Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[racc]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It will be interesting to see what alternatives the study comes up with, but I don't think it makes sense to spend money tearing them down when they've still got 50 years of serviceable life in them. They're a perfectly good asset that shouldn't go to waste.

If they were near end-of-life then it would make sense to evaluate a range of options for replacing them. But tearing them down now really doesn't make any sense to me.

This is one of the main problems in the world today. We seem to be always punting the politically difficult decisions to the next generation while continuing to pile on expensive financial liabilities. The cost of maintaining and replacing the viaducts will only increase. Then, at some point, some city council in the future will have to make the difficult political decision of tearing down the viaducts or spending what likely will be billions of dollars 50 years from now to replace them.

Now, while I don't think we will have the traffic 50 years from now to make that too difficult a decision, it seems likely many of the people who like the viaducts, think there will be still a lot of traffic. OK, so then what happens to the traffic for the year or too it takes to rebuilt the viaducts, especially if they are "integrated into the urban fabric" like many of you say is an option. Anyway you look at it, it will be an expensive and difficult proposition.

How about for once, giving the future a break and making the politically courageous decision NOW and replace the viaducts with housing and parks.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by lezard

30 years of city planning that has had the result of Vancouver being in the top ten of various lists of most livable cities for years was council pursuing their "goals and biases".

Bad boys. Tsk tsk.

Sounds like a good reason not to screw with the viaducts.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by IanS

Sounds like a good reason not to screw with the viaducts.

Yes, the viaducts alone have made this city one of the most livable on the planet.

The point was that I doubt there is some secret two-weeled illuminati society turning the gears of power from the catacombs under city hall.

Vancouver has followed an overall vision in its planning that appears to have largely paid off over these last few decades.

An aspect of that vision was to avoid the mistakes other North American cities were making by focusing their transportation policies on single occupancy vehicle transit.

Whether the viaducts are needed or not, the study will show.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by racc

This is one of the main problems in the world today. We seem to be always punting the politically difficult decisions to the next generation while continuing to pile on expensive financial liabilities.

From a financial standpoint, I don't see how it makes sense to tear down a structure that is less than halfway though it's useful service life. This is a concrete-encased steel structure with fairly low maintenance costs - it's not like the Granville Bridge which has a team of people whose sole job is to paint the bridge girders for as long as the bridge stands.

The report to council estimates the maintenance costs at about $200,000 per year over the next 5 years. That's less than the cost of the study and WAY less than the cost of any possible replacement.

I see this as similar to the BC Place stadium renovation. They wanted to tear the whole thing down just because the roof was old. Didn't make any sense to me. Would you tear down your house just because the roof needed to be replaced?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by lezard

Yes, the viaducts alone have made this city one of the most livable on the planet.

Is that really what you think I said?

The point was that I doubt there is some secret two-weeled illuminati society turning the gears of power from the catacombs under city hall.

I"m in total agreement with that. In fact, there's nothing secret at all about what city hall is all about and what it hopes to accomplish by this study.

Vancouver has followed an overall vision in its planning that appears to have largely paid off over these last few decades.

I think that's largely correct. Which begs the question, if it's not broke, why "fix" it? It's not as if the viaducts are reaching the end of their useful life. It's not like there's been some ongoing debate about what to do with them. AFAIK, it simply wasn't an issue until this the current city hall embarked upon its program of discouraging car transportation.

Whether the viaducts are needed or not, the study will show.

And that would be the issue if the debate was whether or not to build the viaducts. But it's not. They're already there. Where's the pressing need to demolish them?

[p78hub]

Yeah.. I still don't see the point in tearing down the viaducts when they aren't dilapidated and still serve a useful function. As for being a barrier, it's not like it's the Berlin Wall...

[SpongeG]

the lack of parking is going to make people not want to drive - they are eliminating 2 hour spots more and more ever year and the metred spots are getting pricey - its just cheaper to take transit

[Alex Mackinnon]

That still doesn't lessen the fact that commercial traffic still needs to access downtown, and Downtown also see a lot of through traffic, even though most people avoid it like the plague.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by IanS

Is that really what you think I said?

Crash course in sarcasm?

And that would be the issue if the debate was whether or not to build the viaducts. But it's not. They're already there. Where's the pressing need to demolish them?

No pressing need, but I still don't see the reason for the hysteria surrounding council's decision to press on with a study.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

That still doesn't lessen the fact that commercial traffic still needs to access downtown, and Downtown also see a lot of through traffic, even though most people avoid it like the plague.

When you reach the point residents begin avoiding your CBD like the plague you know you're in trouble. The residents of all those pricy downtown condos will wonder why they ponyed up so much cash as retail, cultural and sporting institutions depart. It will be like living near Brentwood Mall.

[lezard]

Originally Posted by whatnext

When you reach the point residents begin avoiding your CBD like the plague you know you're in trouble. The residents of all those pricy downtown condos will wonder why they ponyed up so much cash as retail, cultural and sporting institutions depart. It will be like living near Brentwood Mall.

Is there evidence the Downtown is losing residents?

