Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[go_leafs_go02]

The amount of highway funding US states get from the federal government compared to what provinces get here is the main difference.

There is no way states like Montana could have afforded to construct I-90 across the state on their own, or I-15 going north & south.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

People seem to be rejecting the tunnel option, either scoffing at the idea, or mentioning figures like $22 billion.

If the Seattle replacement tunnel is supposed to cost 4.2bn USD (normally about 5bn+ Cad (??)) ... would the Viaduct Replacement tunnel not perhaps be cheaper? 22 billion seems a bit steep, even for this.

Like to see one built, though.

Because you need room for a portal at both ends The Bartholomew plan had a bridge along that axis for a reason.

Financially it would be way cheaper just to backfill that entire area up to that axis and put a cut/cover trench in containing a roadway than to sink a tunnel in place like the Deas Island tunnel.

You especially wouldn't be able to bore a tunnel over that short of a distance. The tunnel would never get out of the mud at the bottom of False Creek unless you extended the tunnel for a pointlessly long distance or had ridiculous grades at both ends.

Trust me on this. I work in tunneling.

[LeftCoaster]

Why in the world would we spend that kind of money on such a tunnel when 2+ billion will build us another rapid transit line?

Seems like an absolutely ridiculous waste of money to me.

[moosejaw]

The Alaskan Way Corridor is entirely state/city funded and is a lot longer than what is pictured above. Its over 2 miles long and its cost includes a new Alaskan Way Surface Street. Price includes demolishing the structure. Its being made by a specific tunnel boring machine.

The city of Seattle is kicking in $800 paid by taxpayers who will pay an extra $60 year for the next 30 years. The state is covering the rest.

A more realistic cost for a tunnel in the graphic above is probably north of $2 billion.
The $22 billion number for Boston is a typical knee jerk reaction quoted by the naysayers who criticized the project to begin with.
The Boston tunnel was a cut and cover application which would not apply to the false creek model, it took 10 years to complete, it's over 3 miles, it includes tunneling I-90 to Logan Airport and that fancy Bunker Hill bridge as well as the Leverett Bridge. It also includes all the lawsuits, payoffs etc....

We're having a new direct-bored tunnel made here in Miami that connects the Port of Miami to the Interstate/Airport directly. Before trucks and tourist buses had to go through downtown and some sections were pretty rough. The tunnel is a 2 section/4 lane wide, 3/4 mile long and will cost $1 billion.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Why in the world would we spend that kind of money on such a tunnel when 2+ billion will build us another rapid transit line?

Seems like an absolutely ridiculous waste of money to me.

Why would you build a rapid transit line in a thread about tearing down its viaducts? This is what this thread is about.

Criticize if you will but i think the city of Vancouver has plenty of rapid transit to move its citizens around. Its probably one of the best models in North America. And ive been to every city from Saskatoon to Baton ROuge and i make it a point to use public transit where ever I go.

If you really want to entice people from getting out of their cars.

• Start by taxing gasoline in the region heavily.
• Implement a congestion tax similar to London, make it $25/day to drive in and out of Downtown Vancouver, exclude buses, taxis, and commercial vehicles (ie fed-ex delivery trucks)
• Implement a even-odd day license plate scenario to get drivers out of the cars.
• Toll all bridges $2 one way out at EACH and every crossing!
• Limit new car sales, only fuel efficient cars in the region. Hybrids, Diesels, Electric Vehicles only. No V6s/V8s/V12s at all.
• Get rid of older cars cars period. Not in the lean, green city of Vancouver!
• Implement a one child system like china, and put a stop to all new move ins to the city! (jk)

Of course Im being facetious and a lot of you would question why would anyone dictate such harsh parameters, but if you really want people out of their cars and into rapid transit. Youre going to have to force people out of their cars. That includes single moms with strollers, old people, etc.....

I like the tunnel model because there are a lot of benefits, Vancouver's disadvantage is all the traffic is at the surface, spewing emissions, stop and go constantly. There is no flow. There is no road infrastructure at all. A tunnel would take traffic out of downtown unseen. The boston tunnel above ground is really beautiful. I mean they took a hideous overpass that cut right through downtown, it looked like something out of Batman. So a plan was developed to bury I-93 underground. Above ground is open green space throughout downtown. Its really beautiful.

And Boston has a really , really good subway system.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Why in the world would we spend that kind of money on such a tunnel when 2+ billion will build us another rapid transit line?

Seems like an absolutely ridiculous waste of money to me.

And what happened to rapid transit and road infrastructure going hand in hand?
You already got your $2 billion Canada Line?

[jlousa]

The tunnel idea isn't supportable by the region, full stop. The region would rather have the UBC line built, Surrey LRT, Hastings Line, etc. The area is somewhat reasonably served with the exisiting viaducts, we'd be very hard pressed with current council to keep capacity status quo, let alone build a tunnel. The tunnel talk belongs more in the fantasy thread then anywhere else.

