Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by logan5

The payoff is huge. Chinatown would be a destination neighborhood, with bars and restaurants bringing tons of energy.

Who are you kidding?
You mean like all that money dumped into it during/after the olympics? The neighborhood sure looks great after 15 years.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Not to mention the massive amount of False Creek shoreline that is little more than a haphazard seawall and a parking lot. Some of the most expensive and desirable land in the world. And I'm not being hyperbolic.

The City is equally guilty with their land on the south side near the Cambie bridge.

They had 40 years to redevelop that plot and even though the value has easily quadrupled in 40 years they insist the only way it's possible is with civic funding to clear it for them first.
The fact that nobody wants to tax the everloving — out of them or expropriate the land at this point is more a conspiracy rather than a refusal to bend over and tear the viaducts down for more above-market condos that may get a shovel in the ground by 2040, assuming they don't bait and switch the proposal AGAIN. They cannot be trusted to participate in this matter.

Originally Posted by Chirpythecougar

Only TEAM I could see wanting to keep them because they want it to be 1970 forever

Ironically, a time in the history of Vancouver where the Granville strip had some interesting effort put into maintaining it as a vibrant nightlife region of the city and the Downtown East Side wasn't even remotely has blighted as it is now.

[WarrenC12]

I think your view from Kamloops may be a bit tainted. There's plenty the City and Province can do to force this issue if they really cared.

[MIPS]

I mean, I would love to be able to afford to live in East Van again, but I'd argue nothing has changed since 2010.

Edited: In fact, lets jump in the Time Machine and take a look at what we were bickering about back then on page 70...

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Well, I'm honestly glad you asked porfiry.

Flow

My biggest beef is that such a huge amount of road capacity has been lost on this project. Everything is bottlenecked at Citadel Parade and Beatty. The changes here go way beyond losing 1 lane and 33% of the throughput. The amount of volume being pushed on those 2 lanes means none of the traffic synchonizes with the green wave any more, so you probably have about a 30-40% drop in throughput on the remaining lanes as well. Additionally, the left lane has no turn lane, or turn priority over the crosswalk, which means a large portion of the time only the right hand lane is flowing.

The results are pretty dramatic. I went to get on the viaducts today going counterflow at 5:30pm and traffic was backed up past Main St. coming from prior. The end result is about 10 minutes of idling from my car or motorcycle. Either way I'm not happy to have wasted time, and a lot of useless CO2 has been created. If the Citadel, Beatty and Cambie St. intersections could have been left with a 3 lane cross section, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having debate right now.


Design

While I do like all the nice touches that CoV put in on the bike lane side of things, the redesigned car lanes are pretty pathetic. The lanes are both narrow and not particularly straight; which is brilliant considering that this is supposedly the route commercial traffic is supposed to take.

Another problem is the previously commented on Main St. on ramp. It expects cars to turn and merge at roughly the same time. Even slightly extending the 2nd lane would make this merge a lot better; all that would be needed is a small excavation into the grass slope and a retaining wall.

Another poor design choice occurs between Hornby and Burrard. The left through lane ends for no apparent reason, turning into a turn lane; while another lane is created on the far right with no source feeding it. The result is that most of the through traffic has to merge right a lane.



Cycling

While I see a whole lot of people on Union St. and lots of bikes (and scooters) parked along the bike lanes, I still don't see a large enough amount of users on the viaducts. While I'm not doing traffic counts, I'd bet thats because most of the Union St. users aren't going all the way downtown, and that downtown users may be coming from other directions or are local users.

I used commute by bike on a route that took me from UBC to the DTES. I avoided downtown, even with the Burrard St. bike lane. The Dunsmuir lanes wouldn't have changed that. The reason being that 8th Ave. bike route and similar routes were already very efficient. With additional traffic circles along these types (eliminate all 2 way stops perhaps?) of routes you could make 9/10ths of the journey far more efficient for many riders, without most of the downside that these biking megaprojects have.



While I like the concept of separated bike lanes, the compromises made to accommodate the bike lanes are rendering the viaducts significantly less useful and since Councillor Meggs is looking to get them torn down any reductions in apparent utility might be used as a way of justifying their demise; even if it is induced.

[Chirpythecougar]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

remove infrastructure before it's End-of-Life

I thought they are reaching end of life in 2032 and something needs to be done. If not then when is end of life?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by logan5

How are you getting 1 to 2 k per capita?

