HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > SSP: Local Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2009, 7:06 AM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is online now
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Strathcona
Posts: 993
Very well said.

Has anyone got any potential plans for what a malkin connector would look like? I'm looking for some ideas to add to my sketchup.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2009, 7:38 AM
mr.x's Avatar
mr.x mr.x is offline
with glowing hearts
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: █♣█ Vancouver, British Columbia
Posts: 12,806
what's the malkin connector?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2009, 8:17 AM
Smooth's Avatar
Smooth Smooth is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 816
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.x View Post
what's the malkin connector?
See post #38 on this thread...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=162100&page=2
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2009, 8:54 AM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by deasine View Post
Here's a not-so-quick plan I did up how the viaducts could be integrated with the viaducts.


Hosted on Shaw

Basically, the entire area under the viaducts can be made for the OMC of a Streetcar network. Also notice in this concept that there are streetcar tracks on the viaduct themselves... more on that later in the transit fantasy thread.
I believe the official proposal that city hall has made up for the Downtown Street car actually does have the OMC yards under the Viaduct. Their plan calls for it to be under the East end on the east side of Quebec where there is a city owned fenced off parking lot right now. That way the OMC would be right on the tracks going down Quebec street under Phase 1 of their plan.

I don't think they would need more room than that even if they ran trams from Vanier Park to Stanley Park. If you expand the tram to go down the Arbutus corridor, you can move the maintenance and more storage to the Marpole facility and use the area under the Viaducts as storage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2009, 4:29 PM
biketrouble biketrouble is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 188
I like how one minute everyone's talking about "integrating the viaducts into the urban fabric" and the next minute they are saying what a great idea it would be to build a freaking railyard underneath them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2009, 4:36 PM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by biketrouble View Post
I like how one minute everyone's talking about "integrating the viaducts into the urban fabric" and the next minute they are saying what a great idea it would be to build a freaking railyard underneath them.
It's a form of integration. It doesn't mean you can't have retail around the outside of the railyard. And the size of a StreetCar yard wouldn't be close to the size of a SkyTrain one. Besides, what we are trying to do is move the street life up to the viaduct, so it doesn't matter as much what is below it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2009, 5:18 PM
Stingray2004's Avatar
Stingray2004 Stingray2004 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: White Rock, BC (Metro Vancouver)
Posts: 1,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon View Post
Has anyone got any potential plans for what a malkin connector would look like?
It basically follows the current alignment of Malkin Ave. along False Creek flats.

Speaking of which.... that was also the alignment chosen for the only City of Vancouver freeway plan (circa 1970) that made any logical sense.

The current end of the viaducts were to continue along Malkin Ave. as a "free-flow" highway and connect to the Grandview Cut whereby twin, 3-lane viaducts were to be constructed with a gap in the middle to allow the diesel exhaust to fan out from the railway below.

At the eastern end of the Grandview Cut the 6-lane "free-flow" highway would connect directly to Hwy 1 taking regional thru traffic away from the municipal street system (Hastings, 1st Ave, 12th Ave.) making those city streets more livable for the residents that reside adjacent to them.

That Swan Wooster engineering report was pretty cool inclusive of the detailed design drawings. Over the years, people seem to bring up that plan albeit only one such 3-lane directional viaduct could ever be built through the Cut with the current Millenium Line configuration. Another 3-lane directional would probably need to be constructed as tunnel. Vancouver is not ready for that yet - the "European" solution.

Even one Toronto municipal party is now advocating the completion of "missing link" expressways within the city (through tunneling) in conjunction with a large expansion of transit infrastructure.

http://www.thetorontoparty.com/trans...ion_posit.html

Bits and pieces of Vancouver's Malkin/Grandview freeway plan also seem to resurrect themselves over the years albeit not in "free-flow" form but in typical City of Vancouver municipal street format.