[moosejaw]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The tunnel idea isn't supportable by the region, full stop. The region would rather have the UBC line built, Surrey LRT, Hastings Line, etc. The area is somewhat reasonably served with the exisiting viaducts, we'd be very hard pressed with current council to keep capacity status quo, let alone build a tunnel. The tunnel talk belongs more in the fantasy thread then anywhere else.

I disagree....
I dont understand why its a fantasy and how come the green movement dictates how people will commute and live? Again the city has buses in addition to skytrain serving its needs.

Pouring money into more and more rapid transit? All youve done is harp on how the region doesnt have enough rapid transit. Its akin to Kim K not having enough shoes.
You're (the proponents of rapid transit) are spoiled while cars still spew their emissions above ground.

[jlousa]

I don't think you quite follow, the idea of a tunnel to replace the viaducts is a fantasy and not realistic. Hence why that discussion should be in the fantasy thread.
I'm pro-transit and pro-viaduct, I'm pro most infrastructure, but more importantly I'm pro stuff that makes economical sense. The economics for a tunnel are not there. If they were I'd be on board.

[officedweller]

Also, if I recall correctly, both Sydney and Melbourne, Australia, built tolled downtown by-pass tunnels as P3s and each operator went bankrupt.

It'll be interesting to see how the tolled Seattle tunnel fares.

I just don't think there are enough people otut there who value their time so much as to flock to a tolled tunnel if a free alternative exists.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I've been to Boston a number of times and driven through the tunnels. It isn't even that impressive. And of course there are tolls...

I happen to be in Boston this week and I drove Big Dig today. It's an urban experience, but already at 1pm there was plenty of traffic on the highway and at 5pm the traffic seemed almost stand still. Situation seemed to be the same also on all other highways leaving to/from Downtown, as I could see from the top of Prudential Centre.

Boston is a nice city with so many nice old buildings, but the traffic here is just horrible. I am really surprised how clogged the traffic is only 5 years after this megaproject was finished. Seems that there is no way to build too much road capacity, no matter you spend 22 billion on it. .

[trofirhen]

If you think of the downtown peninsula as a quasi-island, built up the way it is, with the road system that it has, and the road destinations to the north, west, south and east, there are five principal traffic flows off our metaphoric "island."

1: The Lions Gate Bridge, handling vehicle traffic with destinations North and West.
2: The Burrard Bridge, most traffic going SW into Vancouver through Kits.
3: The Granville Bridge, current major road artery south to YVR, central and southern metro.
4: The Cambie Bridge, Southbound, will gain in future importance as Oakridge grows, already a major in-out route from the isand to the city and world beyond, heading south or southeast .
5: OK. The Viaducts. These ramps are the principal exit off our mystic island for destinations EAST and this means not only New West, Burnaby, and Coquitlam, but also traffic travelling east to get onto the freeway at Highway 1.
Traffic flow strucure 5, going east is busy, important, and taking out vehicle access would be like removing one of the other bridges mentioned.

What I'm saying is, if they take away the viaducts, beautiful. The rendering in the news article relating it to Sydney was urban beauty at its finest. But there are thousands of vehicles that want in and out of Vancouver east-west every day.

If you're going to take away the bridge, there is little option but to build a tunnel. The "more transit" idea is well-intentioned but doesn't hold up. Too much of that road traffic currently on the viaducts has destinations beyond the region served by transit.

A road vehicle access alternative there seems vitally necessary. Can we really and truly squeeze traffic now using the viaducts, onto the new Pacific Boulevard, and the roads around False Creek and English Bay, and not expect heavy-duty results?

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

And what happened to rapid transit and road infrastructure going hand in hand?
You already got your $2 billion Canada Line?

I was trying to put the astronomical budget into perspective, not say that it should only be spent on transit.

Id much rather see a 2 billion dollar upgrade to Highway 99 then a somewhat redundant tunnel connecting two very close together parts of the city already well served by transit and road networks.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by moosejaw

Criticize if you will but i think the city of Vancouver has plenty of rapid transit to move its citizens around. Its probably one of the best models in North America. And ive been to every city from Saskatoon to Baton ROuge and i make it a point to use public transit where ever I go.

It's one of the best because we spend a lot of money on transit and not on unnecessary tunnels.

As for your other ideas more than one of them need a j/k beside them (outlawing V6 cars... are you kidding me??).

Bridge tolling and gas taxes are the most sensible ways for Vancouver to discourage car usage and fund translink. A congestion tax may work for places like the city of London, Singapore, places with strong financial cores, but it would kill DT vancouver. businesses would be encouraged to move to the transit dependent suburbs and ironically it would probably increase driving.

[trofirhen]

If the viaducts are removed, and nothing (like a tunnel) is put there to replace them, will we still have the lane-space to accomodate traffic (including trucks and utility vehicles) entering the city from due East (Highway 1, etc)?

[jlousa]

Here are the minutes from the UDP session. Changes coming that should benefit the landowners? What a surprise...