The value of the viaduct land is based on some absurdly low FSR. Give that land a proper FSR, like FSR 20, and the removal costs might be covered completely.

The payoff is huge. Chinatown would be a destination neighborhood, with bars and restaurants bringing tons of energy.

The payoff is Concord develops another block or two of condos. It's not going to completely flip the demographics of Chinatown significantly more than the Costco towers or other nearby condos have previously.

I can math. The CoV has 700K people. The cost was estimated at like ~$300M in 2011. Construction costs have more than doubled since then. Tell me how it would be less than $1000/per capita.

The land under the viaduct is already owned by Concord. They're playing chicken on the CACs. If it was a no-brainer for the CoV they would have done it in 2011 when construction was cheaper.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

The payoff is Concord develops another block or two of condos. It's not going to completely flip the demographics of Chinatown significantly more than the Costco towers or other nearby condos have previously.

I can math. The CoV has 700K people. The cost was estimated at like ~$300M in 2011. Construction costs have more than doubled since then. Tell me how it would be less than $1000/per capita.

The land under the viaduct is already owned by Concord. They're playing chicken on the CACs. If it was a no-brainer for the CoV they would have done it in 2011 when construction was cheaper.

What's the annual boost in property taxes from that land fully developed? What's the ongoing cost of viaduct maintenance over and above road network maintenance?
What's the boost in the Vancouver economy from the businesses that will operate in the area?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by MIPS

I mean, I would love to be able to afford to live in East Van again, but I'd argue nothing has changed since 2010.

Edited: In fact, lets jump in the Time Machine and take a look at what we were bickering about back then on page 70...

Yep. It really hasn't changed much. Although I moved from Strathcona to Mount Pleasant. I think the bike lane in that area has changed 2 or 3x between Jackson and Quebec. It's still a mess though.

I think the economics for this project has been worsening since 2017. Infrastructure costs keep going up, and the net value of the condos plateaued around then, and has been tanking since 2023.

The only thing that has improved the economics is that there precedents for tower height nearby have increased, so they might fit a higher FSR.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Yep. It really hasn't changed much. Although I moved from Strathcona to Mount Pleasant. I think the bike lane in that area has changed 2 or 3x between Jackson and Quebec. It's still a mess though.

I think the economics for this project has been worsening since 2017. Infrastructure costs keep going up, and the net value of the condos plateaued around then, and has been tanking since 2023.

The only thing that has improved the economics is that there precedents for tower height nearby have increased, so they might fit a higher FSR.

Yeah there’s not exactly a huge demand for condos right now. The whole rationale behind this is very 2009.

[jollyburger]

They already said there's no way development uplift will cover the new costs for the demolition. The only hope to expedite this is if the economics to keep the viaducts reaches 200-300 million dollars.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Yeah there’s not exactly a huge demand for condos right now. The whole rationale behind this is very 2009.

Starting this project now means new housing doesn't come online for 5-10 years. Real Estate works in cycles. Looking at today's prices and making a decision is extremely short sighted.

[idunno]

So funny that 16 years ago people were arguing against the Dunsmuir Viaduct bike connection. Nowadays, it's such a key connection for anyone in E Van coming into the city!

[Glow Fun City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

They already said there's no way development uplift will cover the new costs for the demolition. The only hope to expedite this is if the economics to keep the viaducts reaches 200-300 million dollars.

The way construction costs have been going, that might be the case… but of course the cost for demolition will be going up too.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by idunno

So funny that 16 years ago people were arguing against the Dunsmuir Viaduct bike connection. Nowadays, it's such a key connection for anyone in E Van coming into the city!

That person was a 22 year old me. My argument mostly was that it wasn't designed very well and that they wasted a lot of space in the execution. I still don't think they did a very good job with Dunsmuir, but generally it's not their worst one. Arguably the revised Granville St. Bridge configuration is worse in execution.

The really poorly thought out changes on the Union Bikeway were rolled back in the mid-2010s. They tried to block all car traffic where Union crossed the train tracks and essentially got told by the feds to take a hike. CoV put some lock blocks in a loosely spaced line across the road, and then had to pull them shortly after. Shortly after they moved the closure to Vernon to block the rat runners. The rail crossing closure didn't last long enough to make it onto street view, so I can't figure out what year that one was.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What's the annual boost in property taxes from that land fully developed? What's the ongoing cost of viaduct maintenance over and above road network maintenance?
What's the boost in the Vancouver economy from the businesses that will operate in the area?

