Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by lightrail

The reconnected grid would be largely as seen on this 1929 map - new roads may be required south of Georgia on the old rail lands, but the streets would continue and extend the city grid creating a much more walkable city in that area.
....

Yes removing the viaducts would remove a fast route over the flats into the city, but we're not talking a big saving in travel time at all; in a city that halted the freeways and is proud not have a freeway in the city, surely removing the viaducts is in keeping with the city's vision to make the city green and less dependent on the automobile.

Your map predates the LGB. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't build out NEFC, we should, and also improve Pac Blvd too. I just think we can still create a lively pedestrian area below and around the viaduct.

I do want to highlight one thing - the viaducts move traffic in and out (especially LGB traffic out) of DT well. I would say that in itself enhances pedestrian activity in the DT core,as with chinatown, Intl village and woodwards. you might argue we are just moving the problem, but we are also diffusing it along venables, terminal, main, great northern, etc

[deasine]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

If you don't mind me asking, what's your qualification for making this statement? There are many steeper streets in this city alone.

The Georgia Viaduct Prior St/Main St exit takes about 250 metres to drop down to street level. The viaduct at Quebec St. is slightly lower than at Expo Blvd level. Sure it can be steeper, but keep in mind, the viaducts are the only way for trucks to have a direct access to downtown from the west/east direction. Anything steeper would shorten the distance of the drop, but it would also compromise Expo Blvd, and so all traffic must be redirected into downtown.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by lightrail

The reconnected grid would be largely as seen on this 1929 map

Neat map, thanks. However, if you look carefully, the street grid on that map ends at the escarpment - just like today. The 1929 map doesn't show any roads in the NEFC lowlands. So we are still at square one - we must choose whether:

1) the streets in that area should follow the profile of BC Place and the escarpment (as it is today), or
2) the street grid should arbitrarily continue down the escarpment regardless of the elevation change.

There is no precedent from 1929, the only precedent is the current situation with viaducts and stadiums.

[Metro-One]

My problem with the Viaducts is that they take up a lot of room and create a barrier in the flats. I agree they can be incorporated into the urban environment, but I can't see how it would create a welcoming urban pedestrian environment. To me, keeping the viaducts because they create a "big city feel" is just silly.

It can be done, as we have shown, with use of sporting facilities, parks, lighting effects, markets, etc... It is only one small corner of the city, and if you personally don't like it, you don't have to go there, you have the rest of the city as your playground.

[biketrouble]

Originally Posted by officedweller

If you bring Georgia and Dunsmuir down to Expo and Pacific Blvds (ignoring gradients, etc.), then what you have (unless you divert all traffic from Expo up to Dunsmuir and all Georgia traffic to Pacific and close off Pacific and Expo near BC Place) is a couple of on-ramps and off-ramps to/from Dunsmuir and Georgia

So boring old intersections with traffic lights are out of the question?

Anyway, this doesn't appear to be a very productive discussion. The repeated theme here is that taking Georgia & Dunsmuir down to grade is impossible *because the assumption is that any replacement should be built to the same standard as the viaducts*. Hence the emphasis on on-ramps, gradients etc. It's pretty obvious you're not prepared to question that assumption, so we might as well stop right here.

[metroXpress]

Thanks for posting those. Tolling the viaducts? Are you kidding me? This is not the way to get people to ride the transit, not even mentioning the fare increase for monthly passes.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Bear in mind that the DT penninsula is an entry point to/from the north shore/whistler/horseshoe bay. ie, by removing lanes you might see some lessened demand, but you still have a big pipe of car traffic pumping out and drawing into the DT penninsula. Pender will likely be turned into the main east/west route to the LGB (with trolley wires and non-coordinated lights), and traffic pushed to international village/woodwards/chinatown/downtown south. you may lessen demand a bit by removing lanes, but if the LGB still remains, IMO demand will be little changed even with them gone.

I don't like advocating for car-based infrastructure, but I think the area suffers mainly from a lack of ground-level development and that the viaducts can be woven into the urban fabric well if done carefully.

Well-stated, Mezzanine. I agree completely.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

So boring old intersections with traffic lights are out of the question?

It's a change in elevation - so either you're going to have a ramp-like structure coming down to Expo Blvd/Pacific Blvd or you have a deep cut/tunnel that takes you back to Hamilton Street. Like a pair of scissors - I don't mean cloverleafs and flyovers.

For a ramp, sure you can have a traffic light at the bottom of it - like the Cambie Bridge ramp - but it's still overhead before it reaches grade and creates a visual/physical obstruction because the roadway rises above grade and there's no headroom under it (at the Cambie Bridge ramp there's a sign that warns cyclists of low headroom as the sidewalk jogs around it) and the sides of the ramp/railings create a visual/physical obstruction.

i.e. look at the former access ramp to Waterfront Road (which is not a flyover/freeway ramp) in this Global Air Photo - to walk from north to south in this pic you would have to walk around the structure, you can't walk under it in places because there's no headroom - that's an obstruction (and arguably worse than the existing viaducts).



