Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Stingray2004]

Justason Market Intelligence released a public opinion poll of CoV residents, several days ago, dealing with the viaducts removal issue.

"Are you in favour of or against the removal of the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts?"

Against: 44% (27% strongly)
For: 34% (11% strongly)
Don't Know/Neither: 22%



Source: Justason Market Intelligence

[Sir Conga]

I'd love to see an opinion poll with a bigger sample size. Too bad the next municipal election is a ways off, or we could just add a vote to the ballot.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Justason Market Intelligence released a public opinion poll of CoV residents, several days ago, dealing with the viaducts removal issue.

"Are you in favour of or against the removal of the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts?"

Against: 44% (27% strongly)
For: 34% (11% strongly)
Don't Know/Neither: 22%



Source: Justason Market Intelligence

Perhaps this, rather than any "incriminating pictures" is the cause of the Mayor's most recent attempt to appear reasonable?

[IanS]

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

I'd love to see an opinion poll with a bigger sample size. Too bad the next municipal election is a ways off, or we could just add a vote to the ballot.

Well, if Vision wasn't in such a hurry to commit to this project (perhaps before Meggs leaves for Victoria?), we could have it on the ballot.

In fairness, though, it was pretty clear during the last election that Vision was going to take a run at the viaducts if elected. And we know how that turned out.

[twoNeurons]

It's vision's legacy. They want to be remembered... and I would be surprised if Gregor didn't want to run for premier eventually.

[cabotp]

Talk about a chicken little and the sky if falling thread

Personally I don't think the traffic will be as bad as people here seem to think. At first it might be a bit worse. But over time commuters will adapt by changing their commuting pattern. Which is why I'm not opposed to removal of the viaducts. I'm not in support of keeping them either. I'm just blah about it and think things will work out in the end.

To those who feel that the traffic on the east side of Vancouver proper is the worst. Have any of you tried driving down 200st in Langely. If Vancouver is bad that out there is purgatory. Now maybe it is because I've lived in East Vancouver my entire life. But I have never found the traffic to be that bad. There are intersections that get backed up worse than others. And if I constantly see a backup at one. Then I adjust my commute pattern to get away from that congestion.

As for downtown it should not be a place to drive threw but a place to drive to. If you are driving threw then your destination is the North Shore. And in that case then you should be taking the 2nd Narrows. The only people this should not apply to is those living on the west side of Vancouver. For the majority of others in the region there is no reason to drive threw downtown.

Anyhow let the chicken little thread continue

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

It's vision's legacy. They want to be remembered... and I would be surprised if Gregor didn't want to run for premier eventually.

Knowing BC voters, he'll probably get elected, too. gaaaaaaaaaaaak

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Anyhow let the chicken little thread continue

How about the financial aspect? Why does the city want to spend $100M that doesn't need to be spent?

[jlousa]

That's the problem for me, it's economics. For less then $10M (over time) it would cover seismic upgrades, barrier rehabilation, bearings and joints replacement plus regular maintance for the next 40yrs. Instead we're looking at $80M (at once) just for demoing, plus the cost of the replacement road and what's the benefit? If it's really parkspace we could buy a lot more parkspace where it's more needed for much less money. If it's beautification of the area, then again we can do that with a lot less money.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jlousa

That's the problem for me, it's economics. For less then $10M (over time) it would cover seismic upgrades, barrier rehabilation, bearings and joints replacement plus regular maintance for the next 40yrs. Instead we're looking at $80M (at once) just for demoing, plus the cost of the replacement road and what's the benefit? If it's really parkspace we could buy a lot more parkspace where it's more needed for much less money. If it's beautification of the area, then again we can do that with a lot less money.

Agreed. If there was a big windfall of cash that came out of Olympic village, I could understand spending it on NEFC, but the situation is the opposite, so lets close the piggybank for a few years.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

How about the financial aspect? Why does the city want to spend $100M that doesn't need to be spent?