First it was Mayor Mike Harcourt during the early 1980's promoting the Grandview Cut as a "truck route" and now it's Malkin Ave. as a 4-lane municipal connector.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2009, 10:58 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 17,080
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):

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2009, 11:52 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 8,310
Thanks for that Officedweller. The Global Air Photo really helps.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my video production website at: http://www.hailstorm-media.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2009, 4:37 AM
Locked In's Avatar
Locked In Locked In is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro-One View Post
So I guess that is what I mean, I like Yaletown a lot, but I would like Yaletown to remain in Yaletown, for if everywhere downtown becomes more like Yaltown, that will not only kill the distinctness of those regions, but it will also take away from the distinctness of Yaletown itself.

I hope this makes sense.
Perfect sense! I couldn't agree more. This area has incredible potential, and I think most people would disappointed if it turned out to be indistinguishable from Yaletown and the rest of FCN. And the more I read here, the more silly the idea of removing the viaducts at any time soon seems.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2009, 6:19 AM
East Van East Van is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: PacificNorthWest
Posts: 701
This proposed "Grandview cut freeway" from back in the day, is there concept drawings from it ? This must be the reason why the east end of the viaduct curves perfectly towards Malkin, angled towards the cut. Too bad it didn't get built, 3 lanes of gridlock sounds better than traffic cutting through east Van like it does to get to the #1. I hope the Malkin overpass gets built.

Save the viaducts!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2009, 6:38 AM
Phil McAvity's Avatar
Phil McAvity Phil McAvity is offline
I put the F-U in FUN
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,863
Not only is it not time to tear down the viaducts, Vancouver should build more of them!
__________________
"Guys ain't dumb"-Money for Nothing by Dire Straits.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2009, 7:50 AM
EastVanMark EastVanMark is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McAvity View Post
Not only is it not time to tear down the viaducts, Vancouver should build more of them!
Absolutely. Currently the viaduct just spits you out on a street that was never designed to handle the kind of load that gets put on it on a daily basis. And then, that road takes you to several choke points within East Vancouver that cause people to cut through residential streets. The viaducts need to be extended not only to speed up the flow of traffic but also to take cars out of residential areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2009, 8:24 AM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
zoom zoom
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 1,924
Let's build viaducts to from UBC across the water to Victoria!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2009, 3:29 PM
lightrail lightrail is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastVanMark View Post
Absolutely. Currently the viaduct just spits you out on a street that was never designed to handle the kind of load that gets put on it on a daily basis. And then, that road takes you to several choke points within East Vancouver that cause people to cut through residential streets. The viaducts need to be extended not only to speed up the flow of traffic but also to take cars out of residential areas.
Welcome to the 1950s.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2009, 3:53 PM
geoff's two cents geoff's two cents is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
Welcome to the 1950s.
Indeed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2009, 5:18 PM
kylemacmac kylemacmac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingray2004 View Post

Even one Toronto municipal party is now advocating the completion of "missing link" expressways within the city (through tunneling) in conjunction with a large expansion of transit infrastructure.

http://www.thetorontoparty.com/trans...ion_posit.html
Just because one looney tune municipal party in another Canadian city is promoting the idea of increased city freeways doesn't mean it'll be any good for Vancouver. In Monteal there's also a lady running for mayor who plans to make downtown more livable by building more parking garages and expanding the freeways leading into the city. Make no mistake, this lady is BAT SH!T crazy and has no chance at all of being elected. Montreal has absolutely no lack of freeways going downtown and within the city, and has an excellent metro system. The plan is absolutely denounced by all who actually have a shot of being elected mayor. So being crazy might get you heard, but doesn't make you anywhere near having good ideas.

The viaducts in Vancouver were part of a plan to build freeways to the east. For better or worse, those freeways never got built. Now, all they do is encourage people to drive between downtown and the East side and points beyond, dumping traffic on surface streets. The traffic on the viaducts will only increase when the Gateway Project allows more people to commute by car to the city.

