near Gore and Prior, the new TBM –built tunnel would head south and down deep into the glacier-packed ground beneath the man-made infill that turned this part of old False Creek into the rail yards and the industrial area last century. Conveniently, there is a finger of original ground south of the Gore and Prior intersection that may help with this construction.

Heading south under the future hospital before it gets built, and under the west edge of Trillium Park, under the Pacific Central tracks to Evans Ave., turning eastwards under the length of Evans Ave, under the BNSF yard and the light industrial area around Vernon Dr. and the Clark/1st intersection, avoiding the 1st Ave viaduct and you’ve cleared the man-made infill of what used to be False Creek.

Proceeding east under 1st Ave, the TBM tunnel would run to Nanaimo St where 1st Ave conveniently widens to accommodate the former BCER interurban train tracks that used to run between Vancouver and Burnaby/New West. The trees in the boulevard are not old growth, but were planted after the streetcar tracks were removed in the 1950s, and could be replanted after the tunnel is completed. This section can be built as cut’n’cover from Nanaimo eastwards to a connection with Boundary road.

As an express tunnel across the eastern part of the city, it will not have access to/from 1st Ave surface traffic except at the Boundary road eastern portal. There will be portals at Clarke, Commercial or Victoria (not both), Nanaimo, Renfrew, Rupert, TCH, and eastern portal at Boundary. These portals are only to handle northbound and southbound traffic on these streets that currently turns on to 1st Ave to go east or west.

The western portal of this tunnel would connect to the existing viaducts with reconfigured ramps, since the viaducts were designed and built to handle this type of traffic to and from Downtown.

If the city is going to spend several hundred $million, lets build something useful rather than destroy something that can become more useful. Victoria and Ottawa will likely chip in their typical 1/3 each of the cost of infrastructure to collect votes in B.C. It’s cheaper to spend a few $million on proper maintenance of the viaducts and also make them useful, instead of tearing them down.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

No because (and here I'm going to kick off a conspiracy theory for you all to glom onto) Geoff Meggs be the Premier's Chief of Staff and thus will have the ear of the Premier who will then give TransLink direction to remove the viaducts from the MRN and pave the way (ha!) for the viaducts to come down.

Sadly, I think you're right. The Viaducts are his pet project... no way he's gonna let sanity prevail and allow Vancouver to maintain them until they actually need to be replaced.

[waves]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Time for a new idea. The first avenue tunnel.

As much as I would love such a connection, it will never happen. But I am sure you already knew that.

If it were to happen though in fantasy land, we could borrow Bertha from Washington. Secondly, I would have only 1 portal between Hwy 1 and Main St and that would be Clark. If such infrastructure were to exist it should be an express route.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

No because (and here I'm going to kick off a conspiracy theory for you all to glom onto) Geoff Meggs be the Premier's Chief of Staff and thus will have the ear of the Premier who will then give TransLink direction to remove the viaducts from the MRN and pave the way (ha!) for the viaducts to come down.

Quite a conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, Translink has an internal or quasi-judicial mechanism in order to deal with municipal requests for either MRN or MTR removal.

Said mechanism is non-partisan and involves numerous stakeholders ultimately involving a written Translink report. Delta, Surrey, New Westminster et al have already been previously refused said MRN/MTR requests. Precedent has been set.

Nevertheless, should your "conspiracy theory" eventually see the light of day (politicization), it would not only negate previous Translink precedents but also open up municipal flood-gates for municipal fiefdoms (under local political pressure) to also follow suit on MRN/MTR removal, which then cannot be refused.

And Translink, under that "new" political precedent, would have no other alternative but to accept same. Would then result in the unraveling of Translink's entire MRN/MTR network into something irrelevant/piecemeal. IOW, a "mess".

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Quite a conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, Translink has an internal or quasi-judicial mechanism in order to deal with municipal requests for either MRN or MTR removal.

There's a difference between trying to simply remove a road from the Major Road Network altogether vs. substitute one route for another, which is what Vancouver's plan is.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

No because (and here I'm going to kick off a conspiracy theory for you all to glom onto) Geoff Meggs be the Premier's Chief of Staff and thus will have the ear of the Premier who will then give TransLink direction to remove the viaducts from the MRN and pave the way (ha!) for the viaducts to come down.

will horgan want to get involved in a city pet-project that destroys working infrastructure and thus lose votes?

hes got bigger fish to fry like stopping site-c and the twinning of the trans-mountain oil pipeline

[red-paladin]

I'm nor sure it ever mattered who was in power provincially. The viaducts are coming down regardless.