Introduction: Kevin McNaney, Assistant Director of Planning, noted that the presentation is a concept that they have been preparing at Council’s request for the area. A new vision for a part of the eastern downtown which has transformed many times. It is another opportunity to look at a transformation. He noted that the conceptual plan will change over time. The presentation included some of the big moves in the area including framework, transportation, park and urban design on a broad scale.
Kirsten Robinson, Planner, gave the presentation using Power Point. She noted that the viaducts study kicked off in July 2011. Over the last year, the staff team has engaged in public consultation, hosted an international ideas competition, and worked with an interdisciplinary team lead by Perkins + Will Architects to develop a new concept for the lands surrounding the Georgia and Dunsmuir Streets viaducts.
The concept was informed by a set of 10 guiding principles (create a vibrant district; reconnect communities to the creek and each other; embody history to make it memorable; link parks and open space; reintroduce water and natural systems; rebalance movement modes; reinstate Georgia Street’s ceremonial role; restore the Main Street corridor; repair the urban fabric; and enhance ‘urban vistas’ to the mountains).
Inspired by a solution put forward in the Ideas Competition (by Larry Beasley, Jim Green, PWL Partnership [Landscape Architects] and Dialog [Architects]), which proposed two big moves: (1) bringing Georgia Street straight down to Pacific Boulevard, and (2) combining Pacific Boulevard and Expo Boulevard on the north side of the SkyTrain guideway providing a direct east/west connection, a new concept was developed. Highlights of the concept
plan include potential for a major waterfront park and restoration of a portion of the Dunsmuir Street viaduct as an elevated public plaza, increased connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists, a direct connection to downtown for goods movement and transit, restoration of the urban fabric and Main Street corridor, a dignified terminus to Georgia Street on axis with Science World, and clustering development to create a vibrant district in Northeast
False Creek (NEFC).
Public response to the concept plan has been positive with nearly 70% of the respondents at the open houses hosted in June were supportive or strongly supportive of the concept. As part of ongoing consultation, the staff team is meeting with stakeholder groups to understand and resolve issues in regards to the plan, with a target of reporting back to Council in the New Year.

• Related Commentary: The Panel supported the moves and the principle of the proposal as well as the removal of the viaducts.

• Connecting the downtown grid is well handled;
• The realignment of the new Pacific Boulevard reads as a kind of suburban parkway;
• There needs to be some vitality at street level along the north edge;
• Consider making it an urban downtown street rather than a parkway;
• Consider mapping the shoreline – reintroduce the water connection through the parkspace;
• Consider having something of importance to mark the end of Georgia Street;
• Would like to see water views at both ends of Georgia Street;
• Important to figure out the role of Georgia Street in the future and how it connects to Main Street;
• Unfortunately SkyTrain dilutes the benefit of getting rid of the viaducts;
• The straight to the creek context seems confusing with all the competing streets;
• The density that is shown doesn’t’ do enough to define the western edge;
• Support the approach to healing Main Street as it is the correct strategy;
• Removal of the two viaducts will be a benefit to the city;
• Consider having more iconic buildings at the intersections to anchor Georgia and Dunsmuir Streets;
• Consider having some public art up prior to the construction;
• Concord Pacific has a public art plan. What would happen if the other developers combine their money to do something spectacular and memorable;
• Consider programming the park by recreating and connecting with nature;
• There is an opportunity on Carrall Street to daylight the creek;
• Could frame the edge of the park with some higher massing;
• Important to consider an overlay on how the cultural and historic elements are going to be expressed;
• How does Chinatown merge into the plan;
• Consider having urban agriculture area;
• Consider double lane along Pacific Boulevard to Abbott Street and get rid of the intersection;
•The intersections should be celebrated;
• One area that needs to be looked at is how bicycles will use the street;
• Consider something unexpected at the creek with perhaps an island that is only accessible when the tide is out;
• Nature could intervene between Science World and Georgia Street perhaps with an interpretive centre;
•This is an opportunity to showcase sustainability.

[s211]

WTF?

• There is an opportunity on Carrall Street to daylight the creek;

Last time I checked, Carrall Street was north of False Creek, unless daylight is planning parlance for some bullshit social engineering scheme that will cost dearly.

[phesto]

You can always count on the UDP for a lot of meaningless commentary...I'm not sure what it means that the intersection should be celebrated.

I particularly enjoyed this one:

• Consider something unexpected at the creek with perhaps an island that is only accessible when the tide is out;

This exact concept was just done in SEFC, literally 400 feet away, two years ago...

[huenthar]

Will never understand how anybody in the public likes this concept of a busy surface road... if the current Venables is creating a barrier for the community in Strathcona that needs to be remedied via a diversion to Malkin, how is a far wider and busier road between Chinatown and the creek supposed to magically do the exact opposite and tie these areas together?

[officedweller]

Many of those items read like a wishlist to bring the suburbs to the city - greenspace and parks....

The Gardiner is growing up - why can't the Viaducts?


From the Ice thread of the Urban TO forum:

Originally Posted by Razz

From the east - Nov. 11, 2012:

Originally Posted by someMidTowner

Here is a bonus shot from yesterday: