Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by kylemacmac

Ripping out the viaducts and expanding skytrain down Hastings to the PNE and down Broadway to UBC would send a clear message about the direction the city wants to take, and force the issue of higher transit use.

Sure, build rapid transit down Broadway and Hastings, but why would you tear out perfectly functional mid-life road infrastructure? Even if you got massive amounts of commuters to switch onto new transit lines, why would you want to force all remaining commercial traffic off of the viaducts and onto city streets? It defies logic. Even if you completely closed them to commuters, the viaducts are exactly the kind of commercial traffic corridor that the downtown peninsula needs.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by kylemacmac

Vancouver made the decision to not build freeways in the 1950s and 60s, focusing instead on improving public transit and not widening roads. The idea was good and all, but with no freeway system, and only a semi-complete grade-separated transit system across the city, it's still not fast or easy to get around with or without a car. Unless you intend to travel down a skytrain line, or drive from Commercial to downtown on the viaducts, mediocrity is the word. Ripping out the viaducts and expanding skytrain down Hastings to the PNE and down Broadway to UBC would send a clear message about the direction the city wants to take, and force the issue of higher transit use. This would bring the city closer to the ideals envisioned in the 1950s when they protested freeway construction in the first place. Also, it would give Vancouverites some actual clout when as they are awarded things like "most greenest city in the world ever" status by fawning American planners. Of course the viaducts could be incorporated into this transit vision, but without their removal or a vast overhaul, the message sent would be vastly less clear.

Tom Campbell's freeway plan was from the 1960's, not 50's. If you look at the infrastrucutre from the Fifties (Granville St, Oak St and Second Narrows bridges) it was all strongly car-oriented.

The Vancouver of today is a vastly larger city than that of the 1960's. While putting a "greenest city in the world" feather in Gregor's cap might be some's ideal, it is in an inherently elitist program that says to suburbanites "we don't want you here". To thrive, a downtown area needs to draw from all over a metro region.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't some eco-weenie CoV planners make Venables less efficient in dealing with the traffic coming off the viaducts with corner sidewalk bulges and similar nonsense?

[DKaz]

It boggles me how suburbanites working in Downtown Vancouver would rather drive than choose one of the excellent transit options.

As for say spending a Saturday or evening in Vancouver, the city is pretty quick to drive through outside of rush hour. I don't see how they're keeping suburbanites out of their city.

[Metro-One]

In a metro that is soon to be 3 million it is wise to keep one decent east-west route in and out of the city core (the ducts). And for Dkaz, while I half agree with your statement I also half disagree, you have to remember that lots of jobs (such as construction and other contractors) do not allow someone to use public transit to go back and forth for many reasons: The amount of equipment that needs to come with, the randomness of job sites, the need to go to many places in one day often spanning many different communities, etc... Even in Japan the majority of construction, gardening and other contractors drive trucks (although smaller trucks that I wish we had here) and use the freeways frequently to get to many spots in one day.

Not everyone has an office job, and with constant tower and utility construction downtown, not to mention the on going maintenance and renovations and daily fixes that are done, contractors will always need to continue to access downtown.

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

This is what I hat about these threads, finally it was going in a good direction with creative ideas in how to incorporate them in the landscape and good points on why we still need them, then some one has to come along and poke the anti-car, quick buck simple condo bee hive by saying they need to build more downtown. Sigh...

Perhaps you're taking issue with the thread title itself? I was under the impression it was created to discuss the very issue of whether or not to tear down the viaducts.

As for incorporating them/tearing them down, I'm very much on the latter side (and I'm not a wealthy yuppie; I'm just someone who lives on the downtown peninsula), yet I would be interested to see more in the way of architectural designs that successfully incorporate the ducts, and make the area underneath them more livable. Unfortunately, it's unclear from the GM Place office tower drawings exactly what impact planners intend the building to have at street (ie. underneath the viaducts) level.

Although it's clear where my sympathies lie, I think the debate as to whether to tear down the ducts or not is an artificially polarized one (the old "long hairs" vs. "hard hats" opposition), designed more than anything else to sell newspapers.

A compromise, again, would involve some sort of tolling infrastructure for non-commercial, non-industrial traffic, combined with architecture and streetscaping designed to enhance the livability of the area underneath. This would, I think, make everybody happy - including those who choose to drive (a couple dollars one-way will make for a less congested commute). If the viaducts need extensive renovation, or even replacement, in the near-term future, this is the only way, I think, it could be done without sacrificing Vancouver's "green city" image.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The actual plan for the freeway was to connect to a massive interchange near Gore St. that would have gutted Chinatown (there's still a row of extra wide RoW / empty lots along Gore for the freeway to the Waterfront). The RoW to the east would have been north of Prior St. in line with the viaducts (they just curve down to connect with Prior St.) - not sure if it would have gone all the way out to the TCH (Cassiar St. at the time).

At one time Fever had posted photos of plans he found at the Vancouver Public Library.

There were actually numerous plans/engineering studies from the 1950's and 1960's commissioned by the City of Vancouver to implement a massive freeway system. They included tearing down all homes between Union/Prior Streets for a direct connection to Hwy 401 (1). Freeways through Chinatown, Gastown, the waterfront, North False Creek, Main Street, Arbutus corridor, etc. Now that would have been bad planning.

I also recall Fever's pics back a few years back and they were similar to the plans/studies that I reviewed at UBC Special Collections back in the day.

I'm still of the opinion that the Malkin/Grandview Cut connector route was probably the only free-flow highway proposal (and the last one) that made any logical sense in terms of connecting the downtown core with Hwy 1 and take all of the regional thru traffic away from the residential streets of 1st Ave./12th Ave., etc.

[Metro-One]

Perhaps you're taking issue with the thread title itself? I was under the impression it was created to discuss the very issue of whether or not to tear down the viaducts.

Yes, but as threads often due it had moved into a much more constructive direction and then Phil had to come and say something about adding more viaducts downtown (off topic) and then this become a freeway debate.

Read the last page, you will see!

[Stingray2004]

And here are some plans/designs for the 1972 Malkin/Grandview Cut free-flow highway proposal to connect with the Georgia/Dunsmuir viaducts:

Malkin Ave. Connector Routing to Grandview Cut:



Georgia Viaduct connection to Malkin Connector:
(Note that his was one of 3 options with the preferred option crossing Prior at its current junction)



Design of twin 3-lane viaducts thru Grandview Cut:



Routing on eastern end of Grandview Cut along rail line and tunnel under Boundary Road:



Design with East Tunnel Portal at Grandview Hwy interchange/Hwy 1 and West Tunnel Portal

[officedweller]

Cool - Thanks!

I biggest advantage of Malkin over Prior St. is that it will reunite Strathcona with the park across the street. Although Prior isn't that busy in the off hours, I think it is considered a major dividing line.

Note "Highway 401" on that map. That's when it was legitimately called the 401.

Also note on the first drawing the dashed line along Pacific Blvd's current routing - the ghosts of which some think that the City's plans for Pacific Blvd revitalization are intended to undo (i.e. make less freeway-like).

[Metro-One]

Why did they change the name from 401 to 1?

401 sounds better,

Also, this really is the best freeway proposal they ever did come up with for Vancouver. The Grandview Cut portion is really cool with the train line in the middle. The rest for the Vancouver freeway designs really were insanely horrible and destructive, but this one could have worked.

But I will be more then happy if they just make those proposed over passes over the railway, for they will really compliment the ducts traffic flow. (The Georgia duct onto Prior is the only way I leave downtown, when i drive, which I have to sometimes. I would not even think about using Hastings, that street is a nightmare)

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Wow, that is like a splitting image of the actual Cassiar Connector that was built decades later, up to the north. I always wondered why the designers felt the need to build a tunnel on the Cassiar corridor. Now I see where their inspiration came from.

The thing about this proposal is that, if you were to build this freeway today, you'd almost certainly be able to justify also building a N/S freeway along Boundary Rd. to connect down to Hwy 91. And at that point, you'd have three freeways all meeting at Grandview & Boundary, and a need for massive amounts of land to build a gigantic interchange just like the new Cape Horn.

[Stingray2004]

Yeah, that dotted line was in regards to the proposed Third Crossing of Burrard Inlet - a freeway along the then brownfields of North False Creek (to be called the Taylor Expressway), veering west under Drake St. and veering north in a tunnel under Thurlow St. Nothing like Pacific/Expo Blvd. today.

As for the "401" designation, the regions two freeways were known as the "401" and "499" until circa 1973?, when twinning began along the Lougheed Hwy east of the Cape Horn interchange. (The 407)?

I guess the 400-series (akin to Ontario) was to denote a "4"-lane freeway when they finally decided to get rid of the term.

The "401 Motor Inn" still exists near Grandview and Boundary Roads. The "401 Industrial Park" is extant along the east side of Hwy 1 in Langley.

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Why did they change the name from 401 to 1?

401 sounds better

That's the name of the major highway in Toronto. We don't wanna copy them.

[kylemacmac]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

This is what I hat about these threads, finally it was going in a good direction with creative ideas in how to incorporate them in the landscape and good points on why we still need them, then some one has to come along and poke the anti-car, quick buck simple condo bee hive by saying they need to build more downtown. Sigh...

I have honestly never been in a bad traffic jam after disembarking from the ducts, sure there is volume, but how is Prior street any different then 1st Ave? In fact a good portion of prior is comercial.

Why not build more downtown? Vancouver goes quite abruptly from giant towers to single family as you move east. I think more mid-density (3-6 storey) multi-purpose neighborhoods along NE False creek is the way to go to better link Chinatown and Main St with downtown. And is there really a need to move vehicles at high speeds from downtown to points East? As you said yourself, there is no current problem embarking the viaducts to the East, which would lead to the assumption that these roads were designed for capacities which have not, and may never be reached.

It's funny how even many of us here at SSP take the view that crowded public transit is necessary to allow for the economics of operation, but shy away from the view that roads should ever be backed up. I think this reeks of the have-our-cake-and-eat-it point of view most people at large seem to have. People want Metro Vancouver to have a wicked awesome public transit system, but aren't willing to give up their detached single family home to get it. It's pretty much the-best-thing-ever to be able to move around freely in our cars, but to be able to do so at the expense of quality public transit and walkable areas is pretty lame, and in essence, I think this thinking this way is extremely anti-urban, and detrimental to the growth of Vancouver as a quality urban place.

I am of the strong opinion that present day Vancouver is in the unfortunate position of lacking either a citywide grade separated transit system or a city wide freeway system. It's kind of like a no mans land, in between one and the other. Not New York and Not L.A., but with the advantages transportation-wise of neither. If we're ever going to build a grade separated transit network across the entire city, then yes, more things will have to be built near the central core to allow for the high ridership such a system would require to be operational without being over-subsidized to the point of cash strains on the city. If we are going to go down the build more freeways route, well, then we'd start razing entire nieghborhoods and putting up viaducts anywhere....but wait, this was already decided over 40 years ago.

I support the decisions of people to block freeway construction in the 50s and 60s, but isn't it time the city got down to building out more Skytrain on a solid schedule? Surely, Skytrain to UBC is justifiable on the current bus ridership along Broadway alone. Let's build the Millenium line West, and then get working on further connecting the downtown core with Skytrain along Hastings, look into a connection to the North Shore, etc. Vancouver is an extremely suburban metro area and there are many places that can densify greatly to support further rapid transit expansion, and infill to areas withing the current orbit of the system.

And by no means is the Georgia Viaduct exclusive to these ideas. Whether it is destroyed, or enhanced, will be a major symbolic statement towards which direction the city wants to take into the future. It's not the simple question of cars vs. transit users, it's: "What does the city you want to live in look like?"

[kylemacmac]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Sure, build rapid transit down Broadway and Hastings, but why would you tear out perfectly functional mid-life road infrastructure? Even if you got massive amounts of commuters to switch onto new transit lines, why would you want to force all remaining commercial traffic off of the viaducts and onto city streets? It defies logic. Even if you completely closed them to commuters, the viaducts are exactly the kind of commercial traffic corridor that the downtown peninsula needs.

Fair enough, and tearing things down mid-life IS pretty stupid. Usually. But appraoching mid-life BC Place is in a similar dilemmna, and just because something has years of use left doesn't mean we should keep it around. I'm sure the Albion Ferries could've plied the Fraser for years to come.

There is likely an IMMENSE land value where the viaducts stand, and they now essentially duplicate existing surface streets. (Expo/Pacific/Union/Prior.) These streets could be reconfigured into a grid pattern. Traffic from Georgia and Dunsmuir could be re-routed to flow onto Pacific and Expo. Yeah, the West end of the viaducts is a complicated intersection of roads and skytrain, and presents quite the problem, but the East end of the viaducts is very simple. The viaducts essentially cover two full city blocks between Quebec and Gore and this section of the viaducts could easily be turned into a surface street on the grid. I see absolutely no argument as to the benefit of cars needing to travel grade-separated between Quebec and Gore. It's a pointless urban freeway section who's time has come for it to be demolished, and the land can be developed. A 4 lane Prior from Quebec to Gore could more than handle the traffic load off the viaducts.

As it stands, the area around BC/GM place and to the East is a moonscape, and the redevelopment of this area could score the city some major cash which could be put towards things like transit and a bike share program. Of course, depending on how much cash the city could make from this, it may or may not warrant the removal of the mid-life viaducts to access the land they currently cover.

[officedweller]

Yeah, if it was a negotiation, it would have traded freeways for rapid transit supported by higher density closer to the core - which, for its day, was created in the form of the West End - but we are now beyond the scales achieved by that, and that density needs to expand beyond the downtown penninsula, however, the single family neighbourhoods in the City of Vancouver closest to the downtown seem to be unwilling to accept density at a level that will sustain hard-wired rapid transit (SkyTrain/LRT).
It doesn't seem to be as much of an issue in the suburbs because you aren't rebuilding/reprogramming already established areas.

*******

WRT highest and best use - I don't necessarily think that highest and best use always follows an economic line (i.e. otherwise Stanley Park would be built on).

True, the obstacle that once existed below the viaducts (railway yards) no longer exists, but they still act to disperse traffic from the downtown. The value of the viaducts is that it takes traffic up (Dunsmuir) and down (Georgia) the hill of the escarpment, thereby avoiding a circuitous route via Pender or other eastside streets. If ramps were built directly down the hill, there would be much more traffic on Pacific and Expo Blvds. which have limited connections to the east (i.e. Terminal Ave.) - likewise, if they were removed there would be heavier traffic through the downtown eastside (Pender, Hastings, Water and Cordova). The viaducts provide a continuation of the street grid across to Main Street.

I think that they can be easily integrated into the urban fabric - like the approaches to Granville Bridge have been at the entrance to Granville Island.

The main reason that the area has not yet been developed is that it is last on Concord Pacific's timeline - that's a wholly artificial/arbitrary timeline. If International Village had not been sold off by Concord Pacific to Henderson, maybe it would be sitting empty too - as the last phase of the Expo Lands. If the site hadn't been the Expo Lands and railyards before, it would have an intermediate use on the site - like the small industrial buildings you see around SEFC.
Although such lands would be less valuable than adjacent waterfront lands, I think that it's just the history of the lands that have resulted in them sitting empty, not necessarily any inherent defect in them (such as the presence of the viaducts). i.e. the lands around the Cambie Bridgehead (north side) are undeveloped - but no one is suggesting removing the bridge approaches to make the land better for development. They will be developed in time.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by DKaz

It boggles me how suburbanites working in Downtown Vancouver would rather drive than choose one of the excellent transit options.

As for say spending a Saturday or evening in Vancouver, the city is pretty quick to drive through outside of rush hour. I don't see how they're keeping suburbanites out of their city.

Precisely. I agree wholeheartedly. Suburbanites have options, they have a choice. Many, *many*, choose to park and ride the SkyTrain. It is their own imperative to choose driving over transit, and they must face consequences for doing so.

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

A compromise, again, would involve some sort of tolling infrastructure for non-commercial, non-industrial traffic, combined with architecture and streetscaping designed to enhance the livability of the area underneath. This would, I think, make everybody happy - including those who choose to drive (a couple dollars one-way will make for a less congested commute). If the viaducts need extensive renovation, or even replacement, in the near-term future, this is the only way, I think, it could be done without sacrificing Vancouver's "green city" image.

I think you're overcomplicating the solution here. Tolling a 1k viaduct is overkill. The amount of infrastructure that would be required to do so would be foolhardy.

[Metro-One]

I guess this needs to be posted again:

You have to remember that lots of jobs (such as construction and other contractors) do not allow someone to use public transit to go back and forth for many reasons: The amount of equipment that needs to come with, the randomness of job sites, the need to go to many places in one day often spanning many different communities, etc... Even in Japan the majority of construction, gardening and other contractors drive trucks (although smaller trucks that I wish we had here) and use the freeways frequently to get to many spots in one day. This is not even talking about shipping (stores need to get their goods somehow!)

far to many people here seem to think everyone's lives are simply and they have only 1 or 2 office/school destinations per work day. The reality is many people have 3 to 7 or even more destinations in the work day, and often need to be picking up and delivering goods or bringing equipment with them.

I work in the video industry and often have to go to random places in the lower mainland (often several in one day) with equipment and no form of public transit can serve that, Also I work alongside many in the construction industry and see all the junk they have to bring and all the daily trips they have to take (whether it be picking up wood, cement bags, driving to different sites for inspections, etc...).

I feel we have a very narrow group of professions on this forum (many being students and many others in offices or very confined working spacial patterns).

And trust me, when i can take transit i do, such as taking the WCE the other month for a few weeks, but often I have to drive.

[deasine]

Tolling the viaducts is an incredibly stupid idea. Like paradigm4 said, this is a small section of road without traffic lights. If you are integrating the viaducts into an urban form, thus moving street life up onto the viaducts, then you are going to be slowing down traffic. Moreover, if you are tolling the viaducts, traffic is just going to spill down onto the other arteries entering downtown. No one is going to pay $3 when the alternative free option is literally below the viaduct. It's simply moving traffic elsewhere into the city. If you toll the viaducts, which will never happen, you should toll every corridor entering into downtown (i.e. London Congestion Charge).

Thanks Stingray for posting the plans. It looks something pulled out of any American suburb. The three lane viaduct portion rendering reminds me exactly 1-5 entering Portland after the Williamette River Bridge.

[WBC]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Precisely. I agree wholeheartedly. Suburbanites have options, they have a choice. Many, *many*, choose to park and ride the SkyTrain. It is their own imperative to choose driving over transit, and they must face consequences for doing so.

So if you take down the viaduct and the rest of the highway system they would have no choice but to take transit. So instead of giving people choice you would take it away from them...For ideological reasons...Sounds great...