Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[Millennium2002]

The ideas in the news article are quite interesting... shorten the viaducts, rebuild the Skytrain track, and utilize the freed-up space. It seems quite doable.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

The solution, then, is to cut our losses, learn from our mistakes, and quit organizing our city planning around a soon-to-be obsolete quasi-freeway viaduct. Our roads should be made to work for the city, not the reverse.

The problem I see with that theory is that the City represents ~27% of the region's population. And Vancouver's downtown peninsula is also 'Metro Vancouver's downtown peninsula' in terms of the agglomeration of business, entertainment, shopping, and eatery establishments that also cater to the rest of the Metro Vancouver region.

That figure represents ~73% of Metro Vancouverities. I haven't even added Metro Vancouver employment in the downtown peninsula into the equation.

And that requires corridors for 'regional' thru traffic to reach the downtown peninsula, which the viaducts represent in part.

Those are the trade-offs that the City of Vancouver must balance against the 'liveable neighbourhoods' that it also wants to create near the downtown peninsula.

Put a proverbial 'Berlin Wall' around the City of Vancouver and then I would agree - get rid of the viaducts - they would no longer be needed.

Just sayin'.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

2) Deasine's suggestion that we consider a streetwall for the viaducts. I think this could be done while preserving the soon-to-be Abbott streetwall below, provided the building designs were creative enough. Eventually (years down the road, so to speak), we might consider losing a lane or two on the 'ducts to create something of a parkway w/ plantings, bike lanes, etc. Retail would be an option, as would staircases connecting to the street and park below. This would entail incrementally reducing road capacity, while preserving the existing shortcut into downtown that the 'ducts make possible. The result would be an intensely interesting and unique, multi-layered yet not enclosed, urban space. I'd be interested in hearing what others think of this.

It wouldn't be cheap I have to admit, but notice, taking apart the viaducts won't be cheap anyway, especially since much of the buildings west of Carrall are integrated into the viaducts already. Just to note, developers would be footing the bill for their buildings, and not the City. The city, of course, would have to pay for the park extension (that price varies depending on its size), access points to the viaducts, etc.

Originally Posted by geoff's two cents

For a contrary perspective, I imagine Thom's response to the (justified) criticisms above regarding the expense entailed in moving the Skytrain viaduct would be that the reason this is a problem now is because we awkwardly constructed our high capacity rapid transit infrastructure around the viaducts in the first place. Had we made the necessary changes to our road infrastructure in the early 1980s (redesigned them, that is, or torn them down), we wouldn't be in this spot today. The solution, then, is to cut our losses, learn from our mistakes, and quit organizing our city planning around a soon-to-be obsolete quasi-freeway viaduct. Our roads should be made to work for the city, not the reverse.

Should the viaducts be taken apart, I don't think the SkyTrain guideway would pose any problem in terms of the livability and development. The guideway, however, would be an issue for those "on-ramps" and "off-ramps" Megg was mentioning. I've pointed out earlier in the thread, as per quoted post below, that these ramps should only have a maximum grade that trucks can handle: the viaducts are part of the trucking road network.

Originally Posted by 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 = 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.

Notice, the off-ramps, from Beatty to Expo on Dunsmuir, would be a grade change of 13%. Keep in mind, this means there will be no access to Citadel Parkway. To keep Citadel Parkway and maintain a gradient change of 10%, which is quite steep even for regular cars, assuming the viaduct is 19.5 metres above the ground, the off ramp would have to be 195 metres long from Beatty. Notice, this off ramp would cut access off Expo Blvd. If you extend it so that it the off ramp starts after Expo Blvd (thus maintaining GM Place integration), the SkyTrain guideway would be in the way. Even with on-ramps and off-ramps, installing these also contribute to the cost. These on-ramps and off-ramps is just like reducing the visual impact of the viaducts, but they are still there.

Keep in mind, I never said removing the viaducts won't improve the "livability" of the residents in that specific neighborhood, and heck, I can care less if drivers are going to have a 4 minute longer commute to their time, but I just question the cost of this project. At what expense? What is the plan for the new configuration? How does this change affect existing and planned developments? The cost of this project will be incredibly high, and the City of Vancouver has a list of higher priority projects than this one, namely the downtown streetcar and waterfront transit hub and development extension and integration.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by deasine

Precisely. We have a list of projects that should be done now and have higher priority over this one. When we complete those, and have money, by all means, take away the viaducts, but until we are done, let's just deal with its existence.