I suspect most who support keeping the viaducts do so because:
a) They give Vancouver a 'big city urban feel'
b) They enjoy driving fast

Now don't get me wrong, I love to drive fast, and have done so countless times along the viaducts. There's no question about it, seeing how fast you can get a car to travel on the viaducts is one of the best things ever. But, while this is fun and all, it still doesn't change the fact that the viaducts contribute greatly to the gaping void between Expo Blvd and Main street. The speed limit has nothing to do with this. It's all in the design speed.

Roadways that encourage speed-induced vehicular adrenaline do not make a city better or more livable.


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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2009, 5:33 PM
kylemacmac kylemacmac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 103
While discussing the viaducts, I'd just like to point out that even though Vancouver is widely regarded as being "green" we do not have a single pedestrian centric street in the city.

-Granville will have wide sidewalks, which is nice, but blocking traffic for the douchbag festivals on Friday and Saturday nights does not equal a pedestrian street.
-Granville Island is quite good, but there is a constant flow of traffic looking for parking in parkades disguised as buildings
-Yaletown has some nice extended loading docks to stroll upon, but down the steps are angular parking lots disguised as streets.
-There's some indoor shopping malls around town
-there's always the seawall

I'm not talking about banning cars from streets, I'm talking about streets so full of people you'd rather take another route in your car. The idea of people making free decisions based upon the critical mass of the situation. (no relation to once-monthly aggressive hippy bike squads)

If the city wants to accept the progressive-eco-friendly-green-carbon-offset label with a clear conscious, I think we need to seriously consider making areas better for pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit users. The road use changes being made to accommodate crowds the Olympics might be a great first step, and maybe some of them will be so successful as to be rendered permanent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2009, 6:18 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 17,080
I think that probably because pedestrian streets in North America - many installed in the 1970s - were in the 1980s and 1990s considered "failures" by politicians and planners - leading to calls to demolish those that had been built (i.e. Granville Mall used to run to Nelson St. but one block was opened up to cars). Also, Granville in the 1980s (with its partial closure) was a haven for drug addicts.
Perhaps they didn't have the density around them to support the businesses that lost customers arriving by car?

i.e. here's what Wikipedia says about the Sparks Street Mall in Ottawa. So in the past, the success of pedestrian malls has been tenuous. In Vancouver, though, with the high resident population which has grown in recent years, it may now be viable.

Quote:
Pedestrian Mall
In 1961 a plan to temporarily transform the street into a pedestrian mall for the summer was introduced in an attempt to improve commerce. The success of these closings convinced the city to close the street permanently to vehicles, North America's first permanent pedestrian mall.

Today, the pedestrian mall is open year-round and extends from Elgin to Kent Streets. In the warmer months, two sidewalk cafes operate. While the mall is quite busy during weekdays, the mall is only lightly used during weekends. The nearby Rideau Centre mall and adjoining Byward Market district are the centre of shopping on the weekends. This has led to a turnover of businesses from the mall and a decline in shopping activities. The National Capital Commission, the pedestrian mall authority remains committed to operating and improving the mall. The mall's landscaping has been updated. The Commission was successful in bringing the Ottawa CBC broadcasting studio centre to a location on the mall, and is seeking to increase business and activity through increasing the number of residences nearby.
************

Quote:
Originally Posted by East Van View Post
This proposed "Grandview cut freeway" from back in the day, is there concept drawings from it ? This must be the reason why the east end of the viaduct curves perfectly towards Malkin, angled towards the cut. Too bad it didn't get built, 3 lanes of gridlock sounds better than traffic cutting through east Van like it does to get to the #1. I hope the Malkin overpass gets built.

Save the viaducts!!!
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2009, 6:47 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 8,310
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.

The only increase in ducts the city need to do is overpasses over top of the railway, which it looks they are actually doing! These overpasses will really compliment the existing ducts we have and make traffic flow even better in what is essentially the best traffic flow condition in the city. Nothing more needs to be done after that. In fact the Malkin Ave overpass is a great idea.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my video production website at: http://www.hailstorm-media.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > SSP: Local Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:23 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.