Similarly, where Granville Bridge meets either Howe Street or Seymour Street you have similar awkward ramps that pose barriers and create undesirable areas.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by lightrail

From a planning point of view, the road network in the False Creek flats is a mess. Expo Blvd and Pacific Blvd around GM Place completely ignore the urban fabric - they're more like suburban roads and they really don't work.

My problem with the Viaducts is that they take up a lot of room and create a barrier in the flats. I agree they can be incorporated into the urban environment, but I can't see how it would create a welcoming urban pedestrian environment. To me, keeping the viaducts because they create a "big city feel" is just silly.

I'm not sure what do do with the Skytrain line because it does dip down to pass under the viaducts; the line obviously should stay and can be incorporated into the urban form; but the dip is a problem.

Not only do I think the viaducts should be removed, but I also think Pacific Blvd and Expo Blvd need rethinking.

The reconnected grid would be largely as seen on this 1929 map - new roads may be required south of Georgia on the old rail lands, but the streets would continue and extend the city grid creating a much more walkable city in that area.


source:http://www.vanc.igs.net

Yes removing the viaducts would remove a fast route over the flats into the city, but we're not talking a big saving in travel time at all; in a city that halted the freeways and is proud not have a freeway in the city, surely removing the viaducts is in keeping with the city's vision to make the city green and less dependent on the automobile.

Somebody mentioned the need for routes for electric cars. Electric cars are not the answer; even if we have them, we've removed pollution but still have congestion. That won't go away if we cater to the car, even if the car is electric.

What are the Viaducts a Barrier of? What do they directly separate? The east side is seperated from the west side. The Viaducts travel east-west

The viaducts aren't the barrier, the history of downtown is the barrier. Before it became empty post Expo land, the area of the Viaducts was a rail yard. It was a rail yard because it was separated from downtown by the escarpment.

If you look at the map, the area in debate is rail yard. Some of it doesn't even exist in this map because at the time it was water. The Current downtown is seperated from the east side (the then downtown) by the escrapment and rail yards. On that map, downtown and the East side are connected by only 4 roads, and the old viaduct (built way back in 1913). That's just 4 blocks of pre 1980 buildings connecting what is now the East side to downtown. That small connecting point is what allowed the east side to fester.

Like look at that map. The divide between the east side and west is historic, and localized intirely in that 4 block pinch point between east and west. It's not a north-south problem. Cambie street is the historic border because of the escarpment and rail yards. This is just made more of a problem by BC Place and GM Place taking the place of the rail yards. Those are 2 very huge objects that cause a lot of separation from one side to the other, more so that the Viaducts. And removing the viaducts will still leave BC Place, GM Place and the escarpment.

It's only been 20 years since we started developing the downtown. Development has been steadily moving from the West to the East, as the west was way more desirable (closer the the west end and the park). It's just a mater of time, just a few years, until the NE edge of False creek is built up.

If at that time the Viaducts are a barrier this matter will be more important. Because as it is right now, the Viaducts are just a barrier between Chinatown (which is actually quite nice now and beyond my price range already) and nothing. There is nothing there. I don't think this barrier issue is important at this day and time.



I'm much more inclined to agree with those that say the Viaducts don't serve much purpose. That they don't carry traffic that Expo/Pacific couldn't handle. I find that plausible, but I don't agree with that right now (I might if someone can prove it). I find it much more probable that the viaducts don't make a difference to traffic at all, more than the Viaducts act like the Berlin wall.

If the viaducts can actually, physically, be removed without damaging access to GM Place or Spectrum AND a slope road can be installed to connect Georgia and Dunsmuir to Expo and Pacific, and the money raised from their removal can improve transportation options and alternatives, then it's worth talking about.

But if removing the Viaducts makes Dunsmuir and Georgia a dead end road (like Dunsmuir is on that old map and Georgia has a viaduct), I don't think we solved any problems at all regarding the disconnect between East side and west, only exacerbated it by making Hastings the de facto freeway. And I haven't heard any evidence saying that Georgia and Dunsmuir could 100% for sure be intersected with Expo/Pacific.

But just take a look at the old viaduct:


Source: discovervancouver.com (I think, it's reposted through lots of blogs and the original source is missing, probably Vancouver Archives).

If you take a look at the land bellow it, pretty ugly. It's much better as it is now than it was, and given a few years will be unidentifiable from this photo.