The timing fits for the viaducts though. Development is set to occur in the area in the next five years, and not just from NEFC, but there may also be some creep from the DTES depending on how Woodward's fares.

Will removing the viaducts cost money? Of course it will, but the revenues from the sale and development of the land below will more than offset the removal and replacement street cost, and then some. This is an opportunity for the City to capitalize on valuable public land that is currently inefficiently used. The money is there and waiting to be had.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

The problem I see with that theory is that the City represents ~27% of the region's population. And Vancouver's downtown peninsula is also 'Metro Vancouver's downtown peninsula' in terms of the agglomeration of business, entertainment, shopping, and eatery establishments that also cater to the rest of the Metro Vancouver region.

That figure represents ~73% of Metro Vancouverities. I haven't even added Metro Vancouver employment in the downtown peninsula into the equation.

And that requires corridors for 'regional' thru traffic to reach the downtown peninsula, which the viaducts represent in part.

Those are the trade-offs that the City of Vancouver must balance against the 'liveable neighbourhoods' that it also wants to create near the downtown peninsula.

Put a proverbial 'Berlin Wall' around the City of Vancouver and then I would agree - get rid of the viaducts - they would no longer be needed.

Just sayin'.

Two things. Traffic into Downtown Vancouver has decreased in the past decade, with transit rates high and pedestrian traffic way higher than expected. We should encourage this trend, and it simply goes to show that commuters and finding other ways of getting to work. And with the Canada Line, the Burrard Peninsula is served on every side with rapid transit access.

The regional town centres are rising. I suspect in 10 years time, when all but Langley and Maple Ridge have rail rapid transit connections, the vision of the LRSP will come to fruition. We can see it happening already - it's just a matter of these centres hitting a critical mass.

Richmond has rapidly changed thanks to the Canada Line, Coquitlam will speed up even more with Evergreen, Brentwood's transformation is outstanding, and Lougheed and Metro are getting new towers all the time. Not to mention the development that will occur in Surrey after the Civic Centre project starts.

The future of Metro Vancouver is decentralized. Downtown will always be downtown, but many people will not have to travel there for urban life - each city will have a core in which they can work, live, learn and play. And that is as it should be, IMO.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by deasine

the City of Vancouver has a list of higher priority projects than this one, namely the downtown streetcar and waterfront transit hub and development extension and integration.

When I first spoke about removing the viaducts, this was the primary reason. I was looking for an out-of-the-box method whereby the COV could raise the $100M capital required for the streetcar on its own. We all know that TransLink nor the Provincial government are going to fork it over and I truthfully doubt it would ever recover costs if the City simply borrowed money to build it. Downtown is pretty much densified and the best way to recuperate costs would've been development after installation - but that won't be the case.

There are valid reasons to remove the viaducts, but without any transport alternative provided I believe it is doomed to fail. That is why, I've always maintained, the real reason to remove the viaducts is to develop the 5 blocks of city owned land underneath - prime downtown real estate that is set to develop in the next five years - and use the profits made to build the streetcar system.

Plus, once we build the streetcar, it will simply stimulate even more development, specifically in SEFC, DTES, and the Waterfront hub air rights.

Seems like a win-win to me.

[jlousa]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Will removing the viaducts cost money? Of course it will, but the revenues from the sale and development of the land below will more than offset the removal and replacement street cost, and then some. This is an opportunity for the City to capitalize on valuable public land that is currently inefficiently used. The money is there and waiting to be had.

How do you figure? using even Bings best case scenario we are talking about 700,000sqft so a gain to the city of $35Million. That wouldn't even come close to covering knocking it down and building new shorter onramps. We're talking closer to 3 times that price. Hence while no private developer has made a play at this. I've said it before, there are reasons to get rid of the viaducts, economics is not one of them.