That's a loaded question. What's the difference in the value of this property with the viaduct eastment, or without it.

Lets say it's half as buildable with the viaducts retained. Judging by the nearby lots it might be worth $300-600M built out. Lets say it's $600M without it, and $300M with them remaining as-is. The difference in annual tax at 0.33% mill rate is about $1M/yr in tax revenue. Concord also has quite a few projects on the go, not having one asset in their "land bank" go ahead for a while probably won't change how much they build.

These numbers don't sound like they're going to pay for a Georgia Ramp plan. If Onni can build build the tallest building in BC around the skytrain guideway in Still Creek, I still don't see why Concord can't do better than that on this site.

The viaducts are also seemlingly in deferred maintenance mode, so I don't think they're spending much on them. There's been some exposed rebar sticking out for a good while now. The replacement plans also had at least 2 bridges being built, so it might be a bit cheaper, but also likely not a huge savings. They're smaller bridges, but still not tiny. The deferred maintenance might catch up with us at some point though.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I still don't think they did a very good job with Dunsmuir, but generally it's not their worst one.

What would you change about it?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Lets say it's half as buildable with the viaducts retained. Judging by the nearby lots it might be worth $300-600M built out. Lets say it's $600M without it, and $300M with them remaining as-is. The difference in annual tax at 0.33% mill rate is about $1M/yr in tax revenue. Concord also has quite a few projects on the go, not having one asset in their "land bank" go ahead for a while probably won't change how much they build.

I think those numbers are low. I'd put it more at $1B built out, $500M with the viaducts even seems low but let's use that. 1M sf at $1000/sf seems easily doable on that land even with the large parks plan.

Why 0.33% mill rate? I live in a SEFC condo and my mill rate for the CoV General Levy is 1.93%. Not to mention any commercial property will be taxed significantly higher.

Anyway let's say 1% of the $500M difference is $5M/year. That pays for a fair amount of capital borrowing the City might need, plus the excess maintenance of the current viaducts vs. the future solution. I think it's easily a wash and they should just get it over with.

[jollyburger]

No one is having a debate whether or not it's technically feasible to build a condo tower next to a Skytrain guideway/road viaduct. I mean if the city decides to fully rehabilitate the viaducts then obviously Concord will have no choice and just max out their buildout to the area conditions.

The only direct impact the viaducts remaining on their proposed Concord Landing concept was the three towers on the NE corner that would face the new Pacific Blvd.

Question. Even if they spent $100-200 million to fully rehabilitate the bridge would the actual post-tensioned concrete decks etc still need to get replaced in 20-30 years after that?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Question. Even if they spent $100-200 million to fully rehabilitate the bridge would the actual post-tensioned concrete decks etc still need to get replaced in 20-30 years after that?

I imagine they would last longer than that if they were "fully rehabilitated". Likely 40-50 years. They are comparable in age and structure to the Granville St bridge right? I wonder what their respective maintenance histories and costs look like.

Let's not forget the removal would also free up City lands for development in the 2 city blocks between Quebec, Union, Gore, and Prior. That will be prime land with the new St. Paul's Hospital and associated development.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I imagine they would last longer than that if they were "fully rehabilitated". Likely 40-50 years. They are comparable in age and structure to the Granville St bridge right? I wonder what their respective maintenance histories and costs look like.

Let's not forget the removal would also free up City lands for development in the 2 city blocks between Quebec, Union, Gore, and Prior. That will be prime land with the new St. Paul's Hospital and associated development.

I think the Granville/Burrard bridges are mostly steel structures so they are somewhat more accessible to rehabilitate versus the concrete viaducts if there's any corrosion issues. It seems like the deck/girders were still in pretty good condition.

Here's the condition assessment report from 2016

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2018-003-...BCI%3A%201.44.%20Current%20BCI%3A%202.06.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I imagine they would last longer than that if they were "fully rehabilitated". Likely 40-50 years. They are comparable in age and structure to the Granville St bridge right? I wonder what their respective maintenance histories and costs look like.

Let's not forget the removal would also free up City lands for development in the 2 city blocks between Quebec, Union, Gore, and Prior. That will be prime land with the new St. Paul's Hospital and associated development.

They could always redevelop Strathcona for high density.