[biketrouble]

Sorry, I did say we should call it quits, but we do seem to be talking at cross-purposes here and I want to make sure it's clear what I am suggesting.

Imagine bringing Dunsmuir down to a 90-degree intersection (with traffic lights) with Expo between Costco and the Skytrain Station. Here's the view from that intersection now.

Two things to note: firstly, that would not be the steepest grade ever seen in a major city, and secondly this is hardly an urban paradise that would be destroyed by the ramp. And while yes, I don't like ramps much either, but short ramps are better than kilometre long viaducts - and I believe that if it was felt necessary to keep at least some of the capacity of the viaducts on the Georgia/Dunsmuir axis, with some creativity some accommodation could be reached.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by biketrouble

Sorry, I did say we should call it quits, but we do seem to be talking at cross-purposes here and I want to make sure it's clear what I am suggesting.

Imagine bringing Dunsmuir down to a 90-degree intersection (with traffic lights) with Expo between Costco and the Skytrain Station. Here's the view from that intersection now.

Two things to note: firstly, that would not be the steepest grade ever seen in a major city, and secondly this is hardly an urban paradise that would be destroyed by the ramp. And while yes, I don't like ramps much either, but short ramps are better than kilometre long viaducts - and I believe that if it was felt necessary to keep at least some of the capacity of the viaducts on the Georgia/Dunsmuir axis, with some creativity some accommodation could be reached.

Ok, it looks doable on that side, in terms of the grade. Not that I'm a fan of grades it looks like it might on par with 1st down to Clarke (which I hate BTW). But to keep access to Citadel place the slope couldn't start until a bit after it, which isn't where the escarpment is. So you don't really have as much room as it looks like.

And what about the streetfront townhomes on the viaducts or access to GM Place? And what about after a Canucks game or concert, when pedestrians spill across Expo Blvd to the station? The intersection would be closed. And what about the Georgia side? The area between the stadiums is pretty crowded and is used by access to GM Place.


P.S. I think Expo Blvd is a brilliant use of space. It's right under the lip of BC Place. In most cities that would be wasted space or parking lot, here it is a major road.

[officedweller]

Thanks - that clarifies what you're suggesting.

I was thinking that you would have the ramp a bit farther east (east of GM Place) because the pedestrian sidewalks to GM Place (which are physically separate from the viaducts) would have to be retained since they provide access to and from GM Place (incl. emergency exits) as well as external circulation (that's why the stairs inside are so narrow, you're supposed to walk up and down the stairs to your seating level on the outside of the arena). You'd also still have the plazas at the corners of GM Place up there too.

If you do bring the ramps down that far west, you would be hiding much of the structure of the ramp next to the Costco store and you would just have tthe ramps parallel to the Costco driveways rather than a multi-lane roadway - so that's definitely do-able. For Expo to Dunsmuir, you'd just have a lot of right turn movements. For Georgia to Pacific, assuming that you could get down from Citadel Parade to Expo Blvd (Expo curves west and the grade would be steeper than for Dunsmuir) you'd have to widen Griffiths Way which isn't a big deal (you could also intersect with Pacific rather than going for Expo). Note that steep hills (such as Oak St. in Fairview) are often closed in winter when they ice up.

I think that the biggest downside to that would be stranding GM Place and to some extent the townhouses at Spectrum (although they would still front onto the elevated sidewalk). You'd still have the elevated pedestrian system up there, there would be a bit of a disjuncture between the pedestrian walkways and the road system.

BCPhil also has a good point in that the lower entrance to Stadium Station often forces Expo Blvd to close completely to traffic. In your scenario, it would also close access to Dunsmuir since its west of there (although Dunsmuir volumes would be smaller than now).

[deasine]

Let's just use that calculation. The building height of GM Place, as provided approximately 39 metres. Because I can't find any information about the height of Georgia Viaduct, I'm going to use a 3D rendering of GM Place on Google Earth, the viaduct is about halfway, so 19.5 metres, not unbelievable. From Beatty Street to Expo Boulevard, the distance is approximately 150 metres.

M=∆y/∆x = 19.5/150 x 100 = 0.13. Quite steep in general, and very steep for trucks to handle, should it still be a truck route. Even if it's 15 metres high (the viaduct), that's 0.10, which is still steep.

[twoNeurons]

Oooohhh.... here's a pretty viaduct in Xiamen, China.

It's part of their BRT system. Dedicated Bus-viaduct:

Woven well into the urban fabric, if you ask me.





It's even GREEN!




Nicely integrated here:



And a bonus picture ( with DOWN escalators ):

[Metro-One]

Our viaducts can be just as easily (if not more so) woven into the urban fabric, but many people here don't want to try. At the very least, if it ever had to come to a compromise, i feel it is much more important to keep the Georgia viaduct, for it is the only decent route out of the city and seems to be built into the street grid far better then the other.

Keep in mind this is Vancouver, in those pictures you just showed there are quite a few things that scare Vancouverites, big signs on buildings, billboards, wide avenues (8 lanes I see), and of course, an elevated roadway.

The big crowds that gather around the stadiums is another good reason to keep the ducts or at least some form of elevated roadways to keep vehicle traffic away from those grid locks.

[BCPhil]

You put a few more buildings in NEFC, and a building between them next door to GM Place and I think our Viaducts would look better than that one. I think the actual architecture of the viaducts is top notch.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

You put a few more buildings in NEFC, and a building between them next door to GM Place and I think our Viaducts would look better than that one. I think the actual architecture of the viaducts is top notch.

You're not alone. So do I, and I'm sure a number of others do, too.
The viaducts have a sort of sweeping grace to them.

[jsbertram]

With the Viaducts being shut down for the Olympics, this is a golden opportunity for the City to put the traffic counter equipment on all the nearby streets (Beatty, Geogia, Dunsmuir, Pender, Hastings, Cordova, Powell, Cambie, Smithe Nelson, Main, Abbott, Carrall Quebec, Expo Blvd, Pacific Blvd, Prior Union, Gore to name quite a few) so that real numbers can be gathered before the shutdown, during the Olympic shutdown, and after the Olympics when life gets back to 'normal'.

Even though the numbers would be skewed by all the other Olympic road closures, and the related no stopping/no parking zones, it would be interesting to see where the Viaduct traffic goes during the shutdown, and whether it all comes back after the Olympics.

It wouldn't surprise me to discover that some people that were forced to use Gr. Northern Way & 2nd/4th/6th avenues to use the Granville, Cambie or Burrard bridges to enter/exit downtown from the south, rather than their usual route over the viaducts to/from the east, may end up keeping that new route (or alternating their routes depending on traffic).

People are creatures of habit that can benefit from having their routines upended. I was driving with a friend and took my usual route north on Main and west on Union to connect with Expo Blvd. While waiting at the light, my friend said "make a right, and a right, and another right around this block & we'll be back on Main to get on the Viaduct". Smiling at my confused navigator, I said "This is my secret road". Straight down Expo Blvd, swing around GM and BC place, a right on Smithe, and we pull into the parking lot near the Orpheum.

Walking to the Orpheum, there were lots of questions about that 'secret road', most importantly: where else does it go to.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

With the Viaducts being shut down for the Olympics, this is a golden opportunity for the City to put the traffic counter equipment on all the nearby streets (Beatty, Geogia, Dunsmuir, Pender, Hastings, Cordova, Powell, Cambie, Smithe Nelson, Main, Abbott, Carrall Quebec, Expo Blvd, Pacific Blvd, Prior Union, Gore to name quite a few) so that real numbers can be gathered before the shutdown, during the Olympic shutdown, and after the Olympics when life gets back to 'normal'.

Even though the numbers would be skewed by all the other Olympic road closures, and the related no stopping/no parking zones, it would be interesting to see where the Viaduct traffic goes during the shutdown, and whether it all comes back after the Olympics.

It wouldn't surprise me to discover that some people that were forced to use Gr. Northern Way & 2nd/4th/6th avenues to use the Granville, Cambie or Burrard bridges to enter/exit downtown from the south, rather than their usual route over the viaducts to/from the east, may end up keeping that new route (or alternating their routes depending on traffic).

People are creatures of habit that can benefit from having their routines upended. I was driving with a friend and took my usual route north on Main and west on Union to connect with Expo Blvd. While waiting at the light, my friend said "make a right, and a right, and another right around this block & we'll be back on Main to get on the Viaduct". Smiling at my confused navigator, I said "This is my secret road". Straight down Expo Blvd, swing around GM and BC place, a right on Smithe, and we pull into the parking lot near the Orpheum.

Walking to the Orpheum, there were lots of questions about that 'secret road', most importantly: where else does it go to.

If you were going North on Main to the Orpheum, you should have taken the Cambie Street Bridge. Also, if you used the Viaducts, there are some good all night parkades on Richards or park at the Pacific Center for $4. And the times are comparable, but for sure a bit faster on the Viaducts to that part of downtown. Or at the very least, turn onto National instead of Union. Having a dedicated left turn lane others aren't using to get onto the ducts helps at National.

But I don't think the Olympics will be a fair representation of what would happen if the Viaducts were gone as Expo/Pacific will be closed too. Counting the traffic might be fascinating, but it won't answer any practical questions.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Counting the traffic might be fascinating, but it won't answer any practical questions.

I'm thinking to myself... only on a skyscraper forum would you see a statement like this.

Man, we're such geeks.