[flight_from_kamakura]

the money is the main issue. personally, i think it would be fantastic to remove these suckers. and i think that digging a bunch of canals and daylighting a bunch of buried streams like thom suggested a couple years back would be great too. really great, the sort of thing that would make vancouver even more famous. like seriously, building the city for the suburbans is 20th century and pretty much a waste of city money - and it ought to be stopped and councilors these days know that and incorporate it into their political plans. but it costs a lot of money to do these things, and before we go and plan on pulling these things down, we ought to have a good solid plan about how we can get that money back (and have studies about effects on office leases, etc). the olympics really does present a great opportunity to try out a bunch of crazy stuff (street closures, downtown centrism, walking/biking paths that otherwise don't exist) and we can learn a lot. but the tens of millions it'll cost to pull these suckers down, i don't know. i like the idea of fixing main street by pushing the onramps back, definitely, but even that would be a ~$25 million project. yikes! and they're cutting parks funding!

[jsbertram]

I just don't know how Granville Island became a success, with all those piers needed to shore up the Granville Street Viaduct (er, bridge)

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s...rwpXBxSdZJwTwIVu4sw&cbp=12,31.83,,0,4.21

It's amazing how they were able squeeze roads, buildings and sidewalks in between the Viaduct (er, bridge) supports, but with only one way to get in & out, why would people want to go there?

It must be quite a claustrophobic area with the Viaduct (er, bridge) so close and dark overhead, and the buildings so close to the road leaving hardly any sidewalk space.

[Yume-sama]

Meh, nobody goes to Granville Island. It's too busy!

[BCPhil]

Could you imagine what Granville Island would be like if all the traffic on the Bridge, instead of being up in the air overhead, had to actually drive through Granville island at grade?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by racc

What is not in question is that at some point oil will run out and even before that, oil prices will rise again and again and again. The automotive age was a symptom of cheap gas and resources. With both those history once the great recession is over, the car is going to be less and less affordable to the average person. Don't expect the electric car to save it. China is hoarding the rare resources needed for the batteries, motors and electronics. Don't bet on them playing nice just so you can continue to drive.

Its not that we don't have ingredients the ingredients to make batteries. It's just that China currently has portions of the rare earth metals market by the balls.

It's really hard to get a mine going when your main competition periodically floods the market with cheap product to discourage competition then puts the brakes on exports.

[s211]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The danger of course is that Council rushes into some "feel-good" greenwashing and unthinkingly eviscerates downtown in the process.

There's a developing scandal in the UK which call into questions the whole science behind the anti-car brigade. I'm surprised it has gotten so little play over here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd...-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

I want to apologize to all on the board for calling the anti-car crew "nazis".

I've thought about it further, and have determined that TALIBAN is a far more apt description.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Could you imagine what Granville Island would be like if all the traffic on the Bridge, instead of being up in the air overhead, had to actually drive through Granville island at grade?

No need to guess, since Old Bridge Walk and Old Bridge Street roughly show where the previous Granville Street viaduct and swing-bridge were. With all the steel framing and cross-bracing needed under the 1909 viaduct crossing Granville Island, there wasn't much room for a road on the Island under the Granville viaduct.

The 1909 and earlier Granville Street viaducts and bridges were more like piers crossing False Creek with a swing bridge to allow False Creek navigation and predated Granville Island. Granville Island as we know it today was originally a muddy sand bar (which would disappear in high tide) that was built up from the dredging of False Creek in 1913, creating more land for industry and a deeper navigation channel for shipping.

from the City Archives:
http://vancouver.ca/ics-wpd/exec/icswppr...G=&FG=&QS=&OEX=ISO-8859-1&OEH=ISO-8859-1
Standing East of the 1909 bridge & the current 1954 bridge, looking towards downtown.

http://vancouver.ca/ics-wpd/exec/icswppr...G=&FG=&QS=&OEX=ISO-8859-1&OEH=ISO-8859-1
Standing between the 1909 bridge & the current 1954 bridge, looking towards downtown.

http://vancouver.ca/ics-wpd/exec/icswppr...G=&FG=&QS=&OEX=ISO-8859-1&OEH=ISO-8859-1
Standing between the 1909 bridge & the current 1954 bridge, looking towards downtown. The 1909 bridge and viaducts are being torn down.

http://vancouver.ca/ics-wpd/exec/icswppr...G=&FG=&QS=&OEX=ISO-8859-1&OEH=ISO-8859-1
Standing on the current 1954 bridge showing the 1909 swing bridge pivot in False Creek (the swing bridge has already been demolished)

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by paradigm4

Two things. Traffic into Downtown Vancouver has decreased in the past decade, with transit rates high and pedestrian traffic way higher than expected. We should encourage this trend, and it simply goes to show that commuters and finding other ways of getting to work. And with the Canada Line, the Burrard Peninsula is served on every side with rapid transit access.

The regional town centres are rising. I suspect in 10 years time, when all but Langley and Maple Ridge have rail rapid transit connections, the vision of the LRSP will come to fruition. We can see it happening already - it's just a matter of these centres hitting a critical mass.

Richmond has rapidly changed thanks to the Canada Line, Coquitlam will speed up even more with Evergreen, Brentwood's transformation is outstanding, and Lougheed and Metro are getting new towers all the time. Not to mention the development that will occur in Surrey after the Civic Centre project starts.

The future of Metro Vancouver is decentralized. Downtown will always be downtown, but many people will not have to travel there for urban life - each city will have a core in which they can work, live, learn and play. And that is as it should be, IMO.

Funny, LA is one of the most decentralized cities you'll find, but nobody holds it up as a model of urban planning. The so-called Liveable Region plan, with its nightmare implications for transit planning and clueless assumptions about why people choose to live where they do, is a mistake we'll all be paying for years down the road (or viaduct).

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

No need to guess, since Old Bridge Walk and Old Bridge Street show where the previous Granville Street viaduct and swing-bridge were. With all the steel framing and cross-bracing needed under the old viaduct crossing Granville Island, there wasn't much room for a road on the Island under the Granville viaduct.

from the City Archives:
http://vancouver.ca/ics-wpd/exec/icswppr...G=&FG=&QS=&OEX=ISO-8859-1&OEH=ISO-8859-1
Standing East of the 1909 bridge & the current 1954 bridge, looking towards downtown.

http://vancouver.ca/ics-wpd/exec/icswppr...G=&FG=&QS=&OEX=ISO-8859-1&OEH=ISO-8859-1
Standing between the 1909 bridge & the current 1954 bridge, looking towards downtown.

http://vancouver.ca/ics-wpd/exec/icswppr...G=&FG=&QS=&OEX=ISO-8859-1&OEH=ISO-8859-1
Standing between the 1909 bridge & the current 1954 bridge, looking towards downtown. The 1909 bridge and viaducts are being torn down.

http://vancouver.ca/ics-wpd/exec/icswppr...G=&FG=&QS=&OEX=ISO-8859-1&OEH=ISO-8859-1
Standing on the current 1954 bridge showing the 1909 swing bridge pivot in False Creek (the swing bridge has already been demolished)

The Vancouver Archives has the worst web app ever created, and they probably over paid someone who thinks they are a brilliant genius for it too.

But I wasn't talking about a viaduct. Imagine if every car that was on the bridge instead had to drive at street level through the island. Would Granville Island be as inviting a place with that much through traffic? It's charm is because it is a closed neighborhood with a slow pace. The bridge allows that to happen. It's much like there is a lot of charm for Yaletown, because of it's slow pace as a result of it's narrow single lane one way streets. Now NEFC isn't closed off to traffic, but it is already fairly dangerous at street level (as evident by that horrific incident earlier this year).

I think the NEFC neighborhood has an opportunity to use the Viaducts to create a slower paced, foot friendly feeling in the area. Allow through traffic on the Viaducts and slow down Pacific/Expo (by encouraging people back onto Cambie Bridge and W 2nd).

If we take out the viaducts and link Georgia and Dunsmuir to Pacific/Expo with ramps, then Quebec/Pacific/Expo will be the downtown's E/W through road and will see an increase in traffic. I would rather build the Malkin Connector and get more people off Pacific/Expo and onto the Viaducts and create a much more pleasant street atmosphere, NOT yet another Howe/Seymour/Burrard/Hastings.

A lot of people have a hate on for the Viaducts because they represent a highway and car dominance. I like the viaducts because they are an opportunity to remove cars from the surface level streets and make the area more walkable and less frenzied.

Why not build around the viaducts and use them to shelter civic space? Not every park needs to be a grassy lawn for people to just sit around and catch rays. The Viaducts pose an interesting opportunity to encourage year round outdoor sports, like Basketball, road hockey, lacrosse, skateboarding, tennis, and be sheltered from the rain. There is the opportunity to have professional sports in GM Place and have recreational sports across the street under the viaducts.