Sure maybe the $100M doesn't need to be spent and life would go on fine if it wasn't.

But I'm sure previous projects in the past were probably questioned about whether the money needed to be spent on them.

Personally I feel in the long term the viaducts will be coming down when they reach their end of life. So we can wait until that time and then the cost of removing them would be more than $100M. Or we can do it sooner than that and the cost to do so would be less than if we wait.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Personally I feel in the long term the viaducts will be coming down when they reach their end of life. So we can wait until that time and then the cost of removing them would be more than $100M. Or we can do it sooner than that and the cost to do so would be less than if we wait.

More how? Only because of inflation. Plenty of buildings will have to come down in 40 years from now, why don't we warm up the wrecking balls and smash them now!

Car traffic will probably continue to decrease. Maybe we split the difference and the viaducts are underused and it makes sense to tear them down in 20 years... but immediately? Why? Has the city solved the rest of the problems we face? Why not a $100M investment in ending homelessness?

[Zassk]

More to the point, the city will be far more populous 40 years from now, and therefore, the cost of dismantling the viaducts will be a much easier burden for that generation.

Also:

The realignment of Pacific and consolidation of parklands can be performed today, without waiting for any change to the viaducts. If those are the primary benefits of this plan, then we should save $80 million and do those first.

That $80 million saved would more than pay for the Malkin connector and rehabilitation of Prior/Venables. None of that work requires the removal of the viaducts.

[Sir Conga]

The city has claimed many times, in just about every presentation and article I've read in fact, that a majority of the cost will be paid for from selling the land involved for development.

So this is not an issue of what the city can afford, or if that money can be spent better elsewhere.

[jlousa]

The presentations the city has put out? The whole thing is parkspace with the exception of east of Main St. They are not going to get the money for that parcel with the "affordible/social housing" requirements they are talking about right now. Not to mention most of that land could be sold off today with the viaducts still in place and sizeable developments built along Union and Gore.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Zassk

More to the point, the city will be far more populous 40 years from now, and therefore, the cost of dismantling the viaducts will be a much easier burden for that generation.

Also:

The realignment of Pacific and consolidation of parklands can be performed today, without waiting for any change to the viaducts. If those are the primary benefits of this plan, then we should save $80 million and do those first.

That $80 million saved would more than pay for the Malkin connector and rehabilitation of Prior/Venables. None of that work requires the removal of the viaducts.

Interesting .....

Originally Posted by Sir Conga

The city has claimed many times, in just about every presentation and article I've read in fact, that a majority of the cost will be paid for from selling the land involved for development.

So this is not an issue of what the city can afford, or if that money can be spent better elsewhere.

.... I'm just asking ... that being the case .... just what IS the issue here? This is becoming slightly cryptic, all of it.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Regarding the sale of land under the viaducts, does anyone know how they value these and what their assumptions are? Depending on how conservative their assumptions are, this project could go from breaking even to costing a ton.

Just look at how well the city screwed up with the Olympic Village financing. If we commit to demoing the ducts' and real estate falls off a cliff taxpayers are going to be the ones holding the bad. Right in the middle of a period of financial instability.

This kind of financial risk makes me happy that I rent, and will continue to rent for the foreseeable future.

[hollywoodnorth]

also what if the land is polluted under the overpasses around main? who will pay for it to be remediated?

[logan5]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The presentations the city has put out? The whole thing is parkspace with the exception of east of Main St. They are not going to get the money for that parcel with the "affordible/social housing" requirements they are talking about right now. Not to mention most of that land could be sold off today with the viaducts still in place and sizeable developments built along Union and Gore.

The renders that I've seen show 2 city blocks developed with high density residential between Quebec and Gore. That land is surely worth a lot more without the viaducts, not to mention the cohesion that their removal would bring to the area.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

also what if the land is polluted under the overpasses around main? who will pay for it to be remediated?

It is, and they know it. The city says its entirely the province's responsibility to remediate. But hey, taxpayer money is taxpayer money.