[racc]

Originally Posted by whatnext

When you reach the point residents begin avoiding your CBD like the plague you know you're in trouble. The residents of all those pricy downtown condos will wonder why they ponyed up so much cash as retail, cultural and sporting institutions depart. It will be like living near Brentwood Mall.

You mean like during the Olympics when both Viaducts were closed? Oh wait, hundreds of thousands of people per day came downtown on transit to enjoy cultural and sporting institutions. The Viaducts were closed and it was the best time in Vancouver ever. Lets build on that success!

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by lezard

Is there evidence the Downtown is losing residents?

no but many people in other areas don't like to go downtown unless you have to go down there there is no need to go

[lezard]

Originally Posted by racc

You mean like during the Olympics when both Viaducts were closed? Oh wait, hundreds of thousands of people per day came downtown on transit to enjoy cultural and sporting institutions. The Viaducts were closed and it was the best time in Vancouver ever. Lets build on that success!

Which institutions are leaving Downtown Vancouver? The Garage? VAG? VPL? The Bay? Holt's? St-Paul's? The Courts? The Nine O'Clock gun?

I'm not sure where this consumer anxiety attack comes from.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

From a financial standpoint, I don't see how it makes sense to tear down a structure that is less than halfway though it's useful service life. This is a concrete-encased steel structure with fairly low maintenance costs - it's not like the Granville Bridge which has a team of people whose sole job is to paint the bridge girders for as long as the bridge stands.

There'd be more traction to this argument if the structure was being used as intended, but we all know that the viaducts were intended to be onramps to a freeway that was never built. The rationale for their existence without the freeway is not clear. Flip the situation -- if they didn't exist, we certainly wouldn't be building them.

I completely agree that if there's no financial benefit here, then leave them be. If the money that can be made exceeds the sunk costs + reconfiguration costs, then the financial argument is obvious and the only thing left is a question of will.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

no but many people in other areas don't like to go downtown unless you have to go down there there is no need to go

I don't know who you hang around with, but everyone I know is far more likely to make the trip downtown now with three SkyTrain lines heading directly in. It is, and will remain for a long time, the place to see and be seen. Downtown is not dying.

[invisibleairwaves]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

There'd be more traction to this argument if the structure was being used as intended, but we all know that the viaducts were intended to be onramps to a freeway that was never built. The rationale for their existence without the freeway is not clear. Flip the situation -- if they didn't exist, we certainly wouldn't be building them.

I completely agree that if there's no financial benefit here, then leave them be. If the money that can be made exceeds the sunk costs + reconfiguration costs, then the financial argument is obvious and the only thing left is a question of will.

Only if you assume that those are the only consequences, financial or otherwise. What about the cost of buying and running more trains and buses? The cost of congestion, and the safety risks associated with dumping arterial traffic onto smaller, slower roads? Increased traffic on the bridges? You can't possibly argue that the cost of maintenance and reconfiguration is the only argument against tearing them down.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

no but many people in other areas don't like to go downtown unless you have to go down there there is no need to go

Is it a case of they don't like to go downtown. Or maybe it is a case of they don't need to go downtown.

If a person's needs are met in the area they live in. Then they may never go downtown. Which I do feel is better than having everyone in the region head downtown. I'd rather have people needs met locally than to have some central area that everyone needs to go to meet those needs.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

There'd be more traction to this argument if the structure was being used as intended, but we all know that the viaducts were intended to be onramps to a freeway that was never built. The rationale for their existence without the freeway is not clear. Flip the situation -- if they didn't exist, we certainly wouldn't be building them.

I completely agree that if there's no financial benefit here, then leave them be. If the money that can be made exceeds the sunk costs + reconfiguration costs, then the financial argument is obvious and the only thing left is a question of will.

But to continue your argument ... since the viaducts are already there and can be used for another 50 years, why not connect them to Malkin Ave and build the proposed Malkin Connector over the railway yards to make the Malkin Ave connection to Clarke Dr.? This has been talked about for years as a way to get that traffic heading to & from downtown (mostly truck traffic) away from the residential areas along Prior St.


from a previous post by officedweller:

Originally Posted by officedweller

I agree with Metro-One - the City seems to be set on removing anything that isn't considered "pretty" - even if it has functional value.

Here's the Malkin Connector proposal from the False Creek Flats rail study:

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/current...orstrategy.pdf



You can see the corridor in this Global Air Photo (Malkin is the southern boundary of the park):

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

But to continue your argument ... since the viaducts are already there and can be used for another 50 years, why not connect them to Malkin Ave and build the proposed Malkin Connector over the railway yards to make the Malkin Ave connection to Clarke Dr.? This has been talked about for years as a way to get that traffic heading to & from downtown (mostly truck traffic) away from the residential areas along Prior St.


from a previous post by officedweller:

So we build the Malkin Connector to Clarke Drive. Then eventually people will complain about the traffic again. So there will be a huge debate and people will want the connector expanded up the cut. Then they will want it expanded along the Grandview Hwy area. Then they will want it expanded in terms of the number of lanes.

That is why I'm against the idea of the Malkin Connector.