We have the opportunity to use the Viaducts to create something new in this city, not just copy what we've done before. We used to be good at innovation, leading the way at the turn of the century with the tallest buildings in the British Empire, through to our re-purposing of industrial lands to create vibrant communities. But now we seem to be stuck in a rut, everything seems to be singing the same tune.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Imagine if every car that was on the bridge instead had to drive at street level through the island. Would Granville Island be as inviting a place with that much through traffic? It's charm is because it is a closed neighborhood with a slow pace. The bridge allows that to happen.

Yeah, that's succinctly put and a very good parallel example!

I think the NEFC neighborhood has an opportunity to use the Viaducts to create a slower paced, foot friendly feeling in the area. Allow through traffic on the Viaducts and slow down Pacific/Expo (by encouraging people back onto Cambie Bridge and W 2nd).

If we take out the viaducts and link Georgia and Dunsmuir to Pacific/Expo with ramps, then Quebec/Pacific/Expo will be the downtown's E/W through road and will see an increase in traffic. I would rather build the Malkin Connector and get more people off Pacific/Expo and onto the Viaducts and create a much more pleasant street atmosphere, NOT yet another Howe/Seymour/Burrard/Hastings.

I like the viaducts because they are an opportunity to remove cars from the surface level streets and make the area more walkable and less frenzied.

That's also my point. Why do people want to tear down the viaducts for regional thru traffic and channel that regional thru traffic through new and existing neighbourhoods such as NEFC, which should be both pedestrian/bicyclist friendly and liveable?

If people don't want a community (NEFC in this case) to be pedestrian/bicyclist friendly and liveable, then go ahead, tear down those viaducts.

I just don't understand the logic, esp. when another 1 million people will reside within Metro Vancouver over the next few decades.

[Lee_Haber8]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I read the same article and my impression is that Bing hadn't given the skytrain guideway much thought, his solution seems to be we'd figure it out. That is a awfully expensive solution.

Yeah, but it's a project that will likely pay for itself and then some when the land is developed and additional tax revenue is collected.

[Lee_Haber8]

Originally Posted by jlousa

How do you figure? using even Bings best case scenario we are talking about 700,000sqft so a gain to the city of $35Million. That wouldn't even come close to covering knocking it down and building new shorter onramps. We're talking closer to 3 times that price. Hence while no private developer has made a play at this. I've said it before, there are reasons to get rid of the viaducts, economics is not one of them.

You're forgetting the increase in property values of surrounding properties that will result from no longer having two, ugly, noisy elevated roadways nearby.

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

That's also my point. Why do people want to tear down the viaducts for regional thru traffic and channel that regional thru traffic through new and existing neighbourhoods such as NEFC, which should be both pedestrian/bicyclist friendly and liveable?

Why exactly should regional traffic be going through downtown? If people want to drive from Burnaby to West Van quickly they should use HWY 1.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by Lee_Haber8

Why exactly should regional traffic be going through downtown? If people want to drive from Burnaby to West Van quickly they should use HWY 1.

You're from Winnipeg, correct?

Make that TO the downtown peninsula.

Metro Vancouver's population represents ~73%, outside the City of Vancouver proper and, to re-iterate, the downtown peninsula is also Metro Vancouver's downtown in terms of the agglomeration of business, entertainment, shopping, and eateries as well as a major employment node.

I'm downtown much of the time in that regard although I reside in the 'burbs and have an office in the 'burbs (like many others I know).

Most of Metro Vancouver's population resides east of the City of Vancouver and most of that east-west regional thru traffic leaves the downtown peninsula over the viaducts and down Terminal/First Ave.

Strathcona/Grandview activists even want the Malkin Connector completed (an extension of the viaducts eastward to Clark Drive) to take regional thru traffic off Prior/Venables (in order to make their communities more "liveable").

Taking down the viaducts, which are an integrated part of the downtown peninsula, will certainly not make the at-grade area underneath more liveable.

In fact the opposite. The ramifications of same will result in that thru traffic intermingling with pedestrians/bicyclists making the future NEFC community certainly less liveable.

Just common sense.